Marriage Amendment

Crash,You are right. I wasn't trying to imply that all gays get married and then split the scene when they "come out". I'm familiar with a number of these cases and it really bothers me.For instance, the new Gay Episcopalian Bishop was one such person. Everyone thinks it is so wonderful that he had the courage to "come out", and they want to support him in this new role, but they conveniently forget that he broke his marriage vows and left his family in the dirt to seek his own fulfillment. (I have no idea who divorced who in that situation.)Crash, I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say that the government is trying to break up gay families.If it were up to me, I would make it illegal for gays to adopt because children are meant to have a Mom AND a Dad. That is obvious and I believe we need to protect children as much as possible.Divorce is every bit as bad as homosexuality - in most cases. Let me define most cases: when one of the pair decides to leave in search of greener pastures somewhere else without really trying to work out the problems. Divorce is seen as an easy out and children are the ones who suffer so it is not just homosexuality that I am against. This whole idea of personal freedom has just been taken too far in our country. Who cares about the kids? WHo cares about the example to others? WHo cares about the influence on society and the government? I want to do what I want, when I want, and with whom I want. This "me first" attitude is the root of many of our problems. I think we need to take marriage much more seriously in this country and honor our commitment of "til death do us part". If we get married with the idea of splitting if things don't work out, it is too easy to just split. Every marriage has difficult times but if the couple is committed from the beginning to work it out, then I believe there would be a lot less divorce. Anyway, just a side comment.TJ

godsmac says:

quote:

---

Except that it has always been about a man and a woman before.

---

Indeed, that's true. And until the 16th century Christianity had always meant Catholicism. Changing the meaning of Christianity meant changing everything. Lots of people were opposed to changing that meaning. The pope was opposed to changing that meaning.Until the 18th century, the word government was almost indistinguishable from the word church. Changing the meaning of government meant changing everything. Lots of people were opposed to changing that meaning. Why, even important kings were opposed to changing that meaning.Change is such a dreadful thing, isn't it? Wouldn't we all be so much happier if people would quit trying to change such important institutions as Christianity, government and marriage? When will we ever learn?

quote:

---

Yes, and the answer is simple - the worldview that involves the least amount of telling other people what they can and can't do - that is, the worldview that maximises choice and freedom for people without harm to society.

---

Crash,I hear what you are saying. That is your opinion about whose world view gets to have predominance.My question is this:
"Who gave you the authority to decide the parameters on which this question is decided?"While I wait for your answer on that question, let me engage you on your terms.

quote:

---

You may believe that letting men who only want to have sex with men actually do that hurts society, somehow.

---

TJ replies:
You are right. That is my answer and I will get to that.

quote:

---

I say it doesn't. It's up to you to prove otherwise if you want that argument to be taken seriously.

---

TJ replies:
Right now my wife's mother is dying in the States and she is returning soon. I don't know when I will return yet, but if you don't hear from me for a while, it is probably because I went home for a funeral. I have more time to do the board when my family is not here - that is why I said I thought I would have time to answer Rhain's post next week. It will be answered in that post. But I may have to go home sooner than I thought as well so I can't promise an answer next week. Please be patient.Regards, TJ

Yeah, it pretty much sucks.But pretend for a moment that you're married. And your wife comes to you and says "Honey, I love you, but I've finally decided to admit to everybody and myself what I've always really known - I'm gay. I thought that it was just a thing that I could make go away if I tried hard enough, but I can't, because it's a part of who I am. I'm sorry but I've never been sexually attracted to you, and I never will."How exactly do you expect such a marriage to survive? It's never really even existed. Divorce sucks, and we all wish that this situation would never occur, but it does.Now, if you're really committed to preventing that scenario, then you'll support the things it takes to make homosexuality so accepted that people won't feel like they have to enter into sham marriages in order to feel normal. That's the only way to put a stop to it. Says you. I say that all they need are two parents, of any sex. And the data is on my side - the only difference between children with hetero parents and ones with homosexual parents is generally that the second group tends to be more accepting of homosexuality as a sexual preference. Not exactly a big surprise.You're free to feel that gay parents hurt their kids somehow, but until you have some data to prove it, why should we pay attention to you?Also, would you ban single-parent adoption? Just curious. How would you "work out" the problem that one of the participants is not now, has never been, and never will be sexually attracted to the other person? What sort of example do you feel a totally cold and loveless marriage sets for children? I guarantee you that in a marriage broken up by the realization of homosexuality, it's never that easy.Homosexuality doesn't destroy a marriage. Homosexuality means that a marriage never existed in the first place.

Actually, it's my view that that's the worldview that society wants to be predominant. It's also the fairest.Who gave me the authority? Meaningless question. I'm not making pronouncements about what's best for society - I'm simply observing what society itself seems to like best. My condolences. Take all the time you need; I'm more than capable of jumping back into the thread when you're ready. I usually only bump threads when it looks like an otherwise active member seems to have forgotten it; if you're not active anywhere else on the board I'll just assume that you're not back yet. It's cool.

Berberry,First let me assure you that I don't hate gays or anything like that. Gay sex doesn't appeal to me, but even if it did, I would have the same view on it that I do. There are "sins" that do appeal to my flesh but I still say they are wrong and seek to avoid them. A close relative of mine is gay and we get along fine as long as we don't discuss this issue. He gets all worked up if the conversation ever turns to that, so unfortunately we are not able to discuss it. All this to say, nothing personal at all. Often times opponents of homosexuality are labeled as gay-haters when that is not the case at all - in my case. I do understand though that my views are not very popular with gay folk.

quote:

---

Berberry:
What is your opinion of Judge Roy Moore, the stupid responsible for that ridiculous 10 commandments monument?

---

TJ replies:Good question. Actually, I don't think Judge Moore was stupid at all. I applaud him for having the courage to be politically honest rather than politically correct. There is often a difference.Our nation's laws have a very close relationship with the 10 commandments from the very beginning. Now if the Founding Fathers didn't see this as an issue of separation of church and state, if the morality of the 10 Commandments was seen to be so important as to be the basis for many civil laws in early America, then I think we are being a bit ridiculous here when we say that you cannot display the 10 Commandments in a Justice building. This whole idea of separation of church and state is a rather recent addition to our laws, although the original words come from a letter that T. Jefferson wrote. His letter has been totally misinterpreted to fit today's morality. This is what bothers me. If they were at least honest in their interpretation of his letter and still disregard it, that would be even better, but twisting Jefferson's words to make them support what we want it so say is disrespectful to him and dishonest. No wonder we need the 10 commandments in today's societies. The Judges themselves would do well to comply with them.

quote:

---

Berberry:
He was breaking the law as well, and in fact refused to comply with the law even when specifically ordered to remove the damned thing by a superior court. Mayor Newsom has said he will comply if ordered to stop issuing these licenses by a court. Do you see a contrast here? What is your feeling about it?

---

TJ replies:Personally, I don't think he was breaking the law to begin with, but after due process, that was the court's decision. So I think he was wrong for not removing the monument when he was ordered to do so by his superiors. Like I said though, I do disagree with the decision, but that is beside the point.I do think there is a time for civil disobedience though. Because we are told to obey God rather than man. So, for instance, if there are laws made in this country that would prohibit me from counselling a gay person to give up their lifestyle, my conscience would not allow me to abide with that law. I think it is either Norway or Sweden where such a law exists and it puts people like me who have a moral conviction in a difficult position. I think it is only fair that we be free to explain both the positive and negative things about the homosexual lifestyle. The schools only present one side and that is unfair to children.Regards,TJ

I don't expect an immediate reply, of course, but at some point, I'd like to know: I find I disagree. For instance, I'd like to know how you reconcile a First Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" with a First Commandment that says "I am the Lord Thy God; thou shalt keep no other gods but me."This country was founded on religious pluralism, which directly contradicts the first commandment. Then likewise you wouldn't have a problem with me explaining the negative things about the heterosexual lifestyle, to perhaps your kids and other people? For instance, did you know that pregancy drastically increases a woman's chance of being the victim of a violent homicide?Also, it's telling that you refer to the "homosexual lifestyle." There's no more a homosexual "lifestyle" than there is a "white lifestyle" or an "asian lifestyle."

TJ:
Crash, I didn't go yet and have some time for a brief reply tonight. Actually I'm not sure yet when I'm going yet, but anyway...Our nation's laws have a very close relationship with the 10 commandments from the very beginning.

quote:

---

Crash replied:
I find I disagree. For instance, I'd like to know how you reconcile a First Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" with a First Commandment that says "I am the Lord Thy God; thou shalt keep no other gods but me."

​

This country was founded on religious pluralism, which directly contradicts the first commandment.

---

TJ replies:Yes, it is a free country and people are given the freedom to believe in other religions, but the Founding Fathers saw a very important corellation between the Judeo-Christian code of ethics and a successful country. Most were true believers in God, although there were some deists among them. However, if not all, I think almost all recognized the very important link between a belief in God and the morality of the country.Here is a link that shows just how embedded the 10 commandments were - all 10 of them - in the laws of the early colonies. Obviously the early leaders of our country had a very high regard for what they believed to be the Word of God. http://www.lc.org/hotissues/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}TJ wrote:
I think it is only fair that we be free to explain both the positive and negative things about the homosexual lifestyle.

quote:

---

Crash replied:
Then likewise you wouldn't have a problem with me explaining the negative things about the heterosexual lifestyle, to perhaps your kids and other people? For instance, did you know that pregancy drastically increases a woman's chance of being the victim of a violent homicide?

---

TJ replies:
No, I wouldn't have a problem with you explaining the negative things about heterosexual lifestyles either. Everyone should know what they are getting into before they make the commitment. It is only fair. Being aware of the fact that you brought up would impress upon people the importance of choosing a trustworthy and dependable spouse. Pregnancy also has health risks of it's own and women should know about it. The same thing should apply to abortions and pre-marital sex. People need to know.

quote:

---

Crash:
Also, it's telling that you refer to the "homosexual lifestyle." There's no more a homosexual "lifestyle" than there is a "white lifestyle" or an "asian lifestyle."

---

TJ replies:
Well OK, let me explain a little. Basically all I meant by that term was a practicing homosexual, but there are certain things that often go along with that. I don't want to make a big deal out of it, but I do think there are some general things that are true of a majority of homosexuals, or at least are more true of homosexuals than of heterosexuals. Of course they don't apply to all homosexuals and I don't mean to imply that they do, but I'm just speaking generally here.Regards,TJ[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-29-2004]

Catholicism is the faith, doctrine, system, and practice of a Catholic church. Catholic pertains to the universal Church, or body of Christians.Christianity is the Christian religion. A Christian is a person who professes belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings.Catholicism equals catholicism. Christian equals Christian. Catholicism does not equal Christian. Two different words, two different meanings. The significance of the word Christian has not changed since the word was coined.Government is the act of governing. The people or institutions that govern may change over time, but that does not change the meaning of the word 'government.'You are claiming these institutions to be synonymous with their attributes. That is not a logical process. A bus driver can be a woman, but that does not mean 'bus driver' is synonymous with 'woman.'
The logic you are using, however, would imply that it is. Let's teach a monkey how to drive a bus and then 'bus driver' will be synonymous with 'monkey.' A thing is not synonymous with its attributes. It's attributes can change without the thing itself changing. Let's stop thinking with our emotions and start using some more reason.Christianity has always been the profession of belief in Jesus and his teachings. Government has always been the act of governing. Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman.

What is that? Two equals one? "Two separate marriages" is hardly the same thing as one marriage.A marriage is a man and a woman. One man can be involved in multiple marriages, each marriage between one man (himself) and one woman. Likewise, a woman could be involved in more than one marriage, each marraige one woman (herself) and one man.But even if you can't figure out simple arithmetic (1 = 1, 2 = 2), it doesn't change the fact that marriage is between male and female, regardless of number. Or are you suggesting that three men should be able to marry each other?

quote:

---

One man can be involved in multiple marriages, each marriage between one man (himself) and one woman. Likewise, a woman could be involved in more than one marriage, each marraige one woman (herself) and one man.

---

I don't know where you live, but that's not true in MY country.Maybe we should make a constitutional amendment prohibiting the prohibition of polygamy?After all, it's in the bible.

Okay, Crash. Let's try that fable over again.Fable: Bear lived in a cave. While Bear was out one day foraging for berries and honey, Fox came and took up residence in the cave. Bear came home to find Fox resting in his favorite spot and asked him what he was doing there. Fox stated that he had the same rights to live there as Bear. Bear took Fox to visit Owl. Judge Owl established that the cave had been occupied for time out of mind by Bear's family and therefore Bear had every right to live in the cave. Owl pronounced that Fox had no right to claim ownership of the cave and must move out.Question: Is Owl taking the fox's rights away?Moral: Every one does not have a right to every thing.I propose that you folks are thinking emotionally instead of logically.

I've been talking about a universal definition of the institution of marriage, not about just what the legal practices happen to be in the United States at this point in time. Polygamy has existed as an accepted institution in other cultures at other times and places.I believe in total devotion to my wife, so I don't like the idea of polygamy myself, but for the purposes of finding a universal definition of marriage, how many marriages are allowed is moot.

Well, if by "many" you mean "about 3", then you're right...

---

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

What he meant was at one time ALL christens where catholic And if you believed anything outside of the Catholic church you where not Really a true Christen. To be exact Christianity means you believe Jesus was the messiah.... the way you said it makes it sound like that anyone who thinks Jesus existed is Christian. Has it now? I seem to recall Being Told when I made my conformation that the priest is married to the Church and God.... I wonder are they both women?Anyway I don't see what is So darn hard about changing the meaning.... I mean according to churches and my family I am not really married to my wife... so why the heck do they care so much if they won't really be married?