TitanTiger 20,499 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Weegs, two things: 1. If you want to drill down deep into this theological discussion, please do so on the thread already started. I realize theology and politics often intersect but if you're going to get this far in the weeds it needs it's own thread. 2. This is just a suggestion...argue your points with a little more humility. Your theological school of thought on this matter is but one in the grand scheme of orthodox Christianity. Greater minds than all of us combined have debated the finer points of grace and the law for centuries. Consider offering your take and the reasons for it in a more gracious manner that will encourage conversation rather than raise defensiveness. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 2. This is just a suggestion...argue your points with a little more humility. Your theological school of thought on this matter is but one in the grand scheme of orthodox Christianity. Greater minds than all of us combined have debated the finer points of grace and the law for centuries. Consider offering your take and the reasons for it in a more gracious manner that will encourage conversation rather than raise defensiveness. Thank you. Funny that you said that Titan. In most threads, I've noticed Weegs to be extremely respectful, and this was the first time I've really seen him lash out. That it took a serious theological discussion to do so is most impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Guys, I never lashed out, I stated what I believe to be the truth. Sorry if it came off that way, that wasn't my intent. I was actually posting in support of those that are homosexual. But, I guess no one saw that. Sorry again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Guys, I never lashed out, I stated what I believe to be the truth. Sorry if it came off that way, that wasn't my intent. I was actually posting in support of those that are homosexual. But, I guess no one saw that. Sorry again. I used "lashed out" as a default Weegs. I was hoping that from the way I worded it that you'd understand I hold you in high regard. I know the failing in explaining it is likely my fault, and I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Guys, I never lashed out, I stated what I believe to be the truth. Sorry if it came off that way, that wasn't my intent. I was actually posting in support of those that are homosexual. But, I guess no one saw that. Sorry again. I used "lashed out" as a default Weegs. I was hoping that from the way I worded it that you'd understand I hold you in high regard. I know the failing in explaining it is likely my fault, and I apologize. No, it was mine. I apologize. I can be a very divisive individual on here sometimes, and it doesn't help what I try to convey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Guys, I never lashed out, I stated what I believe to be the truth. Sorry if it came off that way, that wasn't my intent. I was actually posting in support of those that are homosexual. But, I guess no one saw that. Sorry again. I used "lashed out" as a default Weegs. I was hoping that from the way I worded it that you'd understand I hold you in high regard. I know the failing in explaining it is likely my fault, and I apologize. No, it was mine. I apologize. I can be a very divisive individual on here sometimes, and it doesn't help what I try to convey. No need to apologize. Unlike others among us, you can accept even undeserved humility, and that tells me that I will always listen to what you have to say. That you are capable of apologizing at all, regardless of whether you needed to, means I should always consider your perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Guys, I never lashed out, I stated what I believe to be the truth. Sorry if it came off that way, that wasn't my intent. I was actually posting in support of those that are homosexual. But, I guess no one saw that. Sorry again. It's all water under the bridge. No harm no file. I just hope that you did not feel the need to support homosexuals because of anything that I said. My daughter is gay and I would never put her in harms way and defend her with my life. I don't defend her lifestyle but I respect her and love her none the less. She is the apple of my eye. Her take on this is to get rid of marriage in the law and treat single people (esp. single parents) know differently than married people. I asked her about benefits after a loved one passes and she says "a single person is not lesser than a straight or gay person". "A single parent has no help from anyone now and no hope of any help in the future". "Life is hard, deal with it." LOL. Gotta love em! I use to not think about same sex marriage that much because it did not interest me. She is the one that supports not changing definitions of words we currently accept. Be creative and make new name is her motto. (I stole her idea of a "love union") She studies French and Hebrew but is fluent in Spanish. Linguistics and books mean a lot to her. she has a poster that reads, “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” She gave me my zeal for the word marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Which brings my attention back to the discussion. Does anyone here feel that same sex marriage benefits our country in any way? (I only mean this in the realm of procreation helps a society survive way of thinking) If you feel that it does benefit our country and/or government please explain how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I am not sure what "benefit to the country" has to do with it. Can you explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Which brings my attention back to the discussion. Does anyone here feel that same sex marriage benefits our country in any way? (I only mean this in the realm of procreation helps a society survive way of thinking) If you feel that it does benefit our country and/or government please explain how. Well, I don't believe the simple act of procreation necessarily helps our society except, I suppose, if we faced such a dire decrease in mere numbers we could not maintain our economic or national defense needs. (But we do not, as yet, face a crisis of declining population.) It's not the number of babies born each year, but the number of those children that grow up to be responsible, productive, contributing and caring members of society that determines the success of our nation. It takes responsible, contributing, and caring parent(s) to create such a next generation, and I don't believe gender or number of parents (i.e., single or plural) automatically assures or prevents good parenting. How many children are in foster care, orphanages, broken homes, etc. that desperately need parent(s) to raise them, not merely a uterus to give birth to them? How many children of traditional marriages become liabilities to society rather than assets because their heterosexual parents fail at the role of raising responsible adults?In any case, procreation is moot point and not the issue. Same sex couples are not going to reproduce whether their marriage is legally recognized or not. But then, neither are many opposite sex couples! Fertility or procreation has never been a requirement for marriage, nor should it be. Legalizing gay marriage will have zero consequences as far as number of children born each year. Should infertile heterosexual individuals be denied the right to marry? Should we require all couples to prove their reproductive abilities by giving birth out of wedlock before we issue marriage licenses? Should we fine straight couples who choose not to reproduce? When have we ever required persons applying for a marriage license to prove their "benefit to our country" before granting such licences? Who wants the responsibility or has the wisdom to define or evaluate someone's "benefit to society"? Certainly not I! But recognizing gay marriage does have benefits to our society: It extends our founding principle that all persons are equal in the sight of the law, and sends this message to the world. It will, hopefully, reduce discrimination, hate, bullying, and violence based on gender orientation alone, and by promoting the happiness of persons who are gay it can increase their productivity and contributions to our society. Of course, benefits or not, the bottom line is: It (granting equal rights to all) is the right thing to do! ...at least in my humble opinion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiveEmElle 1,559 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Some dates you might grind interesting from a civil rights chronology I am using for research purposes. Sorry don't have the link with me to post. It's on my work computer. 1973: the BOT of the American Psyciatric Assiciation votes unanimously to strike from its manuals the classification of homosexuality as a mental illness. 1975: The AMA calls for the repeal of all state laws barring homosexual acts between consenting adults. 1984: The Supreme Court rules that states do have the right to outlaw homosexual acts between consenting adults. 1996: the ENDA bill fails to pass by one vote. There are still people today battling for basic civil rights in this country. I find that very sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I am not sure what "benefit to the country" has to do with it. Can you explain? I was prodding peoples thoughts only thinking from the debate of why the government even recognized marriage in the first place. Here is something someone wrote to understand the angle in which I was asking the question. I had no motives just wanted fresh takes on the subject. copy and paste... "The original question was , “Why is marriage recognized by government anyway?” A problem with this question is that it has so many aspects. The discussion can go off in many directions. Let us break the question into its basic parts. “How does government recognize marriage?” and “Why does government recognize it?” The word, “anyway” also asks the question, “Why not have the government just stop recognizing marriage all together?” How does government recognize marriage? Sharpening the question, “How do the US Government and the state governments recognize government heterosexual marriage?” This question is a matter of verifiable facts, not opinions. It is written in the laws. This allows the discussion to be narrowed by not discussing religious marriage or other governments or the history of marriage for the thousands of years prior to the founding of the US. Our government only recognizes the marriage of couples with government issued marriage licenses. Therefore we can eliminate discussion of unlicensed person marriages and unlicensed religious marriages. For a start, we should also eliminate discussion of same-sex marriage. Discussion of same-sex marriage tends to complicate and inflame. If we can answer this question for heterosexual marriage we can later see how that answer fits with same-sex marriage. At the founding of the US, government had little to do with marriage. Over the next 220 years laws dealing with marriage accumulated. Until the 20th century, government marriage was largely a matter for the states. The states issued marriage licenses, benefits and laws dealing with marriage. The federal government began giving financial benefits to couples with marriage licenses after about 1913. Why did our governments enact these laws? There does not seem to be a consistent philosophical concept or goal guiding these laws. Many were instituted to serve other political interests. For example one of the original purposes of marriage licenses was to prevent interracial marriages. Another purpose of some marriage laws was to help enforce eugenics. A purpose of giving special Social Security benefits to married couples was to gain support for Social Security. Allowing joint filing and income averaging for married couples lessened the opposition to income taxation. Why did our government do all this? The real answer is not knowable and therefore anyone of us can speculate as to the government’s reasons and debate is not likely to be productive. The real question for productive debate is, “What should the role of our governments be in government heterosexual marriage and why?” The arguments for keeping the laws as they are tend to be: 1. It is not practical to change the laws and benefits. 2. People with government marriage licenses would never accept a change 3. The present laws make issues such as wills convenient 4. Government has an interest in promoting stable families 5. The laws give status and prestige to married couples None of these arguments is very compelling. There is nothing unconstitutional, unfair, or immoral about changing or removing any or all the current marriage laws. There is no indication that these government laws have improved family stability. The divorce rate has generally been increasing along with increasing marriage laws, benefits and programs. Even very intelligent and articulate advocates arguing for continuance of government marriage programs has a tough time because the case is so weak. The case can be picked apart law by law, benefit by benefit until there is nothing left. No one of them can be justified. They can all be eliminated or made available to single people. If government marriage no longer exists, then the argument about government allowing government same-sex marriage becomes moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Question for all......why does a relationship between same sexes have to be called marriage? Why not call it a civil union and give all the benefits given to a man and woman in a marriage relationship. Wouldn't that solve the semantics, religious, and legal problems with same sex "marriage"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I agree PT. Why would this NOT be the solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Question for all......why does a relationship between same sexes have to be called marriage? Why not call it a civil union and give all the benefits given to a man and woman in a marriage relationship. Wouldn't that solve the semantics, religious, and legal problems with same sex "marriage"? That would appease my worries. Heck, I am willing to volunteer my title that is recognized by government be changed to "civil union". Separate church from state even farther. Equal rights is given and us worry warts get to keep our silly name and definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Question for all......why does a relationship between same sexes have to be called marriage? Why not call it a civil union and give all the benefits given to a man and woman in a marriage relationship. Wouldn't that solve the semantics, religious, and legal problems with same sex "marriage"? Because we passed the point long ago of this really being about mere benefits or legalities. Hell, that could have been done with something as simple as a standardized contract drawn up between the two consenting parties detailing things like visitation rights, power of attorney, inheritance, medical decisions and so on. It's about acceptance and conformity and the attempted removal from the marketplace of ideas of anyone who disagrees with the notion that marriage is whatever the winds of culture say it is today, or tomorrow or when our feelings change. That's why they don't want a contract, or a civil union. They know the word "marriage" has a certain power and that is part of the ultimate goal here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Titan....I guess so but all that could be taken care of with a bill in each state voted on by the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Which states would pass such a bill? (beyond the left leaning usual) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 WT....I mean a bill defining what is civil union and what is marriage. Don't you think the people in lots of states would go for that. Heck even liberal California voted for a law banning same sex "marriage" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Titan....I guess so but all that could be taken care of with a bill in each state voted on by the people. You could propose it and have everyone on the conservative side agree with it and it would still be a non-starter. Because like I said, it really isn't about that. It's about a fundamental change in society. Anything short of treating it EXACTLY like heterosexual marriage right down to the semantics falls short of that goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 True but nothing is impossible to change. Even now the majority of people think of marriage as husband and wife. In a same sex marriage who is who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Titan....I guess so but all that could be taken care of with a bill in each state voted on by the people. You could propose it and have everyone on the conservative side agree with it and it would still be a non-starter. Because like I said, it really isn't about that. It's about a fundamental change in society. Anything short of treating it EXACTLY like heterosexual marriage right down to the semantics falls short of that goal. 100% correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 According to this guy, acceptance of homosexuality actually makes societies better. Of course these societies and civilizations accepted pedophilia as normal. http://appliedsentience.com/2013/07/19/a-global-historical-survey-does-accepting-homosexuality-lead-to-civilizational-ruin/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 True but nothing is impossible to change. Even now the majority of people think of marriage as husband and wife. In a same sex marriage who is who? When you've already decided to undertake and force through a fundamental redefining of what marriage is and what it's for, such terms are archaic. Look for future marriage licenses to simply list "partner" rather than designations like "husband" or "wife." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Probably true but sad nonetheless. A minority changes a cornerstone of our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.