Political Crossfire Forums

[cool_chick]

Mormonsstone wrote:

It's not the governments job, they just took it upon themselves. This whole argument is about homosexuals wanting marital benefits that at this moment and time only apply to straight couples. These marital benefits are a package supplied by the government. Religion never requested it, it just happened over the years.

The "marital" benefits package supplied by the government has zero to do with religion, yours or any other. So why not grant them? They certainly pay in just like the rest of us.

[variant]

Several points:

This sentence:

Quote: While there are many areas of religious dogma that are utterly rediculous and sound proposeterous, you can never eliminate religion from people's lives, so we need to learn to compromise, and Social Contracts granted by the government that grant the equilavent of marriage rights seems to be the only logical solution.

There really is no need to compromise, the legality of marriage arrangements that specific churches practice should be recognized if no one is being harmed in the process, and every concerned party is consenting.

Everything else would be favoring one religious viewpoint and thus, a government respecting an establishment of religion....

Secondly the definition of a bigot (For the notion that a great deal of the support for this "Christian" viewpoint is not often bigotry):

Main Entry:big£ot
Pronunciation:*bi-g*t
Function:noun
Etymology:French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance –big£ot£ed \-g*-t*d\ adjective
–big£ot£ed£ly adverb

I have no doubt in my mind that many Christians hate homosexuals, and are thus quite fitting for this definition. Every Christian falls under the first part of the definition if they wish to keep others from having the right to organize their relationships as they see fit with the same sanction from the government that any other religious or spiritual viewpoint would get.

No, you shouldn’t have the right to say you should get special treatment and have only have marriages you like sanctioned. ( how would that ammount to free excersize of religion?).

The constitution doesn’t say "free exercise of Christianity” “Or, equal protection under the law (so long as your a Judeo-Christian)".

Your concerns for children and society are understandable. But then again, we allow most people to mess up their children psychologically, without question, and most children grow up in what would be termed a dysfunctional home.

So, your argument would work equally well for children of a Mormon household, or say an atheist household, and the traumas that a child would have in growing up in a society dominated by Christians. Then would logically follow that it would be fine for Christians to stand up and logically protest that Atheism and the Mormon faith should be outlawed.

The church doesn’t get to dictate social policy, and neither should Christians be allowed to vote away privileges for others because they disagree morally. The only legitimate use of government is when one person harms another, so broad social movements are not, and should not be the concern of any government entity. It is always tyranny to try to legislate what is in people’s minds.

What you are advocating is holding on to our last vestiges of theocracy because you are used to your viewpoint being treated as if it deserves primacy. (You do not deserve any such thing)

Quote: Religion has no problem allowing gays to do as they wish, as long as a religious term is not used. We are a forgiving religion, but we also have our own rules, and the government, along with the people of the country, need to respect our rules, just as you'd respect any other opinion.

Christianity doesn’t "own" marriage. Our respect for your opinion can only follow if you respect the opinions of others. Some religious viewpoints condone same sex marriage. What are we to do with them? We have already allowed Christianity to forcibly institute monogamy, spitting in the faces of those of the Mormon faith (at the time) and Moslems.

Respecting your opinion doesn’t mean we have to institute it forcibly via the government, or that it hasn’t already been done against every fiber of what is supposed to be a free society.

Also:

If you really believe homosexuals are born that way, your argument really doesn’t make much sense either on a moral or social level.

I don’t feel like getting into it though.

[Trajan]

Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy

[Nixon]

mattwa33193 wrote: Nixon wrote: Renevant wrote: Your original thesis assumes all Christians are against gay marriage, which is false.

I think he meant that their was no major Christian group that advocates gay marriage, which is true.

Liberals are quick to point out that extremist muslims(like the kind that planned 9/11) are a very small minority of the muslim religion as a whole, which is correct.

Yet the same libs will then say that every person who steps into a Church once a week is a Jerry Falwell-loving lunatics who want all homosexuals rounded up, put on trains, and sent to concentration camps.

How can they be so rational about the muslim religion(which is small minority in the U.S., and at the same time unbelievably irrational when it comes to the #1 religion in their own country?

strange

Because the Muslims that are telling us we are going to hell are on the other side of the world. The Chiristians that are telling us we are going to hell are all around us.

thats just my point.

you see some preacher on channel 130 at 3:00 in the morning telling you you're going to hell, and suddenly EVERY Christian is telling you you're going to hell.

I had 12 years of education in a private catholic school, and never did I hear anyone say "you're going to hell if your not christian."

Which reminds me of another bit of liberal hypocrisy.
Why is it just the Christians who think non-Christians are going to hell?
Don't Jews and Muslims also believe non-jews and non-muslims are going to hell as well?

Your blatant, christian-only attacks only expose your own selfish motives to everyone(everyone who has any sense, anyway).

[mattwa33193]

Nixon wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: Nixon wrote: Renevant wrote: Your original thesis assumes all Christians are against gay marriage, which is false.

I think he meant that their was no major Christian group that advocates gay marriage, which is true.

Liberals are quick to point out that extremist muslims(like the kind that planned 9/11) are a very small minority of the muslim religion as a whole, which is correct.

Yet the same libs will then say that every person who steps into a Church once a week is a Jerry Falwell-loving lunatics who want all homosexuals rounded up, put on trains, and sent to concentration camps.

How can they be so rational about the muslim religion(which is small minority in the U.S., and at the same time unbelievably irrational when it comes to the #1 religion in their own country?

strange

Because the Muslims that are telling us we are going to hell are on the other side of the world. The Chiristians that are telling us we are going to hell are all around us.

thats just my point.

you see some preacher on channel 130 at 3:00 in the morning telling you you're going to hell, and suddenly EVERY Christian is telling you you're going to hell.

I had 12 years of education in a private catholic school, and never did I hear anyone say "you're going to hell if your not christian."

Which reminds me of another bit of liberal hypocrisy.
Why is it just the Christians who think non-Christians are going to hell?
Don't Jews and Muslims also believe non-jews and non-muslims are going to hell as well?

Your blatant, christian-only attacks only expose your own selfish motives to everyone(everyone who has any sense, anyway).

I also had 12 years of education in private Catholic schools. They refused to tallk about the fate of non-Christians when we asked. Of course, Catholics aren't fundamentalists.

The Christians that get all the exposure are the ones that are telling us we are going to hell. Of course it isn't all of them. But it makes the rest of us real sensitive to it.

[Mormonsstone]

Quote: Christianity doesn’t "own" marriage.

Tell me then, where do you think it originated? Just out of thin air? This country used to be all-christian, that's when marriage and marriage packages came about.

And Coolchick, that's my point exactly. We should give gays the benefits of marriage, but the actual act of marriage within our church is what shouldn't be allowed, simply because our organization disagrees with it. Nobody would force a muslim in this country to not wear their attire, or force them to do anything for that matter. So why should christians be subjected to having to marry someone in their church with whom they don't necessarily feel are fit for Holy MAtrimony?

[cool_chick]

Mormonsstone wrote:

And Coolchick, that's my point exactly. We should give gays the benefits of marriage, but the actual act of marriage within our church is what shouldn't be allowed, simply because our organization disagrees with it. Nobody would force a muslim in this country to not wear their attire, or force them to do anything for that matter. So why should christians be subjected to having to marry someone in their church with whom they don't necessarily feel are fit for Holy MAtrimony?

With all due respect, what church is being "forced" to marry homosexual people? I know of none.

[mattwa33193]

Mormonsstone wrote: Quote: Christianity doesn’t "own" marriage.

Tell me then, where do you think it originated? Just out of thin air? This country used to be all-christian, that's when marriage and marriage packages came about.

And Coolchick, that's my point exactly. We should give gays the benefits of marriage, but the actual act of marriage within our church is what shouldn't be allowed, simply because our organization disagrees with it. Nobody would force a muslim in this country to not wear their attire, or force them to do anything for that matter. So why should christians be subjected to having to marry someone in their church with whom they don't necessarily feel are fit for Holy MAtrimony?

Believe it or not, people got married before Christianity came along.

No one wants to force churches to perform same sex marriages.

[variant]

Mormonsstone wrote: Quote: Christianity doesn’t "own" marriage.

Tell me then, where do you think it originated? Just out of thin air? This country used to be all-christian, that's when marriage and marriage packages came about.


You’re quite funny. :lol: Marriage is ANCHIENT. I know for a fact that it wasn’t originally a Christian institution. I know that most if not all pagan societies practiced some form of marriage. I can prove it did not start with Christianity simply by asking you why people were getting married in the Old Testament. You know there were no Christians in the old testament and that it was written before the new testament right?

Hinduism for instance is an older religion than Christianity with its own long held marriage customs.

YOU DON"T OWN IT, IT’S A SOCIAL THING.

Maybe you think Christians invented morality and the justice system too?

Maybe you think the United States was the only country where the government recognizes legal marriages???

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Consider yourself disabused of a problematic assumption.

[cool_chick]

I'm thinking he's saying the American government became involved because of the Christians in the country at the time.

I don't think he's saying that Christians "own" it.

[cool_chick]

Demosthenes wrote: My reason for the recent rise in homosexuality is....

I do not believe that the percentage of the general population has risen at all. I do not believe there is a "rise" in homosexuality; rather, you just hear about those who are homosexual now (they were always there, in the same percentages, just silent.)

Unless you have some empirical evidence to substantiate it, I'm willing to take a look.

[Ellron]

Mormonsstone wrote: Quote: Respecting your rules is absolutely the right thing to do. Problem is, you are telling everyone we have to follow them.

I never said that. I simply noted that the church cannot be told by the government or anyone else that they must be allowed to marry gays if they do not wish it.

Quote: How does the government "supplies the benefits through the packages and benefits it supplies?" What "packages" does God require and why is it the government's job to supply it?

It's not the governments job, they just took it upon themselves. This whole argument is about homosexuals wanting marital benefits that at this moment and time only apply to straight couples. These marital benefits are a package supplied by the government. Religion never requested it, it just happened over the years.

See the thing bud.. THE church does not choose who gets married because it does not only apply to them. It applies to many other religions as well. Doesnt matter if Christianity does not want gay marriage because they dont have a monopoly on marriage

[Wolverine]

The state needs to stay out of marriage, and allow the churches and its members decide if should allow that marriage....

[Ellron]

Nixon wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: Nixon wrote: Renevant wrote: Your original thesis assumes all Christians are against gay marriage, which is false.

I think he meant that their was no major Christian group that advocates gay marriage, which is true.

Liberals are quick to point out that extremist muslims(like the kind that planned 9/11) are a very small minority of the muslim religion as a whole, which is correct.

Yet the same libs will then say that every person who steps into a Church once a week is a Jerry Falwell-loving lunatics who want all homosexuals rounded up, put on trains, and sent to concentration camps.

How can they be so rational about the muslim religion(which is small minority in the U.S., and at the same time unbelievably irrational when it comes to the #1 religion in their own country?

strange

Because the Muslims that are telling us we are going to hell are on the other side of the world. The Chiristians that are telling us we are going to hell are all around us.

thats just my point.

you see some preacher on channel 130 at 3:00 in the morning telling you you're going to hell, and suddenly EVERY Christian is telling you you're going to hell.

I had 12 years of education in a private catholic school, and never did I hear anyone say "you're going to hell if your not christian."

Which reminds me of another bit of liberal hypocrisy.
Why is it just the Christians who think non-Christians are going to hell?
Don't Jews and Muslims also believe non-jews and non-muslims are going to hell as well?

Your blatant, christian-only attacks only expose your own selfish motives to everyone(everyone who has any sense, anyway).

Your name fits you perfectly Nixon your paranoid just like him. Seriously what the hell are you talking about? I here all about this Christian hating and see none of it. WHat are you talking about?

[Ellron]

Wolverine wrote: The state needs to stay out of marriage, and allow the churches and its members decide if should allow that marriage....

The gov should just change all marriages to "domestic partnerships" and let the religion of the couple decide if their married or not. Not just the churches but all the other crap as well.

[Etienne]

Marriage should be restricted to the church. However, marriages should not be recognized by the State, and therefore are not awarded any benefits such as property rights. Only civil unions between 2 consenting adults would be recognized, and thereby granted benefits.

Win-Win for everyone. Gays get equal rights, and Christians are able to protect the sanctity of marriage.

[mattwa33193]

Wolverine wrote:
The state needs to stay out of marriage, and allow the churches and its members decide if should allow that marriage....


Elron wrote:
The gov should just change all marriages to "domestic partnerships" and let the religion of the couple decide if their married or not. Not just the churches but all the other crap as well.


Etienne wrote: Marriage should be restricted to the church. However, marriages should not be recognized by the State, and therefore are not awarded any benefits such as property rights. Only civil unions between 2 consenting adults would be recognized, and thereby granted benefits.

Win-Win for everyone. Gays get equal rights, and Christians are able to protect the sanctity of marriage.

No.

No church has the right or authority to say who can and can't get married. They can say who can and can't get married in their church, but not who can and can't get married in this country. Marraige is way too old and way too institutionalized in our culture to let anyone decide if someone is allowed to have a husband or a wife instead of a partner based on their religious or sexual preference. As has already been established, seperate but equal is not equal.

If anything, we need to reduce the authority of churches to dictate how people get to live in this country.

[Refrozen Seabass]

Mormonsstone wrote: Tell me then, where do you think it originated? Just out of thin air? Certainly there are more choices than "out of Christianity" or "out of thin air". Did Jews not marry? Greeks? Romans? Any number of cultures that were around more than 2000 years ago? Quote: This country used to be all-christian, that's when marriage and marriage packages came about. It did? When? At what point in your history did you have no Jews or Buddhists or atheists or ancestor worshippers whatsoever? And what exactly is a marriage package anyway?

Quote: And Coolchick, that's my point exactly. We should give gays the benefits of marriage, but the actual act of marriage within our church is what shouldn't be allowed, simply because our organization disagrees with it. I don't know that there's much of an argument for forcing churches to marry gay people. The large issue was a matter of the government recognizing the couple as married, not the church. Individuals might have their own opinions when it comes to reconciling their religion and their sexual orientation, but the general sturm and drang involves government, not churches, recognizing gay marriage rights.

The problem with the separate but equal civil union line is that separate but equal is not equal. Differentiate between marriage and civil union and that opens the door for people like you write discriminatory laws, laws that apply to marriages but not civil unions. No, civil unions aren't good enough. That differentiation serves no practical purpose, it merely exists to placate bigots.

I'm reminded of the famous photograph of two water fountains, one labelled "whites" and one "coloreds", yet both obviously fed from exactly the same water supply.

[Refrozen Seabass]

Etienne wrote: Win-Win for everyone. Gays get equal rights, and Christians are able to protect the sanctity of marriage.

You are, are you? What's the divorce rate among straight Christian couples these days?

And why should I or anyone else care about what you think of the state of the sanctity of marriage is, anyway? My cousin married her ex-pat Texan girlfriend a couple of weeks ago for their benefit, not for yours.

[cool_chick]

Refrozen Seabass wrote:

The problem with the separate but equal civil union line is that separate but equal is not equal. Differentiate between marriage and civil union and that opens the door for people like you write discriminatory laws, laws that apply to marriages but not civil unions. No, civil unions aren't good enough. That differentiation serves no practical purpose, it merely exists to placate bigots.

That's why all marriages need to be civil unions in the eyes of the government.