TOUCHY! TOUCHY! OH WISE ONE
Originally Posted by shanbaum
TOUCHY! TOUCHY! OH WISE ONE
1st part nix
MARRIGE IS A MAN & A WOMAN
THEY DEMAND THE IMPOSSIBLE
WE DON'T DEMAND THEY DON'T LIVE TOGETHER
THEY MAKE ALL THE PERVERTED DEMANDS AND INSIST THAT WE ACCEPT THEM. SORRY
2nd part AMEN
It's been very hard to remain civil, since I am personally involved with this topic.
Sorry, that's not correct. Explicitly since 1947, and implicitly since the late 19th century, the First Amendment has applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment - which, though mangled by the Court subsequent to Reconstruction, was intended to ensure that the rights enjoyed by citizens of the United States could not be abrogated by the states - and it now does that, albeit by a more circuitous route than originally intended.
So, we all enjoy the "freedom from" of the Establishment Clause, as well as the "freedom to" of the Free Exercise clause. Even in Mississippi.
Oooh, my mistake to rely purely on Jefferson's letters from the 18th century, rather than doing the rest of my homework on it. Thank you for catching that. This, I'm sure, is why Bush brought up the Dred Scott decision during the presidential debate last year--or is it <i>Plessy v. Ferguson</i>? One of the two emasculates the 14th amendment, which is a big deal to certain religious groups, for reasons I've just now figured out. :)
And it seems we're getting close to the root of the other matter under discussion. To wit, and also to digress for a second:
Please find me the applicable quote in the Bible. New Testament only, please.Christianity says homosexuality is a sin.
Next, what part of being recognized in the eyes of the (secular) state equates with Christianity? Many weddings are performed in churches, but they still must be recognized by the capital-S State to be legally valid. Your religion can feel any way it would like to about it (and I support your and your church's right to feel that way) but it shouldn't have any say in the public (ie. legal) recognition of the marriage, civil union...whatever.
New Testament: Romans chapter 1 esp; verses 26,27,28
Clear as can be unless you are blinded by Satan himself.
Why do most people get married, because they love eachother, right?!
So why can't same sex relationships have the same right as "straight", to marry because they're in love. Love one another and accept that just by not allowing homosexuals to marry they won't go away. What's the big deal, they're people like you and I, it doesn't make them scary just because they don't love what you love, we're all individuals and have the right to choose who we're with. How many "straight" marriages end up in divorce and how many children are not cared for by their straight parents. I don't get it, I am for gay marriage, absolutely. And I'm not even gay. Good luck you all.
That's an oversimplified, childish, fairytale view of life. Here's a partial list of people you can love without marrying:
Brother/sister
Parents
Children
Friends
Strangers
Neighbors
Self
Pets
Question:
How does same gender marriage help you enough to make you bother to mount a campaign for it?
Who the H*** cares and what does it have to do with the optical business?
Chip
Chip, gays wear glasses too, you know. All these "human rights" activists don't want to lose business. It's all about the $$$.
I might see life in an oversimplified, childish, fairytale kinda way, but I'm not the one stressing over simple things like homosexuality, I take everyone the way they are and give them the same rights I have. Plain and simple, keeps me from having a nervous breakdown over little things that some people see as big things. Keep your cool and be positive, makes life a lot easier and joyful.
Right on!! Does the Bible teach against it? Yes! Also stealing, lying, adultery, fornication etc etc. Does gay marriage hurt me? No!! Do the aforementiond sins hurt me? You betcha, if you steal from me, lie to me, or commit adultery with my husband....
"All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God" and "Judge not, that you be not judged". He will be judge of us all one day!
It's not for us to dictate another persons sexual preferences or orientation, being gay in this instance, even if we think they are wrong. Now pedophiles and other such behaviour is wrong, and we are right to restrain anything that causes the loss of innocence in a young person, or causes harm to anyone.
Because if you rep/cons continue your repressive policies, eventually you'll get around to resticting something that IS important to me. Like freedom of religion or the fredom to think for one's self. ;)
Not much in this forum has to do with the optical business.
Repressive Policies defined: Marriage of a man and a woman.
A man and A woman?
Then what did Esau, and Jacob, David, and other biblical figures call their multiple partner arrangements?:hammer:
Spexvet. Proud promoter of
-Homosexuality
-Bigamy
-Fornication
Another question: why does no one seem to mind their own business?
Another way of saying mind their own business is "turning a blind eye" to wrongdoing. Do you expect Spexvet to just sit there and do nothing while a few religious fanatics try to take away the freedoms of Homo-Americans and teenagers?
Last edited by Chairtime; 10-14-2005 at 06:58 PM.
By being something that for most of us is not normal or acceptable is to me what we should scutinize. What health problems are caused by having these tendencies. I have had many highschool class mates die in their 40's just because they said their bodies were different. I think that what is not normal is no reason for anyone to accept this type of behavior. When you start accepting what is bad behavior then this is what you can expect in the future. What will be next. When Clinton was President he lied to our children that it was okay for him to be above the law. Was that okay with you to? What cause will be next?
:)
Charming. The text of what you're referring to, which you, for reasons that are a mystery to me, completely failed to provide, is this:
The gist, as best I can gather in my reading of this, is that in retribution for idolatry, god delivered "shameful affections", whatever those are. The only bit I can see that's marginally clear enough to buttress your case is the bit that reads, "men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error," but it's so poorly translated it could mean practically anything. Could be continued admonitions to idolatry, it could be lawnmower repair, which, if you've got a dog, can tend on the filthy side as well, whether or not you've got a helper or two.Source
1:26. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
1:27. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
1:28. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient.
All of which, of course, I mean that I don't really find it a strong foundation on which to base (or debase, which seems to be more the inclination here) a lifestyle around. "Receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error"? Honestly.
Anyway, in my search, I opted to seek out analysis other than my own. In doing so, I found a few interesting tidbits. First one's here, which has in particular this quote that I found interesting as well as amazingly pertinent when viewing your initial reply to my post: "It is striking how contemporary Christians using Romans 1:26-27 fall into the same trap: focusing on the immorality they see in others when they should be seeking God's grace and love for themselves." I'll see my mote, and raise you your beam, if you get my drift.
Or, put another way, contrast the one, single, bizarrely translated reference to what may or may not be homosexuality (see here for more takes on the matter) in the entire NT to Jesus preaching "love your brother" and "help the poor".
I now will wait, secure in the knowledge that you will someday receive the recompense which was due to your error.
To put a finer point on my post above, which I felt necessary to reply to in depth, however ludicrous the general point, it's foolish to try and tie the Christian--or any other--faith to whether or not loving, monogamous couples can have their relationship recognized by the state in order to gain the same legal, fiscal, and general societal protections (which I already laid out in greater detail a few pages back) that heterosexual married couples already enjoy.
Your religion matters to me precisely as much as mine does to you--not at all. I'm genuinely regretful that people who are nominally of "faith" seem to be on some sick crusade--pardon the expression--to deny other people what, for them, is a normal life.
Lastly, it bears pointing out that Rim Ranger seems to have left, but Chairtime has valiantly picked up the torch for him. Oddly enough, it seems that Chairtime registered the very same day Rim Ranger stopped posting. Coincidence?
Spexvet. Proud promoter of
- an individual's freedom to marry any consenting adult human(s), regardless of race, religion, nationality, gender, etc.
- prohibitting conservative republicans from reproducing. It's against my religious beliefs.;)
Actually, allowing same gender marriages would reduce fornication:
Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...tion&x=24&y=14
but don't let actual facts get in the way...
"Normal" and "acceptable" are in the eye of the beholder.
No more than by heterosexual tendenceis.
Or was it the "un-normalness" and "un-accaeptableness" they felt about themselves, or were ridiculed and condemned for?
See above.
Please explain. What is what we can expect in the future?
No more oK than:
Nixon on Watergate: "I am not a crook"
Reagon on Iran-Contra: "I did not trade arms for hostages."
George W Bush on WMD in Iraq: "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
You never know. This nation of ours could go crazy with an Amish fascination, and legislature could be introduced to make everyone live without electricity and drive around in those horse and buggies. Would you like to be forced to live your life according to Amish values? I would fight for your freedom to live by the values you choose (as long as they don't hurt others or interfere with thier values).
Spexie:
I wonder if this is a good time to tell people that Diane and I are married
Yup, everyone's favourite Transsexual/Lesbian, Grandmother/Nurse/Optician and her girlfriend were married in Canada almost a year ago.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks