This was a discussion that took place on my(Tim's) facebook page when I posted "vote yes on eight" as my headline. Some good stuff here, take a look at what proceeded:
Anonymous at 7:04pm October 23 people's right to marry is similar to your right to follow christianity. dictating one's choice in who they can and cannot marry is not for you to decide. it is their choice simply because it is their life. so keep out of it.
Tim Shrout at 7:12pm October 23 its not about christianity, not at all, has nothing to do with it, it has everything to do with the office of marriage and what it was created for.
Anonymous at 7:18pm October 23 it stands for people who love each other. fyi, some men and women get married for reasons other than love; they get married because they had a child together or because they want the benefits. why should they receive the sanction of marriage while two gay people who have devoted years and years to one another are denied of the same rights simply because they are not a man and women?
it is the 21st century. traditional views are a-changing just like everything else and to reserve those bigot thoughts is ignorant.
Tim Shrout at 7:24pm October 23 actually, it does not stand for people who love each other, it was created for procreation. so are you okay then with a adult marrying a kid if they both love each other? are you okay with a human marrying an animal if they love each other? who are you to judge if they do or don't? its a slippery slope you want to tread on, break the office of marriage for one group, all the others will come knocking on the door and soon break it down. the line has to be drawn somewhere, why not at the start? and for you to claim my opinion, since it is the opposite of yours is bigoted and ignorant makes you bigoted of my opinion. You have a double standard my friend. Tolerance has become anything but, we are no longer tolerant of anyone who has a different opinion then ours, you are not tolerant of mine because you believe I am being intolerant. Voltaire has the worlds first and greatest definition of tolerance, and it was, I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
Tim Shrout at 7:24pm October 23 your right to say it". the world needs to get back to the opinion.
Peter Hodgen at 7:25pm October 23 So if they love a Dog, they should be allowed to marry it? It's not about mere religious opinion, it comes down to simple legal obligation. If you know anything about law and precedent, this situation brings more than "Gay Marriage" to the ballot. If this passes, precedent is set and then anyone with a "different" idea of what marriage consists of would be allowed to legally argue for their position. Thus this would bring into play polygamy, beastiality, and any other form of marriage that people think should be allowed. It is a slippery legal slope, thus we need to make the right decision for the future of our country.
Anonymous at 7:41pm October 23 people need not marry to procreate. it is just a "legitimized" and "acceptable" way to do so. it is one's opinion in whether or not it is right. it is not moral to decide what is right for another person.
i said, "people who love each other." i am not referring to "children marrying adults" or "animals marrying people." that argument is beside the point and a different argument in itself.
so what if one "office of marriage" is broken? do you think all of our technological advances have come about by sticking to what was believed "at the start?" the answer is no. i say so because of the many so-called eccentrics who went against the norm and discovered all of the great discoveries we now recognize today. for example, Galileo, in his discovery that the world revolved around the sun, was negated and opposed by the cardinal of the church. does that mean that his findings were false? no. it simply means that the cardinal refused to recognize Galileo's findings as true because of his
Tim Shrout at 7:45pm October 23 Okay, the double standard continues, you define love as being between a man and a women or a man/man, women/women. you have taken the other options of children/adults, animals/adults out of the equation, so now you are bigoted towards them. that is not beside the point at all, if gay marriage is legalized, those groups will be coming forward to make the case that they should have the same rights, and will eventually win over just like gay marriage is on the verge of doing. For you to think otherwise or claim otherwise is simply foolish and niave. It has taken gay marriage centuries to get this close, in todays society it would take the other groups less time. it is a slippery slope despite what you appear to have talked yourself into. Your insisting that it is besides the point couldn't be more wrong. I am in no way saying they can't go on being gay and go on being with eachother, but marriage was not created for a man and a man, but for a man and a women. If you are going to..
Tim Shrout at 7:46pm October 23 destroy what it was originally created for, you have to include all groups, not just gays, are you ready to do that?
Anonymous at 7:47pm October 23 traditional views in that the roman church is what determined physics. not physics determining the physical world. and for the cardinal to say that is unfair and ignorant, because he refuses the truth because of his close-minded opinion. after years and years of tribulation, galileo finally was heard and his findings were established.
i never said i was intolerant of your view. if i was, i wouldn't be your friend. bigotry is simply not considering the other person's view and steadfastly holding onto one's own. it means you are unwilling to consider another reason. bigotry is the opposite of tolerance. tolerance is the acceptance of another's view, despite in one's own.
http://dictionary.referenc
e.com/browse/tolerance
Peter Hodgen at 7:48pm October 23 So now, you are defining "Love" just as we are saying marriage has its definite limits. We are not saying that they cannot be Gay or love each other, but simply that marriage was not and is not designed to be between two of the same sex or any other form other than a man and woman.
Tim Shrout at 7:53pm October 23 tolerance is not accepting someones view, tolerance is the willingness to let them have their view. Todays definition of tolerance has been warped from what it was originally defined as. Todays society has become so much about avoiding confrontation and conforming to everything that if you have a different voice, no matter how rational, you are looked on as bigoted and untolerent, that, is bigoted in and of itself. My point is proved by a california principle who was quoted as saying "the only thing we will not tolerate is intolerence" That makes no sense, but it is the worlds current view. I am willing to allow gays to be together, thats their choice. but marriage was created for a reason, and if you are not a man and a women, it was not for you. Again, I quote Voltaire, I do not agree with being gay, but I will defend to the death their right to it. Just not their right to marriage.
Matt Hodgen at 8:10pm October 23 Funny that this world has completely forgotten a simple foundational rule....**if it has to be justified, it's probably wrong**.....the US is one of the ONLY countries where such freedoms exist such as free speech, our rights to outward public opinions, that we've completely diluted the understanding of our core moral principles. For us to fall so far as a society that we are now arguing about what genders should be allowed to marry...well, it's a scary time. We hedge our arguements upon different vices, this one being gay marriage more out of an inwardly selfish, antagonisticly wired way of behavior rather than through a core moral rational perception. In layman's terms, we'd rather compromise our judgement for the sake of having the slightest notion of compromise.
Tim I am with you 110%, however I still believe being gay in and of itself is a sin. I don't view them any different than liars, murderers, theives, fornicators, drunks, etc. We all sin and fall short, however....
Tim Shrout at 8:13pm October 23 I fully agree with you Matt, it is still a sin, but in a world full of sinners(myself included) I do not focus on the sin part to non christians, I focus on other aspects that SHOULD be important to the world at large, but apparently the world is so full on the idea of the new "tolerance" that all common sense has been thrown to the wind.
Matt Hodgen at 8:17pm October 23 ...what is going on with this marriage issue far surpasses trying to preserve the sanctity of their opinions and wants. This will be the beginning of the unravelling of the sheer moral fiber that we as people were created upon. There will be much deeper reprecussions than simply having some pissed religious people, and some overly happy sinners. THink about this example.......in the past 4 years every homeowner got to bend the rules, do what they wanted and be as happy as possible...the banks succumbed to these desires, although it went against the basic written laws of simple finance theory...NOW we are in a position as an entire nation than we ever could have expected. Even people who were never involved are now being harmed through these indisgretions.
Keep in mind that that was only one little area of finance. Marriage is far bigger, more powerful and MUCH more necessary to preserve than money. How far does our nation need to fall before we take this blindfold off ....
Tim Shrout at 8:19pm October 23 Amen brother, dude, your freaking brilliant! Honestly though, I agree with you, this very well could be the final threat that does cause the moral fiber of America to fall apart.
Tim Shrout at 8:23pm October 23 I feel like this should be a blog instead of a facebook discussion, I think I might very well start a blog and copy/paste this as my first "blog" entry.
Matt Hodgen at 8:24pm October 23 ...of our eyes and start living and abiding by simple standards? Who knows! It is just sad to me that we as a peope are so driven to prove our un natural ways right in the eyes of others, getting solely what we want regardless at the cost to others, that we dedicate our lives.
Marriage is simple and created for one purpose, to bring a man and a woman together and make them ONE. We were wired differently solely for this purpose and I could write a thesis for anybody who cares to read it as to why we were created with these differences, but its function is simple.....men and women were made for eachother.
Eithe way I am voting a big fat YES for Prop 8...somebody has to, and I for one am sure going to try!
Tim Shrout at 8:26pm October 23 dude, you should write a thesis, I would read it!
Peter Hodgen at 8:28pm October 23 I love it! Great point. This issue with marriage very well could be the final thread to the ever dangling United States. We are in the midst of a clear economic crisis, and now we have the responsibility to try to keep ourselves from the brink of a moral cataclysm. Will we take the high road? Or simply be passive and "tolerant" of something just because it seems "fair."
Slow claps all the way around, no really, give it up for yourselves, I don’t know your previous work, but I can’t see how you have not outdone yourselves with this gem of discourse.
Being someone who has studied law, debate, and economics for the past several years you all have successfully managed to piss me off in every single subject with your wanton disregard for the actual arguments at hand, your use of inflammatory rhetoric to disguise your crippling inadequacy in developing rational opposition to justify your own sense of unwarranted fear, and your, and I say this honestly understanding the definition of the word, complete and utter application of the most offending form of stupidity that man has ever participated in the perpetuation of; willing ignorance.
I do not know where to start, really, so maybe I will just highlight some of the HORRIBLE assertions made by you: Anonymous, Tim, Peter, and Matt.
First, even though your point was ridiculous, indefensible, and plain stupid (I will not call it dumb, because I truly believe that the bubble within which you all most likely choose to remain in has shaped your worldview so that you do not know better) if you are going to make such claims, do not hide their weaknesses by using distraction arguments, or Red Herrings, as they are officially named. These false comparisons are distracting and do not allow us to focus on the real issue. So, do NOT compare a MAN and a MAN or a WOMAN and a WOMAN to a Man and a dog! Do not compare the same to a child and an adult. Tim, you said that if this passes they too will come forward. WE LIVE IN CALIFORNIA! This is a referendum state, anything with 250,000 signatures comes forward! And when it comes forward do you know who has to make sure it is constitutional before it passes?!? The State Supreme Court! This is the same court who has defined that a child is a child under 18. Why!?! Because that individual is not yet deemed savvy enough in the ways of the world to live in the confines of its own conscience for the sake of its safety. In California Kids aren’t adults, and they can’t marry adults b/c they’re kids, there is a reason that they are called kids, and more importantly called minors! Do you think that an individual not thought intelligent or developed enough to fight in a war, smoke cigarettes, buy dirty magazines, somehow has the wherewithal to decide that it wants to get married! I would ask you if you think that’s possible, but I don’t want to hear that type of ignorance when you say yes and confirm my 2nd to worst fear.
My worst of course being Tim and Peter’s classic false comparison, I mean this is textbook fallacy here, that a Man marrying a Man will lead to a Man marrying a Dog because they love each other. REALLY!?! If we let two people who love each other get married today, more like them will be clamoring out of our doors tomorrow, and WHY, because HUMANS are the same as DOGS. Really?!? If we don’t think that <18 kids can make their own decision to get married, are you honestly telling me, and listen up, that animals, who have never consensually agreed to get married, will be legally wed.
Most of your arguments are dumb at best, my personal favorite is both individuals misuse of the word bigot, and how ‘anonymous’ somehow became a bigot by calling you a bigot. Well, neither of you used it correctly… at all, a bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing idea [other than that which they espouse to]. Now let us examine that right for a spell.
Does marriage live in the 8 letters that encapsulate the word? No. If one was asked to constitute a basket of behaviors that embody the act of being married would it be possible? Yes. And do those behaviors change if those married individuals now change the word that defines the set of actions, from which they are already willing participants in! No. Marriage doesn’t start at “I do”. It starts way before and which of those behaviors are innate within the word? None. So what we have are individuals whose behaviors mirror the behaviors of legally recognized married people, leaving the only distinction to be the word under which society understands those behaviors. So by not recognizing a group whose behaviors mirror those of a legally recognized group what are we doing? We are holding onto the worthless significance of a word desired so that those behaviors, which are equal, are recognized as what they have already been, equal. So we are hoarding something that is innately worthless to ourselves (heterosexuals), but arguably priceless to those who seek it.
So bringing it back full circle, are individuals who would keep marriage an exclusive right, from those who seek recognition for a lifestyle whose behaviors already embody that right, bigots? If intolerance is viewed by the rejection of respect of an idea, can their be any higher disrespect than the rejection of the recognition of another’s equal dedication?
Seconding what the posting above says, your histrionic rationale is indefensible. Are you understanding that women lost rights when they married, at the inception of marriage, that when marriage was first created it was glorified stranger rape. You say a man marrying a child is next? What if it was first? What if the average age of a husband was 30 and the average age of his wife was 13 to 15? What if instead of this love and this bringing a man and a woman together, it was buying a future with a man by paying him to marry your daughter? What if marriage was an institution in which a man could beat his wife mercilessly because he was the authority in the house and if he felt transgressed his retribution was not regulated by law? Your worst case scenario’s are the manner in which the institution that gays and lesbians will somehow destroy, first functioned, except then it was without the help of gays and lesbians, heterosexuals screwed things up without assistance. So people have advocated for change in marriage for decades and you now that you are happy with the system their advocating has resulted in, you will prevent gays and lesbians from using the advocating system that got you here today. But for every council that agreed that a woman of 13 was old enough to be wed, another individual believed she was young enough to call that rape. And for every council who stood up for a man’s right to govern his household by beating his wife, another stood up bold enough to call such a right, abuse. And hopefully for everyone who stands up to say that no on 8 will be the beginning of the end another will stand up to say that yes on 8 is in fact the beginning of an end of change that has been needed since the beginning.
No on 8
P.S. – The economic argument was nothing but lies.
Just a note as I do not have time to adequately read and reply to the previous comment right now, one post was deleted due to language, all points of view are welcome, but language will not be allowed. Remember, the desire here is that this place remains civil despite differing view points and if it breaks down into cussing, that will not happen. Thank You.
OK so this is a great topic guys, thanks for including me in your conversation. Where do I start. In light of my own personal convictions and moral code, I find homosexuality a sin, however it is not my place to be the judge of anyone who participates in the activity. We are all falable and fall short. As a Christian I can express to an individual my own beliefs and pray for them but it my understanding and nature to still treat the other person the same I would anyone else. With respect as an individual with the same free will God gave me. No matter who is right or wrong, we are accountable for ourselves and ourselves only. Now a conversation came up with my teenage son on this issue. He had come to me asking my take on this propostiton and was concerned about this being taught in his school. He is of the mindset that a traditional marriage between man and woman is what he wants his children to know. I respect his position but had to remind him of what "tolerance" and love means even if it comes to fruition and this change comes about. We already see gay marriage, it just is not legalized and as disheartening as it may be, the real world we live in, may have this come into reality. We already accept homosexuality when it was frowned upon in the past. In light of my recent impending divorce I have been taking a closer look at the institution of marriage anyway. I learned (perhaps you know of somewhere) that in the Bible it does not speak at all to what a marriage ceremony should look like, nor the paperwork to be filed. If you look through history the instutuion of marriage was created for the reasons to secure bloodline, property, rights, and even control from the church itself, etc. It many times had nothing even to do with love! It spoke to a marriage being an outward commitment (a witness) and then consumated with sex. We have a picture of God creating woman (Eve) as the perfect partner and mate for man (Adam) and it does speak to homosexuality as sin however the marriage itself is not truly defined. I in some ways think the way homosexuals pronounce their union now is very tempting even for me in the future with another man. A commitment to someone doesnt need a piece of paper. The paper is a legal document in the eyes of the state only, not neccesarily in Gods eyes. I think this relates to your topic in a way because we have talks of love and comittment between two individuals. What is that piece of paper Really affording? Legal rights to the other person and their property! To me homosexuality is a choice, a chioce I would not make, however if I found I had a son who had that tendency, I refuse to not "commit" to him as his mother. As another sinner trying to find my way thru this crazy world. I personally will vote with what I am convicted of in my own heart but if it comes to marriage between gays being sanctioned, you educate those you love, let them learn about "tolerance" and also let them come to their own conclusions. Will this open doors to other things like marrying a dog? Doubt it, but it is the slow decline of our society that is become so much more evident in the lives we live today. I am thankful we live in a country that affords our rights to speech, individuality, freedom of religion, all that! But as I close.....just think, what if we are wrong (on any topic) Even within Biblical understanding between Christians on so many topics....If you are truly seeking God in all you do, He would not be the God we believe in if He was not merciful to forgive us and welcome us on that final day, even if we choose the wrong thing.
This is just your cynical, slightly liberal, yet still Jesus loving, friend weighing in.
My opinion: I don't really care if two folks of legal age want to get hitched. I know I’m supposed to care because it’s a “moral issue” and I call myself a follower of Christ, but I tend to believe that we live in a fallen world which hates God and loves sin, and the harder we try to make it act like we want it to, the more it will be able to delude itself that it is right and those who follow God are in fact wrong. And does anybody really think that this isn’t going to be used to discriminate against gays? As you said earlier Tim, this is a slippery slope, but going the other way. If we go down it, we will be led towards outlawing gays. This may not be where we are headed right now, but I think we all know that’s the end game of many of those who support this bill. Please understand, I am not saying all of those who support Prop 8 (just to clarify, Prop 8 is to define marriage as between a man and a women, not the other way around) are bigots and hate gays, but some do and they will use this as a springboard. Regardless, I think there are much bigger issues (like slavery, the poor, etc…) that have clearly defined rights and wrongs for us to be raising hell over and attaching the name of Christ to.
Just a side note: Please be careful about multiple postings by several people all agreeing with one another. It can start to look like a rally if all the dissenting voices suddenly cease. Also, this isn't a debate class. You don't argue louder than someone else and thereby "win." They just choose to ignore you and chalk it up to ignorance and groupthink. Maybe ask yourself if you were to quietly state your argument to a person who disagreed with you, would they agree that your logic and understanding of the issue are impeccable, or would they feel like they were reading campaign literature?
Finally: I love you all and my disagreement is a reflection of that love.
(I wrote this last night prior to any of the comments posted on this blog, yet most of what I have to say is still directed at all partakers. It's easy to get real loud and sure of yourself if you think the majority has your back, so maybe make a point of not getting that loud.)
Hey guys, very very interesting reads as I come back from work today. I want to thank all of you for, for the most part remaining civil in this conversation. I will be completely honest, These posts, all of them have made me think more on this topic then I ever have in my life and it has been very enlightening. While I still hold to my original views, I have seen some other very good points from the other views and have a great deal of respect for those that made them.
There are a few things I would like the specifically address. James, the adult-kid thing is a shock used to prove a point, and the point is similar to the economics one made. The parallel would be Pandoras Box, and the fear that gay marriage, though it might seem a small thing in and of itself could open Pandoras box to things no one wants to see. Could we be wrong? Yes we could! But it is also possible we aren't
To imply your knowledge level is greater based on what you have studied is not very valid as most of us, if not all have studied a great deal on the same topics. When it comes down to it, this is all based on educated opinion that IS influenced from some of the more important moments in our lives. For example, the single most important thing in my life is Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior, and though I would not use Biblical arguments to non believers on this topic, my belief in the Bible as Gods perfect word does influence me on certain social aspects. For you, when you moved to Berkley you went there saying you were going to make an impact on Berkley society, but in the end, it made a huge impact on you, its professors and community led you to your current belief systems. We all have those parts of our lives that impact our social beliefs and opinions greatly. To call someone ignorant and belitle them for their opinion is not something we should be doing, we should read and try to understand what they are saying. Does not mean we have to agree, but we should be willing to defend their right to their opinion.
So in conclusion, thanks all of you for your informative and thoughtful posts on this topic that has become incredibly big in America. It really has been enjoyable being able to read these different perspectives and I believe if we all look at them without judging them right away, we can grow in respect for each other and our opinion, doesn't mean our opinion will change, but it will help us view each other in a better light and treat each other with more respect.
"Quietly stating" one's opinion to someone ignorantly stuck in their bigot thoughts does not work. "They just choose to ignore you and chalk it up to ignorance and groupthink." I do believe this entire thread is a perfect example.
Similarly, trying to debate about a political issue with ignorant, devout christians always, somehow one way or another, brings in religion. in that case, they are too blinded by their beliefs to have a strictly political view. those who choose to keep religion personal are those who can have a logical debate that is not offensive to all parties. when one starts bringing in "sinning" and corrupt "moral principles," one is besides the point and not adhering to the political topic to be had.
also, "logic and understanding of the issue" just may be contained within "campaign literature" because, hey, it is a political topic at hand. just because one doesn't understand the statements made doesn't mean the author should dumb it down.
matt hodgen, i'm not going to even touch on all of the half-witted comments made but i will state this: americans' "diluted understanding of our core moral principles" doesn't encompass allowing gay marriage. just because you and your fellow christians adhere to the "core moral principles" presented in the bible, does not mean it is the standard moral code of all. many people read other texts and many people use their own judgment as to what is moral and what isn't. i know plenty of people who follow religion yet have sex before marriage and so on and so forth, yet they call themselves the devout. hypocrisy applies to everyone, ya know.
also, gay people ARE "different than liars, murderers, theives, fornicators, drunks, etc." they are not put on death row for their relationships nor are they recognized as criminals for doing so. they are only recognized as "sinners" by the religious. once again, it's one's personal view to decide what is one's own moral code. it is not for you and your religious life to decide other people's fate for "we all sin and fall short."
you deleted his post for cussing....hmmm....interesting. maybe his points were more valid that we will ever know and yet we will never get to hear them because of cussing...i digress....but let me ask you...have you never resorted to cussing in an argument? be honest because i know the answer.
>"Quietly stating" one's opinion to >someone ignorantly stuck in their >bigot thoughts does not work. Responding to a biased and/or illogical argument with another argument of the same type generally does nothing to convince the previous argument's author that they are wrong; in fact, it usually leads towards them being further convicted of their own rightness because while they may not be able to see the holes in their own arguments, they definitely will be able to see those in yours. I think this is a case where fighting fire with fire only leads to conflagration.
Yes, I have resorted to cussing out of anger, I am not perfect. I regret the times I have done it, and you will not find me doing it here, if you do, call me on it and I will erase it. One of the main reasons I want to avoid this on here is due to the fact that I want these conversations to remain civil if not friendly, cussing and name calling will not allow that to continue.
As for my opinion on the whole prop 8 thing, I think that for me, the whole thing boils down to our government attempting to control our own personal lives in a way that it shouldn't be allowed to. Right now, whether you like it or not, our government DOES have the authority to define marriage, and to tell you whether or not you can get married and who you can get married to. This has been demonstrated to be a major problem, because there are many people in California who define marriage as between a man and a woman, and many others who define marriage as between two adult people. In either case, whichever way Prop 8 goes, there are going to be people that are going to be told that they cannot define marriage the way they believe is correct. Personally, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. So, as much as I'd like to grant gays and lesbians the right to be married (or, to define their cohabitant relationships as marriage), I can't without giving up my own right to define this thing that happens between a man and a woman as a marriage. Is my personal belief influenced by my religious beliefs? I should certainly hope so, because if it wasn't that would make me a hypocrite (I could extrapolate that out into how our personal beliefs affect our political views, but for the sake of conciseness let's leave that topic for another forum). And if our laws are going to be such that they infringe on MY personal beliefs, then I'm definitely going to vote against those laws, as well should you. So, basically, anyone who thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman only should vote yes on 8, anyone who thinks it should be between any two adults should vote no. This does not seem like a satisfactory solution to me. It would seem that my right to retain my personal beliefs comes at the expense of the forfeiture of another person's right to hold their own beliefs. The only solution I see to this situation would be to completely deregulate marriage, which would require a total overhaul of our current law codes (essential turning marriages into civil unions in all applicable laws). This would give me the opportunity to retain my belief in an exclusive man-woman marriage, and allow others to retain their belief in the inclusive adult-adult marriage. The best laws are those that do the most good for the most people. Wouldn't that be a solution that does more good for more people than either a yes or no on prop 8?
so, I agree with Nate - we have bigger issues in this world than gay marriage. Plus, we should all remember that Christ's harshest words (and Paul's) were for the moral leaders of his day, not the sinners. Belief in Christ comes first, then hard decisions about what is moral or not based on the Bible. Finally, we should remember that no Biblical character in all of the New Testament attempted to legally alter the moral state of Rome. As Christ said, render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Our moral outrage is to be reserved for issues of the Christian church, while as Christians we are called merely to respect the law of governing authorities. Although the American system of government affords its citizens more active participation in the shape of government than classical dictatorships and monarchies did, the Christian church has historically proven itself a failure at politics. Better to stick to the only task Christ called us to in the secular world - "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." - Glenys
"'Quietly stating' one's opinion to someone ignorantly stuck in their bigot thoughts does not work. Responding to a biased and/or illogical argument with another argument of the same type generally does nothing to convince the previous argument's author that they are wrong; in fact, it usually leads towards them being further convicted of their own rightness because while they may not be able to see the holes in their own arguments, they definitely will be able to see those in yours. I think this is a case where fighting fire with fire only leads to conflagration.>"Quietly stating" one's opinion to >someone ignorantly stuck in their >bigot thoughts does not work. Responding to a biased and/or illogical argument with another argument of the same type generally does nothing to convince the previous argument's author that they are wrong; in fact, it usually leads towards them being further convicted of their own rightness because while they may not be able to see the holes in their own arguments, they definitely will be able to see those in yours. I think this is a case where fighting fire with fire only leads to conflagration."
precisely. that's how the original statement was utterly misconstrued. i rest my case.
The association with Berkeley as an institution changing me is laughable in reference to Gay Rights. Since I was in high school I have argued for the equality of gays & lesbians in American society. So to assume that the cause of my support issues from Berkeley is an assumption and an assumption rooted in ignorance, because you know nothing of the place you are referring to, other than what you have heard or seen in a limited scope.
To be clear, ignorance is a lack of knowledge, learning or information. Your histrionic argument that it could get worse lets not start... ignorant. That argument has been used for centuries and always has proven unfounded.
Your argument that after this adults will be allowed to marry children: Ignorant. Children are defined as under a particular age because they are not thought to be capable of making such decisions. If gays get married, children will not become more mature, therefore they will not be able to make that decision. If you used it as a SHOCK ARGUMENT, you do not even believe this could happen, so it is disingenuous to say it in the first place.
Your argument that after this adults will be allowed to marry animals: Ignorant & Stupid. Marriage is (somewhat of a) consensual institution, animals cannot give consent, that is obvious, so this argument also has no place in this conversation.
Your statement that marriage was created for procreation is false. I called it ignorant because I would rather believe you to be ignorant than a liar. Marriage was an institution used for the transfer of the property, land, cattle, and wealth.
The idea that it has taken gay marriage centuries to get this close is just ridiculous. The states have only existed for <300 years and gays would not be tolerated in the states for more than 225 of them, so gay marriage and gay rights have started within the past 50 years. However, they have received the support they have due to their status as a discriminated people group. This cannot be argued, and if you disagree that their is discrimination against gays and lesbians, you are terribly misinformed. So the lumping of polygamists and those performing bestiality, with gays and lesbians is not only offensive, but a comparison that history simply does not support. Ignorant.
There is no office of marriage. There is the institution of marriage, and your claim that this would “destroy what it was originally created for” is unfounded and based in your lack of knowledge, the definition of ignorance. Marriage’s origins in the U.S. are nothing to be proud of as I talked about earlier, so you may defend that, but I will not. But to the point that it would destroy the ability of the transfer of lineage, property transfer, and inheritance (what it originally did) has no basis. Heterosexuals will still marry and perform these tasks.
The argument that the economic crisis was created by homeowners bending the rules has been an argument that has led to extremely classist and racist policy implications. Those rules WERE ALLOWED TO BE BENT by the banks lending the money, and why? Because as soon as they defaulted they were charged astronomical interest rates, and who benefitted from those interest rates, the banks, who now benefitted from making a higher ROI (return on investment) because not only were they receiving the principle + the original interest, but also a ridiculous premium that individuals who had credit or collateral would never pay. The crisis was caused because those banks overused the tactic, becoming insatiated by greed. This was not caused by homeowners. So do not say “the banks succumbed to these desires” it was the banks who through a desire for excess caused us to be in the situation we are in.
I would not imply that my knowledge level is greater simply b/c I have studied something. But what you all are doing here is misrepresenting law, debate, and economics.
Be responsible.
If you are ignorant in something, learn about it, because when you all espouse thoughts rooted in a one-sided opinion (not knowledge) without consideration of the other and being informed in it, other people less informed listen to you, so what we have is the the blind leading the blind, and when that happens we have to look no further than the slave lynch mobs, religious fundamentalists, or other groups spoonfed misinformation and sipping fear, the results can be tragic. I have nothing against you all, I’m friends with at least one of you, but I am 100% completely opposed to ignorance and those who out of convenience would rather live in ignorance than be informed.
I have found that with information comes the impossibility of black and white, there is ALWAYS a grey area.
We live in a country severely uneducated in the issues, as result we are allowed to be convinced that the things that matter are really things that do not matter. 2 years ago the most pressing issue in the news media and voted in the elections was gay marriage, at a time when we were entering a recession and a period of economic slowdown, at a time when we were (and still are) siphoning off billions of dollars a week on the most poorly managed war of all time. Had we focused on the economy and managing the war, we may not be here today, and where are we today... still bickering over gay marriage, when the economy had tanked, the markets are dying, and the dollar is a few years from becoming a thing of the past.
When was the last time the same passion and effort was dedicated to a discussion about health care, poverty, welfare, tax policy, education, the things that affect you and I so much more than Ellen being allowed to marry her partner. Education starts with us, our ignorance is keeping us down, so we all are responsible to concern ourselves with the things that REALLY MATTER MOST and to be educated on anything we open our mouths to speak of.
Your interpretation of the law is far different from others interpretations. Like it or not, the law is not black and white, you cannot claim you know it better then someone else because you studied it, even when they have studied it to. That is what you are doing, and your continued use of the word ignorant shows you are not interested in listening to other opinions, it shows you are only interested in trying to trump the horn of yours, and put down those that disagree. THAT my friend, is what lack of tolerance really is. If you have taken the time to read all the opinions here, you will have seen that there are many varying opinions on both sides from people who have studied quite a bit more then you, and people who have studied less. If you flat out refuse to see the validity of the pandoras box argument, then there is nothing I can say to you as this argument has been true through the ages. You can say right now that there are differences, and there are, there are legal issues blocking the way and the human frame of mind is not yet there, but humans have been degrading more and more over the years and things will most assuredly keep getting worse moraly with this world. God speak to this several times in the Bible, if you would like references, I can give you them. God has given us over to a depraved mind, this is a mind that is wicked and continues to get worse an worse. You can choose to disagree if you would like, but as a Bible believing child of God, I know this to be true as I have seen it in action many times. Two things I would like to address, dude I have not gone to Berkley no, but I know several that have and have graduated, it does change you dude, I am not saying this as a put down of Berkley, its overall a good school, but its just a fact. I knew you before you went to Berkley and what I know of you now, it has changed you. Our life experiences change us dude, that was the point. Just like my belief in Jesus has shaped my social point of views. And just to say this as I am not sure I have said it, I do not hate or dislike gays at all, I have gay friends, I simply disagree with the lifestyle. They know my opinions and seem to appreciate the honesty. None of my opinions come from a hate of gays or a prejeduce against them at all. They simply come from my own personal beliefs and opinions, we all have our beliefs and opinions and we all need to respect each others opinions, we don't have to agree but we do have to respect them. Not stoop to the level of throwing out the word ignorant.
I think part of the main disagreement here is on beliefs about the origin of marriage. Yes, marriage as a SOCIAL institution (i.e. government-regulated marriage) has evolved over the years, as James is saying. However, marriage as a RELIGIOUS institution started, for Bible-believing Christians, when man was first created (God created man and woman, husband and wife, in Genesis). So what we have here is a social institution that is trying to control a religious one (state telling you what marriage is), and vice-versa (religious people telling state what marriage is). This is a conflict that I believe will continue until we have a separation of the religious and social institutions, hence my former argument on the deregulation of marriage.
I can understand that Nate, those that are gay or lesbian can get improved benefits similar to a married couple while marriage would stay between a man and a women(if I understand correctly what you are proposing) interesting.
I'm writing this from my Treo on the BART so if the formatting is off I apologize.
In response to the previous point, ignorance is the lack of information. I said that before and it was apparently not seen or regarded. Ignorance is not an insult, it is a state of being and you can choose to change it or live in it. If you are offended by the word, it is possible that some self-examination into why you are offended is necessary.
The Pandora's Box argument I find to be cowardly. I think that it takes no courage whatsoever to 'stand up' and declare all manner of fantasy possible. And it is this cowardice that I am calling ignorance. Is it possible? Sure anything is possible! Is it likely? No. It is not, and it would take evidence that does not exist to show otherwise. It should be suspicious that 'certain portions' of the population have been so opposed to gay marriage for so long, but no other argument other than marrying children and animals has been created in that time. These are powerful lobbies and organizations, yet no studies have been circulated to show hard data for how gay marriage will affect anyone. So we are voting NO on something we have no idea the effects of beyond highly speculative unfounded beliefs.
I would rather the proponents of Prop 8 and propositions like them just come out and declare their fear. Because if its not about fear what's it about? Nothing would change, just the word for what's already going on.
Truth is, as Christians we need to be relevant... This is going to pass, and if it does not pass today, I would ask anyone who believes it will never happen, why? But when it passes, when the dust settles, will it have been more important to have won one battle at the cost of the war? No. We are killing our witness with these fear-based politics and the time for a change is now.
We were called to be in the world and not of the world, but so many Christians aren't even in the world, they're at home watching the world through the glasses of Fox News.
You are not killing the witness if your still loving to those you are witnessing to. Yes, many christians act hateful to gays, many non christians act the same way. Christians get a bad rep for it, true, but if we are not acting hateful, if we are loving towards them as persons and if we are voting yes not because of fear, but because of our beliefs, then it would be foolish and a compromise of our beliefs if we don't vote yes on it. If you believe differently, and think you should vote no on it, then you should. If this country was church led(thank goodness its not as that would turn the church into a legalistic, religious establishment and some churches struggle with that to much already) then if we are christians, we would have to vote yes, that is not the case, now it comes down to our opinions. To claim someone is ignorant and has a lack of information because their information is different then yours, is foolish, cmmon dude, no need for you to do that.
Yes, we are called to be in the world but not of the world, you addressed one type of christian, the type that stays out of it, and lives in their glass box, that is wrong. There is the other extreme also, the type that is in the world, and becomes indoctrinated by the things of the world. Ruining their witness because they are no different then the world and offending God just as much as those that sit at home in their glass boxes. We are called to be different, we are called to be in the world, to love the world, but to still speak truth to the world. Jesus did this, this caused the world to hate him so much he was killed on a cross. Not all the world will like having truth spoken to it, but that is what we are called to do, and if we love the world, it is what we will do, because its all we can do to save them from eternal separation from God in hell. But we do need to show love and be full of love while we speak the truth to them.
Can someone please tell me how you love homosexuals? What do you actually do? Reformedthoughtlife, help me out. You have gay friends and "love" them. Everyone I have talked to about this issue says, "love the sinner, hate the sin" or something to that effect. What actions do you take to show your love? Especially for those who dont have homosexual friends. Personally, one way we can show our love is to advocate for them. Don't you think it will have a bigger impact on non-Christian homosexuals (because yes you can be a homosexual Christian) if they see the church standing up for them (voting no), rather than having petitions at our churches, and signs on our lawns, telling them that they are ruining something and there sin needs to stop? And yes it is ignorance. And that is okay. Not bad or a put-down. Just a statement.
Saying you are "loving" toward them is HYPOCRITICAL.
Newsflash: You cannot be LOVING toward someone yet LOATHE who they are. Claiming this proves that you are not truly compassionate and loving toward them OR that you are truly hateful toward them.
Similarly, voting against their right as a human to be compassionate and loving toward another human through the life-long sanction of marriage IS, in fact, HATEFUL.
If you disagree, consider if you had lived in the mid-1900s. Would you have ALSO been against interracial marriage? EVEN if it was between a man and woman? Here's an excerpt for the "felony" that was interracial marriage:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.
Loving v. Virginia proved that marriage has NOT always been SIMPLY between a man and a woman. The bible once deemed interracial, heterosexual marriage a felony. However, "The definition of a marriage and what constitutes a family was reconsidered by society after the decision of Loving v. Virginia."
A word of advice: TAKE THE BIBLE OUT OF POLITICS AND UNDERSTAND THAT GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE ARE HUMAN BEINGS JUST LIKE YOURSELF.
And while you're at it, KEEP HYPOCRISY OUT OF POLITICS AND OUT OF RELIGION FOR YOU CANNOT LOVE AND HATE SOMEONE. Doing both proves that you are not doing one or the other.
And it's not like we're talking about quantum physics here so it cannot be both. Sorry.
Guys, lets simmer down a wee bit. First off, you can love someone and disagree with the lifestyle. You love them by treating them with compassion, respect and honesty. You treat them the same way you would treat any one of your friends. We all disagree with some thing our friends believe or say or do. This doesn't mean we don't love them. Okay, since Biblical beliefs have been brought into it, let me tell you what I believe the Bible teaches about homosexuality. It is a sin, no better or worse then other sins. If I commit a sexual act outside of marriage, then I sin just as much as a person who commits an act of homosexuality. Everyone suffers from different temptations, and its not a sin to be tempted, its a sin to act on the temptation. There are those that believe Paul, who wrote several books of the Bible suffered homosexual temptations due to the fact that he repeatedly said that he has a thorn in his side that he forever struggles with(homosexuality is just one of the many options, but there are those who believe this is what he struggled with). I also know Christians who are tempted by homosexual thoughts and resist them. So, all that is to show you what I believe the Bible says about homosexuality.
Whoever quoted those verses, that is never a good way to interact in conversations like this as it just instigates. Those verse are just as important in the Bible as any others, but you have to say things in a loving way and keep verses in context.
Sal, drinking is not against the Bible, getting drunk is, but not drinking. Heck, Paul even tells Timothy to drink a glass of wine with his dinner because of a medical ailment. And no, you won't go to hell because you stole something, thought that makes us all worthy of hell. The Bible tells us, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and that, makes us all worthy of hell. But if we accept Jesus as our savior and Lord, then all the sins we commit in this life are covered through the death of Jesus, the perfect replacement, on the Cross.
Oh, and to whoemever said the Bible deemed heterosexual, interracial marriages a felony, this is not true, please show me the verse because its simply not true. What you are probably referring to is in the OT God telling the Israelites to not take other wives from other nations. The reason He did this was other nations only worshiped other gods, and He did not want that influence expanding into the Israelites. When God spread His influence to the Gentiles/Greeks in the NT, then that changed as God was pursuing all peoples. In no way shape or form was He outlawing interracial marriage.
This comment actually comes from wife of Gandalf. Interesting and passionate debate you are having. Clearly there have been strong opinions stated, some of an intellectual nature, many from deep emotions and/or beliefs. James, you have a good point about the legality of homosexual marriage being different from the legality of an adult-child marriage or a human-animal marriage. I laughed at the thought of animals rushing in to request marriage as soon as we legalize it. Do you see the possibility of polygamous marriage becoming the next item on the agenda, and if so, do you favor that?
29 comments:
Prop 8-Gay Marriage
Edit
Tim VOTE YES ON PROP EIGHT!! 6:54pm
Anonymous at 7:04pm October 23
people's right to marry is similar to your right to follow christianity. dictating one's choice in who they can and cannot marry is not for you to decide. it is their choice simply because it is their life. so keep out of it.
Tim Shrout at 7:12pm October 23
its not about christianity, not at all, has nothing to do with it, it has everything to do with the office of marriage and what it was created for.
Anonymous at 7:18pm October 23
it stands for people who love each other. fyi, some men and women get married for reasons other than love; they get married because they had a child together or because they want the benefits. why should they receive the sanction of marriage while two gay people who have devoted years and years to one another are denied of the same rights simply because they are not a man and women?
it is the 21st century. traditional views are a-changing just like everything else and to reserve those bigot thoughts is ignorant.
Tim Shrout at 7:24pm October 23
actually, it does not stand for people who love each other, it was created for procreation. so are you okay then with a adult marrying a kid if they both love each other? are you okay with a human marrying an animal if they love each other? who are you to judge if they do or don't? its a slippery slope you want to tread on, break the office of marriage for one group, all the others will come knocking on the door and soon break it down. the line has to be drawn somewhere, why not at the start? and for you to claim my opinion, since it is the opposite of yours is bigoted and ignorant makes you bigoted of my opinion. You have a double standard my friend. Tolerance has become anything but, we are no longer tolerant of anyone who has a different opinion then ours, you are not tolerant of mine because you believe I am being intolerant. Voltaire has the worlds first and greatest definition of tolerance, and it was, I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
Tim Shrout at 7:24pm October 23
your right to say it". the world needs to get back to the opinion.
Peter Hodgen at 7:25pm October 23
So if they love a Dog, they should be allowed to marry it? It's not about mere religious opinion, it comes down to simple legal obligation. If you know anything about law and precedent, this situation brings more than "Gay Marriage" to the ballot. If this passes, precedent is set and then anyone with a "different" idea of what marriage consists of would be allowed to legally argue for their position. Thus this would bring into play polygamy, beastiality, and any other form of marriage that people think should be allowed. It is a slippery legal slope, thus we need to make the right decision for the future of our country.
Anonymous at 7:41pm October 23
people need not marry to procreate. it is just a "legitimized" and "acceptable" way to do so. it is one's opinion in whether or not it is right. it is not moral to decide what is right for another person.
i said, "people who love each other." i am not referring to "children marrying adults" or "animals marrying people." that argument is beside the point and a different argument in itself.
so what if one "office of marriage" is broken? do you think all of our technological advances have come about by sticking to what was believed "at the start?" the answer is no. i say so because of the many so-called eccentrics who went against the norm and discovered all of the great discoveries we now recognize today. for example, Galileo, in his discovery that the world revolved around the sun, was negated and opposed by the cardinal of the church. does that mean that his findings were false? no. it simply means that the cardinal refused to recognize Galileo's findings as true because of his
Tim Shrout at 7:45pm October 23
Okay, the double standard continues, you define love as being between a man and a women or a man/man, women/women. you have taken the other options of children/adults, animals/adults out of the equation, so now you are bigoted towards them. that is not beside the point at all, if gay marriage is legalized, those groups will be coming forward to make the case that they should have the same rights, and will eventually win over just like gay marriage is on the verge of doing. For you to think otherwise or claim otherwise is simply foolish and niave. It has taken gay marriage centuries to get this close, in todays society it would take the other groups less time. it is a slippery slope despite what you appear to have talked yourself into. Your insisting that it is besides the point couldn't be more wrong. I am in no way saying they can't go on being gay and go on being with eachother, but marriage was not created for a man and a man, but for a man and a women. If you are going to..
Tim Shrout at 7:46pm October 23
destroy what it was originally created for, you have to include all groups, not just gays, are you ready to do that?
Anonymous at 7:47pm October 23
traditional views in that the roman church is what determined physics. not physics determining the physical world. and for the cardinal to say that is unfair and ignorant, because he refuses the truth because of his close-minded opinion. after years and years of tribulation, galileo finally was heard and his findings were established.
i never said i was intolerant of your view. if i was, i wouldn't be your friend. bigotry is simply not considering the other person's view and steadfastly holding onto one's own. it means you are unwilling to consider another reason. bigotry is the opposite of tolerance. tolerance is the acceptance of another's view, despite in one's own.
http://dictionary.referenc
e.com/browse/tolerance
Peter Hodgen at 7:48pm October 23
So now, you are defining "Love" just as we are saying marriage has its definite limits. We are not saying that they cannot be Gay or love each other, but simply that marriage was not and is not designed to be between two of the same sex or any other form other than a man and woman.
Tim Shrout at 7:53pm October 23
tolerance is not accepting someones view, tolerance is the willingness to let them have their view. Todays definition of tolerance has been warped from what it was originally defined as. Todays society has become so much about avoiding confrontation and conforming to everything that if you have a different voice, no matter how rational, you are looked on as bigoted and untolerent, that, is bigoted in and of itself. My point is proved by a california principle who was quoted as saying "the only thing we will not tolerate is intolerence" That makes no sense, but it is the worlds current view. I am willing to allow gays to be together, thats their choice. but marriage was created for a reason, and if you are not a man and a women, it was not for you. Again, I quote Voltaire, I do not agree with being gay, but I will defend to the death their right to it. Just not their right to marriage.
Matt Hodgen at 8:10pm October 23
Funny that this world has completely forgotten a simple foundational rule....**if it has to be justified, it's probably wrong**.....the US is one of the ONLY countries where such freedoms exist such as free speech, our rights to outward public opinions, that we've completely diluted the understanding of our core moral principles. For us to fall so far as a society that we are now arguing about what genders should be allowed to marry...well, it's a scary time. We hedge our arguements upon different vices, this one being gay marriage more out of an inwardly selfish, antagonisticly wired way of behavior rather than through a core moral rational perception. In layman's terms, we'd rather compromise our judgement for the sake of having the slightest notion of compromise.
Tim I am with you 110%, however I still believe being gay in and of itself is a sin. I don't view them any different than liars, murderers, theives, fornicators, drunks, etc. We all sin and fall short, however....
Tim Shrout at 8:13pm October 23
I fully agree with you Matt, it is still a sin, but in a world full of sinners(myself included) I do not focus on the sin part to non christians, I focus on other aspects that SHOULD be important to the world at large, but apparently the world is so full on the idea of the new "tolerance" that all common sense has been thrown to the wind.
Matt Hodgen at 8:17pm October 23
...what is going on with this marriage issue far surpasses trying to preserve the sanctity of their opinions and wants. This will be the beginning of the unravelling of the sheer moral fiber that we as people were created upon. There will be much deeper reprecussions than simply having some pissed religious people, and some overly happy sinners. THink about this example.......in the past 4 years every homeowner got to bend the rules, do what they wanted and be as happy as possible...the banks succumbed to these desires, although it went against the basic written laws of simple finance theory...NOW we are in a position as an entire nation than we ever could have expected. Even people who were never involved are now being harmed through these indisgretions.
Keep in mind that that was only one little area of finance. Marriage is far bigger, more powerful and MUCH more necessary to preserve than money. How far does our nation need to fall before we take this blindfold off ....
Tim Shrout at 8:19pm October 23
Amen brother, dude, your freaking brilliant! Honestly though, I agree with you, this very well could be the final threat that does cause the moral fiber of America to fall apart.
Tim Shrout at 8:23pm October 23
I feel like this should be a blog instead of a facebook discussion, I think I might very well start a blog and copy/paste this as my first "blog" entry.
Matt Hodgen at 8:24pm October 23
...of our eyes and start living and abiding by simple standards? Who knows! It is just sad to me that we as a peope are so driven to prove our un natural ways right in the eyes of others, getting solely what we want regardless at the cost to others, that we dedicate our lives.
Marriage is simple and created for one purpose, to bring a man and a woman together and make them ONE. We were wired differently solely for this purpose and I could write a thesis for anybody who cares to read it as to why we were created with these differences, but its function is simple.....men and women were made for eachother.
Eithe way I am voting a big fat YES for Prop 8...somebody has to, and I for one am sure going to try!
Tim Shrout at 8:26pm October 23
dude, you should write a thesis, I would read it!
Peter Hodgen at 8:28pm October 23
I love it! Great point. This issue with marriage very well could be the final thread to the ever dangling United States. We are in the midst of a clear economic crisis, and now we have the responsibility to try to keep ourselves from the brink of a moral cataclysm. Will we take the high road? Or simply be passive and "tolerant" of something just because it seems "fair."
Wow.
Slow claps all the way around, no really, give it up for yourselves, I don’t know your previous work, but I can’t see how you have not outdone yourselves with this gem of discourse.
Being someone who has studied law, debate, and economics for the past several years you all have successfully managed to piss me off in every single subject with your wanton disregard for the actual arguments at hand, your use of inflammatory rhetoric to disguise your crippling inadequacy in developing rational opposition to justify your own sense of unwarranted fear, and your, and I say this honestly understanding the definition of the word, complete and utter application of the most offending form of stupidity that man has ever participated in the perpetuation of; willing ignorance.
I do not know where to start, really, so maybe I will just highlight some of the HORRIBLE assertions made by you: Anonymous, Tim, Peter, and Matt.
First, even though your point was ridiculous, indefensible, and plain stupid (I will not call it dumb, because I truly believe that the bubble within which you all most likely choose to remain in has shaped your worldview so that you do not know better) if you are going to make such claims, do not hide their weaknesses by using distraction arguments, or Red Herrings, as they are officially named. These false comparisons are distracting and do not allow us to focus on the real issue. So, do NOT compare a MAN and a MAN or a WOMAN and a WOMAN to a Man and a dog! Do not compare the same to a child and an adult. Tim, you said that if this passes they too will come forward. WE LIVE IN CALIFORNIA! This is a referendum state, anything with 250,000 signatures comes forward! And when it comes forward do you know who has to make sure it is constitutional before it passes?!? The State Supreme Court! This is the same court who has defined that a child is a child under 18. Why!?! Because that individual is not yet deemed savvy enough in the ways of the world to live in the confines of its own conscience for the sake of its safety. In California Kids aren’t adults, and they can’t marry adults b/c they’re kids, there is a reason that they are called kids, and more importantly called minors! Do you think that an individual not thought intelligent or developed enough to fight in a war, smoke cigarettes, buy dirty magazines, somehow has the wherewithal to decide that it wants to get married! I would ask you if you think that’s possible, but I don’t want to hear that type of ignorance when you say yes and confirm my 2nd to worst fear.
My worst of course being Tim and Peter’s classic false comparison, I mean this is textbook fallacy here, that a Man marrying a Man will lead to a Man marrying a Dog because they love each other. REALLY!?! If we let two people who love each other get married today, more like them will be clamoring out of our doors tomorrow, and WHY, because HUMANS are the same as DOGS. Really?!? If we don’t think that <18 kids can make their own decision to get married, are you honestly telling me, and listen up, that animals, who have never consensually agreed to get married, will be legally wed.
Most of your arguments are dumb at best, my personal favorite is both individuals misuse of the word bigot, and how ‘anonymous’ somehow became a bigot by calling you a bigot. Well, neither of you used it correctly… at all, a bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing idea [other than that which they espouse to]. Now let us examine that right for a spell.
Does marriage live in the 8 letters that encapsulate the word? No. If one was asked to constitute a basket of behaviors that embody the act of being married would it be possible? Yes. And do those behaviors change if those married individuals now change the word that defines the set of actions, from which they are already willing participants in! No. Marriage doesn’t start at “I do”. It starts way before and which of those behaviors are innate within the word? None. So what we have are individuals whose behaviors mirror the behaviors of legally recognized married people, leaving the only distinction to be the word under which society understands those behaviors. So by not recognizing a group whose behaviors mirror those of a legally recognized group what are we doing? We are holding onto the worthless significance of a word desired so that those behaviors, which are equal, are recognized as what they have already been, equal. So we are hoarding something that is innately worthless to ourselves (heterosexuals), but arguably priceless to those who seek it.
So bringing it back full circle, are individuals who would keep marriage an exclusive right, from those who seek recognition for a lifestyle whose behaviors already embody that right, bigots? If intolerance is viewed by the rejection of respect of an idea, can their be any higher disrespect than the rejection of the recognition of another’s equal dedication?
Seconding what the posting above says, your histrionic rationale is indefensible. Are you understanding that women lost rights when they married, at the inception of marriage, that when marriage was first created it was glorified stranger rape. You say a man marrying a child is next? What if it was first? What if the average age of a husband was 30 and the average age of his wife was 13 to 15? What if instead of this love and this bringing a man and a woman together, it was buying a future with a man by paying him to marry your daughter? What if marriage was an institution in which a man could beat his wife mercilessly because he was the authority in the house and if he felt transgressed his retribution was not regulated by law? Your worst case scenario’s are the manner in which the institution that gays and lesbians will somehow destroy, first functioned, except then it was without the help of gays and lesbians, heterosexuals screwed things up without assistance. So people have advocated for change in marriage for decades and you now that you are happy with the system their advocating has resulted in, you will prevent gays and lesbians from using the advocating system that got you here today. But for every council that agreed that a woman of 13 was old enough to be wed, another individual believed she was young enough to call that rape. And for every council who stood up for a man’s right to govern his household by beating his wife, another stood up bold enough to call such a right, abuse. And hopefully for everyone who stands up to say that no on 8 will be the beginning of the end another will stand up to say that yes on 8 is in fact the beginning of an end of change that has been needed since the beginning.
No on 8
P.S. – The economic argument was nothing but lies.
Just a note as I do not have time to adequately read and reply to the previous comment right now, one post was deleted due to language, all points of view are welcome, but language will not be allowed. Remember, the desire here is that this place remains civil despite differing view points and if it breaks down into cussing, that will not happen. Thank You.
OK so this is a great topic guys, thanks for including me in your conversation. Where do I start. In light of my own personal convictions and moral code, I find homosexuality a sin, however it is not my place to be the judge of anyone who participates in the activity. We are all falable and fall short. As a Christian I can express to an individual my own beliefs and pray for them but it my understanding and nature to still treat the other person the same I would anyone else. With respect as an individual with the same free will God gave me. No matter who is right or wrong, we are accountable for ourselves and ourselves only. Now a conversation came up with my teenage son on this issue. He had come to me asking my take on this propostiton and was concerned about this being taught in his school. He is of the mindset that a traditional marriage between man and woman is what he wants his children to know. I respect his position but had to remind him of what "tolerance" and love means even if it comes to fruition and this change comes about. We already see gay marriage, it just is not legalized and as disheartening as it may be, the real world we live in, may have this come into reality. We already accept homosexuality when it was frowned upon in the past. In light of my recent impending divorce I have been taking a closer look at the institution of marriage anyway. I learned (perhaps you know of somewhere) that in the Bible it does not speak at all to what a marriage ceremony should look like, nor the paperwork to be filed. If you look through history the instutuion of marriage was created for the reasons to secure bloodline, property, rights, and even control from the church itself, etc. It many times had nothing even to do with love! It spoke to a marriage being an outward commitment (a witness) and then consumated with sex. We have a picture of God creating woman (Eve) as the perfect partner and mate for man (Adam) and it does speak to homosexuality as sin however the marriage itself is not truly defined. I in some ways think the way homosexuals pronounce their union now is very tempting even for me in the future with another man. A commitment to someone doesnt need a piece of paper. The paper is a legal document in the eyes of the state only, not neccesarily in Gods eyes. I think this relates to your topic in a way because we have talks of love and comittment between two individuals. What is that piece of paper Really affording? Legal rights to the other person and their property! To me homosexuality is a choice, a chioce I would not make, however if I found I had a son who had that tendency, I refuse to not "commit" to him as his mother. As another sinner trying to find my way thru this crazy world. I personally will vote with what I am convicted of in my own heart but if it comes to marriage between gays being sanctioned, you educate those you love, let them learn about "tolerance" and also let them come to their own conclusions. Will this open doors to other things like marrying a dog? Doubt it, but it is the slow decline of our society that is become so much more evident in the lives we live today. I am thankful we live in a country that affords our rights to speech, individuality, freedom of religion, all that! But as I close.....just think, what if we are wrong (on any topic) Even within Biblical understanding between Christians on so many topics....If you are truly seeking God in all you do, He would not be the God we believe in if He was not merciful to forgive us and welcome us on that final day, even if we choose the wrong thing.
This is just your cynical, slightly liberal, yet still Jesus loving, friend weighing in.
My opinion: I don't really care if two folks of legal age want to get hitched. I know I’m supposed to care because it’s a “moral issue” and I call myself a follower of Christ, but I tend to believe that we live in a fallen world which hates God and loves sin, and the harder we try to make it act like we want it to, the more it will be able to delude itself that it is right and those who follow God are in fact wrong. And does anybody really think that this isn’t going to be used to discriminate against gays? As you said earlier Tim, this is a slippery slope, but going the other way. If we go down it, we will be led towards outlawing gays. This may not be where we are headed right now, but I think we all know that’s the end game of many of those who support this bill. Please understand, I am not saying all of those who support Prop 8 (just to clarify, Prop 8 is to define marriage as between a man and a women, not the other way around) are bigots and hate gays, but some do and they will use this as a springboard. Regardless, I think there are much bigger issues (like slavery, the poor, etc…) that have clearly defined rights and wrongs for us to be raising hell over and attaching the name of Christ to.
Just a side note: Please be careful about multiple postings by several people all agreeing with one another. It can start to look like a rally if all the dissenting voices suddenly cease. Also, this isn't a debate class. You don't argue louder than someone else and thereby "win." They just choose to ignore you and chalk it up to ignorance and groupthink. Maybe ask yourself if you were to quietly state your argument to a person who disagreed with you, would they agree that your logic and understanding of the issue are impeccable, or would they feel like they were reading campaign literature?
Finally: I love you all and my disagreement is a reflection of that love.
(I wrote this last night prior to any of the comments posted on this blog, yet most of what I have to say is still directed at all partakers. It's easy to get real loud and sure of yourself if you think the majority has your back, so maybe make a point of not getting that loud.)
Hey guys, very very interesting reads as I come back from work today. I want to thank all of you for, for the most part remaining civil in this conversation. I will be completely honest, These posts, all of them have made me think more on this topic then I ever have in my life and it has been very enlightening. While I still hold to my original views, I have seen some other very good points from the other views and have a great deal of respect for those that made them.
There are a few things I would like the specifically address. James, the adult-kid thing is a shock used to prove a point, and the point is similar to the economics one made. The parallel would be Pandoras Box, and the fear that gay marriage, though it might seem a small thing in and of itself could open Pandoras box to things no one wants to see. Could we be wrong? Yes we could! But it is also possible we aren't
To imply your knowledge level is greater based on what you have studied is not very valid as most of us, if not all have studied a great deal on the same topics. When it comes down to it, this is all based on educated opinion that IS influenced from some of the more important moments in our lives. For example, the single most important thing in my life is Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior, and though I would not use Biblical arguments to non believers on this topic, my belief in the Bible as Gods perfect word does influence me on certain social aspects. For you, when you moved to Berkley you went there saying you were going to make an impact on Berkley society, but in the end, it made a huge impact on you, its professors and community led you to your current belief systems. We all have those parts of our lives that impact our social beliefs and opinions greatly. To call someone ignorant and belitle them for their opinion is not something we should be doing, we should read and try to understand what they are saying. Does not mean we have to agree, but we should be willing to defend their right to their opinion.
So in conclusion, thanks all of you for your informative and thoughtful posts on this topic that has become incredibly big in America. It really has been enjoyable being able to read these different perspectives and I believe if we all look at them without judging them right away, we can grow in respect for each other and our opinion, doesn't mean our opinion will change, but it will help us view each other in a better light and treat each other with more respect.
nate darnell,
"Quietly stating" one's opinion to someone ignorantly stuck in their bigot thoughts does not work. "They just choose to ignore you and chalk it up to ignorance and groupthink." I do believe this entire thread is a perfect example.
Similarly, trying to debate about a political issue with ignorant, devout christians always, somehow one way or another, brings in religion. in that case, they are too blinded by their beliefs to have a strictly political view. those who choose to keep religion personal are those who can have a logical debate that is not offensive to all parties. when one starts bringing in "sinning" and corrupt "moral principles," one is besides the point and not adhering to the political topic to be had.
also, "logic and understanding of the issue" just may be contained within "campaign literature" because, hey, it is a political topic at hand. just because one doesn't understand the statements made doesn't mean the author should dumb it down.
matt hodgen,
i'm not going to even touch on all of the half-witted comments made but i will state this: americans' "diluted understanding of our core moral principles" doesn't encompass allowing gay marriage. just because you and your fellow christians adhere to the "core moral principles" presented in the bible, does not mean it is the standard moral code of all. many people read other texts and many people use their own judgment as to what is moral and what isn't. i know plenty of people who follow religion yet have sex before marriage and so on and so forth, yet they call themselves the devout. hypocrisy applies to everyone, ya know.
also, gay people ARE "different than liars, murderers, theives, fornicators, drunks, etc." they are not put on death row for their relationships nor are they recognized as criminals for doing so. they are only recognized as "sinners" by the religious. once again, it's one's personal view to decide what is one's own moral code. it is not for you and your religious life to decide other people's fate for "we all sin and fall short."
you deleted his post for cussing....hmmm....interesting. maybe his points were more valid that we will ever know and yet we will never get to hear them because of cussing...i digress....but let me ask you...have you never resorted to cussing in an argument? be honest because i know the answer.
One quick response:
>"Quietly stating" one's opinion to >someone ignorantly stuck in their >bigot thoughts does not work.
Responding to a biased and/or illogical argument with another argument of the same type generally does nothing to convince the previous argument's author that they are wrong; in fact, it usually leads towards them being further convicted of their own rightness because while they may not be able to see the holes in their own arguments, they definitely will be able to see those in yours. I think this is a case where fighting fire with fire only leads to conflagration.
Also, name calling is a classic logical fallacy that does nothing to prove yourself right (again, it only makes you look bad).
Yes, I have resorted to cussing out of anger, I am not perfect. I regret the times I have done it, and you will not find me doing it here, if you do, call me on it and I will erase it. One of the main reasons I want to avoid this on here is due to the fact that I want these conversations to remain civil if not friendly, cussing and name calling will not allow that to continue.
As for my opinion on the whole prop 8 thing, I think that for me, the whole thing boils down to our government attempting to control our own personal lives in a way that it shouldn't be allowed to. Right now, whether you like it or not, our government DOES have the authority to define marriage, and to tell you whether or not you can get married and who you can get married to. This has been demonstrated to be a major problem, because there are many people in California who define marriage as between a man and a woman, and many others who define marriage as between two adult people. In either case, whichever way Prop 8 goes, there are going to be people that are going to be told that they cannot define marriage the way they believe is correct.
Personally, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. So, as much as I'd like to grant gays and lesbians the right to be married (or, to define their cohabitant relationships as marriage), I can't without giving up my own right to define this thing that happens between a man and a woman as a marriage. Is my personal belief influenced by my religious beliefs? I should certainly hope so, because if it wasn't that would make me a hypocrite (I could extrapolate that out into how our personal beliefs affect our political views, but for the sake of conciseness let's leave that topic for another forum). And if our laws are going to be such that they infringe on MY personal beliefs, then I'm definitely going to vote against those laws, as well should you. So, basically, anyone who thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman only should vote yes on 8, anyone who thinks it should be between any two adults should vote no.
This does not seem like a satisfactory solution to me. It would seem that my right to retain my personal beliefs comes at the expense of the forfeiture of another person's right to hold their own beliefs. The only solution I see to this situation would be to completely deregulate marriage, which would require a total overhaul of our current law codes (essential turning marriages into civil unions in all applicable laws). This would give me the opportunity to retain my belief in an exclusive man-woman marriage, and allow others to retain their belief in the inclusive adult-adult marriage.
The best laws are those that do the most good for the most people. Wouldn't that be a solution that does more good for more people than either a yes or no on prop 8?
so, I agree with Nate - we have bigger issues in this world than gay marriage. Plus, we should all remember that Christ's harshest words (and Paul's) were for the moral leaders of his day, not the sinners. Belief in Christ comes first, then hard decisions about what is moral or not based on the Bible. Finally, we should remember that no Biblical character in all of the New Testament attempted to legally alter the moral state of Rome. As Christ said, render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Our moral outrage is to be reserved for issues of the Christian church, while as Christians we are called merely to respect the law of governing authorities. Although the American system of government affords its citizens more active participation in the shape of government than classical dictatorships and monarchies did, the Christian church has historically proven itself a failure at politics. Better to stick to the only task Christ called us to in the secular world - "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." - Glenys
"'Quietly stating' one's opinion to someone ignorantly stuck in their bigot thoughts does not work.
Responding to a biased and/or illogical argument with another argument of the same type generally does nothing to convince the previous argument's author that they are wrong; in fact, it usually leads towards them being further convicted of their own rightness because while they may not be able to see the holes in their own arguments, they definitely will be able to see those in yours. I think this is a case where fighting fire with fire only leads to conflagration.>"Quietly stating" one's opinion to >someone ignorantly stuck in their >bigot thoughts does not work.
Responding to a biased and/or illogical argument with another argument of the same type generally does nothing to convince the previous argument's author that they are wrong; in fact, it usually leads towards them being further convicted of their own rightness because while they may not be able to see the holes in their own arguments, they definitely will be able to see those in yours. I think this is a case where fighting fire with fire only leads to conflagration."
precisely. that's how the original statement was utterly misconstrued. i rest my case.
Glenys,
thank you
sincerely,
anon
The association with Berkeley as an institution changing me is laughable in reference to Gay Rights. Since I was in high school I have argued for the equality of gays & lesbians in American society. So to assume that the cause of my support issues from Berkeley is an assumption and an assumption rooted in ignorance, because you know nothing of the place you are referring to, other than what you have heard or seen in a limited scope.
To be clear, ignorance is a lack of knowledge, learning or information. Your histrionic argument that it could get worse lets not start... ignorant. That argument has been used for centuries and always has proven unfounded.
Your argument that after this adults will be allowed to marry children: Ignorant. Children are defined as under a particular age because they are not thought to be capable of making such decisions. If gays get married, children will not become more mature, therefore they will not be able to make that decision. If you used it as a SHOCK ARGUMENT, you do not even believe this could happen, so it is disingenuous to say it in the first place.
Your argument that after this adults will be allowed to marry animals: Ignorant & Stupid. Marriage is (somewhat of a) consensual institution, animals cannot give consent, that is obvious, so this argument also has no place in this conversation.
Your statement that marriage was created for procreation is false. I called it ignorant because I would rather believe you to be ignorant than a liar. Marriage was an institution used for the transfer of the property, land, cattle, and wealth.
The idea that it has taken gay marriage centuries to get this close is just ridiculous. The states have only existed for <300 years and gays would not be tolerated in the states for more than 225 of them, so gay marriage and gay rights have started within the past 50 years. However, they have received the support they have due to their status as a discriminated people group. This cannot be argued, and if you disagree that their is discrimination against gays and lesbians, you are terribly misinformed. So the lumping of polygamists and those performing bestiality, with gays and lesbians is not only offensive, but a comparison that history simply does not support. Ignorant.
There is no office of marriage. There is the institution of marriage, and your claim that this would “destroy what it was originally created for” is unfounded and based in your lack of knowledge, the definition of ignorance. Marriage’s origins in the U.S. are nothing to be proud of as I talked about earlier, so you may defend that, but I will not. But to the point that it would destroy the ability of the transfer of lineage, property transfer, and inheritance (what it originally did) has no basis. Heterosexuals will still marry and perform these tasks.
The argument that the economic crisis was created by homeowners bending the rules has been an argument that has led to extremely classist and racist policy implications. Those rules WERE ALLOWED TO BE BENT by the banks lending the money, and why? Because as soon as they defaulted they were charged astronomical interest rates, and who benefitted from those interest rates, the banks, who now benefitted from making a higher ROI (return on investment) because not only were they receiving the principle + the original interest, but also a ridiculous premium that individuals who had credit or collateral would never pay. The crisis was caused because those banks overused the tactic, becoming insatiated by greed. This was not caused by homeowners. So do not say “the banks succumbed to these desires” it was the banks who through a desire for excess caused us to be in the situation we are in.
I would not imply that my knowledge level is greater simply b/c I have studied something. But what you all are doing here is misrepresenting law, debate, and economics.
Be responsible.
If you are ignorant in something, learn about it, because when you all espouse thoughts rooted in a one-sided opinion (not knowledge) without consideration of the other and being informed in it, other people less informed listen to you, so what we have is the the blind leading the blind, and when that happens we have to look no further than the slave lynch mobs, religious fundamentalists, or other groups spoonfed misinformation and sipping fear, the results can be tragic. I have nothing against you all, I’m friends with at least one of you, but I am 100% completely opposed to ignorance and those who out of convenience would rather live in ignorance than be informed.
I have found that with information comes the impossibility of black and white, there is ALWAYS a grey area.
We live in a country severely uneducated in the issues, as result we are allowed to be convinced that the things that matter are really things that do not matter. 2 years ago the most pressing issue in the news media and voted in the elections was gay marriage, at a time when we were entering a recession and a period of economic slowdown, at a time when we were (and still are) siphoning off billions of dollars a week on the most poorly managed war of all time. Had we focused on the economy and managing the war, we may not be here today, and where are we today... still bickering over gay marriage, when the economy had tanked, the markets are dying, and the dollar is a few years from becoming a thing of the past.
When was the last time the same passion and effort was dedicated to a discussion about health care, poverty, welfare, tax policy, education, the things that affect you and I so much more than Ellen being allowed to marry her partner. Education starts with us, our ignorance is keeping us down, so we all are responsible to concern ourselves with the things that REALLY MATTER MOST and to be educated on anything we open our mouths to speak of.
James,
Your interpretation of the law is far different from others interpretations. Like it or not, the law is not black and white, you cannot claim you know it better then someone else because you studied it, even when they have studied it to. That is what you are doing, and your continued use of the word ignorant shows you are not interested in listening to other opinions, it shows you are only interested in trying to trump the horn of yours, and put down those that disagree. THAT my friend, is what lack of tolerance really is. If you have taken the time to read all the opinions here, you will have seen that there are many varying opinions on both sides from people who have studied quite a bit more then you, and people who have studied less. If you flat out refuse to see the validity of the pandoras box argument, then there is nothing I can say to you as this argument has been true through the ages. You can say right now that there are differences, and there are, there are legal issues blocking the way and the human frame of mind is not yet there, but humans have been degrading more and more over the years and things will most assuredly keep getting worse moraly with this world. God speak to this several times in the Bible, if you would like references, I can give you them. God has given us over to a depraved mind, this is a mind that is wicked and continues to get worse an worse. You can choose to disagree if you would like, but as a Bible believing child of God, I know this to be true as I have seen it in action many times. Two things I would like to address, dude I have not gone to Berkley no, but I know several that have and have graduated, it does change you dude, I am not saying this as a put down of Berkley, its overall a good school, but its just a fact. I knew you before you went to Berkley and what I know of you now, it has changed you. Our life experiences change us dude, that was the point. Just like my belief in Jesus has shaped my social point of views. And just to say this as I am not sure I have said it, I do not hate or dislike gays at all, I have gay friends, I simply disagree with the lifestyle. They know my opinions and seem to appreciate the honesty. None of my opinions come from a hate of gays or a prejeduce against them at all. They simply come from my own personal beliefs and opinions, we all have our beliefs and opinions and we all need to respect each others opinions, we don't have to agree but we do have to respect them. Not stoop to the level of throwing out the word ignorant.
I think part of the main disagreement here is on beliefs about the origin of marriage. Yes, marriage as a SOCIAL institution (i.e. government-regulated marriage) has evolved over the years, as James is saying. However, marriage as a RELIGIOUS institution started, for Bible-believing Christians, when man was first created (God created man and woman, husband and wife, in Genesis). So what we have here is a social institution that is trying to control a religious one (state telling you what marriage is), and vice-versa (religious people telling state what marriage is). This is a conflict that I believe will continue until we have a separation of the religious and social institutions, hence my former argument on the deregulation of marriage.
I can understand that Nate, those that are gay or lesbian can get improved benefits similar to a married couple while marriage would stay between a man and a women(if I understand correctly what you are proposing) interesting.
I'm writing this from my Treo on the BART so if the formatting is off I apologize.
In response to the previous point, ignorance is the lack of information. I said that before and it was apparently not seen or regarded. Ignorance is not an insult, it is a state of being and you can choose to change it or live in it. If you are offended by the word, it is possible that some self-examination into why you are offended is necessary.
The Pandora's Box argument I find to be cowardly. I think that it takes no courage whatsoever to 'stand up' and declare all manner of fantasy possible. And it is this cowardice that I am calling ignorance. Is it possible? Sure anything is possible! Is it likely? No. It is not, and it would take evidence that does not exist to show otherwise. It should be suspicious that 'certain portions' of the population have been so opposed to gay marriage for so long, but no other argument other than marrying children and animals has been created in that time. These are powerful lobbies and organizations, yet no studies have been circulated to show hard data for how gay marriage will affect anyone. So we are voting NO on something we have no idea the effects of beyond highly speculative unfounded beliefs.
I would rather the proponents of Prop 8 and propositions like them just come out and declare their fear. Because if its not about fear what's it about? Nothing would change, just the word for what's already going on.
Truth is, as Christians we need to be relevant... This is going to pass, and if it does not pass today, I would ask anyone who believes it will never happen, why? But when it passes, when the dust settles, will it have been more important to have won one battle at the cost of the war? No. We are killing our witness with these fear-based politics and the time for a change is now.
We were called to be in the world and not of the world, but so many Christians aren't even in the world, they're at home watching the world through the glasses of Fox News.
You are not killing the witness if your still loving to those you are witnessing to. Yes, many christians act hateful to gays, many non christians act the same way. Christians get a bad rep for it, true, but if we are not acting hateful, if we are loving towards them as persons and if we are voting yes not because of fear, but because of our beliefs, then it would be foolish and a compromise of our beliefs if we don't vote yes on it. If you believe differently, and think you should vote no on it, then you should. If this country was church led(thank goodness its not as that would turn the church into a legalistic, religious establishment and some churches struggle with that to much already) then if we are christians, we would have to vote yes, that is not the case, now it comes down to our opinions. To claim someone is ignorant and has a lack of information because their information is different then yours, is foolish, cmmon dude, no need for you to do that.
Yes, we are called to be in the world but not of the world, you addressed one type of christian, the type that stays out of it, and lives in their glass box, that is wrong. There is the other extreme also, the type that is in the world, and becomes indoctrinated by the things of the world. Ruining their witness because they are no different then the world and offending God just as much as those that sit at home in their glass boxes. We are called to be different, we are called to be in the world, to love the world, but to still speak truth to the world. Jesus did this, this caused the world to hate him so much he was killed on a cross. Not all the world will like having truth spoken to it, but that is what we are called to do, and if we love the world, it is what we will do, because its all we can do to save them from eternal separation from God in hell. But we do need to show love and be full of love while we speak the truth to them.
Can someone please tell me how you love homosexuals? What do you actually do? Reformedthoughtlife, help me out. You have gay friends and "love" them. Everyone I have talked to about this issue says, "love the sinner, hate the sin" or something to that effect. What actions do you take to show your love? Especially for those who dont have homosexual friends. Personally, one way we can show our love is to advocate for them. Don't you think it will have a bigger impact on non-Christian homosexuals (because yes you can be a homosexual Christian) if they see the church standing up for them (voting no), rather than having petitions at our churches, and signs on our lawns, telling them that they are ruining something and there sin needs to stop? And yes it is ignorance. And that is okay. Not bad or a put-down. Just a statement.
Saying you are "loving" toward them is HYPOCRITICAL.
Newsflash: You cannot be LOVING toward someone yet LOATHE who they are. Claiming this proves that you are not truly compassionate and loving toward them OR that you are truly hateful toward them.
Similarly, voting against their right as a human to be compassionate and loving toward another human through the life-long sanction of marriage IS, in fact, HATEFUL.
If you disagree, consider if you had lived in the mid-1900s. Would you have ALSO been against interracial marriage? EVEN if it was between a man and woman? Here's an excerpt for the "felony" that was interracial marriage:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.
Loving v. Virginia proved that marriage has NOT always been SIMPLY between a man and a woman. The bible once deemed interracial, heterosexual marriage a felony. However, "The definition of a marriage and what constitutes a family was reconsidered by society after the decision of Loving v. Virginia."
A word of advice: TAKE THE BIBLE OUT OF POLITICS AND UNDERSTAND THAT GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE ARE HUMAN BEINGS JUST LIKE YOURSELF.
And while you're at it, KEEP HYPOCRISY OUT OF POLITICS AND OUT OF RELIGION FOR YOU CANNOT LOVE AND HATE SOMEONE. Doing both proves that you are not doing one or the other.
And it's not like we're talking about quantum physics here so it cannot be both. Sorry.
Guys, lets simmer down a wee bit. First off, you can love someone and disagree with the lifestyle. You love them by treating them with compassion, respect and honesty. You treat them the same way you would treat any one of your friends. We all disagree with some thing our friends believe or say or do. This doesn't mean we don't love them. Okay, since Biblical beliefs have been brought into it, let me tell you what I believe the Bible teaches about homosexuality. It is a sin, no better or worse then other sins. If I commit a sexual act outside of marriage, then I sin just as much as a person who commits an act of homosexuality. Everyone suffers from different temptations, and its not a sin to be tempted, its a sin to act on the temptation. There are those that believe Paul, who wrote several books of the Bible suffered homosexual temptations due to the fact that he repeatedly said that he has a thorn in his side that he forever struggles with(homosexuality is just one of the many options, but there are those who believe this is what he struggled with). I also know Christians who are tempted by homosexual thoughts and resist them. So, all that is to show you what I believe the Bible says about homosexuality.
Whoever quoted those verses, that is never a good way to interact in conversations like this as it just instigates. Those verse are just as important in the Bible as any others, but you have to say things in a loving way and keep verses in context.
Sal, drinking is not against the Bible, getting drunk is, but not drinking. Heck, Paul even tells Timothy to drink a glass of wine with his dinner because of a medical ailment. And no, you won't go to hell because you stole something, thought that makes us all worthy of hell. The Bible tells us, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and that, makes us all worthy of hell. But if we accept Jesus as our savior and Lord, then all the sins we commit in this life are covered through the death of Jesus, the perfect replacement, on the Cross.
Oh, and to whoemever said the Bible deemed heterosexual, interracial marriages a felony, this is not true, please show me the verse because its simply not true. What you are probably referring to is in the OT God telling the Israelites to not take other wives from other nations. The reason He did this was other nations only worshiped other gods, and He did not want that influence expanding into the Israelites. When God spread His influence to the Gentiles/Greeks in the NT, then that changed as God was pursuing all peoples. In no way shape or form was He outlawing interracial marriage.
Can I please speak my mind and be passionate with being told to settle down or censored/deleted?
Na dude, you said nothing wrong, I just wanted to send a reminder because I was afraid it might get heated up, sorry if you took that wrong.
This comment actually comes from wife of Gandalf.
Interesting and passionate debate you are having. Clearly there have been strong opinions stated, some of an intellectual nature, many from deep emotions and/or beliefs.
James, you have a good point about the legality of homosexual marriage being different from the legality of an adult-child marriage or a human-animal marriage. I laughed at the thought of animals rushing in to request marriage as soon as we legalize it.
Do you see the possibility of polygamous marriage becoming the next item on the agenda, and if so, do you favor that?
Post a Comment