|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2005 08:53:56 PM · #451 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I was going to add that if a majority in your State of Florida decided, for whatever reason, that you shouldn't marry your wife, RonB, based on whatever prejudices of the day were in vogue, that would be okay with you? |
It depends. If what they decided was revealed in a newpaper article, it wouldn't matter to me one whit. If, on the other hand, their decision was made in a referendum that resulted in it being codified, then no, it would'nt be OK.
But then again, whether it's OK with me or not is STILL not germain to the issue. I do not get to pick and chose which laws are legal. They all are, until and unless stricken by a higher court. If the law says that I have to pass a bar exam to get a license to practice law, it doesn't matter whether it's OK with me or not. It's the law.
Now, if we were REALLY upset about the law against marrying, and if we were REALLY intent on marrying, and we knew that the majority would continue to thwart our attempts to change the law, and we knew that it was a matter of state's rights, so no chance of a reversal on appeal was likely, then rather than continue complaining long and loud about the law, we would just move to a place where we COULD marry. I understand that Canada is nice in summer. And I believe that Texas still supports heterosexual marriage. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 09:43:15 PM · #452 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
This one makes me giggle... the premise of Intelligent Design is that life is too complex to have formed without the guidance of a creator. Huh? Since when is something impossible because it's complicated? The implied paradox is that it's SO complex that someone must have been smart enough to think of it. Riiiiiight! |
It is not a matter of the degree of complexity, but one of irreducable complexity. Take the human eye as an example: In order to "see" something there are a number of "things" that are required.
1) We need a way to "point" the eye - the tripod - the extraocular muscles ( 6 on each eye )
1) We need a way to increase/decrease the amount of light entering the eye - a diaphragm - the pupil ( a sphincter muscle )
2) We need a way to control the size of the diaphagm ( pupil ) - a shutter - the iris ( 3 layers )
3) We need a way to focus the light - a set of lenses - the cornea ( 5 layers ) and the crystalline lens ( 4 layers )
4) We need a way to keep the cornea ( outer lens ) clean and keep it from drying out - lens cleaner - tear film ( 3 layers )
5) We need a way to alter the focal point of the lenses - the focusing ring - the uvea
6) We need to "fill" the distance between the lenses and the focal plane - focal distance - the vitreous humor
7) We need to have receptors - the focal plane - the retina
8) We need to have a receptors - sensors - rods and cones
9) We need to convert the "light" received by the sensors into electrical impulses - the optic nerve
10) We need to have brain functionality to "interpret" those impulses
Now. If we were to entertain the theory of macro evolution, in what order would the 10 required "things" have developed? And what would be the "purpose", evolutionarily speaking for some of them without all of them?
I could entertain a rationale for saying that evolution moved from only RODS to rods & CONES. I could even entertain a rationale for limited extraocular muscles ( say, only 2 on each eye to begin with ). BUT, what good are RODS without LENSES? What good are LENSES without a PUPIL? What good is a PUPIL without an IRIS? What good is a CORNEA if it can't be kept moist and clean? What good is any of it without optic nerves?
In other words, even the simplest eye requires MORE than ONE thing, none of which would be evolutionarily purposeful without ALL of them.
Same argument for hearing, Same for smell. Same for taste. Same for kidneys, livers, lungs, the reproductive organs, etc.
That is irreducable complexity. And the argument for intelligent design. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 10:12:26 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
This is for Ronb and ScottK and any one else who care to read it:
My whole point in my last several posts is this:
All of these christian extremists who are trying to push their ideals and "morals" on the other 67% of the world need to get a friggin clue. Your bible is twisted and wrong for 67% of the world. it might be right for you, and fine, i hope it is (at least some parts, other parts are totally sick) but don't try to push your religion and your bible and your god on the rest of us. |
Are you talking to ME? If so, I don't know why. I haven't "pushed" my religion OR my bible OR my God on anyone. All I have done is a) answer the question posed by Olyuzi for Biblical references to homosexual behaviour in the Bible, and b) from that point forward, responded to those who either sought additional information, or started arguing about why I believed the Bible was the Word of God, or what version I believed, etc. etc - namely THEY were asking ME questions, I didn't initiate the dialogue.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
this is what YOUR god and YOUR bible says about gay men:
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. - Leviticus 20:13 (New King James Version)
yeah, there are about 25 translations of this phrase, but they all say basically the same thing. That gay people should be killed.
that's just sick. |
Yes, and that's OLD Testament. I have already responded that there is a NEW Testament that takes precedence, and that I do not strictly APPLY the rules that were given in the OLD Testament unless they were renewed in the NEW Testament.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
so stop pushing your religion on the rest of us as fact, when there is nothing factual about the bible. |
Again, I am not, nor have I ever "pushed" my religion on anyone. But to be blunt, you are absolutely wrong when you say there is nothing factual about the bible. Other than the minor skirmish about whether the bible accurately defined pi, no one in any of these threads has shown me anything to refute the historical, archeological, scientific, etc. etc. statements of the bible.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Yeah, i believe in god, goddess, allah, whatever you want to call it, i'm just sick and tired of all you extremists pushing your crap on the rest of us as if you're all high and mighty. |
You really are hung up on the "pushing" stuff, aren't you. I would take offense, except that I am not a valid object of your wrath ( even though you point me out in your opening remarks ). I am not an extremist, and I am anything but high and mighty. I have admitted on multiple occasions that I am as guilty of sin as anyone, and no better than anyone.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
gay couples aren't going to your churches and having gay sex on the alter, so get the hell out of their bedrooms with your fire and brimstone sermons about how god hates them and they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. |
Once again, I must say that your wrath is misdirected. I have never said anything about gay couples being destined to a fire and brimstone future. My ONLY reference to gays and fire and brimstone in the same paragraph was in an historical reference to the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah.
I have NEVER said that God hates them. In fact I said that it has always been and always will be God's will to reconcile ALL men ( generic term, includes women ) to Himself.
Nor have I said that gay couples do not deserve the same rights as everyone else. In fact I have not commented on the merits of the issue at all in this thread. I have only pointed out that if their arguments were applied universally it would result in a country that would be unsustainable - because there are MANY sub-classes that want "equal rights" that "everyone else in the country" enjoys.
For the record - and I have stated this in other Rant threads, so am repeating it here now for those who might actually believe the accusations against me - is that, while I agree that "marriage" ought to be a strictly religious ordinance; that legal partnerships ought to be called "civil unions", "domestic partnerships", or whatever, and NOT be restricted to only a one-man/one-woman partnership, and that all such "domestic partnerships" have equal rights under the law.
I think that Texans were right to define "marriage" in the way that they did, BUT, I think that they were completely wrong in codifying the wording that prohibits future classifications of legal partnerships that would be on a par with "marriage" as it now exists ( that is, for legal purposes ). |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 10:42:24 PM · #454 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Yes, and that's OLD Testament. I have already responded that there is a NEW Testament that takes precedence, and that I do not strictly APPLY the rules that were given in the OLD Testament unless they were renewed in the NEW Testament. |
Huh? I thought the whole Bible was the inspired, infallible and literal word of God, as channeled by the various Prophets. You're saying it's OK to pick and choose which parts are valid and which parts are inconsistent and illogical? Hooray!
BTW: In this comparison of the Ten Commandments as written in Exodus and Deuteronomy, the Sixth Commandment reads simply "Thou shalt not kill." I recall you writing somewhere that it meant something different.
More BTW: The religion of my heritage says your New Testament is revisionist history, while adherents of Islam treat the Koran much as you treat your New Testament. If there's really ony one God, He must have some (perverse) reason for revealing His Word in such divergent and contradictory ways.
Message edited by author 2005-11-11 22:47:11. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 10:45:42 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
You still haven't addressed the question about how homosexuals marrying will affect you. So you have a homosexual couple living next door to you now, unmarried. If that same homosexual couple were living next door to you but they were married, has the fact of their marriage affected your life one iota? |
Originally posted by RonB:
If you answer this question, you will find the answer to the question you asked.
You have never answered THIS question. How would a prayer at a high-school graduation ceremony affect YOU, or the others?
So, there is student who earned the honor of being class Valedictorian. He/she just happens to be a devout Christian and would like to, in addition to thanking her family, friends, and faculty in his/her Valedictory speech, offer up a prayer to God for helping her to reach her goals. How would her prayer affect your life one iota?
Answer that, and you will also know MY answer. |
I have never been asked the question you pose to me here, so saying that I've never answered it is, I suppose, technically accurate but grossly misleading and meaningless. In any event, my answer is that her prayer wouldn't affect my life at all. Now, if you mean to enter into a debate about the establishment of religion, I think you picked a bad example. |
I would agree if that were my intent - but it wasn't. My intent was to point out that the issue is about individual, and collective tolerance. The proponents of homosexual marriage want everyone to say that they deserve the "right" to marry even though many if not the majority oppose it. The proponents of freedom to pray on an individual basis in ANY venue, say that they deserve the "right" to free speech, even though many, if not the majority oppose it. I was just interested to find out if you were an equal opportunity proponent.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
If you're attempting to draw parallels between establishment of religion principles and the principles of your belief system, perhaps I'm dense today but I don't see them as being analogous. |
Hopefully, I explained it a little better above.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But beyond that, it would be awfully nice if, just once, you wouldn't be so obtuse and would just give a straight answer to a straight question without all the double-talk, feints and duck-and-cover games. |
Yes'm. Homosexuals marrying will affect me because I believe that "marriage" is an institution ordained by God, and it's already offensive enough to see it disgraced by heterosexuals that trivialize it ( ala Brittney Spears ) or do not revere it ( ala the 50+% divorce rate in the U.S. ). It would really offend me to see it completely mocked by enlarging its definition to encompass unions that are clearly outside of God's intent when He established that institution.
Note: I am speaking of the institution called "marriage"; I am NOT speaking of the LEGAL partnership [u]called[/] marriage. I do not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships, nor the expansion of rights under the legal partnership.
If the homosexual couple living next door were granted the legal right to "marry", it would affect my life greatly. Even if the issue came up on a referendum, it would affect my life greatly. I would be forced to do more than just write about it in a Rant thread. I would have to join a group or start a group and engage in letter writing campaigns, money raising campaigns, political advertising, etc. to combat the eroding of the institution.
I would also have to become engaged in the political process to find out why civil union or domestic partnership laws weren't sufficient - why it had to be "marriage" at any cost. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 10:50:33 PM · #456 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Everything's according to the collective conscience of the particular demographic? |
In the democratic republic called the United States, yes. Especially so since ratification of the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. |
Oh, the tyranny of the majority. |
Yep. Alexander Tyler said it well: "A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury."
I see this every day - and more so in an election year. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 10:55:13 PM · #457 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Note: I am speaking of the institution called "marriage"; I am NOT speaking of the LEGAL partnership [u]called[/] marriage. I do not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships, nor the expansion of rights under the legal partnership. |
Laws legalizing gay marriage only affects the legal contract as you put it. Therefore, what you want is to make sure your church does not recognize gay marriages, as they are free to do as a private organization. However, what you (or most people opposing gay marriage) is to deny gay couples their full and equal civil rights, for the purposes of legal responsibility, taxes, property ownership, inheritance, child custody, etc. None of those are any of the Church's business.
So, what harm is there in the State recognizing the right of any two people to enter into the legal contract we now refer to as marriage, and affording them all the legal rights to which they'd then be entitled. The State's not going to force your church to perform any ceremony, while your church's ceremony is legally meaningless without the civil license.
Every other form is supposed to be gender-neutral (and race-neutral), so why should this form be any different? |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 10:57:47 PM · #458 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
You still haven't addressed the question about how homosexuals marrying will affect you. So you have a homosexual couple living next door to you now, unmarried. If that same homosexual couple were living next door to you but they were married, has the fact of their marriage affected your life one iota? |
Originally posted by RonB:
If you answer this question, you will find the answer to the question you asked.
You have never answered THIS question. How would a prayer at a high-school graduation ceremony affect YOU, or the others?
So, there is student who earned the honor of being class Valedictorian. He/she just happens to be a devout Christian and would like to, in addition to thanking her family, friends, and faculty in his/her Valedictory speech, offer up a prayer to God for helping her to reach her goals. How would her prayer affect your life one iota?
Answer that, and you will also know MY answer. |
I have never been asked the question you pose to me here, so saying that I've never answered it is, I suppose, technically accurate but grossly misleading and meaningless. In any event, my answer is that her prayer wouldn't affect my life at all. Now, if you mean to enter into a debate about the establishment of religion, I think you picked a bad example. |
I would agree if that were my intent - but it wasn't. My intent was to point out that the issue is about individual, and collective tolerance. The proponents of homosexual marriage want everyone to say that they deserve the "right" to marry even though many if not the majority oppose it. The proponents of freedom to pray on an individual basis in ANY venue, say that they deserve the "right" to free speech, even though many, if not the majority oppose it. I was just interested to find out if you were an equal opportunity proponent.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
If you're attempting to draw parallels between establishment of religion principles and the principles of your belief system, perhaps I'm dense today but I don't see them as being analogous. |
Hopefully, I explained it a little better above.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But beyond that, it would be awfully nice if, just once, you wouldn't be so obtuse and would just give a straight answer to a straight question without all the double-talk, feints and duck-and-cover games. |
Yes'm. Homosexuals marrying will affect me because I believe that "marriage" is an institution ordained by God, and it's already offensive enough to see it disgraced by heterosexuals that trivialize it ( ala Brittney Spears ) or do not revere it ( ala the 50+% divorce rate in the U.S. ). It would really offend me to see it completely mocked by enlarging its definition to encompass unions that are clearly outside of God's intent when He established that institution.
Note: I am speaking of the institution called "marriage"; I am NOT speaking of the LEGAL partnership [u]called[/] marriage. I do not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships, nor the expansion of rights under the legal partnership.
If the homosexual couple living next door were granted the legal right to "marry", it would affect my life greatly. Even if the issue came up on a referendum, it would affect my life greatly. I would be forced to do more than just write about it in a Rant thread. I would have to join a group or start a group and engage in letter writing campaigns, money raising campaigns, political advertising, etc. to combat the eroding of the institution.
I would also have to become engaged in the political process to find out why civil union or domestic partnership laws weren't sufficient - why it had to be "marriage" at any cost. |
So the same thing could be used about what I posted about 1912 ... Right ???
Remember interracial marrage was considered immoral at the time by the religious folks ... be intellectually honest ... If you can agree that Gay marrage is immoral... then you must agree that interracial marrage is immoral... what say you?
Also... I agree with you that civil unions would surfice IMHO... but the Texas law even stuck that down...
Message edited by author 2005-11-11 23:00:04. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 11:05:54 PM · #459 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by RonB:
So, there is student who earned the honor of being class Valedictorian. He/she just happens to be a devout Christian and would like to, in addition to thanking her family, friends, and faculty in his/her Valedictory speech, offer up a prayer to God for helping her to reach her goals. How would her prayer affect your life one iota?
Answer that, and you will also know MY answer. |
Rather than face the definite possibility that I might be wrong in my perception, I would much prefer having you tell me what your answer is and then I could establish if indeed we are viewing this from similar perspectives my dear friend.
Unlike quite a number of the players in this forum, I have no interest in getting involved in circular discussion with you.... Tell me what your answer is.....and I will readily tell you if it indeed is in agreement with my views......end of discussion. |
Perhaps if y'all could ask questions that were not "preloaded" I would be more inclined to answer them. For instance, since this entire debate/discussion is about homosexual marriage, and much of the discussion has been centered around what the difference is between "marriage" and mere "civil unions", when the question is how would my life be affected if the homosexuals next door were married, is a loaded question: 1) it presumes that my state already recognized "marriage" as being the "legal" term that indicates state recognition of the union, OR b) it presumes that the state does NOT recognize a legal union, but that the couple found a church that "married" them in a religious ceremony, OR c) the couple went to Canada, got legally "married" and then came back to the US where their "marriage" is NOT legally recognized. So how am I to answer the question? It's three questions, at least. And you want me to answer it directly and simply. Sorry. Whatever answer I give, would only lead to someone jumping on me because they "meant" it a different way than I answered it.
If anyone wants me to answer their questions, I would ask that they state their question or questions in very straighforward, simple, unambiguous, non-presumptive terms.
For THIS discussion, I would also ask them to differentiate homosexual orientation from homosexual behaviour. Homosexuality has been used to define one, the other, and/or both. If, in response to a loaded question where the differentiation is unclear, I say that I believe that homosexuality ( the behaviour ) is a sin, then I am accused ( unfairly ) of saying that I hate homosexuals ( the people who have the orientation ), which is NOT true. Hence, I avoid answering loaded questions. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 11:14:49 PM · #460 |
Ron... Are you saying that you are bothered by simply the use of the term "marrage"...If they called it "legally regognized commited union" or some such... you would have no problem with the concept at all???
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 11:27:34 PM · #461 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Yes, and that's OLD Testament. I have already responded that there is a NEW Testament that takes precedence, and that I do not strictly APPLY the rules that were given in the OLD Testament unless they were renewed in the NEW Testament. |
Huh? I thought the whole Bible was the inspired, infallible and literal word of God, as channeled by the various Prophets. |
It is.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You're saying it's OK to pick and choose which parts are valid and which parts are inconsistent and illogical? |
I'm not saying that, But if doing so give you a way to rationalize the sin you commit, and eases your conscience in so doing, go for it.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hooray!
BTW: In this comparison of the Ten Commandments as written in Exodus and Deuteronomy, the Sixth Commandment reads simply "Thou shalt not kill." I recall you writing somewhere that it meant something different. |
Yes. The word in the original Greek manuscripts is more akin to "murder" - i.e. Thou shalt not MURDER.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
More BTW: The religion of my heritage says your New Testament is revisionist history, while adherents of Islam treat the Koran much as you treat your New Testament. If there's really ony one God, He must have some (perverse) reason for revealing His Word in such divergent and contradictory ways. |
Only if you believe that God wrote/inspired the Koran. I personally do not, but that's a debate/discussion that I will not engage in. Even so, a) I would never entertain the notion that God is perverse - His character is holy; hence perversity would be an impossible attribution, and b) I would never presume to know the ways in which God reveals His Word. My own epiphany came about through the rebuke of a non-believer, and I will be forever grateful to God for it. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 11:40:56 PM · #462 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Note: I am speaking of the institution called "marriage"; I am NOT speaking of the LEGAL partnership [u]called[/] marriage. I do not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships, nor the expansion of rights under the legal partnership. |
Laws legalizing gay marriage only affects the legal contract as you put it. Therefore, what you want is to make sure your church does not recognize gay marriages, as they are free to do as a private organization. |
You know that that is not true. An absurd example, but how do you suppose the community would feel if it were discovered that the police had a stated policy that made it perfectly acceptable to use the "N" word when describing a suspect who was black? It's ONLY a WORD right? Wrong. It's a word with CONNOTATION. And that makes a difference. The word MARRIAGE has a CONNOTATION. And that makes a difference.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
However, what you (or most people opposing gay marriage) is to deny gay couples their full and equal civil rights, for the purposes of legal responsibility, taxes, property ownership, inheritance, child custody, etc. |
Wrong. I believe that both theSaj and I have clearly stated that we are NOT opposed to gay couples having civil rights.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
None of those are any of the Church's business. |
And I never said that they were.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So, what harm is there in the State recognizing the right of any two people to enter into the legal contract we now refer to as marriage, and affording them all the legal rights to which they'd then be entitled. |
None at all, as long as they don't call it "marriage".
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The State's not going to force your church to perform any ceremony, while your church's ceremony is legally meaningless without the civil license. |
It may be LEGALLY meaningless, but it is not meaningless by a long shot.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Every other form is supposed to be gender-neutral (and race-neutral), so why should this form be any different? |
Are you referring to the "marriage license"? If so, change it to "civil union license" or a "declaration of domestic partnership" and make it gender-neutral. It would remove a lot of contention. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 11:44:27 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by RonB:
In order to "see" something there are a number of "things" that are required. |
Again, just because you don't understand something doesn't make it impossible. Blind followers may look at your examples and nod in agreement, but even casual analysis reveals that you've demonstrated both wildly errant assumptions and ignorance of basic fact.
First of all, there's your assertion of "things" that are required for sight. There are no such requirements. Plenty of animals can see without most of your "required" elements, and you can easily form a gradual progression from simple to complex eyes merely by observing the different forms in existence today.
Many insects have compound eyes that don't move, and owls simply turn their heads to point their eyes. Sphincter-type muscles exist independently of eyes (look behind you). Most fish pupils don't dilate, but those of some sharks do, and pinhole cameras focus just fine without a lens. Fish swim in their lens cleaner, some animals lick or wet their eyes manually, and snakes have a clear scale over their eyes rather than eyelids. The transparent "vitreous humor" of jellyfish predates complex eyes. The simplest eyes are merely a few photosensitive cells that detect light and dark... as they become more and more sophisticated they can detect direction, patterns, shapes, colors, etc. A sophisitcated nervous system isn't required either- even plants can turn toward a light source. HERE'S a good reference.
The complexity of eyes continues well beyond your "requirements," too: tapetum, sensitivy to UV and infrared, stereo vision, nictitating membranes, etc... each offering specific advantages over earlier models. Same argument for hearing, Same for smell. Same for taste. Same for kidneys, livers, lungs, the reproductive organs, etc.
If that is the argument for intelligent design, then it's enormously flawed.
Message edited by author 2005-11-11 23:50:57. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 11:53:22 PM · #464 |
| "Original Greek Manuscripts"? I thought the Bible was written in Aramaic, Hebrew, etc. What part of of the Bible was written by native Greek-speakers? Surely not the book of Exodus. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 12:06:30 AM · #465 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The word MARRIAGE has a CONNOTATION. |
Yes it does, albeit one that varies widely from person to person (even within the same religion). There was a similar argument about the use of the word "man" in the phrase "all men are created equal" back in the mid 1800's. The N word has become universally recognized as disparaging and offensive, thus it's not a valid comparison. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 12:21:15 AM · #466 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
So the same thing could be used about what I posted about 1912 ... Right ???
Remember interracial marrage was considered immoral at the time by the religious folks ... be intellectually honest ... If you can agree that Gay marrage is immoral... then you must agree that interracial marrage is immoral... what say you?
Also... I agree with you that civil unions would surfice IMHO... but the Texas law even stuck that down... |
First you are starting off with an incorrect premise. I never said that gay marriage is immoral. Nor did I even say that I believe that gay marriage was immoral. What I said was that homosexual behaviour is immoral according to scripture, and that I am opposed to gay marriage - but I did NOT say that I was opposed to gay unions by a different name. However, it does not logically follow that even if I WERE of the opinion that gay marriage was immoral, that that would be sufficient to make it immoral. I rely on scripture to define what is immoral; others rely on the LAW to define what is immoral. The latter must change their determination of what is immoral rather often.
As for interracial marriage - in my research of scripture, I have found no indication that interracial marriage is immoral. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 12:34:33 AM · #467 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Original Greek Manuscripts"? I thought the Bible was written in Aramaic, Hebrew, etc. What part of of the Bible was written by native Greek-speakers? Surely not the book of Exodus. |
No, not the book of Exodus.
The most widely used OLD Testament texts were written in Hebrew and Aramaic, as you say. The most widely used NEW Testament texts were written in Greek. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 12:37:34 AM · #468 |
Originally posted by RonB:
First you are starting off with an incorrect premise. I never said that gay marriage is immoral. Nor did I even say that I believe that gay marriage was immoral. What I said was that homosexual behaviour is immoral according to scripture, and that I am opposed to gay marriage - but I did NOT say that I was opposed to gay unions by a different name. However, it does not logically follow that even if I WERE of the opinion that gay marriage was immoral, that that would be sufficient to make it immoral. I rely on scripture to define what is immoral; others rely on the LAW to define what is immoral. The latter must change their determination of what is immoral rather often.
As for interracial marriage - in my research of scripture, I have found no indication that interracial marriage is immoral. |
************
Ron, you are sounding more and more like Donald Rumsfeld with every post:
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
"I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know."
"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started."
"I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said."
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
|
|
|
|
11/12/2005 12:40:42 AM · #469 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Ron... Are you saying that you are bothered by simply the use of the term "marrage"...If they called it "legally regognized commited union" or some such... you would have no problem with the concept at all??? |
Yes.
...
I would have a personal dislike for the idea, just as I would/do for an unmarried heterosexual couple living together now. I would still consider both to be sinful. BUT, I don't go out of my way to harangue people who are shacking up, don't write letters to the editor about it, and see no reason why I would do so if they were homosexual and either legally partnered or not. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 12:43:23 AM · #470 |
Originally posted by jenesis:
My husband and I have gone back and forth on this issue for quite awhile. We've just agreed to disagree and leave it at that. He was born and raised in Georgia and I in California. He disagrees with it while I am all for it.
It seems that some people cannot separate the religious from the civil aspect of it. I honestly don't understand how someone can be against it, but that's just me. w can understand how you wouldn't agree with it, but to force others to live by your standards is just wrong. I'm not gay, but I truly feel sorry for those that can't show their love and commitment to their significant other as I can, just because they are the same sex. Where is the logic?? Do they not feel as we feel?? Why should they not have the same rights to healthcare, hospital rights and all other legal aspects of marriage that I do? I'm not special. It just baffles me, the closed-mindedness that surrounds this issue. Can't we all just live or lives the way we want to live them. As long as we're not hurting anyone, I see no crime here. |
not to sound like a bible thumper but IMHO, the driving force behind all this government intervention would be the Southern Baptist Church. Another driving force FOR the legitimacy of gay marriage would be for benefits, survivor and insurance....those rights that are established for "normal" marriages. We have a president that wants someone on the Supreme Court that supports his religious convictions.....what happened to NOT mixing church and state? Churches have a huge impact on laws and on our rights, gay or straight. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 12:51:07 AM · #471 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
The word MARRIAGE has a CONNOTATION. |
Yes it does, albeit one that varies widely from person to person (even within the same religion). There was a similar argument about the use of the word "man" in the phrase "all men are created equal" back in the mid 1800's. The N word has become universally recognized as disparaging and offensive, thus it's not a valid comparison. |
If it's the "universal recognition" that you are pointing out, then I believe that the word Marriage has also become universally recognized - in this case as describing the union of a man and a woman.
It was the misuse of the speakers, and the perception of those aggrieved that made the "N" word offensive. By perverting the term marriage to include homosexual unions, I believe that the same kind of misuse/perception will ensue. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 12:53:15 AM · #472 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, you are sounding more and more like Donald Rumsfeld with every post: |
You say that like it's a bad thing. :)
Truth is, that experience has shown me that if I do not qualify, and explain everything, and post disclaimers, that some will mis-quote, or mis-attribute or just plain twist what I say, then draw inferences into completely unrelated subjects. It's a defensive posture that some have forced me to take. I'd rather NOT have to do that, but it's the price I must pay.
Message edited by author 2005-11-12 01:00:32. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 12:57:09 AM · #473 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, you are sounding more and more like Donald Rumsfeld with every post.
|
Oh, you nailed that one; exactly what I was thinking. Ron's GOOD at this, isn't he?
She: "You don't love me!"
He: "I never said I don't love you."
Note how unresponsive that is... We see this all the time, "unresponsiveness" in real life, and we've seen a lot of it in this thread, along with very skillful twisting of definitions to justify or validate the unresponsiveness.
Note how Ron has now reduced his entire position (re: gay marraige) to a definition of the word "marriage", and a claim that if we define the word differently than he does we have forced him to take action, essentially.
So all this verbiage from Ron was a matter of semantics? That's how I read it. "My people and I define marriage as a sacrament given to us by God, and we object to any defiling of that sacarament." Unfortunately, the STATE uses the word "marriage" in its laws.
Based on what Ron's just said, I submit that his efforts would be better spent trying to convince the state to remove all references to "marriage" and replace them with "civil union" (or whatever), rather than try to argue against homosexuals being allowed to form such a union simpl,y because he has a semantic/moral issue with what "marriage" really means.
Face it, there's a vast, secular usage of the term. For example, chefs speak all the time of "marrying" flavors. I'm sure we can all think of many examples.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 01:13:29 AM · #474 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, you are sounding more and more like Donald Rumsfeld with every post: |
You say that like it's a bad thing. :)
Truth is, that experience has shown me that if I do not qualify, and explain everything, and post disclaimers, that some will mis-quote, or mis-attribute or just plain twist what I say, then draw inferences into completely unrelated subjects. It's a defensive posture that some have forced me to take. I'd rather NOT have to do that, but it's the price I must pay. |
*******
I know, I know...poor ole misunderstood Ron. It's the price WE ALL must pay. Maybe it's time for some straight talkin, hip shootin. :) |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 01:25:32 AM · #475 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, you are sounding more and more like Donald Rumsfeld with every post.
|
Oh, you nailed that one; exactly what I was thinking. Ron's GOOD at this, isn't he?
She: "You don't love me!"
He: "I never said I don't love you."
Note how unresponsive that is... We see this all the time, "unresponsiveness" in real life, and we've seen a lot of it in this thread, along with very skillful twisting of definitions to justify or validate the unresponsiveness.
Note how Ron has now reduced his entire position (re: gay marraige) to a definition of the word "marriage", and a claim that if we define the word differently than he does we have forced him to take action, essentially.
So all this verbiage from Ron was a matter of semantics? That's how I read it. "My people and I define marriage as a sacrament given to us by God, and we object to any defiling of that sacarament." Unfortunately, the STATE uses the word "marriage" in its laws.
Based on what Ron's just said, I submit that his efforts would be better spent trying to convince the state to remove all references to "marriage" and replace them with "civil union" (or whatever), rather than try to argue against homosexuals being allowed to form such a union simply because he has a semantic/moral issue with what "marriage" really means.
Face it, there's a vast, secular usage of the term. For example, chefs speak all the time of "marrying" flavors. I'm sure we can all think of many examples.
Robt. |
The LAW lives and dies on "semantics". People live and die on the Law.
"It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is."
What is "torture"? Lives are at stake.
What is a "leak"? Lives are at stake.
What is "covert"? Lives are at stake.
What is a "lie"? Lives are at stake.
You come across as implying that semantics are not important. But the fact is that lives have been saved and lives have been lost based on the precise, exact, wording of the law. Murderers have been set free because of the definition of "domicile", or the definition of when trash ceases to be personal property and becomes city property.
I have repeatedly attempted to be very precise in my posts - clearly differentiating meanings when the same word is used to define, for example, both orientation and behaviour. Many of those who argue against me purposefully use terms ambiguously - often, I think, to try and trap me into answering in a way that they can then twist into something else.
If anyone has twisted definitions, it wasn't me. I go out of my way to explain exactly which meaning I'm using when I use a word with multiple meanings.
I have no need to argue for civil unions for homosexuals. I am no proponent of civil unions. When/if the time comes that homosexual marriage is being considered by the state legislature, there will still be time to take action against it. If it is civil unions, I won't have to do anything. OR, the homosexual community could continue pushing their "marriage" agenda to the point that people take matters into their own hands and pass laws just like they did in Texas.
As Dr. Phil says: "How's that working for you?" |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 07:17:39 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 07:17:39 AM EDT.
|
