Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Church and Homosexual Marriage
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 63 (188821)
02-26-2005 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coragyps
02-26-2005 10:55 PM


You can do it on the Web these days.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 02-26-2005 10:55 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Angeldust
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 63 (189212)
02-28-2005 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by coffee_addict
02-26-2005 3:15 PM


quote:
And what's new here?
Nothing. I agree. However, it's true that the church hasn't always done what the founders of the religion would deem as acceptable. If the whole country was Christian we would have some basis for discussion in the political arena, however, being as a whole country never is, or never has been, I think we've overstepped our bounds on many occasions.
This guy was moving in with his girlfriend and knew that his conservative Christian aunt would object, so in an attempt to be sensitive to his Aunt's religious leanings he made a statement along the lines of "I know you disagree but it's still my decision." His aunt looked at him and said "Your not a Christian, what difference does it make?"
That's kind of where I'm coming from. If someone recognizes God's authority in their life, there's room for discussion about it. If not, why the heck should I expect them to live by my standards?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by coffee_addict, posted 02-26-2005 3:15 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 03-01-2005 12:31 AM Angeldust has not replied
 Message 19 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-01-2005 2:27 AM Angeldust has not replied
 Message 20 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 10:05 AM Angeldust has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 18 of 63 (189380)
03-01-2005 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Angeldust
02-28-2005 12:50 PM


Im glad that the U.S. is not a Theocracy
Angeldust writes:
If the whole country was Christian we would have some basis for discussion in the political arena, however, being as a whole country never is, or never has been, I think we've overstepped our bounds on many occasions.
Actually I am quite happy that the U.S. is not a theocracy. I am a moderate, however, in that I believe that we need the discipline of the conservative as well as the unfettered expression of the liberal. Homosexual Marriage is a civil issue and the question is this: Is Marriage a sacred sacrament or a civil technicality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Angeldust, posted 02-28-2005 12:50 PM Angeldust has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 19 of 63 (189395)
03-01-2005 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Angeldust
02-28-2005 12:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Angeldust:

That's kind of where I'm coming from. If someone recognizes God's authority in their life, there's room for discussion about it. If not, why the heck should I expect them to live by my standards?

*cheers*
finally. someone gets it. of course then there are those people who call themselves christians but don't ascribe to the regulations of the establishment. and, naturally, i am finding myself more often in that throng.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Angeldust, posted 02-28-2005 12:50 PM Angeldust has not replied

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 63 (189432)
03-01-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Angeldust
02-28-2005 12:50 PM


If the whole country was Christian we would have some basis for discussion in the political arena, however, being as a whole country never is, or never has been, I think we've overstepped our bounds on many occasions.
yes, but the majority is christian, and since 51% of the country rules the other 49% that is all that is needed. you all know this. it has been one of christianity's goals from day one to make everyone christian. Rome may have been difficult to convert but this place is in the bag.
a hole country never is or never has been chritian? are you serious there is one that is today. It is the smallest indepedant state on earth and it is called Vatican City.
we've overstepped our bounds? we as in who? I thought you are Canadian?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Angeldust, posted 02-28-2005 12:50 PM Angeldust has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by LinearAq, posted 03-01-2005 11:28 AM Vercingetorix has replied
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2005 11:33 AM Vercingetorix has not replied
 Message 31 by Loudmouth, posted 03-01-2005 4:30 PM Vercingetorix has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 21 of 63 (189445)
03-01-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 10:05 AM


Democracy Rules?
Vercingetorix writes:
yes, but the majority is christian, and since 51% of the country rules the other 49% that is all that is needed.
Then majority rules is always the case? Well, what if the majority of the population decided that Arabic peoples in the US should be herded up and placed in particular locations? Would you go along with it?
At the end of the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression), the majority of the voting population of the US would have still allowed slavery. Why, then, was it abolished?
Clearly, there are some things that go beyond majority opinion. There appear to be some ideals that must be upheld or inacted despite the majority opinion. Perhaps freedom of/from religion is one of those?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 10:05 AM Vercingetorix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 11:59 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 63 (189447)
03-01-2005 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 10:05 AM


and since 51% of the country rules the other 49% that is all that is needed.
That's not actually how it works. In fact our founding fathers designed the Constitution so that the 51% couldn't completely rule over the 49%. Hence we have things like the Bill of Rights, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 10:05 AM Vercingetorix has not replied

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 63 (189454)
03-01-2005 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by LinearAq
03-01-2005 11:28 AM


Re: Democracy Rules?
Then majority rules is always the case? Well, what if the majority of the population decided that Arabic peoples in the US should be herded up and placed in particular locations? Would you go along with it?
like the amerindins? hmmmm
personally, probably not.
I am not for a national majority rule, I'm a state's rights rights fan. if a particular state wanted to do this, and they had the majority's support, well then why not? this is definately a gray issue its not black and white. are these arabs citizens? you said arabic peoples, do you mean people who consider themselves arabs or what? you wouldn't have the same freedoms in thier country.
back to the topic at hand:
i live in Illinois, but i work in Misery aka Missouri (STL). the state of Misery has an anti-same sex marrige amendment on its state constitution. the state will not regonize a marriage between same sex partners (no matter what state they are married in). this was put into effect by the majority of the sate (im thinking at least 70%). if you do not live in Missouri what business of this is yours? or mine? (i pay taxes in Missouri, but its the voters of Missouri who count)
This message has been edited by Vercingetorix, 03-01-2005 14:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by LinearAq, posted 03-01-2005 11:28 AM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-01-2005 12:51 PM Vercingetorix has replied
 Message 25 by berberry, posted 03-01-2005 12:51 PM Vercingetorix has replied
 Message 26 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-01-2005 1:04 PM Vercingetorix has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 63 (189461)
03-01-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 11:59 AM


Re: Democracy Rules?
if a particular state wanted to do this, and they had the majority's support, well then why not?
Mainly because of the fourteenth amendment. By being a citizen of the United States, you are entiteld to equal protection under the law. In other words, no level of government can treat you any differently than it does any other citizen. Not at state level, not at federal level. It works under a pretty basic premise... it doesn't matter if the Governor or the President signs the piece of paper to bully a minority, it's crap either way.
this is definately a gray issue its not black and white.
Funny choice of words. Look at the case Loving v. Virginia, in which it was ruled as absolute horseshit that the state of Virginia could choose to not recognize inter-racial marriages, or otherwise penalize people for having them. This was all hashed out a very long time ago. It's just a different group getting screwed.
A right is exactly that... a right. You can't get together and decide it doesn't apply to some people. And marriage was in no uncertain terms defined as a "fundamental right" in that same case.

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 11:59 AM Vercingetorix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 2:23 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 63 (189462)
03-01-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 11:59 AM


Re: Democracy Rules?
Vercingetorix writes:
quote:
if you do not live in Missouri what business of this is yours? or mine?
Indeed, and what business did Illinois and New York have telling Mississippi and Alabama what to do with their racial minorities? Why did they care if African-Americans in the South had no civil rights or legal protections? It didn't affect them; they lived in different states. What business did they have telling citizens of other states what to do?

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 11:59 AM Vercingetorix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 2:10 PM berberry has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 63 (189466)
03-01-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 11:59 AM


Re: Democracy Rules?
if you do not live in Missouri what business of this is yours? or mine?
I might add... if the state of Missouri can decide that homosexuals are less than equal humans, then the state of Illinois can decide that heterosexuals are less than equal humans. So yes, it is very much my business.

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 11:59 AM Vercingetorix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 2:15 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 63 (189479)
03-01-2005 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by berberry
03-01-2005 12:51 PM


Re: Democracy Rules?
Indeed, and what business did Illinois and New York have telling Mississippi and Alabama what to do with their racial minorities? Why did they care if African-Americans in the South had no civil rights or legal protections? It didn't affect them; they lived in different states. What business did they have telling citizens of other states what to do?
well those are blue states for you (and two of the worst). well actually illinois is only blue because of chicago, but that is new york and chicago for you. i couldn't agree with you more, its none of thier business.
This message has been edited by Vercingetorix, 03-01-2005 14:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by berberry, posted 03-01-2005 12:51 PM berberry has not replied

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 63 (189480)
03-01-2005 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dan Carroll
03-01-2005 1:04 PM


Re: Democracy Rules?
I might add... if the state of Missouri can decide that homosexuals are less than equal humans, then the state of Illinois can decide that heterosexuals are less than equal humans. So yes, it is very much my business.
yeeeaahhhh rrriiight! that's gonna happen good rebuttle.
in theory i guess it depends on how crazy those liberals up there get, but you can keep them in check im sure
Blagojevich is looking out for us, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-01-2005 1:04 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 63 (189484)
03-01-2005 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dan Carroll
03-01-2005 12:51 PM


Re: Democracy Rules?
Mainly because of the fourteenth amendment. By being a citizen of the United States, you are entiteld to equal protection under the law. In other words, no level of government can treat you any differently than it does any other citizen. Not at state level, not at federal level. It works under a pretty basic premise... it doesn't matter if the Governor or the President signs the piece of paper to bully a minority, it's crap either way.
do you really believe that? (affirmative action? anyone)
that is for citizens, no one answered the question above if the arabic peoples in question were citizens or not, if they were they would be called americans so i am guess they are not, and therefore not coverd by that amendment.
so said one thing right, "...its crap..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-01-2005 12:51 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-01-2005 2:55 PM Vercingetorix has not replied
 Message 33 by LinearAq, posted 03-01-2005 5:52 PM Vercingetorix has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 63 (189491)
03-01-2005 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 2:23 PM


Re: Democracy Rules?
yeeeaahhhh rrriiight! that's gonna happen good rebuttle.
Slot in whatever group pleases you in the place of "heterosexual". The state of Illinois would have precedent to decide that Jews are less than equal humans, for instance. (Which you may have noticed happens from time to time on this crazy ol' planet of ours.)
I'm constantly amazed by people who don't get the basic premise that legal prejudice against one group opens the door for legal prejudice against anyone.
do you really believe that?
That the fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection? There's no "believing it" or not.
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If you feel that certain practices like affirmative action violate that, then go ahead and start a topic on the subject. But the language of the amendment is clear. "Nor shall any state... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So basically, the state does not have the ability to fuck over a subset of the population, no matter what the group consensus is.
Free tip, sport... get a basic understanding of civil rights law under your belt before trying to argue civil rights. The Constitution is a good place to start.
that is for citizens, no one answered the question above if the arabic peoples in question were citizens or not, if they were they would be called americans so i am guess they are not, and therefore not coverd by that amendment.
No, non-citizens are not protected by the fourteenth amendment. Non-citizens are also not married by the United States Government. So what's your point?

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 2:23 PM Vercingetorix has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by joz, posted 03-18-2005 3:09 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024