Finally, some good news on gay marriage

[leekohler]

Wow- it's finally starting to happen:

http://start.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20050703/42c762c0_3ca6_1552620050703-654618119

[leekohler]

Opposition (http://news.ucc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=1) is present as well. I will most definately be following this closely over the next few days, as I am a confirmed member of the UCC...

Yes- I noticed that too. But I think it's a move in the right direction. This might help heal some wounds inflicted on me by the Methodist church, which told me I was going straight to Hell.

[ham_man]

Opposition is present as well. I will most definately be following this closely over the next few days, as I am a confirmed member of the UCC...

EDIT - crap, I think I hit a wrong button or something...

[leekohler]

EDIT - crap, I think I hit a wrong button or something...

Ha-ha! I guess so. :)

[leekohler]

So good news isn't as reply-worthy as bad? :)

[OryHara]

So good news isn't as reply-worthy as bad? :)

the thing is that people like to bitch

[mymemory]

I do not see the sense of the gay marriage. Not from the church point of view at list. In such case poligamy should be accepted as well by the church. In that case crhistian churches would loose a big chunk of it institutionality.

Religions are not democracy that changes with times, people does not undertand that. A religion is one thing created by a person or a groud of them and that is it.

I understand why a gay couple would like to marry, is an impulse of feeling even closer to each other. But is not God related so far until some one discovers some sort of document written by the apostols or something but that is just Sci-Fi.

Is like (as a friend of mine was suggested the other day) to take the motorbike to the carwash :rolleyes:

[crap freakboy]

I do not see the sense of the gay marriage. Not from the church point of view at list. In such case poligamy should be accepted as well by the church. In that case crhistian churches would loose a big chunk of it institutionality.

Each to their own. From a legal point of view marriage is a fairly good protector for both people involved should the relationship break down. The Church may have a different view.
Least a Christian Church should be able to forgive them of their 'sins', or did I miss the point of Mr.J.Christs main point?

Religions are not democracy that changes with times, people does not undertand that. A religion is one thing created by a person or a groud of them and that is it.

I could go on at length on trying to correct you on this one m8y, but I've gotta cook Zoë some pancakes :) . The modern Bible has been changed, chopped, edited for political, social reasons since it was first introduced. Whole sections edited, moved and even removed for a multitude of reasons. The same goes for most of the mainstream Religions, in a contant state of flux.

I understand why a gay couple would like to marry, is an impulse of feeling even closer to each other. But is not God related so far until some one discovers some sort of document written by the apostols or something but that is just Sci-Fi.

Marriage in our modern world is based upon rituals that had very little to do with the Christian God, more to do with the pagan gods of old. The Christan movement adapted those rituals to their own ends. Most of the first churches were built on Pagan worship sites so as to enable the conversion of the Pagans who needed to visit the gound within the Church itself.

Is like (as a friend of mine was suggested the other day) to take the motorbike to the carwash :rolleyes:

As long as it gets cleaned who cares?

Fyi I'm not a Pagan, a Christian, Gay, probably agnostic, who knows...things change and so do my opinions, moment by moment, I will not be told how to think by any organisation beit Church or Government or Media...I'd rather make my own mind up. Correct me if I'm wrong, please do...I here to be told I'm wrong. :)

[MacNut]

The Catholic church can have whatever rules it wants, if you don't want to agree to those rules you don't have too, either go to church and not be bothered by it or find another religion. A religion is not to change its beliefs because some people say it should.

[PlaceofDis]

good news indeed, but how much of an impact will this really have?

i am all for gay-marriage, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and it should be provided for long ago in a legal sense, i just don't undersand why so many people are against it. but then again i am an ultraliberal too ;)

[mpw]

I do not see the sense of the gay marriage. Not from the church point of view at list…

…I understand why a gay couple would like to marry, is an impulse of feeling even closer to each other. But is not God related…

Is not the feeling of being closer to each other not the best reason to marry?
Does the Churches point of view dictate that the only reason to marry should be God related?
What does that even mean?
Do I need a sign from heaven before I can marry?
Is it part of the non-democracy of the Church that should the elders decide that I be married to please God then so be it, no question of my love for my partner?

[thedude110]

The Catholic church can have whatever rules it wants, if you don't want to agree to those rules you don't have too, either go to church and not be bothered by it or find another religion. A religion is not to change its beliefs because some people say it should.

Hi MacNut.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying? Can't someone disagree with some aspects of a relgion's dogma without having to leave that religion? In other words, shouldn't someone be able to be pro gay marriage (or pro birth control or pro death penalty or whatever) and still be Catholic? Maybe you could explain to me more clearly what you mean?

You're absolutely right that a religion shouldn't change its beliefs because a bunch of people tell that religion to change their beliefs. But religions DO change their beliefs (I'm thinking Galileo most obviously here), so I wonder where you think that line gets drawn?

All in conversation, of course!

[mpw]

...You're absolutely right that a religion shouldn't change its beliefs because a bunch of people tell that religion to change their beliefs. But religions DO change their beliefs (I'm thinking Galileo most obviously here), so I wonder where you think that line gets drawn?...

I guess it depends on 'the bunch of people' but yeah I'd agree that one group should'nt have to change their beliefs just because another group tell them to.

Of course a group should change their beliefs if they're obviously wrong and to the detriment to others.

For example if someone is a witch and is putting hexes on you and is evil and a danger to mankind it's reasonable that a group should take action and burn the witch. However if that group has absoulotly no proof that the person is a witch or evil or a danger to mankind they must change their beliefs.

Where to draw the line? Any belief held by a group that impacts on the human or civil rights of another unfairly or unjustly, that's fairly straight-forward.

[FoxyKaye]

The Catholic church can have whatever rules it wants, if you don't want to agree to those rules you don't have too, either go to church and not be bothered by it or find another religion. A religion is not to change its beliefs because some people say it should.
Although I agree with the general sentiment of your post, its literal interpretation would mean that the Catholic Church would still be burning Witches, engaged in the Crusades, and condoning the Holocaust through inaction.

IMHO, the real problem is that the Christian cult in general seems to believe it has a monopoly on public policy in the United States. I don't really give a damn whether or not any Church in the U.S. would care to marry me and my partner - however, I do when a significant number of Christian Churches want to amend the Constitution to make it a literal legal impossibility. This, of course, has nothing to do with Church at all, and in ordinary circumstances would be considered a gross violation of separation of Church and State. However, the Christian Right at large has become so filled with hubris over the past 10 years that somehow it has become their right and entitlement to tell me how to live my life.

Which, of course, returns us to your original premise to which I would respond: "Well, if you don't like gays and lesbians getting married, then go find a nice little theocracy that agrees with you."

...Is it "Politics" yet?

[Edit]: Spelling errors.

[FoxyKaye]

the thing is that people like to bitch
True, true. But it's hard not to be cynical these days...

[Macaddicttt]

I really don't want to get too involved in this discussion, (I was in one earlier), but there are a few misconceptions I want to clear up.

1)
Least a Christian Church should be able to forgive them of their 'sins', or did I miss the point of Mr.J.Christs main point?

No, you did not miss anything about the forgiveness, but since when does forgiveness mean "say it's okay to do immoral things"?

2)
But religions DO change their beliefs (I'm thinking Galileo most obviously here), so I wonder where you think that line gets drawn?

This is not a "change of religion." Some Catholics in power thought, "The sun must surely go around the earth because in part of the Bible, God commands the sun to stop, not the earth." They started telling it to other people and Galileo came around and said they were wrong. Then the Catholics in power thought, "If we admit we're wrong, we might lose face and therefore power. We had better persecute him." Then many years later the Catholic Church remembered the awful thing some members had done and apologized. The point is, the belief that the sun goes around the earth and not the other way around is in no way religious and does not "indicate a change of religion." Same goes for the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. They were mostly political or misguided, but never an actual part of the religion, if you get my meaning.

3)
Marriage in our modern world is based upon rituals that had very little to do with the Christian God, more to do with the pagan gods of old. The Christan movement adapted those rituals to their own ends. Most of the first churches were built on Pagan worship sites so as to enable the conversion of the Pagans who needed to visit the gound within the Church itself.

Yes, most Christian rituals have pagan origin, but rituals are very different from beliefs. Just because pagan rituals were incorporated doesn't mean beliefs were. It just caused different movements to go with those beliefs.

Now that I have that out of the way, have at it everyone! :)

[crap freakboy]

Tell you what, lets just say theres no God.
Then all religions can close shop, they'll be no interfaith violence, no guilt for Catholics and Gays can marry as they please. Surprised no-one thought of it before. :D

[Macaddicttt]

IMHO, the real problem is that the Christian cult in general seems to believe it has a monopoly on public policy in the United States. I don't really give a damn whether or not any Church in the U.S. would care to marry me and my partner - however, I do when a significant number of Christian Churches want to amend the Constitution to make it a literal legal impossibility. This, of course, has nothing to do with Church at all, and in ordinary circumstances would be considered a gross violation of separation of Church and State. However, the Christian Right at large has become so filled with hubris over the past 10 years that somehow it has become their right and entitlement to tell me how to live my life.

I very much agree with you, but if you remember, this discussion is about a church granting gay marriage, not government.

[ham_man]

Adopted by Full Synod (http://news.ucc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=233&Itemid=54)

This is going to be an interesting Sunday...

[FoxyKaye]

I very much agree with you, but if you remember, this discussion is about a church granting gay marriage, not government.
Fair 'nuff - thanks! :)

[Les Kern]

You're absolutely right that a religion shouldn't change its beliefs because a bunch of people tell that religion to change their beliefs. But religions DO change their beliefs...

You are quite right. Some might describe the Catholic Church (of which I was raised) as having a severe directional problem right now. Fact is, the whole basis for belief is a series of decisions based not on the Bible, but on the times. For instance, why can't priests marry? All the apostles were. Why can't women become priests? Think that was in the bible? Nope, "invented" in the 1800's.
Sorry, but they are, in my opinion, mistaken on almost every point. The Prince of Peace, in all his teaching, did not endorse the Crusades, and he did not give the current leaders of our country permission to use his good name to screw us and kill inocent people in Iraq. But I digress...
In some compelling words, Barny Frank said of the pending legislation banning all gay "marriages", "Who does it hurt?"
Live and let live, and keep the church OUT of my life, thank you.

[Macaddicttt]

... and he did not give the current leaders of our country permission to use his good name to screw us and kill inocent people in Iraq. But I digress...

Umm...the Catholic Church was very against the Iraq war...

[Mord]

I do not see the sense of the gay marriage. Not from the church point of view at list. In such case poligamy should be accepted as well by the church. In that case crhistian churches would loose a big chunk of it institutionality.

Religions are not democracy that changes with times, people does not undertand that. A religion is one thing created by a person or a groud of them and that is it.

I understand why a gay couple would like to marry, is an impulse of feeling even closer to each other. But is not God related so far until some one discovers some sort of document written by the apostols or something but that is just Sci-Fi.

Is like (as a friend of mine was suggested the other day) to take the motorbike to the carwash :rolleyes:

marriage != religion

[martman]

marriage != religion
this is false. Marriage in the Christian world has its roots in civil society. Marriage is about money and taxes and property.
Marrige became a sacrement after 1400 years of Christianity.
This tradition was so widespread in what came to be known as Western Europe that for the first 1400 years of its existence the Catholic Church decided it could not enforce any demand that couples be married in a church or by a priest. If a young couple claimed to have exchanged vows of consent -- out by the woddpile, or wherever, with or without witnesses, blessing or whatever -- they were married.
Sorry but this argument holds no water.
Marrige didn't become a sacrement till the 1400's

[Mord]

you see the ! before the = it means it dose not equal religion in response to mymemorys posr

[ham_man]

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Twenty-fifth General Synod of the
United Church of Christ affirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender
and declares that the State should not interfere with couples regardless of gender who
choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and
commitment of legally recognized marriage.
This was found here (http://www.ucc.org/synod/resolutions/gs25-7.pdf). I don't care what anyone says, as a Christian, I believe that marriage is meant between a man and a woman only. It was the will of Jesus Christ, and that is the duty of a Christian - too follow the will of Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, I expect alot of tumult in the UCC...

[mpw]

...I don't care...

Now there's a good Christian!;)

As a good Christian do you believe everything in the Bible or just the bits that quote Jesus?

Considering that the Bible has been so badly edited/translated over the years since it was first written, several years after the events that it is supposed to record by people who weren't there how do you know he's being accurately quoted.

What proof even of his existence do you offer let alone proof of what his will was?

Was it's His will that thousands were burnt as witches in Europe? If not why did Christians do it? If it was why don't you continue to do it, is it not your duty?

[PaRaGoNViCtiM]

I am a very big supporter of Gay Marriage. My girlfriend and I have been together for 4 years, and would like to be married. It's not fair that we aren't given the same rights as everyone else. It's all about equality. The Bible also says "Thall shall not judge".

[ham_man]

What proof even of his existence do you offer let alone proof of what his will was?
Faith.

[mpw]

Faith.

So no proof then. Just 'cause you have faith doesn't make something real. Steve Jobs had faith in a 3Ghz G5 a couple of years ago and it never happened.

Gay people shouldn't marry 'cause you believe in something that you can't prove and that makes no logical sense? Perhaps blind faith would be a more appropriate description. Are you perhaps using faith as a cover for your lack of tolerance of others. Do you follow everything as dictated in the Bible, Leviticus? I can't stand people who use 'faith' as an excuse for the evil they do.

[ham_man]

So no proof then. Just 'cause you have faith doesn't make something real. Steve Jobs had faith in a 3Ghz G5 a couple of years ago and it never happened.
That is the whole point of religion - to explain the unexplainable. Believe what you want, but I have faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

Gay people shouldn't marry 'cause you believe in something that you can't prove and that makes no logical sense?

Genesis 2:24 - “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and
be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”

I have had my say and am going to bow out of this conversation.

[mpw]

That is the whole point of religion - to explain the unexplainable. Believe what you want, but I have faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

Genesis 2:24 - “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and
be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”

I have had my say and am going to bow out of this conversation.

I note that you bow out having avoided a couple of the questions I asked. I will therefore assume that, as you quote Genesis from the old testament, you do indeed believe the whole Bible not just that attributed to Jesus.

Which I guess means along with not allowing gays to marry you would also happily put them to death, along with those heterosexuals who commit adultery or those who curse their parents.

You are of course anti tatoos, piercing, shaving, baldness etc. etc all on religious grounds too.

[solvs]

I have had my say and am going to bow out of this conversation.
This is a typical response at this point.

I was going to ask you to show me where Jesus comdemned homosexuality, but since you are "bowing out" I'll answer for you. He didn't. Never did. And if you use Leviticus as your moral guide, I can tell you that you are not following the words of Jesus himself. Even if you could (which you can't) it wouldn't matter. That's YOUR religion, YOUR belief. This being America, it wouldn't matter if 99.9% of the population felt the way you do, you still don't have the right to tell people what to do with their lives if it doesn't affect you at all. Which it doesn't. Believe what you want, but keep your beliefs out of my bedroom.

For the record, I am not gay. I do believe in God, and try to follow the actual words of Jesus through action, not just words. I do not hide behind my Bible to justify hatred. But I am sick of watching someone close to me who's a lesbian suffer because of people like you.

[colocolo]

That is the whole point of religion - to explain the unexplainable. Believe what you want, but I have faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

I totally agree with you.
I don't know why people have to pick on the Christians - 0 tolerance for your position.

By the way, my position in this subject is very clear; I find it funny to put in the same category two unions, one that ensures the survival of the human race and one that doesn't.

I mean, the Church isn't wrong about that, right? Or was there a major biological breakthrough that I'm not aware of?

Don't get me wrong, I do not condemn that kind of union at all - I am in no position to judge at all, as no Christian is. It's just that, can't you come up with your own name? And this has nothing to do with a particular religion, every single institution of marriage throughout history has been founded in the fact of procreation.
Be happy, be toghether, you have to decide for yourselves... just give it a proper name, please. :)

If any of you find my post offensive, I apologize in advance. I hope you understand the true meaning of it. And if you can't help getting angry with me, at least don't use it as an argument against God. Jesus is not guilty for me not being able to express myself any better. :)

[solvs]

You are of course anti tatoos, piercing, shaving, baldness etc. etc all on religious grounds too.
That's assuming his problem with homosexuality comes from his religious belief. I find the opposite to be often true, as they dislike homosexuality then use religion to justify that feeling. The same was true of slavery not so long ago, as with the crusades as well. If a lot of these people followed what Jesus actually taught, this would not be an issue.

[ham_man]

Having said that I have bowed out, I would like to make a few things clear.

#1 - I never have, nor will condemn homosexuality. I am glad to be apart of a denomination that accepts gays and lesbians.

#2 - Jesus quoted that Genesis passage in Mark 10:7 and Matthew 19:5.

#3 - I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

#4 - This thread was about a Christian denomination allowing Gay marriage. The government is an entirely different matter.

[mpw]

That is the whole point of religion - to explain the unexplainable. Believe what you want, but I have faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel.I totally agree with you.
I don't know why people have to pick on the Christians - 0 tolerance for your position...

Religion doesn't explain the unexplainable it just gives an unproven and unprovable theory which a bunch of people choose to adopt so they don't have to take responsibility for their hatred on themselves.

For the record I dislike most organized religions because what I see from most of them is people who can't be bothered to think for themselves. I don't kill people because I believe it's wrong I don't need a God to tell me that. I don't sleep with my mother or my neighbors wife because I think it's wrong not because God told me I shouldn't.

[solvs]

0 tolerance for your position.
Most of your post was pretty good, but this stood out. All homosexuals are asking for is the same thing, tolerance. I don't see why I would want to "tolerate" someone wanting to take away the rights of others when they can't tolerate the acts of 2 people who just want to be left alone to their own beliefs. You can believe what you want, but when that belief encroaches on others, that's where the problem comes in. I can respect your opinion, but I ask that you'd respect mine as well.

And for the record, marriage is more than just religious, it's also a legal contract. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of other religions that don't have a problem with gay marriage, as shown above. And all the marriages that don't lead to procreation. Same thing with recreational sex. ;)

[mpw]

Having said that I have bowed out, I would like to make a few things clear.

#1 - I never have, nor will condemn homosexuality. I am glad to be apart of a denomination that accepts gays and lesbians.

#2 - Jesus quoted that Genesis passage in Mark 10:7 and Matthew 19:5.

#3 - I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

#4 - This thread was about a Christian denomination allowing Gay marriage. The government is an entirely different matter.

Welcome back! So now you believe in only bits of the Bible? You'll feel pretty stupid if you get turned away at the gates when the good Christians find out you didn't stone the unclean!

[leekohler]

Welcome back! So now you believe in only bits of the Bible? You'll feel pretty stupid if you get turned away at the gates when the good Christians find out you didn't stone the unclean!

Bingo. This is what kills me. So many people who use religion as their arguement fail to see that religion has changed many times throughout history. And honestly, I don't give a damn what Christians think about gay marriage. But when they try to pass an amendment against it, that's where I have to step in and say no. Don't like gay marriage, don't have one! Let the rest of us decide for ourselves. Personally, I find it great to see this particular church standing up for what's right.

[leekohler]

I am a very big supporter of Gay Marriage. My girlfriend and I have been together for 4 years, and would like to be married. It's not fair that we aren't given the same rights as everyone else. It's all about equality. The Bible also says "Thall shall not judge".

Thanks for the kind words. Very Christian of you-and I'm not being sarcastic.

[PaRaGoNViCtiM]

Religion doesn't explain the unexplainable it just gives an unproven and unprovable theory which a bunch of people choose to adopt so they don't have to take responsibility for their hatred on themselves.
For the record I dislike most organized religions because what I see from most of them is people who can't be bothered to think for themselves. I don't kill people because I believe it's wrong I don't need a God to tell me that. I don't sleep with my mother or my neighbors wife because I think it's wrong not because God told me I shouldn't.

You just hit the nail right on the head!!!!!!!!
Thank you, Beautifully said!

[leekohler]

Religion doesn't explain the unexplainable it just gives an unproven and unprovable theory which a bunch of people choose to adopt so they don't have to take responsibility for their hatred on themselves.

For the record I dislike most organized religions because what I see from most of them is people who can't be bothered to think for themselves. I don't kill people because I believe it's wrong I don't need a God to tell me that. I don't sleep with my mother or my neighbors wife because I think it's wrong not because God told me I shouldn't.

I agree with you too, but let's not start a war here. People should be free to believe what they want. It's not our place to judge, anymore than it's their's. Please keep this civil guys.

[xsedrinam]

I've browsed through some 30ish of the posts in this thread and do not agree with the UCOC's decision, but will leave it at that, for now. I do have a question though, as it relates to the "common law" (7 yrs.?) period of couples who live together and seek legal recognition as the equivilant of being "married". It's probably more of a legal question within the context of same sex marriage, but does the State have autonomy to rule, accordingly, in the U.S. regarding "common law marriage"?

An added note to both "sides" of the argument (religious vs. a-religious). (a)Postmodern Christianity and a professed, personal (belief) trust in the Person of Christ and His Work and Teaching does NEITHER teach NOR condone hatred of the individual. Any attempt to portray genuine Christianity as a propagator of such is classic straw argument buildiing and uninformed pretext. (b)That someone is an "unbeliever" or agnostic, even antagonistc towards the teachings of the Church does not eradicate their individual dignity and thus grant license to those who are "believers" to throw flames in their direction.
X

[PaRaGoNViCtiM]

I agree with you too, but let's not start a war here. People should be free to believe what they want. It's not our place to judge, anymore than it's their's. Please keep this civil guys.

Good Point..you don't want me to go off!!!

[Macaddicttt]

Religion doesn't explain the unexplainable it just gives an unproven and unprovable theory which a bunch of people choose to adopt so they don't have to take responsibility for their hatred on themselves.

For the record I dislike most organized religions because what I see from most of them is people who can't be bothered to think for themselves. I don't kill people because I believe it's wrong I don't need a God to tell me that. I don't sleep with my mother or my neighbors wife because I think it's wrong not because God told me I shouldn't.

I'm not attacking you here, I just want to know a little bit more about what you believe. My question is, how is something wrong if there is no God or whatever to determine what is wrong? How is sleeping with your neighbor's wife wrong? What tells you that's wrong? How about killing? How do you know that's wrong? I'm sure a couple times you've been really angry with someone and you've had to restrain yourself from striking them (probably not to the point of killing, though). Why do you restrain yourself? What's the point? Is it because it's wrong? Or is it because you would suffer for your actions?

What does it matter what you do in life since once you die, you will no longer exist? I think of it like this. You were once a year old. But you can't remember a thing. Someone could have slapped you and dropped you and you would have cried and cried. But now you don't remember it. You don't remember any of the pain. It's like it never happened as far as you're concerned. So when you die, you're whole life will be like that. Then what's the point? Why try to do what's right?

I'm very interested to hear your response.

EDIT: By the way, I'm very religious and I've never truly hated anyone. My faith isn't about hate, it's about trying to do the right thing. I don't think gay sex is moral, but I don't hate gays. It's very unfair to claim that religion is all about hate just because some ignorant people use it for hate.

[.Andy]

EDIT: By the way, I'm very religious and I've never truly hated anyone. My faith isn't about hate, it's about trying to do the right thing. I don't think gay sex is moral, but I don't hate gays. It's very unfair to claim that religion is all about hate just because some ignorant people use it for hate.

Seriously you anti gay types give me the jeebies. There is nothing wrong with your opinion at all - no one is attacking your stance. You were brought up and brainwashed into thinking gay sex is immoral. It happens and you'll grow out of it one day when you get out and see the world or when you find out one of your best friends is gay. If you grew up without anyone telling you homosexuality was wrong you wouldn't have a problem with it at all. The rub that everyone is feeling isn't your religion at all. It isn't against your beliefs. No one wants you to do anything differently. If you think something is immoral well then two beers for you. You can sit at home and think that all you like. The problem occurs when you (and archaic religions) impinge on other peoples LIBERTY. That's what gives people the crumpets.

"Men and woman should be free to do anything they please without interference from society or state, unless their actions cause harm to others" - JSM. Hmmmm true liberty.

Ask yourself this - if Gay marrigaes were allowed how would that affect your life. That's right NOT AT ALL. You wouldn't be less of a christian/muslim/pagan/kangaroo. Nothing would change. No fire. No brimstone. No flood.

[mpw]

...how is something wrong if there is no God or whatever to determine what is wrong?...

I determine whether my actions are wrong by assessing how they will affect others and trying to see whether I'd be comfortable with the outcome of those actions if I were in another affected party's position.

How is sleeping with your neighbor's wife wrong?

It would cause emotional pain for all those involved, however I can see why it happens all the time and can't rule out that I would never be in a situation where I might choose to accept the consequences.

How about killing? How do you know that's wrong? I'm sure a couple times you've been really angry with someone and you've had to restrain yourself from striking them (probably not to the point of killing, though). Why do you restrain yourself? What's the point?

I think killing is wrong for the reasons above but again wouldn't rule it out per se but the circumstances would need to be extreme. I've been in a number of situations where my life has been threatened in my job but I always restrain myself and do the sensible thing in this society, call the Police. However if anybody were to put my children in direct danger and the only immediate course of action were to kill or sacrifice my children I wouldn't have any hesitation in taking life.

What does it matter what you do in life since once you die, you will no longer exist?...Then what's the point? Why try to do what's right?

The alternative doesn't appeal. I could of course ask whether the ONLY reason religious people don't cheat/kill etc. is because their scared of not getting into heaven? I suspect it's this theory that the early Christian Church used to control the pagan masses.

By the way, I'm very religious and I've never truly hated anyone. My faith isn't about hate, it's about trying to do the right thing. I don't think gay sex is moral, but I don't hate gays. It's very unfair to claim that religion is all about hate just because some ignorant people use it for hate.

I respect you as an individual who chooses to do the right thing and wonder if your religious faith is the reason for your attitude or whether your attitude and faith happen to co-exist. How does gay sex between two consenting adults affect you and why would it be immoral?

[thedude110]

Don't get me wrong, I do not condemn that kind of union at all - I am in no position to judge at all, as no Christian is. It's just that, can't you come up with your own name? And this has nothing to do with a particular religion, every single institution of marriage throughout history has been founded in the fact of procreation.
Be happy, be toghether, you have to decide for yourselves... just give it a proper name, please. :)


Oh! Separate but "equal!"

I can't believe no one's thought of that before ... :mad:

[leekohler]

I determine whether my actions are wrong by assessing how they will affect others and trying to see whether I'd be comfortable with the outcome of those actions if I were in another affected party's position.



It would cause emotional pain for all those involved, however I can see why it happens all the time and can't rule out that I would never be in a situation where I might choose to accept the consequences.



I think killing is wrong for the reasons above but again wouldn't rule it out per se but the circumstances would need to be extreme. I've been in a number of situations where my life has been threatened in my job but I always restrain myself and do the sensible thing in this society, call the Police. However if anybody were to put my children in direct danger and the only immediate course of action were to kill or sacrifice my children I wouldn't have any hesitation in taking life.



The alternative doesn't appeal. I could of course ask whether the ONLY reason religious people don't cheat/kill etc. is because their scared of not getting into heaven? I suspect it's this theory that the early Christian Church used to control the pagan masses.



I respect you as an individual who chooses to do the right thing and wonder if your religious faith is the reason for your attitude or whether your attitude and faith happen to co-exist. How does gay sex between two consenting adults affect you and why would it be immoral?

Good respones! I would have to agree with you an all these as well. They are many of the reasons I left religion. Also, I couldn't buy that anyone who wasn't Christian was going to Hell. What about Buddhists, Muslims, pagans and Jews? Doesn't make any sense. All these people are going to Hell? No way.

[angelneo]

EDIT: By the way, I'm very religious and I've never truly hated anyone. My faith isn't about hate, it's about trying to do the right thing. I don't think gay sex is moral, but I don't hate gays. It's very unfair to claim that religion is all about hate just because some ignorant people use it for hate.
I am curious if you say that gay sex is immoral but you don't hate gays. How about if the society that you live in allows for same sex marriage and hereby saying that being gay is normal/moral. Do you, as a responsible citizen, start protesting against this rule/law, saying that it will erode your children moral education?

You can believe what you wish but it is when you start enforcing your beliefs onto others that cause the most harm.

[leekohler]

I am curious if you say that gay sex is immoral but you don't hate gays. How about if the society that you live in allows for same sex marriage and hereby saying that being gay is normal/moral. Do you, as a responsible citizen, start protesting against this rule/law, saying that it will erode your children moral education?

You can believe what you wish but it is when you start enforcing your beliefs onto others that cause the most harm.

I hate the "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. What a cop out. If someone doesn't like gays, they don't like gays. Just say so. I mean- I'm still gay even when I'm not having sex. I love how they try to dress it up.

[MacNut]

Hi MacNut.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying? Can't someone disagree with some aspects of a relgion's dogma without having to leave that religion? In other words, shouldn't someone be able to be pro gay marriage (or pro birth control or pro death penalty or whatever) and still be Catholic? Maybe you could explain to me more clearly what you mean?A lot of things the church does I don't agree with a lot I do, What Im saying is that you can either agree or disagree with the church and still practice the faith or decide not to go along with the beliefs and leave the church. Some things they will not change and you either will have to live with it or find a new religion.

[MongoTheGeek]

I hate the "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. What a cop out. If someone doesn't like gays, they don't like gays. Just say so. I mean- I'm still gay even when I'm not having sex. I love how they try to dress it up.

Lets say for instance you don't like people wearing white shoes after labor day(just to be absurd. cf . Serial Mom (http://imdb.com/title/tt0111127/) ) Would you hate the fact that they do that? Presumably yes. Would you stop being friends with them just because of that?

[jayscheuerle]

This is a start that can't be finished. All churches will never accept the idea of gay marriage, so all that will happen is a fractured landscape of unions.

The problem is the word "marriage" having 2 meanings. One is a legal definition, upon which rights are conveyed and the other is a religious one, where each religion has its own ideas. Since every religion has their own separate idea of what a marriage means, there can be no definition. With no definition, marriage isn't a usable word in the context of religion without a defining prefix such as Catholic marriage, Jewish Marriage or Muslim marriage.

If States or countries create their own definitions, then once again, the word gets watered down to California marriage, German marriage, or even Camden County marriage! Where does it stop?

For a start, legal recognition needs to be completely separate from religious. A purely religious marriage should convey none of the legal benefits of the legal requirement. Anybody should be allowed to marry in the eyes of the law. Let churches sanctify their own marriages under their own definitions. Until we completely separate the two, where neither recognizes, nor crosses over into the other's territory (practical vs. spiritual), will we be able to settle on a working recognition of any desired union. Unfortunately, gays are pushing to be recognized in a spiritual way while churches are pushing for legal sway. I think there were some pretty good ideas about the separation of church and state around 229 years (and one day) ago.. Shame we've wandered a bit off the path... - j

[MongoTheGeek]

For a start, legal recognition needs to be completely separate from religious. A purely religious marriage should convey none of the legal benefits of the legal requirement. Anybody should be allowed to marry in the eyes of the law. Let churches sanctify their own marriages under their own definitions. Until we completely separate the two, where neither recognizes, nor crosses over into the other's territory (practical vs. spiritual), will we be able to settle on a working recognition of any desired union. Unfortunately, gays are pushing to be recognized in a spiritual way while churches are pushing for legal sway. I think there were some pretty good ideas about the separation of church and state around 229 years (and one day) ago.. Shame we've wandered a bit off the path... - j

The separation of church and state currently discussed is totally opposite of what the founder were talking about.

That aside, there was an episode of the West Wing were a liberal senator was going to push a bill to ban marriage all together. Following the logic if men weren't allowed to marry men and women marry women then no one should be allowed to marry.

I oppose "gay marriage", but I would join him in burning the house down.

I put "gay marriage" in quotes because none of the discussed laws ban homosexuals from marrying. They just stop men from marrying men or women from marrying women.

[Macaddicttt]

I am curious if you say that gay sex is immoral but you don't hate gays. How about if the society that you live in allows for same sex marriage and hereby saying that being gay is normal/moral. Do you, as a responsible citizen, start protesting against this rule/law, saying that it will erode your children moral education?

You can believe what you wish but it is when you start enforcing your beliefs onto others that cause the most harm.

It's ridiculous to think that I can't like people who I think are immoral. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that I have to hate people I think are immoral. You want to know why? Everyone's immoral. No one is without sin. By your standards, I'd have to hate myself. I'd have to hate my friends. I'd have to hate my family. Now I see why people think of religion as spreading hate. I don't hate anyone. I have gay friends, I have friends who have premarital sex, I have friends who steal, I have friends who do tons of things.

And no, I never said that I would force my beliefs on others. I would never do that. I would, however, try to live a life that is an example (I'm not doing so hot, though...) and I would share my beliefs and the reasons for my beliefs if someone asked me. You don't convert people by hating them. That's just stupid. You convert people by being good a good person and enjoying life. Then someone might ask you about your religion and you'd be happy to inform them of your beliefs.

[leekohler]

Lets say for instance you don't like people wearing white shoes after labor day(just to be absurd. cf . Serial Mom (http://imdb.com/title/tt0111127/) ) Would you hate the fact that they do that? Presumably yes. Would you stop being friends with them just because of that?

Nice try. Isn't wearing white shoes a choice? Being gay isn't. And trust me- I don't stay friends with people who don't like my being gay for very long. It's too stressful to constantly hear how much they wish you weren't, blah-blah-blah. I do tend to walk away from those people. I mean, what would you do if you had a "friend" constantly asking you to stop being straight?

I also wouldn't try to get a law passed forbiding someone to wear white shoes. Is any of this sinking in yet?

[Macaddicttt]

Lets say for instance you don't like people wearing white shoes after labor day(just to be absurd. cf . Serial Mom (http://imdb.com/title/tt0111127/) ) Would you hate the fact that they do that? Presumably yes. Would you stop being friends with them just because of that?

Very good explanation. I don't understand it when people (esp. gays) say, "You think what I'm doing is wrong, therefore you hate me." Very well put. I understand a lot of people do hate gays and you do have to be on the defensive a lot, but please don't be so defensive that you're paranoid and think that everyone hates you.

[leekohler]

Very good explanation. I don't understand it when people (esp. gays) say, "You think what I'm doing is wrong, therefore you hate me." Very well put. I understand a lot of people do hate gays and you do have to be on the defensive a lot, but please don't be so defensive that you're paranoid and think that everyone hates you.

Fine. When they stop trying to pass laws against us I'll believe you. And no that wasn't a good explanation. See my post above.

And no- I don't believe everyone hates us.

[angelneo]

It's ridiculous to think that I can't like people who I think are immoral. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that I have to hate people I think are immoral. You want to know why? Everyone's immoral. No one is without sin. By your standards, I'd have to hate myself. I'd have to hate my friends. I'd have to hate my family. Now I see why people think of religion as spreading hate. I don't hate anyone. I have gay friends, I have friends who have premarital sex, I have friends who steal, I have friends who do tons of things.

And no, I never said that I would force my beliefs on others. I would never do that. I would, however, try to live a life that is an example (I'm not doing so hot, though...) and I would share my beliefs and the reasons for my beliefs if someone asked me. You don't convert people by hating them. That's just stupid. You convert people by being good a good person and enjoying life. Then someone might ask you about your religion and you'd be happy to inform them of your beliefs.
You are not answering my question. Would you oppose the society from recognizing that gay sex is normal? Since you think the act is immoral, wouldn't you, as a responsible citizen, try to correct such an act if the society tries to imply it as normal given that it would affect your family as well and how you live your life

[angelneo]

Lets say for instance you don't like people wearing white shoes after labor day(just to be absurd. cf . Serial Mom (http://imdb.com/title/tt0111127/) ) Would you hate the fact that they do that? Presumably yes. Would you stop being friends with them just because of that?
I guess it's dependant on how much "hatred" or dislike you have for them. Given that there are accounts of how some people disowned their family members or friends once they learnt that they are gay, I would say it's a yes for some people.

[rainman::|:|]

Non-christians believe people should have freedom of religion, but
christians think we should all follow their religious law.

The bible says gays are scary and bad, but
the bible also says donkeys can talk.
Why are we still reading this thing?

Gay marriage is happening everywhere but uh, the middle east and America. So, we're not the least progressive country on earth then. Egypt can still kill you for being gay, after all. That makes us a beacon of human rights (lol!)

[Brian0523]

Well I'm gay, and don't believe in gay marriage. For that matter - I don't believe much is str8 marriage either. LOL

[leekohler]

Well I'm gay, and don't believe in gay marriage. For that matter - I don't believe much is str8 marriage either. LOL

Will you marry me then? :)

[Macaddicttt]

You are not answering my question. Would you oppose the society from recognizing that gay sex is normal? Since you think the act is immoral, wouldn't you, as a responsible citizen, try to correct such an act if the society tries to imply it as normal given that it would affect your family as well and how you live your life

Well, it's too late for everything else (premarital sex, gluttony, etc.), so why persecute gays? No, I would not try and pass a law against it. It doesn't affect anyone but the parties getting married or whatever. I don't see how allowing gay marriage would affect my life at all.

[Macaddicttt]

I guess it's dependant on how much "hatred" or dislike you have for them. Given that there are accounts of how some people disowned their family members or friends once they learnt that they are gay, I would say it's a yes for some people.

Well, then those people are ignorant idiots. We're not talking with them. You're not debating with them. You're debating with us.

[Lyle]

I hate the "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. What a cop out...A big part of the problem is that some (not all) Christians believe, at least implicitly, that there's some kind of hierarchy of sins. They will readily cop to being a sinner themselves, but they are quick to denounce some sins (and by extension some sinners) as being worse than others. From there, it's an easy leap for them to start hating and persecuting people who they see as committing what they see as the "really bad" sins.

[leekohler]

A big part of the problem is that some (not all) Christians believe, at least implicitly, that there's some kind of hierarchy of sins. They will readily cop to being a sinner themselves, but they are quick to denounce some sins (and by extension some sinners) as being worse than others. From there, it's an easy leap for them to start hating and persecuting people who they see as committing what they see as the "really bad" sins.

Exactly. BTW- love you signature. :)

[Omen88]

First of all, I am not against gay marriage. If it doesn't harm anyone, for God's sake let them do it.

Second, I understand why Christians oppose gay marriage as being married for the church. I believe gay Christians have a different interpretation of the religion than the Christians who opppose this. Then why not start your own religion? Like the protestants did etc... And marry for the church which allows gays.

This is the same as a windows user trying to join a mac club (or vice versa). But it's discrimination for not letting me in because I use windows/mac. Well start your own club. One that allows only mac/windows or both.

I'm not really following this and I'm not from America, so I could be wrong on understanding the issue here. Where I'm from gay marriage is allowed for the state, but not for the church I believe.

[jayscheuerle]

Then why not start your own religion? Like the protestants did etc... And marry for the church which allows gays.


Church of the boys-n-swine? :p

(with apologies to Boy George and lipstick lesbians)

[leekohler]

First of all, I am not against gay marriage. If it doesn't harm anyone, for God's sake let them do it.

Second, I understand why Christians oppose gay marriage as being married for the church. I believe gay Christians have a different interpretation of the religion than the Christians who opppose this. Then why not start your own religion? Like the protestants did etc... And marry for the church which allows gays.

This is the same as a windows user trying to join a mac club (or vice versa). But it's discrimination for not letting me in because I use windows/mac. Well start your own club. One that allows only mac/windows or both.

I'm not really following this and I'm not from America, so I could be wrong on understanding the issue here. Where I'm from gay marriage is allowed for the state, but not for the church I believe.

Here's the thing- I don't think too many people care if they can get married in a church or not. But many religious people have been trying to pass laws against gays getting married in the legal sense. I started this thread because it was nice to see a church taking this stance for a change.

[Omen88]

Here's the thing- I don't think too many people care if they can get married in a church or not. But many religious people have been trying to pass laws against gays getting married in the legal sense. I started this thread because it was nice to see a church taking this stance for a change.

Ah ok. I thought the problem was entirely being that gays couldn't marry for the church.

Well that's pretty weak of them. I consider myself as right-wing, but if two people want to marry then let them do it. There's no necessity for it being a man and a woman.

On gay adoption I feel differently though.

[leekohler]

Ah ok. I thought the problem was entirely being that gays couldn't marry for the church.

Well that's pretty weak of them. I consider myself as right-wing, but if two people want to marry then let them do it. There's no necessity for it being a man and a woman.

On gay adoption I feel differently though.

Wow- that's funny. There are a lot of states here that allow adoption. I guess we're polar opposites.

[Omen88]

Wow- that's funny. There are a lot of states here that allow adoption. I guess we're polar opposites.

So gay adoption is allowed, but gay marriage isn't? I find that rather hypocrital, so that's stating that your parents are not allowed to marry.

Very weird indeed :)

[leekohler]

So gay adoption is allowed, but gay marriage isn't? I find that rather hypocrital, so that's stating that your parents are not allowed to marry.

Very weird indeed :)

Well- that's the US for ya! We tend to do things a little backward sometimes-don't know if you've noticed. :)

[Omen88]

Well- that's the US for ya! We tend to do things a little backward sometimes-don't know if you've noticed. :)

Oh we notice that alright :)

[leekohler]

Oh we notice that alright :)

Ha-ha! I'm sure you do! :)

[angelneo]

Well, it's too late for everything else (premarital sex, gluttony, etc.), so why persecute gays? No, I would not try and pass a law against it. It doesn't affect anyone but the parties getting married or whatever. I don't see how allowing gay marriage would affect my life at all. Actually, why do you think gay is immoral? Given that you most probably have gay friends, you must have thought that they are immoral as well. The problem I have understanding your thoughts is that immoral is a strong word, saying an action is immoral but it is ok for others to do, sounds like you are trying to sit on both side of the fence. For example, I would consider killing innocent as immoral and I would certainly not consider another person who did that as my friend.

However, I must say I am not a religious person, my thoughts about right or wrong are based on how it affects other people, myself and the environment.

[PaRaGoNViCtiM]

You know, this is really sad. We (as a people) have come a very long way, and to still see that there are so many people so judgemental, hypocritiocal, and full of opression makes me sick. So many of you are saying "I'm against gay marriage, but I don't try to push my beliefs on anyone else." The whole reason gay marriage isn't yet nationally accepted, is because of people like you. Another big problem, is people who believe "being gay is a choice", if you're not gay, how the hell would you know! And screw the idea of "allow gay marriage, but call it something else." That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
The problem and the impression I'm getting from most of you, is that you wanna say "I don't believe in gay marriage, but I can tolerate gays." If you are in the way of something I think is my constitutional right, I sure as hell don't want you to tolerate me!

[Omen88]

Actually, why do you think gay is immoral? Given that you most probably have gay friends, you must have thought that they are immoral as well. The problem I have understanding your thoughts is that immoral is a strong word, saying an action is immoral but it is ok for others to do, sounds like you are trying to sit on both side of the fence. For example, I would consider killing innocent as immoral and I would certainly not consider another person who did that as my friend.

However, I must say I am not a religious person, my thoughts about right or wrong are based on how it affects other people, myself and the environment.

You could also say that a person cheating on his wife is immoral. But maybe he still will be your friend.

I don't have a problem with this person's view. I consider gay action with me involved to be a rather disturbing experience :) But what someone else does is fine, although it isn't something I would like. Calling it immoral might be a little too strong, but someone should be able to decide for himself what is and isn't moral.

[leekohler]

You know, this is really sad. We (as a people) have come a very long way, and to still see that there are so many people so judgemental, hypocritiocal, and full of opression makes me sick. So many of you are saying "I'm against gay marriage, but I don't try to push my beliefs on anyone else." The whole reason gay marriage isn't yet nationally accepted, is because of people like you. Another big problem, is people who believe "being gay is a choice", if you're not gay, how the hell would you know! And screw the idea of "allow gay marriage, but call it something else." That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
The problem and the impression I'm getting from most of you, is that you wanna say "I don't believe in gay marriage, but I can tolerate gays." If you are in the way of something I think is my constitutional right, I sure as hell don't want you to tolerate me!

Wow! Thanks! Remind me never to get on your bad side. :) But seriously, you said it.

[ldburroughs]

Each to their own. From a legal point of view marriage is a fairly good protector for both people involved should the relationship break down. The Church may have a different view.
Least a Christian Church should be able to forgive them of their 'sins', or did I miss the point of Mr.J.Christs main point?


From a legal point view, marriage is designed to be a protector of the family unit, not necessarily anyone interested in pairing up for life. This, of course, is what is currently under attack. I have no problem with some sort of legal construct of civil unions that protect partners, but not marriage applied under the same light. The "institution" of marriage is all about family. The future of the human race will depend a large part on the outcome of gay marriage. Society depends on the survival of the traditional family. Without it, there is nothing.

So, you can argue that divorce is prevalent in same sex couple marriages or that there are infertile married couples but that is not an argument for gay marriage. It doesn't make it right. It only adds to the fuel that's responsible for tearing us all apart. Be gay and be proud but don't take down society because you want to get "married". Live together and be happy. Make a will or draft an advanced medical directive. You can accomplish many of the same legal protections marriage already provides. There are too few other benefits to make it a worthwhile argument. I know it's inevitable. It will happen eventually. I just hope we wake up in time to make things right.

You can hate if you must but please keep an open mind. I'm sure that's what you'd like me to do.

[Omen88]

From a legal point view, marriage is designed to be a protector of the family unit, not necessarily anyone interested in pairing up for life. This, of course, is what is currently under attack. I have no problem with some sort of legal construct of civil unions that protect partners, but not marriage applied under the same light. The "institution" of marriage is all about family. The future of the human race will depend a large part on the outcome of gay marriage. Society depends on the survival of the traditional family. Without it, there is nothing.

So, you can argue that divorce is prevalent in same sex couple marriages or that there are infertile married couples but that is not an argument for gay marriage. It doesn't make it right. It only adds to the fuel that's responsible for tearing us all apart. Be gay and be proud but don't take down society because you want to get "married". Live together and be happy. Make a will or draft an advanced medical directive. You can accomplish many of the same legal protections marriage already provides. There are too few other benefits to make it a worthwhile argument. I know it's inevitable. It will happen eventually. I just hope we wake up in time to make things right.

You can hate if you must but please keep an open mind. I'm sure that's what you'd like me to do.

I don't see how the future of the human race can depend on the outcome of gay marriage. They are already gay, being able to marry or not is not going to change that.

I think you are making a too big deal out of this. There are far bigger threats to society than gay marriage. E.g. drugs, extremism, etc...

[leekohler]

From a legal point view, marriage is designed to be a protector of the family unit, not necessarily anyone interested in pairing up for life. This, of course, is what is currently under attack. I have no problem with some sort of legal construct of civil unions that protect partners, but not marriage applied under the same light. The "institution" of marriage is all about family. The future of the human race will depend a large part on the outcome of gay marriage. Society depends on the survival of the traditional family. Without it, there is nothing.

So-are you saying that everyone will turn gay if gay marriage is legal? And then nobody will have kids and the race will die out? Wow- I feel so powerful all of a sudden. :)

So, you can argue that divorce is prevalent in same sex couple marriages or that there are infertile married couples but that is not an argument for gay marriage. It doesn't make it right. It only adds to the fuel that's responsible for tearing us all apart. Be gay and be proud but don't take down society because you want to get "married". Live together and be happy. Make a will or draft an advanced medical directive. You can accomplish many of the same legal protections marriage already provides. There are too few other benefits to make it a worthwhile argument. I know it's inevitable. It will happen eventually. I just hope we wake up in time to make things right.

You can hate if you must but please keep an open mind. I'm sure that's what you'd like me to do.

And guess what? In most states with constitutional amendments, you can't draw up any sort of legal contract at all. Sorry my friend, but I fail to see how anyone's getting attacked but us. Gay families are the ones in trouble right now (yeah, some of us do have kids). I also resent your assertion that we are trying to take down society. We're barely 10% of the population! We can't take down anything! What is with all this fear?

[jayscheuerle]

The "institution" of marriage is all about family. The future of the human race will depend a large part on the outcome of gay marriage. Society depends on the survival of the traditional family. Without it, there is nothing... It doesn't make it right. It only adds to the fuel that's responsible for tearing us all apart. Be gay and be proud but don't take down society because you want to get "married". Live together and be happy. Make a will or draft an advanced medical directive. You can accomplish many of the same legal protections marriage already provides. There are too few other benefits to make it a worthwhile argument. I know it's inevitable. It will happen eventually. I just hope we wake up in time to make things right....

By society's survival, do you mean purely from a population increasing standpoint? Most of the gay parents of adopted children that I know of are better parents and provide a better family than the average heterosexual parents I see because they put a whole lot more thought and effort into getting a child.

I'd say that just about 100% of the kids that have done things along the lines of Columbine and other depraved acts of torture and rape have come from heterosexual parents. Nice intact traditional family units. I'd say the little girls dressing like whores and giving blowjobs at 12 years old also come from traditional families. This is what you want people to aim for and protect? Obviously, having a parent of each gender doesn't guarantee some moral utopia. It would be hard for gay parents to do worse. It would seem impossible from this heterosexual father's perspective...

[PaRaGoNViCtiM]

From a legal point view, marriage is designed to be a protector of the family unit, not necessarily anyone interested in pairing up for life. This, of course, is what is currently under attack. I have no problem with some sort of legal construct of civil unions that protect partners, but not marriage applied under the same light. The "institution" of marriage is all about family. The future of the human race will depend a large part on the outcome of gay marriage. Society depends on the survival of the traditional family. Without it, there is nothing.

So, you can argue that divorce is prevalent in same sex couple marriages or that there are infertile married couples but that is not an argument for gay marriage. It doesn't make it right. It only adds to the fuel that's responsible for tearing us all apart. Be gay and be proud but don't take down society because you want to get "married". Live together and be happy. Make a will or draft an advanced medical directive. You can accomplish many of the same legal protections marriage already provides. There are too few other benefits to make it a worthwhile argument. I know it's inevitable. It will happen eventually. I just hope we wake up in time to make things right.

You can hate if you must but please keep an open mind. I'm sure that's what you'd like me to do.
YOU KNOW WHAT...I'M NOT GONNA EVEN TOUCH THIS!! Take it Leekohler!!

[Yebot]

The recognition of the married couple by government and the added tax benefits that go with it were put in place for this purpose...

...making babies and promoting familes.

I say, if a gay couple wants to make a family (adopt), let 'em! And provide them the added benefits & protection under the law!

Leave religion out of government. No legislating from the bible.

AND keep the liberal agenda out of my dictionary. (Where it says marriage is b/w man and woman.)

[Omen88]

By society's survival, do you mean purely from a population increasing standpoint? Most of the gay parents of adopted children that I know of are better parents and provide a better family than the average heterosexual parents I see because they put a whole lot more thought and effort into getting a child.

I'd say that just about 100% of the kids that have done things along the lines of Columbine and other depraved acts of torture and rape have come from heterosexual parents. Nice intact traditional family units. I'd say the little girls dressing like whores and giving blowjobs at 12 years old also come from traditional families. This is what you want people to aim for and protect? Obviously, having a parent of each gender doesn't guarantee some moral utopia. It would be hard for gay parents to do worse. It would seem impossible from this heterosexual father's perspective...

It's hard to compare the children I think, because the number of children raised in gay families is so small compared to the "normal" families.

Which brings up the point that people should get a license to get children. Only questions is which totalitarian entity should grant the licenses :)

[jayscheuerle]

It's hard to compare the children I think, because the number of children raised in gay families is so small compared to the "normal" families.

Which brings up the point that people should get a license to get children. Only questions is which totalitarian entity should grant the licenses :)

Of course it's statistically difficult, but my point is; can they do worse?

[leekohler]

Which brings up the point that people should get a license to get children. Only questions is which totalitarian entity should grant the licenses :)

Right? You have to get a license to drive a car. But yeah- who would decide? That's the problem.

[Omen88]

Of course it's statistically difficult, but my point is; can they do worse?

No but letting 2 monkeys raise a child, can they do worse? I see your point though, I just like to argue (with both sides) :)

And please don't flame, I'm not comparing gays with monkeys. I'm comparing the worst parents with monkeys.

[Macaddicttt]

Actually, why do you think gay is immoral? Given that you most probably have gay friends, you must have thought that they are immoral as well. The problem I have understanding your thoughts is that immoral is a strong word, saying an action is immoral but it is ok for others to do, sounds like you are trying to sit on both side of the fence. For example, I would consider killing innocent as immoral and I would certainly not consider another person who did that as my friend.

However, I must say I am not a religious person, my thoughts about right or wrong are based on how it affects other people, myself and the environment.

To me, being gay is not immoral. That'd be like saying "You're black, therefore you're immoral. Not because of anything you did, but because you're black." That's stupid. To me, gay sex is immoral. It's on par with extramarital sex. I don't see why people call gay sex more immoral than extramarital sex.

As for murder, that's far worse than gay sex. Of course you might not want to associate with murderers. They made a choice to do one of the worst things possible. Gays, on the other hand, have simply allowed sexual desires to drive their motives. Who hasn't? It's far harder to resist sexual urges than resist making a conscious decision to kill someone. But as a Christian, I would be all for accepting murders along with anyone else. That would be pretty hard for me to do, but it's what I'd strive to do.

I think of gay friends the same way as my friends who have extramaritial sex.

[Omen88]

Right? You have to get a license to drive a car. But yeah- who would decide? That's the problem.

Normally nature decides by survival of the fittest. But it's my impression that stupid people tend to have more (stupid) children, and at earlier ages, than the smarter people.

Is nature wrong? Or am I wrong with my judging?

[ja0912]

This is a start that can't be finished. All churches will never accept the idea of gay marriage, so all that will happen is a fractured landscape of unions.

The problem is the word "marriage" having 2 meanings. One is a legal definition, upon which rights are conveyed and the other is a religious one, where each religion has its own ideas. Since every religion has their own separate idea of what a marriage means, there can be no definition. With no definition, marriage isn't a usable word in the context of religion without a defining prefix such as Catholic marriage, Jewish Marriage or Muslim marriage.

If States or countries create their own definitions, then once again, the word gets watered down to California marriage, German marriage, or even Camden County marriage! Where does it stop?

For a start, legal recognition needs to be completely separate from religious. A purely religious marriage should convey none of the legal benefits of the legal requirement. Anybody should be allowed to marry in the eyes of the law. Let churches sanctify their own marriages under their own definitions. Until we completely separate the two, where neither recognizes, nor crosses over into the other's territory (practical vs. spiritual), will we be able to settle on a working recognition of any desired union. Unfortunately, gays are pushing to be recognized in a spiritual way while churches are pushing for legal sway. I think there were some pretty good ideas about the separation of church and state around 229 years (and one day) ago.. Shame we've wandered a bit off the path... - j

I haven't read past this post yet, but this is EXACTLY what I think the problem is. Everything is a hell of a lot more difficult due to the fact that Legal Marriage and Religious Marriage are both called "Marriage". What a mess!

If homosexuals want to be married in the eyes of the church, that's totally up to the churches, and I wouldn't blame the the church at all for denying the privilege.

BUT, to be married in the eyes of the government is a COMPLETELY different thing. It shouldn't matter what gender the two people are. You're telling the government that your two lives are now joined, and you should be entitled to certain rights. Above all, a separate but equal label (civil union) is not acceptable either.

I'm straying off point. My point was simply that for homosexuals to be married in the eyes of the government would be tremendously more palatable to most Americans if it didn't imply a connection to religion, and to be fully married in the eyes of the government is all that homosexuals should feel entitled to.

[leekohler]

To me, being gay is not immoral. That'd be like saying "You're black, therefore you're immoral. Not because of anything you did, but because you're black." That's stupid. To me, gay sex is immoral. It's on par with extramarital sex. I don't see why people call gay sex more immoral than extramarital sex.

As for murder, that's far worse than gay sex. Of course you might not want to associate with murderers. They made a choice to do one of the worst things possible. Gays, on the other hand, have simply allowed sexual desires to drive their motives. Who hasn't? It's far harder to resist sexual urges than resist making a conscious decision to kill someone. But as a Christian, I would be all for accepting murders along with anyone else. That would be pretty hard for me to do, but it's what I'd strive to do.

I think of gay friends the same way as my friends who have extramaritial sex.

I seem to remember having this conversation with you before. You think all gay people should be celebate, right? At I think that was you...I don't think that's healthy at all. Repressing who I was put me in a hospital.

[mpw]

...Gays, on the other hand, have simply allowed sexual desires to drive their motives. Who hasn't? It's far harder to resist sexual urges than resist making a conscious decision to kill someone. But as a Christian, I would be all for accepting murders along with anyone else...
What if;
A gay man who has resisted the urge to have gay sex with his partner comes home to find his partner in bed having gay sex with another man and kills his partner in a jealous rage?
He's not immoral because he's gay and he's not immoral because he resisted the immoral urge to have gay sex.
His partner however is immoral because he hasn't resisted the gay sex and is also immoral because of the extra-'marital' sex.
The first not immoral gay man killed in a jealous rage so it could be argued that he did not make a conscious choice to murder so I guess he's still not immoral, but wait a minute isn't jealousy a sin too? Oh well they can have as much immoral gay sex as they like together in hell, of course the whole cheating/mrder thing might have soured the relationship by then. The irony is they'd have been happy together having lots of great gay sex if only they were able to follow their hearts on earth rather than worry about Christian morals.

[Macaddicttt]

I seem to remember having this conversation with you before. You think all gay people should be celebate, right? At I think that was you...I don't think that's healthy at all. Repressing who I was put me in a hospital.

Yeah, that was me. I stepped in to defend Christianity and got drawn in again... :)

[Omen88]

What if;
A gay man who has resisted the urge to have gay sex with his partner comes home to find his partner in bed having gay sex with another man and kills his partner in a jealous rage?
He's not immoral because he's gay and he's not immoral because he resisted the immoral urge to have gay sex.
His partner however is immoral because he hasn't resisted the gay sex and is also immoral because of the extra-'marital' sex.
The first not immoral gay man killed in a jealous rage so it could be argued that he did not make a conscious choice to murder so I guess he's still not immoral, but wait a minute isn't jealousy a sin too? Oh well they can have as much immoral gay sex as they like together in hell, of course the whole cheating/mrder thing might have soured the relationship by then. The irony is they'd have been happy together having lots of great gay sex if only they were able to follow their hearts on earth rather than worry about Christian morals.

No they shouldn't have married in the first place, because you should not marry someone you don't love.

Gays should be together, but just not have sex. :)
What a cruel world.

[Macaddicttt]

What if;
A gay man who has resisted the urge to have gay sex with his partner comes home to find his partner in bed having gay sex with another man and kills his partner in a jealous rage?
He's not immoral because he's gay and he's not immoral because he resisted the immoral urge to have gay sex.
His partner however is immoral because he hasn't resisted the gay sex and is also immoral because of the extra-'marital' sex.
The first not immoral gay man killed in a jealous rage so it could be argued that he did not make a conscious choice to murder so I guess he's still not immoral, but wait a minute isn't jealousy a sin too? Oh well they can have as much immoral gay sex as they like together in hell, of course the whole cheating/mrder thing might have soured the relationship by then. The irony is they'd have been happy together having lots of great gay sex if only they were able to follow their hearts on earth rather than worry about Christian morals.

Who said it had to be a conscious decision for it to be immoral. Murder is murder. But killing in a jelous rage isn't as bad (see. First, second, and third degree murder). So no, they all are in the wrong.

And why make up such a ridiculous situation? Now you're just getting silly. I'm pretty sure you know what I meant.

[Lyle]

As for murder, that's far worse than gay sex...I am mildly curious about how you (as a self-described Christian) came to this conclusion. I'm not criticizing you; as I said in an earlier post, there are a lot of Christians who have this mental model of some sins being worse than others, and you're entitled to those beliefs.

[Macaddicttt]

I am mildly curious about how you (as a self-described Christian) came to this conclusion. I'm not criticizing you; as I said in an earlier post, there are a lot of Christians who have this mental model of some sins being worse than others, and you're entitled to those beliefs.

Human life is sacred and the ultimate gift from God. Therefore, taking it is wrong. Gay sex is sexual gratification, merely caused by a weak will. It causes no harm to anyone (but oneself) and does not destroy life.

[leekohler]

I am mildly curious about how you (as a self-described Christian) came to this conclusion. I'm not criticizing you; as I said in an earlier post, there are a lot of Christians who have this mental model of some sins being worse than others, and you're entitled to those beliefs.

Oh Macaddicttt, you're in trouble now! :)

[raggedjimmi]

The Catholic church can have whatever rules it wants, if you don't want to agree to those rules you don't have too, either go to church and not be bothered by it or find another religion. A religion is not to change its beliefs because some people say it should.

amen brother ;)

if you dont like the rules you go elsewhere. hell if you want to change the fundamental rules of a religion then you might as well just switch all together, instead of changing a billion peoples ideas you can just change your own. which when i last checked was much easier.

similarly related, there was this story about this woman who had this weird looking face but downright refused surgery just on the grounds that "its not me who has to change, its everyone else"... umm... try changing 6+ billion peoples minds :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

amen brother ;)

if you dont like the rules you go elsewhere. hell if you want to change the fundamental rules of a religion then you might as well just switch all together, instead of changing a billion peoples ideas you can just change your own. which when i last checked was much easier.

First of all- no one here cares what any Church says or does. You are correct, they can do what they want- just as the UCC has done what it wants.

similarly related, there was this story about this woman who had this weird looking face but downright refused surgery just on the grounds that "its not me who has to change, its everyone else"... umm... try changing 6+ billion peoples minds :rolleyes:

This is a terrible example and makes you look really shallow.

[Lyle]

Oh Macaddicttt, you're in trouble now! :)No, no, I'm not looking to pick a fight. ;)

A lot of the comments in this thread come from people who aren't Christian, and don't claim to be. That's their choice, of course, but I don't feel it's productive for me to try and argue with them about why they're so wrong and I'm so right. It's a very personal decision that people have to make on their own.

On the other hand, when someone identifies themselves as a Christian I take a little more interest; not because I'm anxious to find some flaw in what they're saying, but just because I'm sincerely interested in hearing about how different Christians arrive at their particular interpretations of the Bible and Jesus' teachings. I certainly don't claim that my personal understanding is the only correct one; it has certainly changed over the years.

[leekohler]

No, no, I'm not looking to pick a fight. ;)

A lot of the comments in this thread come from people who aren't Christian, and don't claim to be. That's their choice, of course, but I don't feel it's productive for me to try and argue with them about why they're so wrong and I'm so right. It's a very personal decision that people have to make on their own.

On the other hand, when someone identifies themselves as a Christian I take a little more interest; not because I'm anxious to find some flaw in what they're saying, but just because I'm sincerely interested in hearing about how different Christians arrive at their particular interpretations of the Bible and Jesus' teachings. I certainly don't claim that my personal understanding is the only correct one; it has certainly changed over the years.

Oh- I know. I was just joking. Macaddicttt's a good guy-we've sparred before. :)

[Kushiro]

Since it seems that the major problem is the term 'marriage' in a legal context and in a religious context, why not eliminate marriage as a legal construct? All couples, straight and gay, can enter into a legal union. But you can only get 'married' in a church. Seems like the easiest and the fairest solution to me, but.....

EDIT: at least, it would eliminate a 'separate-but-equal' legal situation, while alowing those who seem the most concerned with the term 'marriage' to save some face.

[mpw]

...And why make up such a ridiculous situation? Now you're just getting silly. I'm pretty sure you know what I meant.

I used a ridiculous situation because it's sometimes easier to get a message across than with the more mundane day-to-day of life stories.

I suspect this is how the story in the Bible came about water to wine feeding the 5,000 etc. trouble is too many people have 'faith' that these ridiculous stories have been recorded verbatim which seems to give the lead character special powers he didn't really have. These perceived special power or attributes caught the imagination of some weak minded people and BAM they had themselves a bona-fide deity. The rest is history.

Strip God/Jesus away from Christianity and you might have a decent framework for a tolerant society that could be flexible and based on common sense, equality and fair-play. God give the weak something easy to cling to so they needn't think for themselves.

Do I know what you mean? You don't think being gay is acceptable for some reason, why that is I can't fathom.

[Macaddicttt]

Do I know what you mean? You don't being gay is acceptable for some reason why that is I can't fathom.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make grammatical sense. Could you please try again?

[PaRaGoNViCtiM]

Human life is sacred and the ultimate gift from God. Therefore, taking it is wrong. Gay sex is sexual gratification, merely caused by a weak will. It causes no harm to anyone (but oneself) and does not destroy life.
Okay, this is going too far now. You just offended me! Someone better HOLD ME BACK!!!!

[restless~native]

Since it seems that the major problem is the term 'marriage' in a legal context and in a religious context, why not eliminate marriage as a legal construct? All couples, straight and gay, can enter into a legal union. But you can only get 'married' in a church. Seems like the easiest and the fairest solution to me, but.....

EDIT: at least, it would eliminate a 'separate-but-equal' legal situation, while alowing those who seem the most concerned with the term 'marriage' to save some face.

Kushiro, stop making sense!!

[leekohler]

Okay, this is going too far now. You just offended me! Someone better HOLD ME BACK!!!!

Ok! Now, now boys! Calm down. :) But I do hear what you're saying. I certainly don't think gay sex is damaging to oneself, especially in a committed relationship. And to be fair, Macaddicttt was only expressing his opinion in order to clarify his position, even though we disagree.

[leekohler]

Since it seems that the major problem is the term 'marriage' in a legal context and in a religious context, why not eliminate marriage as a legal construct? All couples, straight and gay, can enter into a legal union. But you can only get 'married' in a church. Seems like the easiest and the fairest solution to me, but.....

EDIT: at least, it would eliminate a 'separate-but-equal' legal situation, while alowing those who seem the most concerned with the term 'marriage' to save some face.

Unfortunately, I don't see the powers-that-be permitting that to happen.

[huck500]

Yeah, that was me. I stepped in to defend Christianity and got drawn in again... :)

So it's OK to be gay, but not to have gay sex. Betraying and dealing vast emotional damage to a partner is morally equivalent to having a fulfilling, loving moment of intimacy with a partner...

Tell you what, I think it's ok to be a Christian, but it's morally repugnant to me that you try to influence or convert others to your religion or point of view. That's not based on what you typed entirely, I'm thinking of the horrible things that have been done by Christians to non-Christians in the name of redemption throughout history.

It's ok to be openly Christian, but don't expect any protection from the state, no more tax breaks for your church, no constitutional protection of your speech, no more money for your "faith-based initiatives." I find your lifestyle immoral, so you don't deserve any of that.

If you think I'm being facetious to make a point, you're wrong. :mad:

The point of religion:

Ben Franklin to Thomas Paine:

You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security.

Here's the complete letter... (http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=93)

Paine went on to publish "The Age of Reason" against Franklin's advice, and here is a statement from the beginning that sums up my feelings about religion, and why the current climate in the US is disturbing to me. Paine was roundly criticized for this work, and basically lost all the respect he had gained for building support for the revolution through his writings.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

Here's the complete text... (http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm)

[Macaddicttt]

So it's OK to be gay, but not to have gay sex. Betraying and dealing vast emotional damage to a partner is morally equivalent to having a fulfilling, loving moment of intimacy with a partner...

Tell you what, I think it's ok to be a Christian, but it's morally repugnant to me that you try to influence or convert others to your religion or point of view. That's not based on what you typed entirely, I'm thinking of the horrible things that have been done by Christians to non-Christians in the name of redemption throughout history.

It's ok to be openly Christian, but don't expect any protection from the state, no more tax breaks for your church, no constitutional protection of your speech, no more money for your "faith-based initiatives." I find your lifestyle immoral, so you don't deserve any of that.

If you think I'm being facetious to make a point, you're wrong. :mad:

The point of religion:



Here's the complete letter... (http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=93)

Paine went on to publish "The Age of Reason" against Franklin's advice, and here is a statement from the beginning that sums up my feelings about religion, and why the current climate in the US is disturbing to me. Paine was roundly criticized for this work, and basically lost all the respect he had gained for building support for the revolution through his writings.



Here's the complete text... (http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm)

I don't understand the point of this post. It has nothing to do with anything. It has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I assume you were trying to turn the situation around, replacing "gay" with "Christian."

Where did I say that gays should be legally repressed, that their free speech should be taken away, and they should not receive the legal benefits of marriage? I'm all for legalizing gay marriage. It doesn't affect me, so why should I care?

And as for quoting Paine and Franklin: huh? What do I care what Paine and Franklin said? Where did I say that I worship all the Founding Fathers and must do what they say?

I'm all for gay marriage, even though I think gay sex is wrong. I can't push my views on other people. That's silly. I was merely answering people's questions as to why I believe what I believe and defending the Church against such comments as, "Christianity only causes hate and all Christians are fundamentalist, Bible-beating, ignorant conservatives.

[ja0912]

Since it seems that the major problem is the term 'marriage' in a legal context and in a religious context, why not eliminate marriage as a legal construct? All couples, straight and gay, can enter into a legal union. But you can only get 'married' in a church. Seems like the easiest and the fairest solution to me, but.....

EDIT: at least, it would eliminate a 'separate-but-equal' legal situation, while alowing those who seem the most concerned with the term 'marriage' to save some face.

It would be great great thing, no doubt.

[Macaddicttt]

Okay, this is going too far now. You just offended me! Someone better HOLD ME BACK!!!!

Umm...okay...

I'm assuming the "weak will" part got you. Want me to list other sins that are caused by the same thing so that you won't feel like I'm singling you out?

Extramarital sex
Masturbation
Loosing your temper
Being mean to someone else

Must I go on? Why do gays insist on being insulted by everything anyone say? I'm not singling gays out, you are. I understand you have to be on the defensive a lot, but this is ridiculous. You're really creating a bad stereotype for gays for me here.

[Macaddicttt]

Ok! Now, now boys! Calm down. :) But I do hear what you're saying. I certainly don't think gay sex is damaging to oneself, especially in a committed relationship. And to be fair, Macaddicttt was only expressing his opinion in order to clarify his position, even though we disagree.

Thank you leeohler. I know you'll disagree with me on this, but I believe that since gay sex is morally wrong, it doesn't exactly help you on the whole heaven/hell thing (not that it automatically condemns you either). I'm just giving what I believe. I'm not forcing you to believe it. I'm not using the law to repress you.

[huck500]

My post has nothing to do with anything? I argued directly against one of your statements...do I need to explicitly state that I think your thinking is flawed? OK.

So it's OK to be gay, but not to have gay sex. Betraying and dealing vast emotional damage to a partner is morally equivalent to having a fulfilling, loving moment of intimacy with a partner...I think that's nonsensical and wrong.

The second part of the post was meant to apply the golden rule to the typical conservative view that gay marriage should be outlawed in the constitution... now that you post this, though, I'm not sure where you stand:

I'm all for gay marriage, even though I think gay sex is wrong.

I'll be more explicit here, too: What does this mean? That gays should be allowed to marry but they shouldn't have sex once they do? That's ridiculous.

The third part was meant to give people something interesting to read.

Please note that I said nothing about hate.

[angelneo]

Thank you leeohler. I know you'll disagree with me on this, but I believe that since gay sex is morally wrong, it doesn't exactly help you on the whole heaven/hell thing (not that it automatically condemns you either). I'm just giving what I believe. I'm not forcing you to believe it. I'm not using the law to repress you.
Even though we have different views and we still stand by it, it's great having this debate/conversation with you. At least I had fun. I am just glad this did not spiral down to mindless arguments and name-calling.

[Macaddicttt]

I'll be more explicit here, too: What does this mean? That gays should be allowed to marry but they shouldn't have sex once they do? That's ridiculous.

It means, "I think you're in the wrong, but I'm not gonna stop you." I feel the same way about a lot of things. I think extramarital sex is wrong, but I don't think it should be against the law. I think get ridiculously drunk is wrong, but I don't think it should be against the law. I think yelling at your mother is wrong, but I don't think it should be against the law. You believe what you want to believe, and I'll believe what I want to believe, okay?

Please note that I said nothing about hate.

I didn't mean to say you said anything about hate, I was just stating the reason why I stepped in in the first place.

[huck500]

It means, "I think you're in the wrong, but I'm not gonna stop you." I feel the same way about a lot of things. I think extramarital sex is wrong, but I don't think it should be against the law. I think get ridiculously drunk is wrong, but I don't think it should be against the law. I think yelling at your mother is wrong, but I don't think it should be against the law. You believe what you want to believe, and I'll believe what I want to believe, okay?

Cool. The way it should be. :)

edit: On the band - not my cup of tea, but congrats on getting it out there.

[Macaddicttt]

Cool. The way it should be. :)

edit: On the band - not my cup of tea, but congrats on getting it out there.

Thanks. I got it distributed by this company called The Orchard, and today I got a statement telling me where it was downloaded. Apparently it was downloaded not only in the US, but also in the UK and Canada through iTunes and Napster UK and Canada. I thought that was very cool, and also very unexpected.

[Macaddicttt]

Even though we have different views and we still stand by it, it's great having this debate/conversation with you. At least I had fun. I am just glad this did not spiral down to mindless arguments and name-calling.

I really like having these discussions, too. I hate it when Christians are portrayed as Bible-beating, ignorant fundamentalists, and I like putting a better face on Christians (well, some). I also like getting more people's opinions on things like this since I like to see things from all different sorts of points of view.

[risc]

I really like having these discussions, too. I hate it when Christians are portrayed as Bible-beating, ignorant fundamentalists, and I like putting a better face on Christians (well, some). I also like getting more people's opinions on things like this since I like to see things from all different sorts of points of view.

LMFAO dude telling someone they can't have sex with some one they love because you think it's immoral because the bible says so sounds pretty fundamentalist to me. You may of been polite about it but PUHLEESE!

Personally I don't care what people do in their own bedrooms, but then I also like masturbation and pre-marital sex I've been doing that for the last 5 years with my living in sin GF. Oh and the masturbation thing I think I'm f$cked I've been doing that for as long as I can.

[PaRaGoNViCtiM]

LMFAO dude telling someone they can't have sex with some one they love because you think it's immoral because the bible says so sounds pretty fundamentalist to me. You may of been polite about it but PUHLEESE!

Personally I don't care what people do in their own bedrooms, but then I also like masturbation and pre-marital sex I've been doing that for the last 5 years with my living in sin GF. Oh and the masturbation thing I think I'm f$cked I've been doing that for as long as I can.
Macaddict didn't just say that it's wrong for gays to have sex with someone they love, he also said that doing so is weak-willed and self damaging.

[vniow]

Okay, this is going too far now. You just offended me! Someone better HOLD ME BACK!!!!


Hey, you gays and lesbians have it easy. At least you can have sex with the opposite gender (assuming you're married of course) and still be considered moral. I'm trans so I'm screwed no matter what gender I marry or sleep with.

[solvs]

Hey, you gays and lesbians have it easy. At least you can have sex with the opposite gender (assuming you're married of course) and still be considered moral. I'm trans so I'm screwed no matter what gender I marry or sleep with.
See, now I'd think you'd have it easier. Because you could have sex with either and it wouldn't technically be "same-sex". At least as far as the fudamentalists are concerned. But then again, it must be sort-of confusing for you. Mostly, probably, thanks to societal influence. Were we more enlightened, this would not even be an issue. Watching my former girlfriend struggle with the truth about her sexuality thanks to the small-mindedness of those around her is eye-opening, yet I cannot imagine what you must go through thanks to those same types of people.

Perhaps people like myself are not helping... but please remember we do mean well, even if we do not fully understand. :o

[Don't panic]

LMFAO dude telling someone they can't have sex with some one they love because you think it's immoral because the bible says so sounds pretty fundamentalist to me.

the bible also dictates that they be put to death, although it specifically speaks about man on man, implying that woman on woman must be ok (and I suppose trans too).
It also goes to great lenght to list all types of incests that are not allowed (mother, mother in law, aunt, niece, sister, sister in law, adopted sisters and so on) but it cospicuosly omits the father-daughter relationship which was not forbidden. Go figure.

[rainman::|:|]

ah, so there are still people that consider masturbation 'wrong'. I guess, there have been enough schizophrenics who felt that relieving themselves was wrong too, and you know what, they **** the bed in their sleep. Same thing happens to the non-masturbation crowd, only it ain't **** ;) But it's ok. God wouldn't peek in anyway.

when you've come to the point where you're willing to forsake natural, healthy, biological functions for a belief in an invisible man, i think you're too far past the point of reason to argue with... I mean, i stopped talking to my invisible friend when I was about 6, at some point I had to live in reality.

huck500, right on.

[Macaddicttt]

LMFAO dude telling someone they can't have sex with some one they love because you think it's immoral because the bible says so sounds pretty fundamentalist to me. You may of been polite about it but PUHLEESE!

Personally I don't care what people do in their own bedrooms, but then I also like masturbation and pre-marital sex I've been doing that for the last 5 years with my living in sin GF. Oh and the masturbation thing I think I'm f$cked I've been doing that for as long as I can.

First of all, you must not know the definition of fundamentalism:

fundamentalism
n : the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth

Just because I believe in strict rules doesn't make me a fundamentalist. And what right do you have to criticize my beliefs? They are not based on ignorance, but careful thinking and I came to them after thinking about them for many years.

Plus, I never tried to make you believe the same thing, so stop acting like I am. I don't care if you masturbate or have extramarital sex.

Please don't be so rude to me by making fun of my beliefs. I have reasons behind my beliefs, where you only seem to have "PUHLEESE!" If you want to give your beliefs, do so. But please don't bash mine.

[Macaddicttt]

ah, so there are still people that consider masturbation 'wrong'. I guess, there have been enough schizophrenics who felt that relieving themselves was wrong too, and you know what, they **** the bed in their sleep. Same thing happens to the non-masturbation crowd, only it ain't **** ;) But it's ok. God wouldn't peek in anyway.

when you've come to the point where you're willing to forsake natural, healthy, biological functions for a belief in an invisible man, i think you're too far past the point of reason to argue with... I mean, i stopped talking to my invisible friend when I was about 6, at some point I had to live in reality.

huck500, right on.

Please see my response to risc. I don't understand why you people demand others to respect your beliefs and then promptly make fun of others. If you would like a discussion of the existence of God, start a thread in the political function. But please, don't just make these rude, off-hand comments that are simply designed to offend.

This one is especially bad, calling me a schizophrenic just because I believe something different than you and because I have a different set of morals. I can't believe your intolerance. It's absolutely astounding.

[Macaddicttt]

Macaddict didn't just say that it's wrong for gays to have sex with someone they love, he also said that doing so is weak-willed and self damaging.

I also said having extramarital sex was weak-willed and self damaging, even if it's with someone you love. Would you please stop singling out gays? I'm not, but you seem to want to something fierce.

[Macaddicttt]

You know what? This thread has become ridiculous. It started about a Christian denomination accepting gay marriages, then evolved into people giving their opinions. Now we all have given our opinions, and obviously we don't agree. Now it's turned into "Attack Macaddicttt for his beliefs while we stand by ours while giving no reasons for them. We have the majority, so let's enjoy it while it lasts."

Now you guys are just as bad as the Bible-beating fundamentalists. You're just making fun of the opposition and saying "You're wrong because I said so." Please just stop. We're getting nowhere.

[jayscheuerle]

You know what? This thread has become ridiculous. It started about a Christian denomination accepting gay marriages, then evolved into people giving their opinions. Now we all have given our opinions, and obviously we don't agree. Now it's turned into "Attack Macaddicttt for his beliefs while we stand by ours while giving no reasons for them. We have the majority, so let's enjoy it while it lasts."

Now you guys are just as bad as the Bible-beating fundamentalists. You're just making fun of the opposition and saying "You're wrong because I said so." Please just stop. We're getting nowhere.

Nicely put Macaddicttt.

I may not respect your views, but I respect your right to have them. It's also noteworthy that you can see the difference between holding oppressive views and desiring to see them enforced upon everybody.

- j

[leekohler]

Wow! This got interesting while I was sleeping! I think there's a lot of misunderstanding going on here. Macaddicttt has expressed his beliefs but also has said he has no intention of imposing them on others-legally or otherwise. In fact, he's against it. Even though I disagree with him, I still respect his right to his views and so should all of you. What's really disturbing to me is that this illustrates how much some people are not listening to each other these days.

[Macaddicttt]

Nicely put Macaddicttt.

I may not respect your views, but I respect your right to have them. It's also noteworthy that you can see the difference between holding oppressive views and desiring to see them enforced upon everybody.

- j

Thank you very much, jayscheuerle.

And leeohler, I knew I could count on you. Thanks.

[leekohler]

Thank you very much, jayscheuerle.

And leeohler, I knew I could count on you. Thanks.

No problem. BTW- your band is funny. :)

[Macaddicttt]

No problem. BTW- your band is funny. :)

Thanks. We do sorta go for the humor. We have a cover of Britiney Spears's Toxic, but we didn't record it due to copyright stuff... We also covered Stairway to Heaven.

[leekohler]

Thanks. We do sorta go for the humor. We have a cover of Britiney Spears's Toxic, but we didn't record it due to copyright stuff... We also covered Stairway to Heaven.

Well- Britney Spears IS toxic as far as I'm concerned. :)

[leekohler]

Well, I wonder when the first church bombing will be?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-briefs10.1jul10,1,3279324.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

[solvs]

Well, I wonder when the first church bombing will be?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-briefs10.1jul10,1,3279324.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
I'm amazed that the people who do this can call themselves Christians. These are the same people who so strongly condemn fundamentalist Muslims for the same types of things. Guess this doesn't count as terrorism. :rolleyes: Hypocrites. Jesus would be rolling over in his grave.

[colocolo]

You know what? This thread has become ridiculous. It started about a Christian denomination accepting gay marriages, then evolved into people giving their opinions. Now we all have given our opinions, and obviously we don't agree. Now it's turned into "Attack Macaddicttt for his beliefs while we stand by ours while giving no reasons for them. We have the majority, so let's enjoy it while it lasts."

Now you guys are just as bad as the Bible-beating fundamentalists. You're just making fun of the opposition and saying "You're wrong because I said so." Please just stop. We're getting nowhere.

I feel really bad for not backing you up in this thread. I share all of your views, even though I do commit some of the sins I stand against as much as I wished I didn't.

An early post I did on this thread had a phrase i threw in with the hope of making some people think, I said "0 tolerance with the Christian position". And that's what happens here. If you don't agree or don't condone every action of everybody, then it seems everyone has the right to bash and insult you. Isn't there any respect left?

No person is judging you, just expressing their opinions. Don't judge back. Much less in that way.

[leekohler]

I feel really bad for not backing you up in this thread. I share all of your views, even though I do commit some of the sins I stand against as much as I wished I didn't.

An early post I did on this thread had a phrase i threw in with the hope of making some people think, I said "0 tolerance with the Christian position". And that's what happens here. If you don't agree or don't condone every action of everybody, then it seems everyone has the right to bash and insult you. Isn't there any respect left?

No person is judging you, just expressing their opinions. Don't judge back. Much less in that way.

Hold on! Did you read my earlier post? I backed up Macaddicttt several times here and we could not be more opposite each other. MacRumors is generally pretty good for discussions of this nature.

[solvs]

"0 tolerance with the Christian position".
And as I said, why should be be tolerant of your intolerance. You are welcome to your opinion, but so is everyone else. People are going to disagree, and some people are going to be jerks no matter which side they land on. You kinda have to expect that in a public forum, especially one of this nature.

Sorry to be so matter of fact, but if you can't stand the heat...

[leekohler]

And as I said, why should be be tolerant of your intolerance. You are welcome to your opinion, but so is everyone else. People are going to disagree, and some people are going to be jerks no matter which side they land on. You kinda have to expect that in a public forum, especially one of this nature.

Sorry to be so matter of fact, but if you can't stand the heat...

And according to the UCC, the Christian position is not the same in all denominations.

[xsedrinam]

I'm amazed that the people who do this can call themselves Christians. These are the same people who so strongly condemn fundamentalist Muslims for the same types of things. Guess this doesn't count as terrorism. :rolleyes: Hypocrites. Jesus would be rolling over in his grave.

Hmmm. "rolling over in his grave"? Not quite the Paul Harvey side of Christianity, I'd say ;)
X

[leekohler]

Hmmm. "rolling over in his grave"? Not quite the Paul Harvey side of Christianity, I'd say ;)
X

Umm- I didn't think Jesus was in a grave. :)

[jsalzer]

Umm- I didn't think Jesus was in a grave. :)

He is said to have "come out", isn't he?

;)

I've been sitting on the side on this one (which is strange for me) because, not being a UCC'er, I didn't have much to contribute to the "original" topic. It's actually kind of nice to sit back and watch. :)

[Macaddicttt]

Hold on! Did you read my earlier post? I backed up Macaddicttt several times here and we could not be more opposite each other. MacRumors is generally pretty good for discussions of this nature.

Yes, leekohler has always been very good in these discussions. I always appreciate how he let's others give their opinions and isn't a jerk about it like some people can be. But in general most people are Mac Rumors are pretty darn accepting.

EDIT: I just realized that up until now, I've been spelling leekohler's name wrong. For some reason I have a hard time seeing that "k"....

[leekohler]

Yes, leekohler has always been very good in these discussions. I always appreciate how he let's others give their opinions and isn't a jerk about it like some people can be. But in general most people are Mac Rumors are pretty darn accepting.

EDIT: I just realized that up until now, I've been spelling leekohler's name wrong. For some reason I have a hard time seeing that "k"....

Ha-ha! I noticed it earlier, but let it go. :)