“It seems I'd lose the argument regardless. .. you win.. Yay Gay? Its not about that its really about screwing with definitions with Religious words... Government please leave it alone Marriages for none Civil unions for all.”
“If white America didnt which America did since they were the only ones who had power... just sayin. Personally I'd go with Mexico it has pizazz. .. Come to think of it the Elves would be another interesting choice let me know.”
“Again because they didn't... its cool I'll roll with it.
There are legitimate issues, but that isn't one of them.
Stop being emotional and be logical for one moment... do some research give it a go... dont look at the middle ages when the church screwed up royally look at the actual events and world supporting eveidence.
Read modern stuff and both Sides of the coin. Look at C.S. Lewis God in the Docs, and Mere Christianity, check out The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer... even more recently there is the Case for Christ and the Case for Faith by Lee Stroble. Also read as some notable detractors... ie Bertrand Russel...
In terms of this argument though pay special attention to the importance of Marriage in Christianity.”
retrorio on Nov 5, 2009 at 22:57:55
“What it basically comes down to is one's willingness to believe in the supposed revelations of the authors of the Bible, whom you've never met and can't question. You might as well believe in Zeus or any other religion that has long fallen by the wayside. Like Thomas Paine said, those revelations are hearsay to anyone who didn't personally experience them, and nothing C.S. Lewis or any other author says will make those revelations personal and verifiable to me. I'm happy for you that you can suspend your disbelief for something so unprovable, but that doesn't work for me.”
“Thats Fair... I'm opperating off the interpretation of a study I heard a while back by ABC news. You are right... its probably not fair to read it blindly.
Ill redact my data claim... though I still believe my conclusion... There is just too much effort would go into supporting it. Good call out.”
“It has been said far better then I can say it and by better minds then I have. I'd like to direct you to C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.
Dallas Willard also wrote well on the matter in the Divine Conspiracy.
Most importantly I'd urge you to read the entirety of the New Testement giving honest effort to understand the culture of the Day.
This would require you to do a shocking step and actually study. There is some contempt over the fact that marriage is the foundational image of how the church is supposed to relate to God. There is a big problem for the Church when we start to redefine it. I'd even argue divorce does the same thing, because it isn't supposed to be an easy thing.
My firm belief is that Sex is a very big big important thing, its more then physical its bonding. Its a powerful thing which is why rape is worse then Robbery... and it can be dangerous far more people have died being a slave to Sex then a slave to Alcohol.
All extortion's in the bible come to keep evil in check. Taking a good thing and using it in a way it wasn't designed. I however have already said too much. Read C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity and you may get a glimmer of why it matters.”
ez duz it on Nov 5, 2009 at 21:19:31
“You direct me to C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity,” an author and book for which I have fond familiarity, Willard’s “Divine Conspiracy” and the New Testament (with which I am also quite familiar – I teach Biblical Greek).
Your suggestion that I consult these sources and “do a shocking step and actually study” is an ineffective (and unjustified) ploy to bolster your credibility and neutralize mine. I am not buying your tack.
1 Peter 3:15 exhorts Christians to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.”
Therefore, with a view to that Scripture, I would like you to do me the courtesy of answering the sincere questions I posed to you in:
“In like 4 months I should just post 1 more comment that says... I win. that would be funny.
Im really surprised at how intolerant people have been here... The idea of kicking Religion out of government is popular but the idea of kicking government out of religion is apparently offensive.. .come on people give the church its own word.
Im for making the contract that I signed solid... in other words if its not breaking the exclusivity or providing for the well being of my partner marriages cant be dissolved.. I would love to see it.”
ez duz it on Nov 5, 2009 at 19:29:56
RE: 1 of your earlier posts:
Your response to “skatoolaki” saying, “Where did you go to school…” seems to imply a contempt for his / her educational background. Perhaps you could educate us.
I want to learn as much as I can about the specific ancient texts you reference regarding marriage. Please list the textual references.
1) Do these texts provide an operation definition of marriage?
2) Do these texts provide static or dynamic definition of marriage?
3) On one hand, are you saying that love, in Scripture, is the criterion justifying marriage between two people?
4) On the other hand, are you saying that gender, and not love, is the Scriptural criterion justifying marriage between two people?
5) In view of the rights guaranteed in the US Constitution, can Scripture be the criterion by which a referendum vote may deny same-sex couples the right to civil marriage in the United States? If so, how?
6) In view of the rights guaranteed in the US Constitution, can Scripture be the criterion by which a referendum vote may deny non-Christians the right to practice their religion in United States? If so, how? If not, why?”
“Yes... in the animal kingdom this is generally due to self destructive tendency... Its a stop gap for over population and its also an act seen in species going on the brink of extinction. Science suggests that this is a vent because animals cant control desire. Hmm,, yea lets get assault off the books too b/c animals do that too b/c they cant control those desires also.
brklynivn on Nov 6, 2009 at 01:20:45
“Here we go, another Social engineer...”
BlackWidowPilot on Nov 5, 2009 at 19:21:38
“Fascinating. You received your training in Biology where again? Psychology? Psychiatry?
“Actually thats not true. . . It would need to pass a referendum known as a constitutional convention and several sates require that to be voted on directly by the people. It would be nearly impossible to up root the bill of rights its foundational to the document. Maybe if our country went crazy and 2/3 of the people wanted to really buy into Obama's change idea then something could happen.”
“Wow way to show how much the LBGT has been oppressed. This is a ridiculous Red Haring... common seriously this has nothing to do with the dialogue. So you would think they would be confident enough to just accept people not accepting SSM and go for Civil unions.
GAYS arent oppressed... seriously! People who want to marry animals or multiple wives are... they make below the poverty line... many dont own TV's... They cant marry who the "love" ... most havent completed high school... wow someone needs to advocate on their behalf... any takers.
This is.... insane”
skatoolaki on Nov 6, 2009 at 15:00:06
“What's a "haring"?”
BlackWidowPilot on Nov 5, 2009 at 19:27:31
“No, endlessly presenting red herrings and claiming them factual is the definition of insanity, as in *repeating the same behavior over and over and over again expecting a different result each time.
Therein lies madness, Mr. Handy.
Leland R. Erickson
A Beneficiary of Loving vs. Virginia”
JumpDownTurnAround on Nov 5, 2009 at 18:27:14
“The point is the gay community if they united, could bring down the financial market. That is the point! Mr. Handy!”
“Note I said increasing evidence... that is step one other studies aren't out yet. you are fair though... its not conclusive but its about equal to the "genetic" argument for LBGT folks. Its not a strict interpretation... I personally believe both are choices that are responses to various levels of Trauma and Nurturing that occur over a childhood/ adolsences.
Honestly how many LBGT folks do you know that have had no sexual abuse in their lives, or bad relationships with parents, or have Divorced parents in their pre-teen years?
My guess its probably very rare... I dont know of any personally.”
xavierjacks on Nov 6, 2009 at 17:59:48
“As a gay person and also as a person who yes was abused I would reiterate you are an idiot. I take such huge offense to people who think because you were abused or had a bad boyfriend that "Oh that's why you are gay." I KNEW I preferred girls when I was 3yrs old. My 1st crush I was in kindergarten, I knew I liked girls with green eyes. I dated guys until I was 22 and they were GREAT guys!!! The fact that I dated all these great guys who I hurt because I couldn't love them like they loved me. It's not fair to them. How fair is it to waste someone's time as though you are interested in them when you are not, how is THAT the right thing to do? Would you want your son or daughter to marry someone who later they found out didn't love them but pursued a relationship with them because it is accepted? If so line up your sons and brothers so I can check them out. People are outraged when gay guys marry women, BUT YOU TOLD THEM TO DO SO!! By these statements you are wanting people to toe the line, fine, do you really want that?
This argument is a slap in the face to victims of abuse and please stop repeating this crap. If you knew anything about abuse you would stop spreading this nonsense.”
“Where did you go to school, because I sure see marriage mentioned alot in texts we have from 1st century AD. Again in OT text's we have from 570 BC and they are all about marrying for love. Then again that might actually require giving an ear to the Religion you want to attack... your right probably better to just misinform allowing people to believe the world started circa 1200 AD or at least Christianity.”
skatoolaki on Nov 6, 2009 at 14:44:43
“I highly suggest reading Stephanie Coontz's "Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage".
an historian, author, and faculty member at The Evergreen State College. She teaches history and family studies and is Director of Research and Public Education for the Council on Contemporary Families, which she chaired from 2001-2004. Coontz has authored and co-edited several books about the history of the family and marriage. Her work has been translated into French, Spanish, Greek, German, and Japanese.
Coontz's "Marriage: A History" and "The Way We Never Were" are both used as text books in sociology classes around the world. So you can argue with my statements, but you are also arguing with an expert's synopsis - everything I have written here is based on Coontz's work, and I think she knows what she is talking about.”
skatoolaki on Nov 6, 2009 at 14:39:49
I tell you this. Marriage for "love" was unheard of until the 17th century. Period. People married for economic reasons, to join two farms together or to create powerful allies - parents chose the best partner based on these types of things, not because their children loved each other. They didn't care if they did or not, and they were not allowed to defy their parents and marry as they chose (most wouldn't anyway for fear of being ostracized by their family and community).”
skatoolaki on Nov 6, 2009 at 14:39:39
You seem to not realize that I know the Christian religion very well; I was raised in it, baptized and confirmed in it. I have nothing against Christianity, but I do have a problem with them claiming some hold over marriage that they do not - and never did - have. When they did have any kind of power over marriage, it was an arbitrary ruling that was used as a power play. Marriage was a power play; it was a business venture. It wasn't about love or family or any such thing.
This is history. A little study into the subject will show you the same. Marriage was around *long* before the Church and *long* before Christianity; we're talking at least over 5,000 years old. If you want to "misinform" people by stating it started with Christianity, then that is you but I know the truth and I stand by it. Marriage does not belong to Church, even though they stuck their claim in it at some point because they realized it was beneficial for them to do so - not because of any holy reasons.
skatoolaki on Nov 6, 2009 at 14:39:16
“School? Who learns about the history of marriage in school?
This is from my own sociological and historical research, and I hate to tell you this, but it's all true. Look it up if you don't believe me, but everything I have stated here is proven fact.
You can rail all day about the Bible, that book did not dictate marriage in the early Church days (and marriage was around long before the Church). The Church made up its own arbitrary rules on marriage, which changed throughout the centuries, and all of these rules were designed to further their own power agendas. Some royalty was denied marriage with their chosen partner (never a love match, remember) and some marriages were allowed - all depending on how much money the Church was bribed with or if the marriage alliance was propitious for the Church.
I'm not attacking any religion, I am only stating fact based on history. If you try to base history on the Bible, you will come up sorely lacking, I'm afraid. That's not an "attack", just the God's honest truth.
“If SSM passes there is only 2 options for the Church... Sue over violation of separation of church and state or create a new word for what would be considered Traditional marriage today, and make a new bible Translation.
Its not a healthy Choice at the end of the day... And if it's not a choice then neither is Racism so maybe we should stop trying to shove racial equality into peoples worldviews... equal evidence to support claims.
Just admit it, the real issue for you is that people say its wrong... which is something you will never change, until you outlaw Christianity that reads the bible that way. In which case I hope the Prisons get really nice under liberal rule.”
skatoolaki on Nov 6, 2009 at 14:54:30
The religious idea of marriage should be done away with completely. If people want their union to be recognized by their individual god(s) or religious community, then that should be between them and their religious affiliation. Private ceremonies honoring a couple's decision to live together should be just that - private religious affairs.
Legally-binding unions, however, should include the provisions that marriage does now as far tax benefits go, but other than that, how a couple chooses to join or live is really up to them.
This new type of union would exclude no one and include everyone.
Until such a radical idea can take shape however, we need to at least allow gay people the same rights as straight people as far as marriage goes and - to be fair - that includes labeling it all the same. Otherwise, it just seems like you can't give them a freedom without changing the name to keep the straight people happy. That's still unfair and biased, so people demand the same rights under the same name. Until that happens, I don't think we can move forward with the more radical changes (which will have to have happen over time and not all at once).”
“That's really arrogant. I was merely identifying the Fallacy I was going to use, its still not a solid logic argument even though in this case I dont see how any other conclusion could be rational. If SSM is ok then we can't stop equality there...or can we? Its a seriously valid question/concern.”
brklynivn on Nov 6, 2009 at 00:59:38
“Arrogance for arrogance...”
desultory on Nov 5, 2009 at 20:44:05
“We stop only when we begin harming others and violating their rights. So we don't stop at polygamy or polygyny among consenting adults but we do not grant marriage certificates to any individual who isn't capable of giving full consent. The only practical outcome of prohibiting gay marriage is that gay couples have undue financial and legal burdens; it's not going to stop people being gay and it's not going to add or maintain any sort of sanctity to hetero marriage. If the State got out of the marriage business altogether but maintained some sort of mechanism for granting joint-tax status, custody sharing, and other legal agreements between non-related adults, it would have a hell of a hard time picking and choosing which kind of non-related adults could participate.”
“As a christian Im guessing at some point you will... and you will vote that its not legal to say certain practices are wrong, there by revoking free speech... It worries me that Hate speech isnt protected speech... in a way that is Unamerican, not that Im in favor of it, but its just cause for concern.
BTW how this would work is it would be illegal to have some sermons because they would be inciting hate and many church would be forced underground.
My guess is that if many people on this board had their choice 5x% of Maine would have no rights. In the end we most people here are disgustingly Ethnocentric!”
ladyvader on Nov 5, 2009 at 15:31:53
“I going to assume that you do realize that churches are suppose to lose their tax exempt status for telling people how to vote and what to vote for.
There is a separation of church and state. Heard of it?
“You said it.. the Civil war was fought over balance of power and money. Which historically is correct, however the mode of the action was over Slavery. Technically you guys are both correct. Human rights were only a half motivating feature. This is why the issue didnt fully resolve, until the 1960's with the Civil Rights act.
To be fair I think we still owe land... not money... to African Americans, but when giving out plots don't forget the indentured servants who were also covered by 40 acres and mule... (Go Irish... of which I am one.)”
“LOL- Its true, why not march for Polygamist, and other Minority sex groups... Necrophiliacs maybe... just saying.
If you make that a right way does it have to be withheld from anyone at all...Slippery slope argument but legally I can't see why it cant be between man and wives at some point.”
brklynivn on Nov 5, 2009 at 14:47:18
“Slippery slope huh? So if they leave people who practice polygamy alone, all the sudden you'll become a polygamist?? You're insecurity is showing, God help you're marriage partner, doesn't sound like a rock solid foundation to me.”