Zophar's Message Domain

Go Back   Zophar's Message Domain > General Chat > Talk of the Town

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-13-2004, 06:58 PM   #31
MooglyGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 4,014
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

> OK, but aside from the name ("A rose by any other name would
> still smell as sweet.") what would actually be the
> difference between this and an actual marriage?

I think his point is what I've been trying to get across all along - sure, yeah, have the same legal benefits of a civil union, but don't force churches to marry gay couples.

<P ID="signature"></P>
MooglyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 07:50 PM   #32
thegodofhellfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,295
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

> I think his point is what I've been trying to get across all
> along - sure, yeah, have the same legal benefits of a civil
> union, but don't force churches to marry gay couples.

No, I don't think that's something many people are after - as I said, I'm certainly not. But churches don't have a monopoly on marriage ceremonies. Heterosexuals can easily get married elsewhere. Likewise should homosexuals.

Edit: Because my grammer have problem.
<P ID="signature"></p><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by thegodofhellfire on 08/13/04 06:05 PM.</FONT></P>
thegodofhellfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 08:02 PM   #33
thegodofhellfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,295
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

> However, I've found many who study the Greek and Hebrew
> versions to come to the conclusion that the anti-homosexual
> bias is partly due to biased translators and faulty
> interpretation.

Interesting. I'd like to read more about that. To the Googlator!

<P ID="signature"></P>
thegodofhellfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 11:30 PM   #34
Danoz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,903
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I dunno, it seems to me that the whole argument is silly. Even the word "definition" is fuzzy here because different people take it to mean different things. You could take the dictionary to be the last word, but then different dictionaries say different things and any linguist would laugh at the idea of closing an argument with a dictionary definition. You could take the Bible to be the last word, but then not everyone believes that the Bible should be taken literally (or at all).

<hr></blockquote>
I haven't used the Bible in my argument, I'm concerned over the institution of marriage which has, for thousands of years, been between a man and a woman! How are you still trying to argue such an indisputable fact? It's also an echo of what is biologically natural! (Want to argue this point? Fine. Show me a pregnant man.) I don't care what people do in the bedroom, I really don't-- but it has nothing to do with marriage. If people what a partnership with some legality, I'm all for that-- but there's no reason to call it something it obviously isn't.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

It sounds to me that Danoz is just trying to reword the argument to give his point of view more weight. He thinks marriage should only be between a man and a woman, probably for religious reasons. Fine. We know that. He won't say that, though. Instead, he tries to universalize it by saying that it sits in some sort of absolute "definition". But that's exactly what we disagree with, so it's redundant. The argument was doomed from the start.

<hr></blockquote>
You disagree with it, but provide nothing to support your disagreement in the face of historical fact. You can argue that marriage has changed, that is all-- this is the disagreement. And it doesn't have to be religious. Stop using this ad hominem in dismissing my perfectly reasonable argument as "religious", therefore "worthless".

I do, however, agree that we should agree to disagree on this argument. This is as circular an argument as abortion.

<P ID="signature"></P>
Danoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2004, 12:26 AM   #35
SpaceTiger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,548
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

> You disagree with it, but provide nothing to support your
> disagreement in the face of historical fact.

A definition that is "historically" consistent is not an absolute. I agree that it has traditionally been considered to be between a man and woman. What I disagree with is your assertion that this even matters or has any absolute relevance.


> You can argue
> that marriage has changed, that is all-- this is the
> disagreement.

Agreed.


> And it doesn't have to be religious. Stop
> using this ad hominem in dismissing my perfectly reasonable
> argument as "religious"

Why on earth would that be an ad hominem? Religion is not an inherently negative thing and it certainly isn't attacking you personally (the meaning of an ad hominem attack). If your opinion has no basis in religion, then I apologize for misinterpreting you.


> therefore "worthless".

Wtf, dude? I respect your opinion. All I'm saying is that the argument is pointless. We clearly disagree and your rephrasing of it isn't going to change anybody's mind.

<P ID="signature"></P>
SpaceTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2004, 01:05 AM   #36
Goku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,645
Default My view on gay marraige

Marriage:
Just call them civil unions and be done with the damn things. Let the churches do what they damn well feel like.

Rights:
I am leaning towards no spousal rights. Why, when i think of spousal rights a think of tax breaks. Insurance is up to the companies. The reason why i point to no is because to me the purpose of these tax breaks is to help a family procreate and raise children. A same sex couple cannot do that without major intervention

Adoption
I dont know. I serioulsy cannot say. Will gay parents cause a kid to be fucked up? Do we even need an answer to that question with all the divorce and single parents around? Someone much smarter than I needs to answer that question

<P ID="signature">ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ</P>
Goku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2004, 01:50 AM   #37
king killa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,135
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

&lt;QUOTE>
As for me, this is one time I agree with Danoz. There's no
reason why churches should be forced to marry same-sex
couples if they don't wish to do so. I'm of the stance that
the legal definition of marriage should apply to same-sex
marriages as well - you still have to get a marriage
license, still have to go through the same legal hoo-hah to
get married as a heterosexual couple, and still get the same
benefits. If you want to call it a civil union, fine. Call
it an extruded pineapple for all I care. I don't speak for
the gay community as a whole (which is unfortunate), but the
problem is that the gay community aren't separating out the
religious and legal sides of it. Should gays be legally
married/unioned/pinappled/whatevered? Sure. Should
churches be forced to have a religious marriage ceremony for
said gay couple to be able to get legally married? Fuck no.
&lt;/QUOTE>
<img src=smilies/werd.gif>
I agree 100% Well said.

<P ID="signature"></P>
king killa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2004, 02:07 AM   #38
Lillymon
Senior Member
 
Lillymon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 2,379
Default Re: My view on gay marraige

> Adoption
> I dont know. I serioulsy cannot say. Will gay parents
> cause a kid to be fucked up?

Studies have been done and they said no. Children bought up by gay parents tend to be more liberal than others, but there has been no evidence that more become homosexuals or have some sort of 'disadvantage'. Other than those idiots who go "Your parents are queers! Loser!"...

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>
__________________
Amelia Explains It All - Eventually. Probably.
Lillymon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2004, 02:09 AM   #39
Danoz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,903
Default Re: My view on gay marraige

Haha, I can't imagine a study from any university in this country would seek an answer other than the one you just gave. One must formulate an opinion on this subject, because "studies" are more than guarunteed to be bias in BOTH directions.

<P ID="signature"></P>
Danoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2004, 02:09 AM   #40
Danoz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,903
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

A definition that is "historically" consistent is not an absolute. I agree that it has traditionally been considered to be between a man and woman. What I disagree with is your assertion that this even matters or has any absolute relevance.

<hr></blockquote>

It matters when a grounding majority (including many homosexuals themselves) disagree with the concept. My biggest issue is with those wanting the change not going through the legislature to do it the right way. Judges and mayors and not in positions to do this kind of rewriting of traditional definitions, imposing dramatic changes to already existing institutions. Why don't they amend the constitution? Why don't they try to gain support for their cause?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Why on earth would that be an ad hominem? Religion is not an inherently negative thing and it certainly isn't attacking you personally (the meaning of an ad hominem attack). If your opinion has no basis in religion, then I apologize for misinterpreting you. Wtf, dude? I respect your opinion. All I'm saying is that the argument is pointless. We clearly disagree and your rephrasing of it isn't going to change anybody's mind.

<hr></blockquote>
If you were to dismiss the argument as invalid because it were religious it would be ad hominem, but if I misunderstood you then I of course take it back.
It's no secret that I find homosexuality emotionally unhealthy and wrong, and that I do have religious reasons for this belief... but I find other sexual acts, many between men and women, just as wrong-- and I find myself equally as guilty in departing away from what was intended. I don't want to judge others. This is a free country, and these people are free to do as they want in the bedroom. I can see where you want to connect my belief structure with my views on homosexual marriage (if I understand you correctly, you think I'm spinning the argument to hide religious reasoning, in an attempt to give it validity in a place like this). This just isn't correct. The problem I have, is that marriage is an institution set up to give benefits, both to the couple, and to those beginning a family. I have no problem giving a legal partnership to a gay couple, I have no problem giving them the applicable benefits to their situation... but it's not marriage, and we shouldn't call it what it simply isn't. I really think this is a fair common ground, one that many more moderate Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger have supported. If anything is going to be accomplished there has to be a give and a take.


<P ID="signature"></P>
Danoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:26 AM.

Contact Us - Zophar's Domain - Archive - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.