Moving from Dakka Polls: threads about politics should go in the Off-Topic sub-forum. Thanks ~ Manchu
Personally I support gay marrige and lgbtq in general but I want to see if there is actually a good argument someone can produce as to why many people still discriminate against lgbt peoplLe.
I'm not gay so why does it matter what I think? The people that should decide are the people it affects and no one else. I don't think anyone should have the right to force their ideals on others.
And people CAN say they read it in the bible. People say that because that's their reason. You don't get to invite what some people think is a controversial topic with a 'nuh-uh, your reason is stupid'.
SharkoutofWata wrote: I'm not gay so why does it matter what I think? The people that should decide are the people it affects and no one else. I don't think anyone should have the right to force their ideals on others.
And people CAN say they read it in the bible. People say that because that's their reason. You don't get to invite what some people think is a controversial topic with a 'nuh-uh, your reason is stupid'.
I agree I fixed it because that was a narrow minded thing to do
Why do people discriminate LGBT people? Because a), they're donkey-caves, b), they interpret a thousand year old book to their hearts conten, or c), they're donkey-caves.
No reason to not allow gay marriage. Any argument to the contrary always sounds silly. They vaguely say its bad for society in some way, or complain about change in the meaning, like that is substantive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: Zero Feths given, you can screw whomever you like, just so long as your not doing it in public
SharkoutofWata wrote: I'm not gay so why does it matter what I think? The people that should decide are the people it affects and no one else. I don't think anyone should have the right to force their ideals on others.
And people CAN say they read it in the bible. People say that because that's their reason. You don't get to invite what some people think is a controversial topic with a 'nuh-uh, your reason is stupid'.
I agree in this context but that is a horrible argument to use to legalize Gay marriage.
So the only people who should have a say in the use of Crack Cocaine are the users of Cocaine....they probably don't want it banned/illegal
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ColonelFazackerley wrote: No reason to not allow gay marriage. Any argument to the contrary always sounds silly. They vaguely say its bad for society in some way, or complain about change in the meaning, like that is substantive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: Zero Feths given, you can screw whomever you like, just so long as your not doing it in public
SharkoutofWata wrote: I'm not gay so why does it matter what I think? The people that should decide are the people it affects and no one else. I don't think anyone should have the right to force their ideals on others.
And people CAN say they read it in the bible. People say that because that's their reason. You don't get to invite what some people think is a controversial topic with a 'nuh-uh, your reason is stupid'.
I agree in this context but that is a horrible argument to use to legalize Gay marriage.
So the only people who should have a say in the use of Crack Cocaine are the users of Cocaine....they probably don't want it banned/illegal
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ColonelFazackerley wrote: No reason to not allow gay marriage. Any argument to the contrary always sounds silly. They vaguely say its bad for society in some way, or complain about change in the meaning, like that is substantive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: Zero Feths given, you can screw whomever you like, just so long as your not doing it in public
The second party has to consent too...
usually
...oookay, that's enough Dakka for me today.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I'd like to know, the two guys who voted nay, what do you have against gay marriage?
who says it was guys. Maybe you have two female gamers.....that dislike gay marriage......yeah im sorry i can't keep a straight face. People are allowed to have their own feelings and don't have to explain them to you. Personally I have zero problems with gay marriage. I don't see why it was banned in the first place.
Those two people are just worried that we throw better wedding parties. Don't worry, guys, we'll leave you some glitter and confetti. And you'll probably look better than me in a dress.
Jokes aside, I think that being allowed to legally be partnered with someone is very important. If I die, the last thing I want my OH to worry about is whether or not they could care for my estate. In the UK that's not a concern any longer, but I know in many countries it is.
I would want to know they could be counted as next of kin in all situations.
However religion and law are separate entities in my mind, and if someone objects on a religious basis, that is their belief, that's fine.
If someone doesn't wish to allow marriage in their church, or officiate a ceremony that they disagree with, it shouldn't matter if it's gay, straight, or between two poodles, they shouldn't have to do it.
Taking that disagreement any further and actively harming others is where we part ways.
I'm what you'd call equal opportunity loving, or "pansex", which is neither here nor there (ha!), but it does mean that in the past I've had to make serious considerations about the legality of things like property, or the welfare of my animals if something were to happen.
I'm lucky to live in a country where this is no longer so much of an issue.
I don't agree with homosexuality, nor do I think it's natural or normal etc. However, in life, there is lots I disagree with. I don't think watching TV is a quality way to spend spare time, nor do I think spending money on certain things is wise. I could go on for hours with things people do that I disagree with or dislike for whatever reason. But I don't stop people doing these things.
Im sure people think im daft for spending money on fancy plastic, or people who think the fact I have a Honda instead of a Toyota is ridiculous etc. But I have never been given a hard time for anything I do that others disagree with so why give others a hard time? Well I don't.
If people want to get married then that's fine, even if you disprove of homosexuality then I still don't see what's wrong with it happening. I just hope when these people get married they find someone who wants to marry them to do so. Nothing worse than the teacher that forces you to play with the kid who ruins your fun or vice versa etc.
All in all, let them be. I have no real reason at all to not let them.
See, even if we disagree on some things, I can get behind that, so to speak.
What feels natural, and comfort zone is very personal. Me, I can't get my head around flying. I understand how it works, and why people do it, but the concept of willingly flinging yourself through the air at blinding speeds in a small container? It's so incredibly pants-gaking-ly alien to me that, no exaggeration, I make peace with my own death before going near a plane.
Do I stop other people from getting on planes or try and convince them I'm right? No. It's their fething business. And now we've gone full circle.
I don't always agree with a lot of the views people here on Dakka have but, this is one that I can meet at common grounds. I don't agree with homosexuality however I am not going to say you can't marry who you want to. I don't care what another person does in their personal life with someone they care about.
The only problem I have is when they try to force a Christian priest to wed them. I feel as if they are purposely trying to force their ways on people who believe it is wrong to be homosexual. There are plenty of people who can wed you that don't give a crap who or what your sexual preference is. don't add kindle to the fire.
Have there been reported cases of priests (or any other religious official) being forced to marry people they don't want to?
Or gays, for that matter?
Sincerely curious.
I know there's been a couple of small town community centric churches turning down weddings. Which whilst often handled and reported more aggressively than I'd appreciate, is not something I entirely disagree with.
Bonegrinder wrote: Completely for same sex marriage; If two want to commit to each other and have it legally recognized, then good for them.
It isn't hurting anyone
Can I just say it does not make sense to say that God hates gays.
He clearly doesn't: anyone who says that is not reading their bible right. The Old Testament is nice if you like a bit of fiction with plenty of sex and violence (add in dragons and it's virtually Game of Thrones), but the New Testament is what Christians really should be looking to, and not merely in a literal way but also thinking about the context in which it was written. The bible condoned slavery but no Christian now (I hope) would say the African slave trade was good.
Firstly, the message of Jesus is love your neighbour, your neighbour being everybody. Secondly, somewhere in the NT, this Roman legionary comes before Jesus and asks him to cure this man whom "he cares about deeply", (depending on the translation this could be a gay couple) and Jesus goes ahead and heals him, blessing them both.
Finally, if your God gets upset because a guy fancies another guy, he's a pretty weak god... The Dark Eldar don't worship the old eldar Gods because they were killed by slaanesh, so obviously weren't worth worshipping. Similarly, if your God is so enraged by such petty matters then does he really deserve to be worshipped?
Personally I'm not gay, but I see no reason why you should be prevented from spending your life with someone because of their sex. It's like saying you can't have interracial marriage because of some petty, arbitrary thing like skin colour.
I've often wondered if folk who don't want gays to get married because of how they or their social group interpret their holy book of choice, would be okay with murderers (or folks who've committed other serious crimes or transgressions) getting married.
I'm pretty sure all holy texts have some hard words on those particulars.
Do we get communities protesting criminal or released prisoner marriages? I mean I've never seen it personally, I'm curious.
Pretty sure having murdered someone is more indicative of a moral character than being in love.
Absolutley not. I don't judge gays at all & in fact most of my friends are either gay or bi but a person is allowed to dissagree witha persons sexuality as part of their religeon. Freedom of belief & all that.
To tell a Christian vicar he has to marry two men is forcing him to do something against his belief. Where are his human rites?
I instead think that civil partners should be given the same rites as married couples.
Personally I don't care what anybodys sexual preferences are so I would never go against gay marriage.
However the one thing I am not a fan of is the "gay pride parades" I feel like it sets what the gay community have accomplished back rather then celebrate what they have achieved.
Comments like that are usually made by people who don't realize how often we as a society shove heterosexuality down everyone's throats-- hell, just look at our TV shows and movies, almost all of which are stuffed full of unnecessary, hacked in straight romance plots.
By comparison, pride parades are just one day a year, hardly that intrusive all things considered; just let the LGBT community celebrate and confirm "we exist and we're proud of who we are". I mean FFS we still have politicians who want to outlaw being gay and talking about "the gaystapo"...
Drakeslayer wrote: Can I just say it does not make sense to say that God hates gays.
He clearly doesn't: anyone who says that is not reading their bible right. The Old Testament is nice if you like a bit of fiction with plenty of sex and violence (add in dragons and it's virtually Game of Thrones), but the New Testament is what Christians really should be looking to, and not merely in a literal way but also thinking about the context in which it was written. The bible condoned slavery but no Christian now (I hope) would say the African slave trade was good.
Firstly, the message of Jesus is love your neighbour, your neighbour being everybody. Secondly, somewhere in the NT, this Roman legionary comes before Jesus and asks him to cure this man whom "he cares about deeply", (depending on the translation this could be a gay couple) and Jesus goes ahead and heals him, blessing them both.
Finally, if your God gets upset because a guy fancies another guy, he's a pretty weak god... The Dark Eldar don't worship the old eldar Gods because they were killed by slaanesh, so obviously weren't worth worshipping. Similarly, if your God is so enraged by such petty matters then does he really deserve to be worshipped?
Personally I'm not gay, but I see no reason why you should be prevented from spending your life with someone because of their sex. It's like saying you can't have interracial marriage because of some petty, arbitrary thing like skin colour.
Drake you are off a little on your reinterpretation of the Bible. The legionary brought a servant to Jesus and in no way did Jesus ever condone homosexuality. Jesus dealt with and forgave sinners but in all cases he told people to go and sin no more. Love thy neighbor but hate the sin and homosexuality is pure sin. I also find it odd that you compare the bible to 40k fiction.
My stance may not be the most popular here but I am very much against same sex marriage. Yes I am a Christian and the Bible is what steers my moral compass. What is the point on your moral compass? Where do we draw the line on morality? Pedofiles? Beastiality? Hedonism? Did you know there are people that "marry" their pets? Why is it so critical that Gays be allowed to have Marriage?" Have a civil union with all the legal rights but don't call it marriage. In the U.S. It was not a fight for rights but a fight for acknowledgement. It is one more step in forcing people who do not agree with that lifestyle to accept it. Business's in the U.S. Are being sued because their religious beliefs prevent them from acknowledging homosexual unions. If this was about "love and understanding" then why not take your business elsewhere? Why make it a point to sue? Why ask to be married in a church that you know does no acknowledge your lifestyle then sue that church when they say no? That is more about hate, anger, and trying to prove justification. It is not about equality or legal rights....it is about validation. It is simply a group of people living a sinful lifestyle forcing the world to acknowledge them. Don't want to worry about your estate...write a will. Health insurance in most countries is no longer an issue due to government care and in the U.S. You are penalized tax wise to be married. Why is it so critical gays can marry? Why is it so important to call it "marriage? What is the definition of marriage and what do you base that definition on? If you don't see Marriage as a religeous commitment between a couple and God then you missed the point of marriage. God does not condone Homosexuality and in fact openly states in the Bible that it is wrong along with Beastality, etc. as a matter of point Sodem and Ghamora were destroyed due to their sin and sexual deviancy.
With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Buttery Commissar wrote: I've often wondered if folk who don't want gays to get married because of how they or their social group interpret their holy book of choice, would be okay with murderers (or folks who've committed other serious crimes or transgressions) getting married.
I'm pretty sure all holy texts have some hard words on those particulars.
Do we get communities protesting criminal or released prisoner marriages? I mean I've never seen it personally, I'm curious.
Pretty sure having murdered someone is more indicative of a moral character than being in love.
We all sin but forgiveness comes when we turn away from that sin. In cases where people have killed or committed other sins there are still consequences of sin but you can be forgiven. In cases like Homosexuality forgiveness for the sin again comes when the sinner turns away from sin which they will not do. Instead they grasp that sin tighter and want to force acceptance of that sin as a lifestyle on those that know it as sin. They don't want anyone to tell them it's wrong and feel everyone MUST accept them. Remember that we hate the sin and not the sinner (although some do take that hate too far). Yes you should be punished for murder etc but that in no way ties to marriage. It is the act of gay marriage that is the sin and proud announcement of that sin that is an affront to God.
TyranidPainter wrote: To tell a Christian vicar he has to marry two men is forcing him to do something against his belief. Where are his human rites?
As the vicar is acting as an agent of the state, the vicar should have to abide by the laws of the state which include not discriminating against people for little things like their skin colour, religion or sexuality.
You know, like everyone else who offers a public service.
"Officer, that person just knifed my gay partner!"
"Ooohhhh... would love to help you but I'm afraid that it goes against my human rights to do anything to not facillitate homosexuality"
I instead think that civil partners should be given the same rites as married couples.
Ah, the ol' "they can't have our word but they are exactly the same in every other way. But they can't be married, only be civil partners!".
If we're going to get in a theological debate, I'd prefer to start quoting people like Fred Clark, William Lindsey, Neil Steinberg, Kimberly Knight, and Dave Gushee over the words of notoriously corrupt churches that were formed to add support to the bloody altar of slavery and white male supremacy.
Melissia wrote: Comments like that are usually made by people who don't realize how often we as a society shove heterosexuality down everyone's throats-- hell, just look at our TV shows and movies, almost all of which are stuffed full of unnecessary, hacked in straight romance plots.
By comparison, pride parades are just one day a year, hardly that intrusive all things considered; just let the LGBT community celebrate and confirm "we exist and we're proud of who we are". I mean FFS we still have politicians who want to outlaw being gay and talking about "the gaystapo"...
That's because for the vast majority of people this is normal and the natural way to do things, so of course man and women relationships are more common than the deviant sexuality who are still portrayed in media (probably more representation than there actually are sexual deviants). I know it is the cool thing for some people these days to try really hard to care about the minorities (or even try hard to be one of them with, despite normally being a sheltered white kid) but you can hardly call them shoe horned in. As much as I hate a romance subplot they are there for an obvious reason.
I am sure if you look, you may find a lot of media has lesbians and gays etc in it, but you cannot expect movies and so on to ignore the majority interests for no reason other than your feels, they are there to make money. It's not shoved down our throats... you are acting like people DON'T like romance plots with the word "shoved down our throats", but then, Titanic flies in the face of that as an example among many.
As it sits I know a fair few gay couples and, well only one of them thinks highly of the pride parade and honestly im not surprised. I suppose it's like walking into a wargames convention only to see some 30 year old dudes screaming in viking hats to the dismay of the crowd. Yes they are loud, getting attention and showing how different they are, but for the majority of us at the convention it's pretty embarrassing to be lumped in with them. Especially when you happen to have someone new to the hobby with you. I got the impression that's how they felt when the topic came up.
Anyway, in short, it isn't rocket science. Unless the majority wants no romance or something it won't change. After all romance between men and women have featured in books dating back for a loooooooooooong time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: If we're going to get in a theological debate, I'd prefer to start quoting people like Fred Clark, William Lindsey, Neil Steinberg, Kimberly Knight, and Dave Gushee over the words of notoriously corrupt churches that were formed to add support to the bloody altar of slavery and white male supremacy.
Oh and hahahahahaha... you have been reading too many troll tumblr accounts I think...
Followed by someone who wants what I have even though they claim to be different?!? I don't understand that. Ifyou are proud to be gay and different why do you demand the same "marriage" benefit as heterosexual couples?
Fish, thanks for correcting me on my bible - unfortunately I'm not so well versed in it as others so I'm probably not the best one to argue from the bible. The only reason I was comparing the bible to 40k fic was because it seemed an apt if childish analogy - if God condemns homosexuality as a sin then he is petty and hypocritical. I have a number of gay friends, and it is not a lifestyle choice. It is sad that homosexuality is often communicated through hyped up stereotypes which make it look like a lifestyle choice, but it really isn't.
God would not create intrinsically disordered human beings, and yet homosexuality is natural - it occurs in nature, you see it with dogs and chimpanzees. How can they be sinning if they are just following their natural urges? The same goes with humans.
My moral compass I keep in my back pocket, my God-given reason as opposed to a holy text which was written by men. With divine inspiration certainly, but still by men. I'm just as fallible as they were, so why should I think they were any better? I am aware that there are people who marry their pets and I agree with you that that is inherently and morally wrong. Consent cannot be given by an animal, and it degrades the dignity of man, but consent can be given by another human adult. That is a different logical sphere, assuming we're leaving Richard Dawkins and evolution back on the shelf, which would probably be for the best.
But your stance raises the question: why be gay and a Christian. If they cannot be married, if they are not accepted by your religion, then why would they want to be part of your religion? Come to think of it, why are women Muslim? Why are women Roman Catholic? Why is anybody religious: because they believe in these things, regardless of how much these things disregard them. Is it too much to ask if these things they all believe in could be a little more accommodating?
I'm down for the yay part. I'm also down with polygamy, even though it's not my thing. You wanna marry five people? Go ahead, but good luck filing your taxes now.
Sometimes people have a different gender orientation "same sex" is not so much other than common number of X chromosomes.
A friend would have been labeled "bi-sexual" but I think I saw it for what it was: a lack of prejudice, willing to find a good person to care about and what gender they are really did not matter. Rare to see.
Marriage is a commitment both emotionally and legally: "yay", silly to say otherwise.
Ruberu wrote: There was a Christian bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding and ended up with them losing their business.
Oh, you mean those people that knowingly violated the law of the state they chose to do business in?
And there are a couple states that the government threatened hate crimes against churches if they refused to wed gay couples. I don't have proof of this one right off the bat, nor do I know if it got anywhere.
"I don't have any proof, but I'm going to go ahead and say it like it's fact."
Kharn The Bae Slayer wrote: Moving from Dakka Polls: threads about politics should go in the Off-Topic sub-forum. Thanks ~ Manchu
Personally I support gay marrige and lgbtq in general but I want to see if there is actually a good argument someone can produce as to why many people still discriminate against lgbt peoplLe.
Sorry I'm already taken. You can buy me some cake though if you want.
Take God out of the equation, since in no shape or form are any of our laws supposed to be based on religion. Is it taking away from the safety of the masses? Does it cause harm, or through in action allow harm to come? No, then get over yourself, and learn to accept. Let them marry. misery is the right of all people, not just men and women.
Fishboy wrote: Followed by someone who wants what I have even though they claim to be different?!? I don't understand that. Ifyou are proud to be gay and different why do you demand the same "marriage" benefit as heterosexual couples?
It isn't a zero sum game. If a homosexual couple gets married what does that take away from your own marriage? I mean if you are concerned how god sees things wouldn't god see through the "sham" homosexual marriages and only acknowledge the "proper" straight marriages? So whats the problem? Those homosexuals are going to hell anyway, right? So no skin of your nose.
The second part of your post doesn't make sense to me. Are you asking why homosexuals would want marriage benefits? Or are you asking why homosexuals want to call it marriage?
I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at all. Regardless of your orientation, you should go to the institution (or lack of) of your choosing and live the marriage you want to live.
Fishboy wrote: Followed by someone who wants what I have even though they claim to be different?!? I don't understand that. Ifyou are proud to be gay and different why do you demand the same "marriage" benefit as heterosexual couples?
Why do you think you have the sole claim over the word and institute of marriage?
If you want to be a special snowflake, I am sure no one will mind if you want to call your marriage something different... Maybe "religious partnership"?
zgort wrote: I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at all. Regardless of your orientation, you should go to the institution (or lack of) of your choosing and live the marriage you want to live.
So no tax benefits for marriage. We can also do away with spousal rights. What else should we trim to get government out of marriage?
zgort wrote: I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at all. Regardless of your orientation, you should go to the institution (or lack of) of your choosing and live the marriage you want to live.
The government should be in the business because when it comes to rights, property, inheritance, healthcare, and vast numbers of other things, pretty much nothing has as big an impact as marriage... except death I guess
Legal rights are conferred by marriage, it absolutely should be open to all regardless of sexuality.
Inheritance, insurance, medical decisions, all are affected by marriage, denying gay people those rights is morally abhorrent.
And while we're at it, the bible is many things, but a bastion of morality is not one of them.
zgort wrote: I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at all. Regardless of your orientation, you should go to the institution (or lack of) of your choosing and live the marriage you want to live.
So no tax benefits for marriage. We can also do away with spousal rights. What else should we trim to get government out of marriage?
Anything that gives marriage a financial benefit, because it's dumb.
zgort wrote: I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at all. Regardless of your orientation, you should go to the institution (or lack of) of your choosing and live the marriage you want to live.
The government should be in the business because when it comes to rights, property, inheritance, healthcare, and vast numbers of other things, pretty much nothing has as big an impact as marriage... except death I guess
The government got involved because it was to protect the surviving spouse / kids.
triplegrim wrote: I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.
But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?
Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.
But, for the sticklers who won't, this atheist would be totally fine with government intervention to remove the tax shelter status of churches who don't conform to civil laws. Let the well funded, "traditionalist" churches stay culturally backwards, but let their followers pay for the land the church sits on, and let the church pay taxes for the revenues it collects.
The churches that want to play ball and adapt to the 21st century can keep their freebies.
If there was a seperation between civil and religious marriages (with both receiving the same treatment by the law), then I would be totally okay with gay marriage.
Homosexuals deserve equal rights to heterosexuals, but it is just wrong to force religious people to accept something that goes against their religion.
Of course. Why should someone be saved my bitter ire over my relative romantic incompetence just because they're gay? That's upwards of a good 10% of the total happy couples I could be resenting by some numbers, and probably at least half that. You'll take my unjustified, off-putting, problem-avoiding, self-righteous, bitterness from me cold dead fingers you will.
The funny thing is, all of the "keep marriage and civil partnerships separate" fall flat because there are churches that do want to perform same sex marriages. If you want religion to define marriage, then you have to allow these churches to give homosexual couples proper, gay marriages. Not every church thinks the same way, so you can't say gay marriage violates Christianity; for a good number of Christians, it doesn't.
triplegrim wrote: I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.
But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?
Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.
But, for the sticklers who won't, this atheist would be totally fine with government intervention to remove the tax shelter status of churches who don't conform to civil laws. Let the well funded, "traditionalist" churches stay culturally backwards, but let their followers pay for the land the church sits on, and let the church pay taxes for the revenues it collects.
The churches that want to play ball and adapt to the 21st century can keep their freebies.
Seems fair, no?
Kind of like churches in Muslim countries that have to pay for the privilege of being Christian?
Fishboy wrote: Followed by someone who wants what I have even though they claim to be different?!? I don't understand that. Ifyou are proud to be gay and different why do you demand the same "marriage" benefit as heterosexual couples?
Why do you think you have the sole claim over the word and institute of marriage?
If you want to be a special snowflake, I am sure no one will mind if you want to call your marriage something different... Maybe "religious partnership"?
After all, it is totally the same thing...
The definition of marriage had to be changed to accommodate the new laws. Yes...a man and woman have the sole claim over the institution of marriage. Just because the definition was recently changed does not change the original aspect of marriage. I am not the one trying to be a special snowflake. The LBGT community are different and are proud of it but expect the world to change the rules to accommodate their life style. It is a choice ( it is not chromosonally based or animalistic dominance) and in that choice you are no longer operating in what was considered a marital relationship (original definition) so you fought and fought to have the legal rules changed. You are now forcing that on everyone around you. I am not in the shape to play football and am not the typical football player so should I force all the rules to be changed to accommodate my physical apptitudes and lifestyle? No I should go play ping pong or something else where I can eat Cheetos rather than make the world adapt to me. And now that LGBT (per your special snowflake quote) want to claim "marriage" to validate their life style you expect Christians or other religious back grounds to change what was marriage to something different? That is a typical attitude of the LBGT community that I have consistently experienced over the last 30 years. It would not matter if we changed our word from marriage to something else....soon you would be after that too. Marriage is more than a legal contract...it is a covenant with God...at least originally it was until mankind watered it down. It's not about legality...it's about validation. In the U.S. They proposed Civil Unions which gave LGBT the same rights as married couples. That was not good enough. Why is it so important that you call it marriage? It will be interesting when all the divorces come and see how the courts handle the separation of property since typically they side more on the female side of things.
All that said I am done commenting on this. We will have responses on both side filled with passion and are operating on Moral Compases 180 degrees out so will doubtfully ever agree. I do not do anything to discriminate against LBGT and know several people in my gaming community that of that affiliation. I am tired however of the LBGT community as a vocal whole demanding everyone accept their lifestyle and consider them the same.
Very pro marrige equality (and equality in general) . I hate it when people are treated differently for staff they and will fight against anything I see that threatens to do that (IIRC the term is egalitarian). It helps that I grew up a UU in a very accepting family, and was always raised with the belief that all people are actually created equal.
The supreme court decision was very important to me as quite a few of my very closest friends are homosexual (Almost all lesbian. I'm not quite sure why. ).
triplegrim wrote: I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.
But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?
Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.
But, for the sticklers who won't, this atheist would be totally fine with government intervention to remove the tax shelter status of churches who don't conform to civil laws. Let the well funded, "traditionalist" churches stay culturally backwards, but let their followers pay for the land the church sits on, and let the church pay taxes for the revenues it collects.
The churches that want to play ball and adapt to the 21st century can keep their freebies.
Seems fair, no?
Kind of like churches in Muslim countries that have to pay for the privilege of being Christian?
And to finish my post I believe the Koran specifically states that is the correct thing to do for Christians who will not convert so that is not a "change" or adaptation. As for forcing churches to accept gay marriages and perform them that is as wrong as it was for the Christians during the inquisition to force people to become Christians. I like hamburgers and steaks therefore do I have a right to force every vegan to cook me a steak? As for the churches that want to perform gay marriages they are way off base and falling further away from God by not only allowing sin but encouraging it.
I am pro-gay marriage. That being said I do believe that people should be allowed to exercise reasonable religious beliefs, and that no substantial burden be placed on the exercising thereof.
Ruberu wrote: This ended up with a few states governments making laws protecting businesses against this incase they don't want to serve someone because of their race, religious views, gender, sexual preference and so on. The first that comes to mind is Indiana because I was just at Gen Con. There has been some talk that Gen Con might move where they have it because the convention center can choose not serve someone and Gen Con can't do anything about it.
1. That is incorrect. The original law was that no one providing goods or services could act be forced to act where their religious beliefs were substantially burdened. No reasonable person could claim that denying a gay man service at GenCon was a substantial burden on exercise of religion
2. Homosexuality was not a protected class in Indiana at the time the law was passed. So claims that the law provided a legal basis for discrimination are without merit.
3. The law did not make discrimination legal on the basis of "race", "religious views", "gender", etc.
4. Outside of protected classes anyone may be refused service for any reason. If a hotdog vendor at GenCon decided that he hated Bronies then he is within his rights to refuse service, and GenCon could do nothing about that either.
Fishboy wrote: The definition of marriage had to be changed to accommodate the new laws. Yes...a man and woman have the sole claim over the institution of marriage. Just because the definition was recently changed does not change the original aspect of marriage. I am not the one trying to be a special snowflake. The LBGT community are different and are proud of it but expect the world to change the rules to accommodate their life style. It is a choice ( it is not chromosonally based or animalistic dominance) and in that choice you are no longer operating in what was considered a marital relationship (original definition) so you fought and fought to have the legal rules changed. You are now forcing that on everyone around you. I am not in the shape to play football and am not the typical football player so should I force all the rules to be changed to accommodate my physical apptitudes and lifestyle? No I should go play ping pong or something else where I can eat Cheetos rather than make the world adapt to me. And now that LGBT (per your special snowflake quote) want to claim "marriage" to validate their life style you expect Christians or other religious back grounds to change what was marriage to something different? That is a typical attitude of the LBGT community that I have consistently experienced over the last 30 years. It would not matter if we changed our word from marriage to something else....soon you would be after that too. Marriage is more than a legal contract...it is a covenant with God...at least originally it was until mankind watered it down. It's not about legality...it's about validation. In the U.S. They proposed Civil Unions which gave LGBT the same rights as married couples. That was not good enough. Why is it so important that you call it marriage? It will be interesting when all the divorces come and see how the courts handle the separation of property since typically they side more on the female side of things.
Homosexuality is not a choice nor does your version Christianity have sole dominion on what is considered marriage (or moral, for that matter). I love that wanting equal rights is now considered "validation" and wanting said rights is "forcing that on everyone around you." Your football analogy is just horrible, by the way. Marriage is most definitely a legal contract because a non-religious officiant can conduct it (judge, circuit clerk, etc.).
All that said I am done commenting on this. We will have responses on both side filled with passion and are operating on Moral Compases 180 degrees out so will doubtfully ever agree. I do not do anything to discriminate against LBGT and know several people in my gaming community that of that affiliation. I am tired however of the LBGT community as a vocal whole demanding everyone accept their lifestyle and consider them the same.
Ah, the classic "friend argument," beloved by prejudice people everywhere. Damn dude, you're playing all the right cards. Of course, you ruin it by following up with saying you're "tired of the the LGBT community wanting people to consider them the same." You straight up say that you don't want the gays to think they are the same as everyone else nor for people to treat them like they treat you.
I have to tip my hat to you, sir... that is a level of honest bigotry few people on Dakka have ever admitted to.
triplegrim wrote: I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.
But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?
Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.
But, for the sticklers who won't, this atheist would be totally fine with government intervention to remove the tax shelter status of churches who don't conform to civil laws. Let the well funded, "traditionalist" churches stay culturally backwards, but let their followers pay for the land the church sits on, and let the church pay taxes for the revenues it collects.
The churches that want to play ball and adapt to the 21st century can keep their freebies.
Seems fair, no?
Kind of like churches in Muslim countries that have to pay for the privilege of being Christian?
No, not at all. If you aren't going to follow the law of the land, then you don't get privileges either. Like tax free land.
Jesus tells you to respect and love everyone. New Testament.
Moses had slabs telling you honor your neighbor. Old Testament.
Pretty sure both halves of the bible (and the main part of the Koran and Torah, as it were) tell people of these religions to respect gay marriage, even if it's not their cup of tea. Goes with following the laws passed down by important religious people. Actually, ridiculing gay relationships and attacking them is about as far from being Christian as you can get. In fact, calling yourself a Christian and treating people differently makes you an donkey-cave falsely hiding under a religious umbrella. But you're only lying to yourself.
General statement, btw-not singling anyone out here. Haven't read every response.
So wait, you are completely okay with religious holidays essentially shutting down the government and businesses for 4 weeks a year, but are not okay with a one day parade celebrated by people who just want to celebrate how far they have come in their efforts?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: I don't agree with homosexuality, nor do I think it's natural or normal etc. However, in life, there is lots I disagree with. I don't think watching TV is a quality way to spend spare time, nor do I think spending money on certain things is wise. I could go on for hours with things people do that I disagree with or dislike for whatever reason. But I don't stop people doing these things.
Im sure people think im daft for spending money on fancy plastic, or people who think the fact I have a Honda instead of a Toyota is ridiculous etc. But I have never been given a hard time for anything I do that others disagree with so why give others a hard time? Well I don't.
If people want to get married then that's fine, even if you disprove of homosexuality then I still don't see what's wrong with it happening. I just hope when these people get married they find someone who wants to marry them to do so. Nothing worse than the teacher that forces you to play with the kid who ruins your fun or vice versa etc.
All in all, let them be. I have no real reason at all to not let them.
Not natural, how so?
Many animals show homosexual tendencies,
I'm guessing that you are a creationist seeing that you think humans have their own special set of natural laws
triplegrim wrote: I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.
But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?
Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.
But, for the sticklers who won't, this atheist would be totally fine with government intervention to remove the tax shelter status of churches who don't conform to civil laws. Let the well funded, "traditionalist" churches stay culturally backwards, but let their followers pay for the land the church sits on, and let the church pay taxes for the revenues it collects.
The churches that want to play ball and adapt to the 21st century can keep their freebies.
Seems fair, no?
Kind of like churches in Muslim countries that have to pay for the privilege of being Christian?
No, not at all. If you aren't going to follow the law of the land, then you don't get privileges either. Like tax free land.
The law of the land over there is be Muslim or pay up.
triplegrim wrote: I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.
But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?
Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.
But, for the sticklers who won't, this atheist would be totally fine with government intervention to remove the tax shelter status of churches who don't conform to civil laws. Let the well funded, "traditionalist" churches stay culturally backwards, but let their followers pay for the land the church sits on, and let the church pay taxes for the revenues it collects.
The churches that want to play ball and adapt to the 21st century can keep their freebies.
Seems fair, no?
Kind of like churches in Muslim countries that have to pay for the privilege of being Christian?
No, not at all. If you aren't going to follow the law of the land, then you don't get privileges either. Like tax free land.
The law of the land over there is be Muslim or pay up.
Right.
What happens in Muslim countries is not relevant to this discussion, and it really isn't relevant to me wanting the US government to take away tax shelter status for churches who don't conform to civil laws.
So wait, you are completely okay with religious holidays essentially shutting down the government and businesses for 4 weeks a year, but are not okay with a one day parade celebrated by people who just want to celebrate how far they have come in their efforts?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: I don't agree with homosexuality, nor do I think it's natural or normal etc. However, in life, there is lots I disagree with. I don't think watching TV is a quality way to spend spare time, nor do I think spending money on certain things is wise. I could go on for hours with things people do that I disagree with or dislike for whatever reason. But I don't stop people doing these things.
Im sure people think im daft for spending money on fancy plastic, or people who think the fact I have a Honda instead of a Toyota is ridiculous etc. But I have never been given a hard time for anything I do that others disagree with so why give others a hard time? Well I don't.
If people want to get married then that's fine, even if you disprove of homosexuality then I still don't see what's wrong with it happening. I just hope when these people get married they find someone who wants to marry them to do so. Nothing worse than the teacher that forces you to play with the kid who ruins your fun or vice versa etc.
All in all, let them be. I have no real reason at all to not let them.
Not natural, how so?
Many animals show homosexual tendencies,
I'm guessing that you are a creationist seeing that you think humans have their own special set of natural laws
Some animals, not many. My GFs bird can also become sexually attracted to me and even attempt to make love to me but I don't see it as evidence that it is natural for us to want to make love to birds and so on because they want to do the same to us if we treat them a certain way... Thats why I never rub my GF's birds body, only her head. Don't want her becoming sexually attached to me at all.
In Bee Hives only queens are allowed to mate (until she gets overpowered etc) yet I would also not use that as an excuse that we should selectively breed humans. Some animal young kill each other, yet we do not pit our young against each other in arenas to weed out the weak etc.
At the end of the day, yes we are animals, but all animals are different laws and do follow different things etc. I do not have to do what animals do and excuse it is normal, we are very different to animals like animals are very different from each other. You can;t pick some animal traits and say "look we can do it too" and then say other traits from some creatures are not ok. Unless you want your kids to kill the weaker one...
As for the holidays, I grew up not being allowed to celebrate them. At the age of 21 I have participated in 2 Christmas lunches and gift giving and it suuuuucked. No easter, or anything like that, for my family they where just days off sometimes. In fact I usually worked with dad on those days for money. So I guess a day to celebrate anything for me is daft as it is. In short, yes I too hate Christmas and Easter and whatever holiday we have here in NZ. I didn't even celebrate birthdays growing up. Of course now that I work when my office is closed I just don;t mind getting paid for no reason.
No I don't find gay people icky, that would be very rude to my uncle or my GF's older brother. It doesn't mean I have to agree with their lifestyle.
Relapse wrote: Your view. Those who don't conform and sacrifice their beliefs have to pay. Sounds like what's going on over in the Middle East to me.
More like: Those who don't conform to the laws of the nation upon which they erect their church will not receive the benefits of that host nation.
The US government gives churches a lot of perks, and if churches refuse to follow the laws of the land, well, let their congregation pony up the costs of operating the church. They can pay taxes on what monies they take in, and they can certainly pay taxes on the land their church sits on.
But I like your version of my argument too. It has a quaint victimhood to it that is adorable.
Tips fedora. Enlighten me good sir, what is this delusion you speak of and how can I rise above the masses and become knowledgeable in all things? How does one know if they are deluded?
Relapse wrote: Your view. Those who don't conform and sacrifice their beliefs have to pay. Sounds like what's going on over in the Middle East to me.
More like: Those who don't conform to the laws of the nation upon which they erect their church will not receive the benefits of that host nation.
The US government gives churches a lot of perks, and if churches refuse to follow the laws of the land, well, let their congregation pony up the costs of operating the church. They can pay taxes on what monies they take in, and they can certainly pay taxes on the land their church sits on.
But I like your version of my argument too. It has a quaint victimhood to it that is adorable.
"churches should follow the laws of the land!"
Looks at the laws of the land, looks at churches...
Aren't they following the laws of the land currently?
Insinuating in a very unsubtle fashion that someone is advocating for ISIS-like activities isn't terribly related to this thread. So don't. Everyone else, keep it polite, a lot of posts have been verging on rude.
Relapse wrote: Your view. Those who don't conform and sacrifice their beliefs have to pay. Sounds like what's going on over in the Middle East to me.
More like: Those who don't conform to the laws of the nation upon which they erect their church will not receive the benefits of that host nation.
The US government gives churches a lot of perks, and if churches refuse to follow the laws of the land, well, let their congregation pony up the costs of operating the church. They can pay taxes on what monies they take in, and they can certainly pay taxes on the land their church sits on.
But I like your version of my argument too. It has a quaint victimhood to it that is adorable.
"churches should follow the laws of the land!"
Looks at the laws of the land, looks at churches...
Aren't they following the laws of the land currently?
In the hypothetical situation that I was throwing out (before Relapse got all victimy and tried to make my argument about oppressing Christians) I stated this:
triplegrim wrote: I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.
But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?
Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.
But, for the sticklers who won't, this atheist would be totally fine with government intervention to remove the tax shelter status of churches who don't conform to civil laws. Let the well funded, "traditionalist" churches stay culturally backwards, but let their followers pay for the land the church sits on, and let the church pay taxes for the revenues it collects.
The churches that want to play ball and adapt to the 21st century can keep their freebies.
Seems fair, no?
Does that answer your question. Or do you want me to name hypothetical churches that are breaking the law in my hypothetical scenario?
Relapse wrote: Your view. Those who don't conform and sacrifice their beliefs have to pay. Sounds like what's going on over in the Middle East to me.
More like: Those who don't conform to the laws of the nation upon which they erect their church will not receive the benefits of that host nation.
The US government gives churches a lot of perks, and if churches refuse to follow the laws of the land, well, let their congregation pony up the costs of operating the church. They can pay taxes on what monies they take in, and they can certainly pay taxes on the land their church sits on.
But I like your version of my argument too. It has a quaint victimhood to it that is adorable.
"churches should follow the laws of the land!"
Looks at the laws of the land, looks at churches...
Aren't they following the laws of the land currently?
In the hypothetical situation that I was throwing out (before Relapse got all victimy and tried to make my argument about oppressing Christians) I stated this:
triplegrim wrote: I think they should be able to have partnerships on the same legal level as women and men.
But I dont see how anyone, especially ateists, can expect christians, or muslims to change their theology to accommodate gay marriage unions?
Oh, they will change. Religions constantly change over time.
But, for the sticklers who won't, this atheist would be totally fine with government intervention to remove the tax shelter status of churches who don't conform to civil laws. Let the well funded, "traditionalist" churches stay culturally backwards, but let their followers pay for the land the church sits on, and let the church pay taxes for the revenues it collects.
The churches that want to play ball and adapt to the 21st century can keep their freebies.
Seems fair, no?
Does that answer your question. Or do you want me to name hypothetical churches that are breaking the law in my hypothetical scenario?
So what you are saying is a religion has to change it's fundamental beliefs in your little scenario and if they don't they need to pay up, correct?
Fishboy wrote: All that said I am done commenting on this. We will have responses on both side filled with passion and are operating on Moral Compases 180 degrees out so will doubtfully ever agree. I do not do anything to discriminate against LBGT and know several people in my gaming community that of that affiliation. I am tired however of the LBGT community as a vocal whole demanding everyone accept their lifestyle and consider them the same.
Ah, the classic "friend argument," beloved by prejudice people everywhere. Damn dude, you're playing all the right cards. Of course, you ruin it by following up with saying you're "tired of the the LGBT community wanting people to consider them the same." You straight up say that you don't want the gays to think they are the same as everyone else nor for people to treat them like they treat you.
I have to tip my hat to you, sir... that is a level of honest bigotry few people on Dakka have ever admitted to.
Wow, what a great way to have arguments. Lets call people with different opinions bigots! Yay!
I am dissapointed that some people here on Dakka can't speak to other people with different opinions without resorting to childish namecalling.
There is no such thing as "practicing homosexuality." You either are or you aren't.
No, but neither do you and neither does the LGBT community and neither does the government.
Exactly. Which is why you missed the point. The legal definition of marriage is not decided by one faith, hence why marriage is a civil contract between two people recognized by the state. That's also why the state has the authority to decide what marriages to recognize.
Yes, but it is also a religious contract.
If you chose for it to be. Understand this distinction yet? My marriage had absolutely nothing to do with God, am I not married? The framed marriage certificate and license I was granted by the Commonwealth of Virginia says I am.
Wow, what a great way to have arguments. Lets call people with different opinions bigots! Yay!
I am dissapointed that some people here on Dakka can't speak to other people with different opinions without resorting to childish namecalling.
When someone's exact words are this:
I am tired however of the LBGT community as a vocal whole demanding everyone accept their lifestyle and consider them the same.
Well, that's pretty much the exact definition of being a bigot. Because the LGBT community is the same as us; they get up in the morning, they go to work, they spend time with their families, they enjoy their hobbies. At the end of the day, they want to be treated the same because they're fething people and they deserve it. They don't want to be concerned with losing their job or being denied access to housing, all because of their choice in partner.
Here's an radical idea, if you don't want to be accused of being a bigot, don't say bigoted things.
Funny enough, I support gay marriage, but gay rights doesn't even enter the equation.
It's a legal institution. Denying it to couples with one gender configuration but not to others is sexist. Gender discrimination by law is intolerable in a civilized society. (Or rather, should be.)
There is no such thing as "practicing homosexuality." You either are or you aren't.
No, but neither do you and neither does the LGBT community and neither does the government.
Exactly. Which is why you missed the point. The legal definition of marriage is not decided by one faith, hence why marriage is a civil contract between two people recognized by the state. That's also why the state has the authority to decide what marriages to recognize.
Yes, but it is also a religious contract.
If you chose for it to be. Understand this distinction yet? My marriage had absolutely nothing to do with God, am I not married? The framed marriage certificate and license I was granted by the Commonwealth of Virginia says I am.
Wow, what a great way to have arguments. Lets call people with different opinions bigots! Yay!
I am dissapointed that some people here on Dakka can't speak to other people with different opinions without resorting to childish namecalling.
When someone's exact words are this:
I am tired however of the LBGT community as a vocal whole demanding everyone accept their lifestyle and consider them the same.
Well, that's pretty much the exact definition of being a bigot. Because the LGBT community is the same as us; they get up in the morning, they go to work, they spend time with their families, they enjoy their hobbies. At the end of the day, they want to be treated the same because they're fething people and they deserve it. They don't want to be concerned with losing their job or being denied access to housing, all because of their choice in partner.
Here's an radical idea, if you don't want to be accused of being a bigot, don't say bigoted things.
You know 'bigot' doesn't actually speak towards any sort of moral system or belief right? Not liking racists because you are against racism is being a bigot.
I think we should get rid of marriage altogether and just bind people with legal contracts. Replace ministers with solicitors and so on so forth.
Not really, but you get the idea.
But, gay people aren't causing me any harm, they don't cause cancer or obesity. So why should I care, or even have an opinion, on what they do with their lives.
Krellnus wrote: This is an interesting question for me that I truthfully can't answer as a yes or no.
On one hand I have no qualms with gay people and don't want to see them discriminated against.
On the other, I think marriage as an institution gives waaaay too many legal rights at this point in time.
Thanks for giving something to do that isn't my assignment Dakka
That's the basis of the push for it equalitywise.
I'm for it, it's just annoying how everyone has to continually make a big deal to try to stop it from happening, especially Tony.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: I think we should get rid of marriage altogether and just bind people with legal contracts. Replace ministers with solicitors and so on so forth.
Not really, but you get the idea.
But, gay people aren't causing me any harm, they don't cause cancer or obesity. So why should I care, or even have an opinion, on what they do with their lives.
At the core that's actually what it is, just with religious meaning put into it.
zgort wrote: I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage at all. Regardless of your orientation, you should go to the institution (or lack of) of your choosing and live the marriage you want to live.
Agreed, but if the government is going to stick its nose in, then the best policy would be an inclusive policy.
Krellnus wrote: This is an interesting question for me that I truthfully can't answer as a yes or no.
On one hand I have no qualms with gay people and don't want to see them discriminated against.
On the other, I think marriage as an institution gives waaaay too many legal rights at this point in time.
Thanks for giving something to do that isn't my assignment Dakka
That's the basis of the push for it equalitywise.
I'm for it, it's just annoying how everyone has to continually make a big deal to try to stop it from happening, especially Tony.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: I think we should get rid of marriage altogether and just bind people with legal contracts. Replace ministers with solicitors and so on so forth.
Not really, but you get the idea.
But, gay people aren't causing me any harm, they don't cause cancer or obesity. So why should I care, or even have an opinion, on what they do with their lives.
At the core that's actually what it is, just with religious meaning put into it.
Even then, marriage has been around a lot longer than any of the religions that we have today.
Iron_Captain wrote: If there was a seperation between civil and religious marriages (with both receiving the same treatment by the law), then I would be totally okay with gay marriage.
Homosexuals deserve equal rights to heterosexuals, but it is just wrong to force religious people to accept something that goes against their religion.
Krellnus wrote: This is an interesting question for me that I truthfully can't answer as a yes or no.
On one hand I have no qualms with gay people and don't want to see them discriminated against.
On the other, I think marriage as an institution gives waaaay too many legal rights at this point in time.
Thanks for giving something to do that isn't my assignment Dakka
That's the basis of the push for it equalitywise.
I'm for it, it's just annoying how everyone has to continually make a big deal to try to stop it from happening, especially Tony.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: I think we should get rid of marriage altogether and just bind people with legal contracts. Replace ministers with solicitors and so on so forth.
Not really, but you get the idea.
But, gay people aren't causing me any harm, they don't cause cancer or obesity. So why should I care, or even have an opinion, on what they do with their lives.
At the core that's actually what it is, just with religious meaning put into it.
Even then, marriage has been around a lot longer than any of the religions that we have today.
Exactly, religions tended to pick up things when trying to fit within a new culture in order to assimilate with them easier. At its core marriage was just a contract for trade between two richer families. As it was religiously picked up it became more commonplace.
Vitali Advenil wrote: The funny thing is, all of the "keep marriage and civil partnerships separate" fall flat because there are churches that do want to perform same sex marriages. If you want religion to define marriage, then you have to allow these churches to give homosexual couples proper, gay marriages. Not every church thinks the same way, so you can't say gay marriage violates Christianity; for a good number of Christians, it doesn't.
Indeed. I belong to one. All your gay marriages are belong to US!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Your view. Those who don't conform and sacrifice their beliefs have to pay. Sounds like what's going on over in the Middle East to me.
Also agreed.
And its an unnecessary attack on religion.
Marriage can be a religious marriage/ceremony or contract. Some religions permit it, some don't. Now that its legal (aka the government, having stuck its nose in, decided to fix some of its own mess). If you don't like that some religions wont marry homosexuals don't be part of their special circle of friends. No skin off you. No skin off them. No issue. Move onto something important, like which will crack your noggin first: Kraken Rum or SoCo 100?
Fishboy wrote: We all sin but forgiveness comes when we turn away from that sin. In cases where people have killed or committed other sins there are still consequences of sin but you can be forgiven. In cases like Homosexuality forgiveness for the sin again comes when the sinner turns away from sin which they will not do. Instead they grasp that sin tighter and want to force acceptance of that sin as a lifestyle on those that know it as sin. They don't want anyone to tell them it's wrong and feel everyone MUST accept them. Remember that we hate the sin and not the sinner (although some do take that hate too far). Yes you should be punished for murder etc but that in no way ties to marriage. It is the act of gay marriage that is the sin and proud announcement of that sin that is an affront to God.
Fair enough, I accept my comparison was perhaps poorly drawn there.
You seem prepared to answer questions, so if you have time (or anyone else does).. Which part of homosexuality is considered the sin?
Loving someone? Acting on it? Or the whole parcel?
generalgrog wrote: Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?
TC wanted to hear what arguments people had against it. Perhaps the poll option was unnecessary, but it provided the platform for discourse.
Buttery Commissar wrote: TC wanted to hear what arguments people had against it. Perhaps the poll option was unnecessary, but it provided the platform for discourse.
Yeah, that conversation has certainly NEVER happened here before....
No, but neither do you and neither does the LGBT community and neither does the government.
Exactly. Which is why you missed the point. The legal definition of marriage is not decided by one faith, hence why marriage is a civil contract between two people recognized by the state. That's also why the state has the authority to decide what marriages to recognize.
You are right, but I did not miss the point. Exactly this is why I would like to see civil and religious marriage seperated. It will keep civil marriage as it is, and make it available to all people without reasonable objections from the different religions. At the same time, it will also make religious people happy as they can now have their covenant with God without being forced to accept homosexual people into it.
If you chose for it to be. Understand this distinction yet? My marriage had absolutely nothing to do with God, am I not married? The framed marriage certificate and license I was granted by the Commonwealth of Virginia says I am.
I suspect that the situation in the US is the same as in the Netherlands, which means there is only one kind of valid marriage, which is civil marriage. Whether you want it or not, a marriage is a covenant with God in the eyes of the Church, and every (civil) marriage is seen as such (because there is no other kind of marriage allowed). Your marriage, whether you want it or not, carries significance in traditional Christian theology as one of the sacraments.
Again, I propose a seperation of these two concepts of marriage.
Wow, what a great way to have arguments. Lets call people with different opinions bigots! Yay!
I am dissapointed that some people here on Dakka can't speak to other people with different opinions without resorting to childish namecalling.
When someone's exact words are this:
I am tired however of the LBGT community as a vocal whole demanding everyone accept their lifestyle and consider them the same.
Well, that's pretty much the exact definition of being a bigot. Because the LGBT community is the same as us; they get up in the morning, they go to work, they spend time with their families, they enjoy their hobbies. At the end of the day, they want to be treated the same because they're fething people and they deserve it. They don't want to be concerned with losing their job or being denied access to housing, all because of their choice in partner.
Here's an radical idea, if you don't want to be accused of being a bigot, don't say bigoted things.
Gay people are not the same as straight people, otherwise there would not have been a distinction between gay and straight in the first place, and gay people would not have needed to fight for their rights. They are still people, just like you and me, but just as there are differences between you and me, there are differences betweem them and us. Not all people are the same.
I think all people deserve equal rights, but not acknowledging the differences between different groups of people is refusing to acknowledge reality.
I don't think Fishboy is a bigot for saying he is tired of the demands made by the LGBT community (altough I am curious to the reason why he is tired of this, if it does not personally affect him).
But even if he were a bigot, it is still wrong to start calling him out as such, because that shuts down any meaningful discussion and can only lead to conflict.
Gay Marriage is totally okay as long as tax laws go in accordance with it. Tax advantages for gay couples compared to normal couples should not exist, instead, tax laws regarding marriage should always take children into account, i.e. having children as a married couple grants tax advantages instead of just being married.
generalgrog wrote: Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?
Oh goody. The pretender shows up. GG, go read the basics of Jesus's teachings. Go read the Ten Commandments, if you want to go Old Testament. Neither one of these two big names supports what your fake Christian viewpoint supports.
And before you claim innocence, your vocal attack against a "historically liberal members website" and the derision in your text-voice (plus all your old posts on the subject) prove your viewpoint well enough.
Anti-discrimination is what the Christian faith is SUPPOSED to be based on.
Sigvatr wrote: Gay Marriage is totally okay as long as tax laws go in accordance with it. Tax advantages for gay couples compared to normal couples should not exist, instead, tax laws regarding marriage should always take children into account, i.e. having children as a married couple grants tax advantages instead of just being married.
I'd argue there should be no tax benefits for married couples at all.
Sigvatr wrote: Gay Marriage is totally okay as long as tax laws go in accordance with it. Tax advantages for gay couples compared to normal couples should not exist, instead, tax laws regarding marriage should always take children into account, i.e. having children as a married couple grants tax advantages instead of just being married.
I'd argue there should be no tax benefits for married couples at all.
That's my point. Grant tax advantages for children in a married or similar relationship. Tax benefits for regular couples makes sense because you increase the chance of enlarging the gene pool. Problem is that it isn't a reliable method as even married couples sometimes don't have children and are as prone to divorce / breakup as any other couple. If anything, the major problem is that the part of the society you want to procreate (i.e.: upper levels) doesn't, or, rather, to a very small degree compared to lower classes. 'tis another problem, tho.
Another well-known example of a Church teaching changing is slavery. The Church came to a gradual understanding that slavery was immoral, and moved from a stance of condoning to condemning slavery. In this case, the foundational principle was the idea that humanity is made in imago Dei, the image and likeness of God. That principle never changed; it was expanded to include enslaved peoples once it was understood that they were entirely human.
Should we talk about Mormons and black people? What about Methodists allowing female pastors? Religions change as society changes. I know you aren't this obtuse so I am going to assume you are trolling.
generalgrog wrote: Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?
Oh goody. The pretender shows up. GG, go read the basics of Jesus's teachings. Go read the Ten Commandments, if you want to go Old Testament. Neither one of these two big names supports what your fake Christian viewpoint supports.
Trying to go from one poster saying his belief that this site has more liberal posters in the Dakka, to you attacking him and interpreting his religion for him.
Poor show. Poor show indeed.
I'd argue there should be no tax benefits for married couples at all.
Here. Stand on the X. NO NO don't look up. Everything is fine. (cuts rope...)
Another well-known example of a Church teaching changing is slavery. The Church came to a gradual understanding that slavery was immoral, and moved from a stance of condoning to condemning slavery. In this case, the foundational principle was the idea that humanity is made in imago Dei, the image and likeness of God. That principle never changed; it was expanded to include enslaved peoples once it was understood that they were entirely human.
Should we talk about Mormons and black people? What about Methodists allowing female pastors? Religions change as society changes. I know you aren't this obtuse so I am going to assume you are trolling.
Why do assume someone is trolling because he disagrees with you? ANd your article is what we call poopy.
Please cite a central Tenet that has changed in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Shiia or Sunni faiths?
That's my point. Grant tax advantages for children in a married or similar relationship. Tax benefits for regular couples makes sense because you increase the chance of enlarging the gene pool. Problem is that it isn't a reliable method as even married couples sometimes don't have children and are as prone to divorce / breakup as any other couple. If anything, the major problem is that the part of the society you want to procreate (i.e.: upper levels) doesn't, or, rather, to a very small degree compared to lower classes. 'tis another problem, tho.
Ehhh..
Despite the research that supports two parent homes, I think it's a specious argument to make if you're claiming people should only get dependent (child) tax privileges in a relationship...
And while I agree with your Idocracy inspired last sentence anecdotally, I think there's recent research that doesn't bear that quite out. Lemme see if I can find it.
generalgrog wrote: Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?
Oh goody. The pretender shows up. GG, go read the basics of Jesus's teachings. Go read the Ten Commandments, if you want to go Old Testament. Neither one of these two big names supports what your fake Christian viewpoint supports.
Trying to go from one poster saying his belief that this site has more liberal posters in the Dakka, to you attacking him and interpreting his religion for him.
Poor show. Poor show indeed.
Had it been his first post on the matter, I'd have agreed with you and in fact said nothing. But he's made his voice on the matter loud and clear in the past.
generalgrog wrote: Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?
Oh goody. The pretender shows up. GG, go read the basics of Jesus's teachings. Go read the Ten Commandments, if you want to go Old Testament. Neither one of these two big names supports what your fake Christian viewpoint supports.
Trying to go from one poster saying his belief that this site has more liberal posters in the Dakka, to you attacking him and interpreting his religion for him.
Poor show. Poor show indeed.
Had it been his first post on the matter, I'd have agreed with you and in fact said nothing. But he's made his voice on the matter loud and clear in the past.
As has this topic been addressed ad nauseam. That's why I yellow triangled it from the outset
generalgrog wrote: Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?
Oh goody. The pretender shows up. GG, go read the basics of Jesus's teachings. Go read the Ten Commandments, if you want to go Old Testament. Neither one of these two big names supports what your fake Christian viewpoint supports.
Trying to go from one poster saying his belief that this site has more liberal posters in the Dakka, to you attacking him and interpreting his religion for him.
Poor show. Poor show indeed.
Had it been his first post on the matter, I'd have agreed with you and in fact said nothing. But he's made his voice on the matter loud and clear in the past.
And? It makes it no less valid. Thread is a polling thread. All views are acceptable, unless of course they disagree with mine in which case as our hero and lifecoach Caesar once said: "I pardon you."
generalgrog wrote: Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?
Oh goody. The pretender shows up. GG, go read the basics of Jesus's teachings. Go read the Ten Commandments, if you want to go Old Testament. Neither one of these two big names supports what your fake Christian viewpoint supports.
Trying to go from one poster saying his belief that this site has more liberal posters in the Dakka, to you attacking him and interpreting his religion for him.
Poor show. Poor show indeed.
Had it been his first post on the matter, I'd have agreed with you and in fact said nothing. But he's made his voice on the matter loud and clear in the past.
And? It makes it no less valid. Thread is a polling thread. All views are acceptable, unless of course they disagree with mine in which case as our hero and lifecoach Caesar once said: "I pardon you."
Warning. Severe chance of brain cell death.
Spoiler:
Image removed for swearing, motyak
Image removed for swearing. Please make sure your images don't have profanity in them, motyak
Another well-known example of a Church teaching changing is slavery. The Church came to a gradual understanding that slavery was immoral, and moved from a stance of condoning to condemning slavery. In this case, the foundational principle was the idea that humanity is made in imago Dei, the image and likeness of God. That principle never changed; it was expanded to include enslaved peoples once it was understood that they were entirely human.
Should we talk about Mormons and black people? What about Methodists allowing female pastors? Religions change as society changes. I know you aren't this obtuse so I am going to assume you are trolling.
Why do assume someone is trolling because he disagrees with you? ANd your article is what we call poopy.
Please cite a central Tenet that has changed in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Shiia or Sunni faiths?
So you are moving the goal post. You inquired about religions changing. I gave examples. Religions change with society. To state otherwise is to willfully deny, well facts.
And why is that page I linked to "poopy"? It is a post written by a Catholic Deacon of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Is that a suspect source?
Verviedi wrote: Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.
This.
Really? I mean, I haven't been here long, but just from everything I've seen in this poll, and a few other political topics I've read here, it seems mostly liberal. I dunno, maybe because I went to college in Alabama the concentration seems lighter, but I would never dream of calling this forum conservative.
And religion changes in the same way evolution works. Let's use society as the environment and religion as the organism. In Christianity, it used to be absolutely common that women could not be practicing leaders of the church. However, as society became more accepting of women, pressure was put on churches that did not allow women to teach. Churches that did not change to fit the environment started dying out (and still are; this is still a problem), while those that changed with society stayed active. The same goes for other women's rights, slavery, and it will start happening with gay rights. The reason the number of churches is on the decline right now is because society, namely the younger generations, are more accepting of gay marriage and other social issues. However, the church is slow to adopt this. But as more churches start to embrace homosexuality, numbers may begin to rise again.
generalgrog wrote: Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?
ironically im a Moderate conservative. And I fully support gay rights and gay marriage. Im a supporter of gun rights, I served in the Military and don't care about the environment as much as Al gore, does that make me a liberal in your book?
So as a Christian I do not support Gay marriage. That said I will NEVER hate on someone for being homosexual.
I will just stay out of it. I know that I don't have enough personal knowledge of the bible to make a convincing argument against Homosexualism. But I'm not going to hate on you or treat you radically different from someone who isn't gay.
generalgrog wrote: Useless poll on a historically liberal members website.....was there any doubt that the yay would be overwhelming on here?
ironically im a Moderate conservative. And I fully support gay rights and gay marriage. Im a supporter of gun rights, I served in the Military and don't care about the environment as much as Al gore, does that make me a liberal in your book?
I think this pole was destined to be majority yay because we are largely a younger generation. Sure, I'll bet this is an older forum than most (as far as member age), but gay marriage is highly accepted by the younger generation.
Also, I can't believe I just realized it but this thread title is misspelled.
Verviedi wrote: Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.
Dakka is very left, actually, given the feedback of users on most political topics. As others said, it's mostlly an age thing. I'm in my mid-and-closer-to-end-than-I-would-like-to-thirties and deeply conservative, but a lot of people here are young and thus more open to stuff like homosexual marriage. Moderation also plays a part into it.
Fishboy wrote: With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"
Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.
Verviedi wrote: Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.
Dakka is very left, actually, given the feedback of users on most political topics. As others said, it's mostlly an age thing. I'm in my mid-and-closer-to-end-than-I-would-like-to-thirties and deeply conservative, but a lot of people here are young and thus more open to stuff like homosexual marriage. Moderation also plays a part into it.
I'm pretty sure it is mostly a European thing, given the large European population of Dakka and the traditionally more socially liberal attitudes of said nations (especially compared to Americaland), it is no wonder that Dakka might seem "liberal" to someone from the new world.
The only real thing that makes me kind of sad about this topic is, sometimes I forget. I don't consider it gay marriage, I just consider it... marriage.
Like, I don't nap in my my gay bed with my gay cats and think about gay food...
I don't wake up of a morning and put on my gay hat*, and think about what objects I can rub my rainbow flags on.
I wake up and I think, "Is it sunny? Oh hey, there's that person I quite like living with."
Sometimes I think, "I hate how much your snoring keeps me awake." but I'm pretty sure that's not gender-specific.
The other day a friend of mine pointed out two guys holding hands in a cafe and said, "Aww!"
And I thought, "...? That's nice... This really shouldn't be a noteworthy occasion though."
It's absolutely not directly comparable, but consider how odd you'd feel if your friend was pointing out two folk of different race holding hands publicly. I use the example because it used to be considered daring, now it's day to day life.
Meandering back to point, I'm all for recognition and celebration of the hardship and the fighting folk go through to earn their rights, but I don't feel like the marriage itself should be regarded as any more special or noteworthy than other marriages, if I'm being serious.
I look forward to the day when it isn't. Well, I hope there is one. It's sometimes hard to imagine.
I post from this side of the table, not because I particularly want to be recognised as anything, but 'cause I figure sometimes it's easy to forget the people you're taking about aren't all just hypothetical or "the gays".
*Okay, sometimes I totally do. But you would too, if you saw it.
Fishboy wrote: With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"
Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.
I don't have any issues whatsoever with the concept. I've never had that compunction myself, but as with just about anything I assume that the more people of differing thoughts, feelings, values and opinions you add to a situation, the more difficult it gets. That is to say, even if all three (or more!) of you are perfectly happy at the onset of the relationship, I don't think it would take long for jealousy to come out. Real or imagined, it matters little.
Basically, I don't think people are hard-wired for monogamy just as I don't think they're hard-wired for heterosexuality. Monogamous heterosexuals merely seem to be the most common of sexual desires.
Fishboy wrote: With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"
Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.
How about polygamy?
So if multiple consenting adults want to get married, whats the problem?
Verviedi wrote: Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.
Dakka is very left, actually, given the feedback of users on most political topics. As others said, it's mostlly an age thing. I'm in my mid-and-closer-to-end-than-I-would-like-to-thirties and deeply conservative, but a lot of people here are young and thus more open to stuff like homosexual marriage. Moderation also plays a part into it.
I'm pretty sure it is mostly a European thing, given the large European population of Dakka and the traditionally more socially liberal attitudes of said nations (especially compared to Americaland), it is no wonder that Dakka might seem "liberal" to someone from the new world.
I would say that their input still is more to the right of the norm. It's an expensive hobby, so those with more money and interests regarding it will be more frequently turning up, particularly among games with older target audiences, i.e. historicals.
Fishboy wrote: With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"
Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.
How about polygamy?
If it's between consenting adults, who gives a feth?
I know a few people in polyamorous relationships. I have to give those people credit for their time-management skills. It's... impressive.
Leave gay relationships alone, but also allow religious and community groups to refuse to participate in marriage ceremonies without penalty
I have yet to see a law, anywhere, that forces any religious official to perform a ceremony of any kind that violates their beliefs. That bakery in Oregon? They violated a state law. They would have been in just as much trouble if they had refused service to someone who was Black, or who was old, or who was a different religion than they are, because all of those things are protected classes in both State and Federal law. In Oregon, sexual orientation is also a protected class.
And why did they lose their business? Because regular Oregonians did not want to do business with bigots. Welcome to Capitalism.
Fishboy wrote: With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"
Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.
How about polygamy?
If it's between consenting adults, who gives a feth?
I know a few people in polyamorous relationships. I have to give those people credit for their time-management skills. It's... impressive.
Leave gay relationships alone, but also allow religious and community groups to refuse to participate in marriage ceremonies without penalty
I have yet to see a law, anywhere, that forces any religious official to perform a ceremony of any kind that violates their beliefs. That bakery in Oregon? They violated a state law. They would have been in just as much trouble if they had refused service to someone who was Black, or who was old, or who was a different religion than they are, because all of those things are protected classes in both State and Federal law. In Oregon, sexual orientation is also a protected class.
And why did they lose their business? Because regular Oregonians did not want to do business with bigots. Welcome to Capitalism.
That bakery also Doxxed that gay couple, just to add to it.
Diversification by spreading an individual's genetic information among multiple partners gives a more diverse genetic pool, ergo increasing the likelihood of having genetically viable offspring. It's a natural phenomenon.
Iron_Captain wrote: You are right, but I did not miss the point. Exactly this is why I would like to see civil and religious marriage seperated. It will keep civil marriage as it is, and make it available to all people without reasonable objections from the different religions. At the same time, it will also make religious people happy as they can now have their covenant with God without being forced to accept homosexual people into it.
We already have religious and civil marriages in the US. They are separate, but considered equally valid in the eyes of the state. A clergy member can officiate a religious ceremony, sign your license, and send it to the state. No church or pastor or reverend can be forced to marry gay people, which is fine; no different than Catholic churches refusing to marry a Lutheran couple. No religion is being forced to recognize two gay people as being married either. The judge or other agent of the state that is authorized to perform marriages is forced to do so if called upon because he is acting in a civil, secular capacity.
I suspect that the situation in the US is the same as in the Netherlands, which means there is only one kind of valid marriage, which is civil marriage. Whether you want it or not, a marriage is a covenant with God in the eyes of the Church, and every (civil) marriage is seen as such (because there is no other kind of marriage allowed). Your marriage, whether you want it or not, carries significance in traditional Christian theology as one of the sacraments.
Again, I propose a seperation of these two concepts of marriage.
Your religious ceremony is considered valid to state because of the way marriage works in this country. It isn't and can't change
Gay people are not the same as straight people, otherwise there would not have been a distinction between gay and straight in the first place, and gay people would not have needed to fight for their rights.
Ah, but they are the same, just like black people and white people are the same. Everyone is the same and everyone deserves the same rights.
They are still people, just like you and me, but just as there are differences between you and me, there are differences betweem them and us. Not all people are the same.
I think all people deserve equal rights, but not acknowledging the differences between different groups of people is refusing to acknowledge reality.
Sorry mate, you're just flat out wrong. I'm not even going to argue with you about it. You're just wrong. So go ahead and whine and bitch about how I didn't respond. Frankly, my country already tried the separate but equal thing and we don't need to go back down that path.
I don't think Fishboy is a bigot for saying he is tired of the demands made by the LGBT community (altough I am curious to the reason why he is tired of this, if it does not personally affect him).
He's already told us why he's tired of it: they're immoral sinners that don't deserve to be treated the same as him. He made that point quite clear, really.
But even if he were a bigot, it is still wrong to start calling him out as such, because that shuts down any meaningful discussion and can only lead to conflict.
"You're intolerant of my intolerance." -said no reasonable person, ever.
Iron_Captain wrote: You are right, but I did not miss the point. Exactly this is why I would like to see civil and religious marriage seperated. It will keep civil marriage as it is, and make it available to all people without reasonable objections from the different religions. At the same time, it will also make religious people happy as they can now have their covenant with God without being forced to accept homosexual people into it.
We already have religious and civil marriages in the US. They are separate, but considered equally valid in the eyes of the state. A clergy member can officiate a religious ceremony, sign your license, and send it to the state. No church or pastor or reverend can be forced to marry gay people, which is fine; no different than Catholic churches refusing to marry a Lutheran couple. No religion is being forced to recognize two gay people as being married either. The judge or other agent of the state that is authorized to perform marriages is forced to do so if called upon because he is acting in a civil, secular capacity.
I suspect that the situation in the US is the same as in the Netherlands, which means there is only one kind of valid marriage, which is civil marriage. Whether you want it or not, a marriage is a covenant with God in the eyes of the Church, and every (civil) marriage is seen as such (because there is no other kind of marriage allowed). Your marriage, whether you want it or not, carries significance in traditional Christian theology as one of the sacraments.
Again, I propose a seperation of these two concepts of marriage.
Your religious ceremony is considered valid to state because of the way marriage works in this country. It isn't and can't change
Gay people are not the same as straight people, otherwise there would not have been a distinction between gay and straight in the first place, and gay people would not have needed to fight for their rights.
Ah, but they are the same, just like black people and white people are the same. Everyone is the same and everyone deserves the same rights.
They are still people, just like you and me, but just as there are differences between you and me, there are differences betweem them and us. Not all people are the same.
I think all people deserve equal rights, but not acknowledging the differences between different groups of people is refusing to acknowledge reality.
Sorry mate, you're just flat out wrong. I'm not even going to argue with you about it. You're just wrong. So go ahead and whine and bitch about how I didn't respond. Frankly, my country already tried the separate but equal thing and we don't need to go back down that path.
I don't think Fishboy is a bigot for saying he is tired of the demands made by the LGBT community (altough I am curious to the reason why he is tired of this, if it does not personally affect him).
He's already told us why he's tired of it: they're immoral sinners that don't deserve to be treated the same as him. He made that point quite clear, really.
But even if he were a bigot, it is still wrong to start calling him out as such, because that shuts down any meaningful discussion and can only lead to conflict.
"You're intolerant of my intolerance." -said no reasonable person, ever.
Verviedi wrote: Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.
This.
I don't think that's true. I think it just has a relatively prolific group of posters that kind of skews the anecdotal "feel" of the site. Dakka is mostly fairly young people, and young people tend to be substantially less conservative. Mix in all the European users and I think it skews even further left.
I'd like to point to this gay marriage poll we are having this tangent in as proof (84% in favor) but truthfully I think even most conservatives at this point favor gay marriage so that may not be a good example.
Diversification by spreading an individual's genetic information among multiple partners gives a more diverse genetic pool, ergo increasing the likelihood of having genetically viable offspring. It's a natural phenomenon.
Diversification by spreading an individual's genetic information among multiple partners gives a more diverse genetic pool, ergo increasing the likelihood of having genetically viable offspring. It's a natural phenomenon.
I hear a lot of you saying this.
Yet, it's not legal in the US.
Why not?
the same reason gay marriage wasnt? If you are trying to make a point just say it, you are sounding like you are full of straw.
So far as polygamy goes, man, I think consenting adults should be free to make their own choices with other consenting adults, but personally I think one miserable marriage seems like enough per person.
Ouze wrote: So far as polygamy goes, man, I think consenting adults should be free to make their own choices with other consenting adults, but personally I think one miserable marriage seems like enough per person.
Diversification by spreading an individual's genetic information among multiple partners gives a more diverse genetic pool, ergo increasing the likelihood of having genetically viable offspring. It's a natural phenomenon.
I hear a lot of you saying this.
Yet, it's not legal in the US.
Why not?
Because Mormons used to practice it, and Mormons used to be attacked and killed by other Christian groups in 19th century US. As far as brands of Protestantism go, the LDS is one of the most-persecuted in American history.
Krellnus wrote: This is an interesting question for me that I truthfully can't answer as a yes or no.
On one hand I have no qualms with gay people and don't want to see them discriminated against.
On the other, I think marriage as an institution gives waaaay too many legal rights at this point in time.
Thanks for giving something to do that isn't my assignment Dakka
That's the basis of the push for it equalitywise.
I'm for it, it's just annoying how everyone has to continually make a big deal to try to stop it from happening, especially Tony.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: I think we should get rid of marriage altogether and just bind people with legal contracts. Replace ministers with solicitors and so on so forth.
Not really, but you get the idea.
But, gay people aren't causing me any harm, they don't cause cancer or obesity. So why should I care, or even have an opinion, on what they do with their lives.
At the core that's actually what it is, just with religious meaning put into it.
Even then, marriage has been around a lot longer than any of the religions that we have today.
Ouze wrote: So far as polygamy goes, man, I think consenting adults should be free to make their own choices with other consenting adults, but personally I think one miserable marriage seems like enough per person.
well one of those arguments sounds logical.
To be clear, I'm dividing "what I would like the law to be" from "my personal opinion", much like I do with abortion.
Another well-known example of a Church teaching changing is slavery. The Church came to a gradual understanding that slavery was immoral, and moved from a stance of condoning to condemning slavery. In this case, the foundational principle was the idea that humanity is made in imago Dei, the image and likeness of God. That principle never changed; it was expanded to include enslaved peoples once it was understood that they were entirely human.
Should we talk about Mormons and black people? What about Methodists allowing female pastors? Religions change as society changes. I know you aren't this obtuse so I am going to assume you are trolling.
Why do assume someone is trolling because he disagrees with you? ANd your article is what we call poopy.
Please cite a central Tenet that has changed in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Shiia or Sunni faiths?
I'd agree that my religion changes over time simply because revelations are received when we are ready for them. It's a lot like raising children you don't give more knowledge than they are ready for. In this way man receives new instruction from God as he is ready for it.
Another well-known example of a Church teaching changing is slavery. The Church came to a gradual understanding that slavery was immoral, and moved from a stance of condoning to condemning slavery. In this case, the foundational principle was the idea that humanity is made in imago Dei, the image and likeness of God. That principle never changed; it was expanded to include enslaved peoples once it was understood that they were entirely human.
Should we talk about Mormons and black people? What about Methodists allowing female pastors? Religions change as society changes. I know you aren't this obtuse so I am going to assume you are trolling.
Why do assume someone is trolling because he disagrees with you? ANd your article is what we call poopy.
Please cite a central Tenet that has changed in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Shiia or Sunni faiths?
I'd agree that my religion changes over time simply because revelations are received when we are ready for them. It's a lot like raising children you don't give more knowledge than they are ready for. In this way man receives new instruction from God as he is ready for it.
Fishboy wrote: With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"
Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.
How about polygamy?
Is just as good as HIPS plastic?
If it is between consenting adults i have no issues with but hey i am from then Netherlands Slaneesh galore
the same reason gay marriage wasnt? If you are trying to make a point just say it, you are sounding like you are full of straw.
There's no straw.
If we're going to offer any group protection under the law in regards to whom they enter the contract of marriage, we should allow all people. Polygamists should absolutely be afforded this opportunity. However, the same groups proffering so much support for homosexual marriages are incredibly silent in this regard.
cincydooley wrote: [ However, the same groups proffering so much support for homosexual marriages are incredibly silent in this regard.
The NRA also refuses to speak out on behalf of polygamy. It's almost like groups formed for one specific political lobby only focus on their one goal, hypocrites as they clearly are.
the same reason gay marriage wasnt? If you are trying to make a point just say it, you are sounding like you are full of straw.
There's no straw.
If we're going to offer any group protection under the law in regards to whom they enter the contract of marriage, we should allow all people. Polygamists should absolutely be afforded this opportunity. However, the same groups proffering so much support for homosexual marriages are incredibly silent in this regard.
Ok, then what is your problem? Are you upset that the Pro Gay marriage community isn't fighting for polygomy? Your argument is full of straw and makes no fething sense.
Ouze wrote: So far as polygamy goes, man, I think consenting adults should be free to make their own choices with other consenting adults, but personally I think one miserable marriage seems like enough per person.
well one of those arguments sounds logical.
To be clear, I'm dividing "what I would like the law to be" from "my personal opinion", much like I do with abortion.
We had a neighbor who had left a polygamist relationship, whose daughter would play with ours. It's an interesting thing to hear a 9 year old talk about wanting to be in a such a marriage when she grows up.
cincydooley wrote: [ However, the same groups proffering so much support for homosexual marriages are incredibly silent in this regard.
The NRA also refuses to speak out on behalf of polygamy. It's almost like groups formed for one specific political lobby only focus on their one goal, hypocrites as they clearly are.
Well, the NRA's primary selling point isn't "Love who you love" or "equal marriage rights for all."
cincydooley wrote: [ However, the same groups proffering so much support for homosexual marriages are incredibly silent in this regard.
The NRA also refuses to speak out on behalf of polygamy. It's almost like groups formed for one specific political lobby only focus on their one goal, hypocrites as they clearly are.
Well, the NRA's primary selling point isn't "Love who you love" or "equal marriage rights for all."
And polygamy is not a plank in any LGBT advocacy group, either. It's a pretty bad analogy.
Ok, then what is your problem? Are you upset that the Pro Gay marriage community isn't fighting for polygomy? Your argument is full of straw and makes no fething sense.
I think it's a bit hypocritical that the "MARRIAGE EQUALITY" community (because that's what they espoused themselves to be) isn't fighting for polygamy.
Relapse wrote: I think it's only a matter of time, and not a long one, that polygamy will be legalized.
Do you think?
I'm not so sure. I think it should be, but because it is so often associated with religion, I don't think it will get the support from large swathes of the left that homosexual marriage did.
Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.
Relapse wrote: I think it's only a matter of time, and not a long one, that polygamy will be legalized.
Gallup reports US moral acceptance for polygamy is still only at 16%.
Look how fast gay marriage came on when it finally did in the past decade. I don't look forward to it, but if polygamy or various flavor so far multi partner marriages were accepted within the next twenty years, I would not be surprised. Just look around, there are already polygamist communities and television shows about the thing.
Gay marriage started out with far less. All it takes is a federal judge or two to rule in it's favor regardless of popular support.
I don't look forward to it, but if polygamy or various flavor so far multi partner marriages were accepted within the next twenty years, I would not be surprised. Just look around, there are already polygamist communities and television shows about the thing.
But polygamy is not accepted by most people. The polygamists featured on TV get laughed at.
I don't follow the logic that gay people being able to marry their partner like heterosexual people immediately requires that you support the idea that people should be allowed to marry multpile people. That's not equal rights, that's expanding everyone's rights beyond what anyone has now. Marriage affords your partner certain legal rights which are important which is why it shouldn't be blocked by race or gender.
Polygamous arrangements tend to be lop sided and unhappy for someone in the mix from what I've seen. Polyamarous people tend to be a mixture of the desperate and the exploitative, it's not healthy and all the equal free love guff is just dressing up hedonistic nonsense. That aside, I don't see how enshrining multiple marriages benefits partners beyond creating excuses for legal fights when they don't agree because unlike a single marriage you haven't chosen one person to be answerable for your personal affairs, property and children.
Polygamous marriages are not just around the corner. That's an attempted 'slippery slope' argument typically made by people opposed to gay marriage. At least it's not as stupid as those claiming that people will be marrying children and animals next (because associating homosexuals with paedophiles and bestiality isn't unknown by the anti-groups)
Matthew wrote: Why do people discriminate LGBT people? Because a), they're donkey-caves, b), they interpret a thousand year old book to their hearts conten, or c), they're donkey-caves.
Do you think not being in favour of gay marriage is discriminating? Or do you mean some other form of discrimination you don't make it very clear. Obviously you wouldn't be trying to insult large switches of people in faith communities by calling them donkey-caves, Dakkas mods would be all over you if you spouted blatant ignorance and hate towards people. Can you tell us what you mean??
The question of why people are anti -gay, -black, -immigrant, -women or whatever, is a difficult one and not so simple an answer as "they are donkey caves".
IMO it is partly the natural fear of the new and different, the fear of change which is particularly prevalent in people who are at the top of the heap, to whom change often means losing their position. Hence the amount of angry white male angst on such issues in western culture.
It is also due to learned attitudes which come from your parents and society as a whole. These attitudes can be unlearned, if enough people start to try and turn things around.
This is what has happened in various 'anti' fields over the past century, most recently the gay marriage which changed from being a perversion and a crime to a social good and a human right accepted by the majority, in the course of less than two generations.
Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.
You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.
Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...
I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't follow the logic that gay people being able to marry their partner like heterosexual people immediately requires that you support the idea that people should be allowed to marry multpile people. That's not equal rights, that's expanding everyone's rights beyond what anyone has now. Marriage affords your partner certain legal rights which are important which is why it shouldn't be blocked by race or gender.
Polygamous arrangements tend to be lop sided and unhappy for someone in the mix from what I've seen. Polyamarous people tend to be a mixture of the desperate and the exploitative, it's not healthy and all the equal free love guff is just dressing up hedonistic nonsense. That aside, I don't see how enshrining multiple marriages benefits partners beyond creating excuses for legal fights when they don't agree because unlike a single marriage you haven't chosen one person to be answerable for your personal affairs, property and children.
Polygamous marriages are not just around the corner. That's an attempted 'slippery slope' argument typically made by people opposed to gay marriage. At least it's not as stupid as those claiming that people will be marrying children and animals next (because associating homosexuals with paedophiles and bestiality isn't unknown by the anti-groups)
Like I said they are using a straw man argument. It is textbook definition of it and for some reason they think it makes them right. Which it really had nothing to do with gay marriage.
It is so full of straw I wouldn't be surprised to see it dancing and singing down the street about if it only had a brain.
Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.
You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.
Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...
I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...
I mean, this is all well and good, save for the fact that the Old Testament isn't the focal point of most Christianity these days, and when it is used to teach, it is done so as parable. And If someone a little better versed in me can elaborate more, but I believe, biblically, the Old Covenant (old testament) was replaced by the new covenent (New testament) in a number of areas, including Paul and Matthew, but most explicitly when Jesus came.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't follow the logic that gay people being able to marry their partner like heterosexual people immediately requires that you support the idea that people should be allowed to marry multpile people. That's not equal rights, that's expanding everyone's rights beyond what anyone has now. Marriage affords your partner certain legal rights which are important which is why it shouldn't be blocked by race or gender.
Polygamous arrangements tend to be lop sided and unhappy for someone in the mix from what I've seen. Polyamarous people tend to be a mixture of the desperate and the exploitative, it's not healthy and all the equal free love guff is just dressing up hedonistic nonsense. That aside, I don't see how enshrining multiple marriages benefits partners beyond creating excuses for legal fights when they don't agree because unlike a single marriage you haven't chosen one person to be answerable for your personal affairs, property and children.
Polygamous marriages are not just around the corner. That's an attempted 'slippery slope' argument typically made by people opposed to gay marriage. At least it's not as stupid as those claiming that people will be marrying children and animals next (because associating homosexuals with paedophiles and bestiality isn't unknown by the anti-groups)
Maybe if we remove the bond of marriage, that might allow for better results? You're going to stick at it a lot longer, even if you don't want to, if you're expected to stay together.
I don't look forward to it, but if polygamy or various flavor so far multi partner marriages were accepted within the next twenty years, I would not be surprised. Just look around, there are already polygamist communities and television shows about the thing.
But polygamy is not accepted by most people. The polygamists featured on TV get laughed at.
You do realize that not really that long ago, people were saying that about people who are gay, let alone the concept of gays getting married. As far as people realizing arguments were bad, the same, I imagine will be said about polygamy after it gets legalized.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't follow the logic that gay people being able to marry their partner like heterosexual people immediately requires that you support the idea that people should be allowed to marry multpile people. That's not equal rights, that's expanding everyone's rights beyond what anyone has now. Marriage affords your partner certain legal rights which are important which is why it shouldn't be blocked by race or gender.
Polygamous arrangements tend to be lop sided and unhappy for someone in the mix from what I've seen. Polyamarous people tend to be a mixture of the desperate and the exploitative, it's not healthy and all the equal free love guff is just dressing up hedonistic nonsense. That aside, I don't see how enshrining multiple marriages benefits partners beyond creating excuses for legal fights when they don't agree because unlike a single marriage you haven't chosen one person to be answerable for your personal affairs, property and children.
Polygamous marriages are not just around the corner. That's an attempted 'slippery slope' argument typically made by people opposed to gay marriage. At least it's not as stupid as those claiming that people will be marrying children and animals next (because associating homosexuals with paedophiles and bestiality isn't unknown by the anti-groups)
Polygamist marriages are already happening, and are in the open. Like I said earlier, it isn't a question of the idea being popular. Gay marriage got voted down in almost every state it was put to a vote on and the was legalized by federal judges. The same is in the cards for polygamy.
Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.
You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.
Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...
I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...
I mean, this is all well and good, save for the fact that the Old Testament isn't the focal point of most Christianity these days, and when it is used to teach, it is done so as parable. And If someone a little better versed in me can elaborate more, but I believe, biblically, the Old Covenant (old testament) was replaced by the new covenent (New testament) in a number of areas, including Paul and Matthew, but most explicitly when Jesus came.
Old testament superseded by gospel of Jesus.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Jesus
Many people use Leviticus as a justification for saying being gay is wrong and yet when the rest of Leviticus is pointed out to the same people they will claim the old testament doesn't apply anymore.
You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.
Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...
I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...
I'm getting real sick and tired of this idiotic old testament "westwing" out of context argumentation.
We've been through this several times, the dietary restrictions and ritual laws (laws for dress and hair and such), God ordained specifically for the Israelites, and were lifted during the apostolic era. The dietary laws and ritual laws are different than the Moral Laws, such as the 10 commandments, and the other moral laws ( such as the prohibition against homosexuality), which were never lifted. The dietary and ritual laws were assigned specifically to anyone who was an Israelite, and to take that out of context like the modern atheists(and some cults) do to try and say that Christians should also practice the dietary and ritual laws shows a fundamental ignorance of Christian theology and the Bible.
As to the issue of polygamy. Anyone who thinks that polygamy doesn't hurt women, is deluding themselves. This is why there was such a backlash against the Mormons in the 19th century, because they were brainwashing young women so that old men could get there jollys off on young girls. the same thing happened in the FLDS in modern times.
All you have to do is look at the wives of Joseph Smith to see that this form of polygamy was a total manipulation of people.
Many people use Leviticus as a justification for saying being gay is wrong and yet when the rest of Leviticus is pointed out to the same people they will claim the old testament doesn't apply anymore.
I just find it hilarious that we are discussing Gay marriage and they have to throw polygamy into it for no reason other than to have some other argument that has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Vash108 wrote: I just find it hilarious that we are discussing Gay marriage and they have to throw polygamy into it for no reason other than to have some other argument that has nothing to do with gay marriage.
It has everything to do with marriage equality. I'm not sure what you're not getting about that.
Vash108 wrote: I just find it hilarious that we are discussing Gay marriage and they have to throw polygamy into it for no reason other than to have some other argument that has nothing to do with gay marriage.
It has everything to do with marriage equality. I'm not sure what you're not getting about that.
Maybe you should make a marriage equality thread instead of harping on it in a Gay marriage thread that was specifically made about gay marriage.
Vash108 wrote: I just find it hilarious that we are discussing Gay marriage and they have to throw polygamy into it for no reason other than to have some other argument that has nothing to do with gay marriage.
It has everything to do with marriage equality. I'm not sure what you're not getting about that.
Maybe you should make a marriage equality thread instead of harping on it in a Gay marriage thread that was specifically made about gay marriage.
Or maybe you should read the whole thread and see how it evolved to it.
Someone making the tired "pedophiles and bestiality" claim, which is nonsense because it's not between consenting adults.
Polygamy is.
Those that are for gay marriage did so under the guise of MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR ALL.
The thing with polygamy is that while it's equal treatment in name, all the evidence I've seen indicates that the relationship itself isn't very "equal." There are always favourites and even if it isn't a conscious decision, one or more partners is usually left feeling neglected.
Not saying they shouldn't be allowed to get married, just that there's likely less harmony in the relationship.
Vash108 wrote: Still don't see the point in the argument. If it is between consenting adults it shouldn't be an issue.
The point is it was something thrown up to divert from the main point of the thread, just like all that pedo crap.
Just because you can't see the point doesn't make it non-existant. If it shouldn't be an issue, then there should be pushes from these same groups for that marriage equality.
But they're not.
If people want marriage equality, Polygamists should be included, and those groups should be petitioning and marching for them.
That they aren't speaks to their hypocrisy, which I believe is rooted in the fact that polygamy is traditionally associated with organized religion, an institution these groups are often opposed to.
So from what I've heard there's two political parties in the US of A, is one left and the other right? Which is which?
Homosexual marriage gets large swathes of support from right, but also from left. Mainly because there are no reasons against it (or sound reasons).
All political parties on the planet are described in terms of Left and Right-wing. Liberal politics are Left-wing, Conservative politics are Right-wing.
Vash108 wrote: Still don't see the point in the argument. If it is between consenting adults it shouldn't be an issue.
The point is it was something thrown up to divert from the main point of the thread, just like all that pedo crap.
Just because you can't see the point doesn't make it non-existant. If it shouldn't be an issue, then there should be pushes from these same groups for that marriage equality.
But they're not.
If people want marriage equality, Polygamists should be included, and those groups should be petitioning and marching for them.
That they aren't speaks to their hypocrisy, which I believe is rooted in the fact that polygamy is traditionally associated with organized religion, an institution these groups are often opposed to.
As I agree it should be, that isn't the topic. This is basically moving the goal posts.
Fair point, and one I never argued against. It strikes me that perhaps the reason you don't hear as much uproar about polygamy is that there are simply less polygamists than there are homosexuals. I mean, homosexuality is a global thing whereas I can't think of any cases of widespread polygamy outside of a couple of states in America. Not only that, but I reckon a lot of people try it out as an open relationship, find they don't like it, and decide to move on before marriage is in the cards.
Not sure why the polygamy thing keeps coming up as some sort of shaming mechanism though. I support gay marriage and will speak about such things when asked (though I'll never be the first person to bring it up) but I'm neutral with polygamy. I would never speak against it out of hand, I'm just sort of meh on the topic. I suppose that makes me a bad person, yes?
Verviedi wrote: Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.
Dakka is very left, actually, given the feedback of users on most political topics. As others said, it's mostlly an age thing. I'm in my mid-and-closer-to-end-than-I-would-like-to-thirties and deeply conservative, but a lot of people here are young and thus more open to stuff like homosexual marriage. Moderation also plays a part into it.
I'm pretty sure it is mostly a European thing, given the large European population of Dakka and the traditionally more socially liberal attitudes of said nations (especially compared to Americaland), it is no wonder that Dakka might seem "liberal" to someone from the new world.
Or compared to Russia... Seriously, you guys who think Dakka is conservative must be reading a different forum It is definitely the most liberal forum I have ever been on.
Also, I would like to mention that left/right and liberal/conservative are not the same thing. In Russia for example, most political parties are very much leftist compared to European and especially American parties, but they are also very conservative. At the same time, rightist parties here in the Netherlands also tend to be very progressive and liberal in the same way as leftist parties.
It is also funny that in Russia, younger people tend to be much more conservative than older people (the Soviet Union was pretty liberal), while in the West this is reversed.
Iron_Captain wrote: You are right, but I did not miss the point. Exactly this is why I would like to see civil and religious marriage seperated. It will keep civil marriage as it is, and make it available to all people without reasonable objections from the different religions. At the same time, it will also make religious people happy as they can now have their covenant with God without being forced to accept homosexual people into it.
We already have religious and civil marriages in the US. They are separate, but considered equally valid in the eyes of the state. A clergy member can officiate a religious ceremony, sign your license, and send it to the state. No church or pastor or reverend can be forced to marry gay people, which is fine; no different than Catholic churches refusing to marry a Lutheran couple. No religion is being forced to recognize two gay people as being married either. The judge or other agent of the state that is authorized to perform marriages is forced to do so if called upon because he is acting in a civil, secular capacity.
That sounds fine, but that is different from how it is in the Netherlands. If you want to get married here, you can't do that in church.
Gay people are not the same as straight people, otherwise there would not have been a distinction between gay and straight in the first place, and gay people would not have needed to fight for their rights.
Ah, but they are the same, just like black people and white people are the same. Everyone is the same and everyone deserves the same rights.
Aye, they deserve the same rights, but the people are not the same. Black and white people not only look different, they have different cultures as well. And different cultures sometimes need to be treated differently, lest you create conflict. You can't deny that.
They are still people, just like you and me, but just as there are differences between you and me, there are differences betweem them and us. Not all people are the same.
I think all people deserve equal rights, but not acknowledging the differences between different groups of people is refusing to acknowledge reality.
Sorry mate, you're just flat out wrong. I'm not even going to argue with you about it. You're just wrong. So go ahead and whine and bitch about how I didn't respond. Frankly, my country already tried the separate but equal thing and we don't need to go back down that path.
No, you are wrong. Very wrong. You are just denying reality now. If white and black people were the same, white and black people would not exist, there would just be people. If I look at a group of white people, and then look at a group of black people, I see can see even with my eyes that there is a difference between those groups (skin colour). Just like differences between people you can see (hair, skin or eye colour, shape of face and body etc.) there are even more differences you can't see (culture, religion, sexuality etc.). People that share a large number of characteristics often tend to group together, thus naturally forming different groups.
There once was a group of people that believed these differences did not matter and that all people are the same. These people were called communists, and we really don't need to go back down that path.
I don't think Fishboy is a bigot for saying he is tired of the demands made by the LGBT community (altough I am curious to the reason why he is tired of this, if it does not personally affect him).
He's already told us why he's tired of it: they're immoral sinners that don't deserve to be treated the same as him. He made that point quite clear, really.
But even if he were a bigot, it is still wrong to start calling him out as such, because that shuts down any meaningful discussion and can only lead to conflict.
"You're intolerant of my intolerance." -said no reasonable person, ever.
I fail to see how this statement is a coherent and relevant response to my previous statement. Are you trying to say you are not reasonable? Or are you implying I am not reasonable? I don't think I get that one. It is a nice paradox though.
Iron_Captain wrote: No, you are wrong. Very wrong. You are just denying reality now. If white and black people were the same, white and black people would not exist, there would just be people. If I look at a group of white people, and then look at a group of black people, I see can see even with my eyes that there is a difference between those groups (skin colour). Just like differences between people you can see (hair, skin or eye colour, shape of face and body etc.) there are even more differences you can't see (culture, religion, sexuality etc.). People that share a large number of characteristics often tend to group together, thus naturally forming different groups.
There once was a group of people that believed these differences did not matter and that all people are the same. These people were called communists, and we really don't need to go back down that path.
I don't think he was meaning that there's literally no difference, but rather that there's no important difference. The more we focus on what our differences are, the farther apart we will drive ourselves and each other. We need to stop seeing those differences as being very important. Surely, no one has ever said to their daughter "you aren't marrying that filthy brown-hair! I won't have it!"
Are we still on this? For feths sake, they are people to, they deserve all the rights of anyone else, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, ethnicity, favorite movies, and so on.
Ghazkuul wrote: Are we still on this? For feths sake, they are people to, they deserve all the rights of anyone else, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, ethnicity, favorite movies, and so on.
Not saying they shouldn't be allowed to get married, just that there's likely less harmony in the relationship.
And as consenting adults, that's their decision.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: You can be in favour of gay marriage without being in favour of polygamy.
I'd posit that makes you a hypocrite.
I don't see how. Supporting equal marriage rights for all partnerships, hetero or homosexual, is a different proposition from opening up multiple polygamous marriages for all.
I don't see how. Supporting equal marriage rights for all partnerships, hetero or homosexual, is a different proposition from opening up multiple polygamous marriages for all.
LBGT Marriage Rights were flown under the flag of "Equality for All."
They may have been flown under that, but that does not mean supporting it means you support everything by default. So then for the 5th or 6th time in this thread you have been wrong.
I don't see how. Supporting equal marriage rights for all partnerships, hetero or homosexual, is a different proposition from opening up multiple polygamous marriages for all.
Naw. It's not.
Where do you draw the line? Can 100 people be married together? Wherever you draw the line, according to your logic you're a hipocrite for not allowing people to go one further.
Equality is everyone having equal access to marrying their partner, as only some have that right. Polygamous marriage is everyone can marry as many as they like multiple times, no one has that right yet. Polygamy isn't an equality issue, it's asking for things that no one has in western countries.
Orlanth wrote: Leave gay relationships alone, but also allow religious and community groups to refuse to participate in marriage ceremonies without penalty
Its like reasonable accommodation to all sides. No we can't have that.
Fishboy wrote: With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"
Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.
How about polygamy?
If it's between consenting adults, who gives a feth?
I know a few people in polyamorous relationships. I have to give those people credit for their time-management skills. It's... impressive.
Leave gay relationships alone, but also allow religious and community groups to refuse to participate in marriage ceremonies without penalty
I have yet to see a law, anywhere, that forces any religious official to perform a ceremony of any kind that violates their beliefs. That bakery in Oregon? They violated a state law. They would have been in just as much trouble if they had refused service to someone who was Black, or who was old, or who was a different religion than they are, because all of those things are protected classes in both State and Federal law. In Oregon, sexual orientation is also a protected class.
And why did they lose their business? Because regular Oregonians did not want to do business with bigots. Welcome to Capitalism.
That bakery also Doxxed that gay couple, just to add to it.
So state law can hammer religious people then. Got it.
I don't see how. Supporting equal marriage rights for all partnerships, hetero or homosexual, is a different proposition from opening up multiple polygamous marriages for all.
Naw. It's not.
So, let me get this straight; gay marriage and polygamy are both the same thing but not?
Gay marriage, by it's literal definition, is marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex. That's it. No polygamy in there.
Making a blanket statement that everybody who supported the right for gays to marry paraded it under "equality for all" not only is deeply flawed, but even if it were true would not invalidate the idea that a gay marriage supporter might not support polygamy.
Heterosexuals may be married to one partner at a time. Now homosexuals may also be married to one partner at a time. Hopefully, at some point, everybody can get married to a partner regardless of gender identity, sexuality or anything else across the world. That is equality.
Relapse wrote: I think it's only a matter of time, and not a long one, that polygamy will be legalized.
If polygamy gets legalised, it'll probably be as a form of punishment.
(Glad my wife doesn't read this forum)
One serious problem for polygamy int he US is that, in the last 50 years, its generally been the reserve of cults/families as a cover for assaulting minors. Its all about the child brides here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to the issue of polygamy. Anyone who thinks that polygamy doesn't hurt women, is deluding themselves. This is why there was such a backlash against the Mormons in the 19th century, because they were brainwashing young women so that old men could get there jollys off on young girls. the same thing happened in the FLDS in modern times.
Indeed a Texas cult relatively recently got hit for that.
You do realize that not really that long ago, people were saying that about people who are gay, let alone the concept of gays getting married.
From what I recall non-heterosexual people (primarily men) were, at that time, more concerned about violence directed towards them than being laughed at by consumers of popular media. Despite this polygamy has consistently been accepted by fewer people than homosexual relationships.
You do realize that not really that long ago, people were saying that about people who are gay, let alone the concept of gays getting married.
From what I recall non-heterosexual people (primarily men) were, at that time, more concerned about violence directed towards them than being laughed at by consumers of popular media. Despite this polygamy has consistently been accepted by fewer people than homosexual relationships.
As far as people realizing arguments were bad, the same, I imagine will be said about polygamy after it gets legalized.
People realized the arguments against homosexual relationships were bad long before the Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage.
Again, as we have learned from the legalization of gay marriage, even if the people of a state vote against it, it doesn't matter. It only takes a federal judge or two that agrees it should be legalized and it will be so.
I'm already seeing the lobbying getting ready to happen here for it.
Edit: This other part has been proved wrong, so no need for it.
Good. The bakers made a foolish, asinine decision to bring not only their own morality, but any mortality at all into business. To bring morals into business simply is asking for what happened to those Bakers. The customer is always right.
If god gave humanity free will, surely he saw this coming?
If he didn't make it part of their conscience NOT TO then he doesn't care who you screw.
If god gave a damn, he'd have done something by now.
Wyzilla wrote: Good. The bakers made a foolish, asinine decision to bring not only their own morality, but any mortality at all into business. To bring morals into business simply is asking for what happened to those Bakers. The customer is always right.
Oh joy, this argument's going to happen, isn't it?
Also, morality is a very wishy-washy term. Should a business like Hobby Lobby avoid trying to provide a living wage because they derive it from their faith? The waters are very muddy here. A business has the right to refuse service, but also people can't use hate speech, causing this dispute. It needs some actual clarification in legislation (hopefully federal level).
Edit: This other part has been proved wrong, so no need for it.
Good. The bakers made a foolish, asinine decision to bring not only their own morality, but any mortality at all into business. To bring morals into business simply is asking for what happened to those Bakers. The customer is always right.
Again, as we have learned from the legalization of gay marriage, even if the people of a state vote against it, it doesn't matter. It only takes a federal judge or two that agrees it should be legalized and it will be so.
How many Federal judges support the legality of polygamy?
Why does the government even have a hand in marriage? I mean, it started as a religious institution, what happened to separation of church and state?
They started giving tax-breaks, financial incentives, visitation rights, executor-of-estate and similar privileges to married people that unmarried people did not get.
Again, as we have learned from the legalization of gay marriage, even if the people of a state vote against it, it doesn't matter. It only takes a federal judge or two that agrees it should be legalized and it will be so.
How many Federal judges support the legality of polygamy?
Admitted, it's a small thing right now, but look at how support for gay marriage grew in a twenty year time span, and I don't believe there were practicing marriages happening like there is with polygamy right now. I could pretty much take you on a ride around here and point out between here and Nevada several areas where it's being practiced.
My daughter's nine year old friend, whose mother was in a polygamist marriage, told us and our daughter as they played together that's the kind of union she wants to enter into.
Small things, but back in the 80's, how many of us seriously thought gay marriage would become a thing. Just about every argument against gay marriage and gays raising children we heard back then, when people bothered to talk about it, we are hearing about polygamy.
Religious people voting religious people into power who then pandered to the most vocal hard line religious people who then tried to run the state based on religious lines?
Admitted, it's a small thing right now, but look at how support for gay marriage grew in a twenty year time span, and I don't believe there were practicing marriages happening like there is with polygamy right now.
Just about every argument against gay marriage and gays raising children we heard back then, when people bothered to talk about it, we are hearing about polygamy.
Kilkrazy wrote: Human sacrifice started as a religious institution. Does that mean the government does not have the right to make laws about human sacrifice?
The reason gay marriage is now a thing is because the majority of the people have decided it should be legal, and acted through their government.
Well that simply isn't true.
Multiple states put it to a vote and the vote failed.
A group of 9 in black pajamas overturned those majorities.
Kilkrazy wrote: Human sacrifice started as a religious institution. Does that mean the government does not have the right to make laws about human sacrifice?
The reason gay marriage is now a thing is because the majority of the people have decided it should be legal, and acted through their government.
Well that simply isn't true.
Multiple states put it to a vote and the vote failed.
A group of 9 in black pajamas overturned those majorities.
and also 38 states had passed gay marriage previous to that, or had rulings that it violated their state constitutions. But yeah, you're totally right and raise a great point.
Kilkrazy wrote: Human sacrifice started as a religious institution. Does that mean the government does not have the right to make laws about human sacrifice?
The reason gay marriage is now a thing is because the majority of the people have decided it should be legal, and acted through their government.
Well that simply isn't true.
Multiple states put it to a vote and the vote failed.
A group of 9 in black pajamas overturned those majorities.
Although I support equal rights in marriage he is completely correct. Time after time, it was voted down whenever it came to a vote.
Con: willfully subverted the will of the people to the tyranny of judges.
Pro: should a civil right be up to popular vote?
Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.
You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.
Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...
I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...
I mean, this is all well and good, save for the fact that the Old Testament isn't the focal point of most Christianity these days, and when it is used to teach, it is done so as parable. And If someone a little better versed in me can elaborate more, but I believe, biblically, the Old Covenant (old testament) was replaced by the new covenent (New testament) in a number of areas, including Paul and Matthew, but most explicitly when Jesus came.
Old testament superseded by gospel of Jesus.
Ah, that's interesting on two points.
The first being that either the bible is either literally interpreted or not, it is either the living word of God or it's not, as no human being can legitimately decide which parts of it can or cannot be 'truth' as they are not God. No human being can say 'this part is entirely to be kept to and never deviated from' and 'this part was just for those times, we can do without it', either the entire thing is parable or it's literal.
The second point being that at no point whatsoever, did Christ mention homosexuality, at all. All the objection I've ever heard that quotes from the bible quotes from the old testament, if the teachings of Jesus are the only bits to pay attention to, then homosexuality is not sinful.
Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.
You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.
Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...
I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...
I mean, this is all well and good, save for the fact that the Old Testament isn't the focal point of most Christianity these days, and when it is used to teach, it is done so as parable. And If someone a little better versed in me can elaborate more, but I believe, biblically, the Old Covenant (old testament) was replaced by the new covenent (New testament) in a number of areas, including Paul and Matthew, but most explicitly when Jesus came.
Old testament superseded by gospel of Jesus.
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." ~ J.C.
Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.
You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.
Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...
I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...
I mean, this is all well and good, save for the fact that the Old Testament isn't the focal point of most Christianity these days, and when it is used to teach, it is done so as parable. And If someone a little better versed in me can elaborate more, but I believe, biblically, the Old Covenant (old testament) was replaced by the new covenent (New testament) in a number of areas, including Paul and Matthew, but most explicitly when Jesus came.
Old testament superseded by gospel of Jesus.
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." ~ J.C.
Yay for quoting Bible texts out of context!
When something is fulfilled it generally means it is no longer neccessary afterwards. Jesus did not abolish the Old Covenant, but he gave us a new one in its place.
Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.
You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.
Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...
I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...
I mean, this is all well and good, save for the fact that the Old Testament isn't the focal point of most Christianity these days, and when it is used to teach, it is done so as parable. And If someone a little better versed in me can elaborate more, but I believe, biblically, the Old Covenant (old testament) was replaced by the new covenent (New testament) in a number of areas, including Paul and Matthew, but most explicitly when Jesus came.
Old testament superseded by gospel of Jesus.
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." ~ J.C.
Yay for quoting Bible texts out of context!
When something is fulfilled it generally means it is no longer neccessary afterwards. Jesus did not abolish the Old Covenant, but he gave us a new one in its place.
*read in the voice of Eeyore* Yeah a 3000 year old book that most of which was written hundreds of years after the fact and by word of mouth and then translated into many languages before the one we have today, and councils held thousands of years after the fact to see what is cannon and what is not, could have no problems in being misinterpreted.
The first being that either the bible is either literally interpreted or not, it is either the living word of God or it's not, as no human being can legitimately decide which parts of it can or cannot be 'truth' as they are not God. No human being can say 'this part is entirely to be kept to and never deviated from' and 'this part was just for those times, we can do without it', either the entire thing is parable or it's literal.
The second point being that at no point whatsoever, did Christ mention homosexuality, at all. All the objection I've ever heard that quotes from the bible quotes from the old testament, if the teachings of Jesus are the only bits to pay attention to, then homosexuality is not sinful.
Again..you show an unsurprising ignorance of Christian theology. Your posts may as well be titled the gospel according to MeanGreenstompa.
I recommend you actually pick up a book on the basics of Christian Theology and read them,(beyond people like Christopher Hitchens and his ilk). You might learn something beyond...what you keep parroting.
The first being that either the bible is either literally interpreted or not, it is either the living word of God or it's not, as no human being can legitimately decide which parts of it can or cannot be 'truth' as they are not God. No human being can say 'this part is entirely to be kept to and never deviated from' and 'this part was just for those times, we can do without it', either the entire thing is parable or it's literal.
The second point being that at no point whatsoever, did Christ mention homosexuality, at all. All the objection I've ever heard that quotes from the bible quotes from the old testament, if the teachings of Jesus are the only bits to pay attention to, then homosexuality is not sinful.
Again..you show an unsurprising ignorance of Christian theology. Your posts may as well be titled the gospel according to MeanGreenstompa.
I recommend you actually pick up a book on the basics of Christian Theology and read them,(beyond people like Christopher Hitchens and his ilk). You might learn something beyond...what you keep parroting.
GG
I have a better idea, instead of telling me 'your ignorance is showing and you're wrong', why don't you explain how and why I am wrong.
Please, do feel free to demonstrate to me, here and now, why 'gay marriage bad because bible, shrimp and pulled pork sammich good despite bible!'...
If I am an Athiest, and I am married to an Athiest, according to the logic of many of the people here, the State should not recognize my marriage? Just because I happened to marry a women, you would look at me and say "that's cool."? NO, that argument is invalid. You don't have to be a homosexual, they do not have to be heterosexual. But you do have to stop discriminating.
In Oklahoma, they are attempting to pass a law that allows owners to not serve homosexuals. Whats next, quit serving black people? Where do we draw the line. We are going backward in society, not forward. For what once was the greatest nation on this planet, one I gave my sanity and more than a few ounces of blood for, I resent the the implication that anyone born on this country is of less importance than anyone else. You do not have to like someone, but you will accept that in this country they have "certian unalienable rights." If you would take those rights away from the LGBT community, then you would renounce the emancipation proclamation as well. You can't be only partially prejudice, you are or you are not.
wow welp I guess I should add my 2 cents to the topic.... as a gay man in a one of the first states to vote gay marrige into legality (yay maine) I am very much pro gay marriage
Truthfully I just dont understand what the big deal is. people say religion, well that's a two way street since there are churches that want to preform same sex marriages, People saying that churches, ministers will be forced to preform them... no no its not that either. as far as I've found no church has been forced to preform a same sex ritual, All cases people point to are of business's claiming its there right since they happen to be christian to refuse. that's different. and then there are the people saying that government should not be in the marriage business at all. and I rather agree, except for the 212 (i think thats the number) distinct rights that are conferred by federal and state government to every one who gets a wedding be that a quicky drive through vegas wedding or one with 10,000 guests inside a mega church. myself I would have stripped marriages of all government rights, any church can marry anyone they want with in the tenants of there scriptures, but that marriage has no standing during legal matters, that is simply a matter of faith. you then take all thoses rights and put them into civil partnerships, civil unions, and that's a government institution defined strictly by the law with no religious baggage and something any 2 people could enter into. But that would never happen since all those people who are already married would never stand for it so insteade of all that they extended civil marriages to gay people. Hurray and the world did not end. But people can and will disagree and that okay to
well thats my 2 bits.
And on a second note I wanted to say thanks to every one on this forum. In my journeys round the interwebs, I've run into several different gaming sites. And I must say this one is very refreshing, some of those sites blocked my choice of name as offensive (not sure why who is offended by bunnys) in some derogatory slurrs for homosexuals, or other groups would get tossed around willy nilly. and you wouldn't belive the ridicual I'd take on FPS war sim sites when the gay man states he'd rather not fly one of the planes but was a skilled Tailgunner.
hell no one even ridicules me for not playing the game just loving the ascetic and building props based off it
The first being that either the bible is either literally interpreted or not, it is either the living word of God or it's not, as no human being can legitimately decide which parts of it can or cannot be 'truth' as they are not God. No human being can say 'this part is entirely to be kept to and never deviated from' and 'this part was just for those times, we can do without it', either the entire thing is parable or it's literal.
The second point being that at no point whatsoever, did Christ mention homosexuality, at all. All the objection I've ever heard that quotes from the bible quotes from the old testament, if the teachings of Jesus are the only bits to pay attention to, then homosexuality is not sinful.
Again..you show an unsurprising ignorance of Christian theology. Your posts may as well be titled the gospel according to MeanGreenstompa.
I recommend you actually pick up a book on the basics of Christian Theology and read them,(beyond people like Christopher Hitchens and his ilk). You might learn something beyond...what you keep parroting.
GG
I have a better idea, instead of telling me 'your ignorance is showing and you're wrong', why don't you explain how and why I am wrong.
Please, do feel free to demonstrate to me, here and now, why 'gay marriage bad because bible, shrimp and pulled pork sammich good despite bible!'...
MGS..I have already "briefly" explained that the dietary laws were for the Israelites during the old testament dispensation....not the Christian, and that the moral laws are transcendent. I don't mind having an exchange with you through PM. This is sort of off topic.? But maybe not...
And as far as Jesus didn't specifically say that homosexuality is a sin, he also didn't talk about rape, incest, or pedophilia either. The whole Jesus didn't talk about "X" argument, therefore he doesn't care about it is fallacious.
MGS..I have already "briefly" explained that the dietary laws were for the Israelites during the old testament dispensation....not the Christian, and that the moral laws are transcendent. I don't mind having an exchange with you through PM. This is sort of off topic.? But maybe not...
GG
Where does it state that the dietary laws are temporary?
We've been through this several times, the dietary restrictions and ritual laws (laws for dress and hair and such), God ordained specifically for the Israelites, and were lifted during the apostolic era.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
generalgrog wrote: The dietary laws and ritual laws are different than the Moral Laws, such as the 10 commandments, and the other moral laws ( such as the prohibition against homosexuality), which were never lifted.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
generalgrog wrote: The dietary and ritual laws were assigned specifically to anyone who was an Israelite, and to take that out of context like the modern atheists(and some cults) do to try and say that Christians should also practice the dietary and ritual laws shows a fundamental ignorance of Christian theology and the Bible.
their is nothing wrong with two people wanting to be happy and get married..who cares if its not natural, the worlds over populated anyways..the bible beaters vs the smart people will cause this thread to crash and burn
MGS..I have already "briefly" explained that the dietary laws were for the Israelites during the old testament dispensation....not the Christian, and that the moral laws are transcendent. I don't mind having an exchange with you through PM. This is sort of off topic.? But maybe not...
GG
Where does it state that the dietary laws are temporary?
We've been through this several times, the dietary restrictions and ritual laws (laws for dress and hair and such), God ordained specifically for the Israelites, and were lifted during the apostolic era.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
generalgrog wrote: The dietary laws and ritual laws are different than the Moral Laws, such as the 10 commandments, and the other moral laws ( such as the prohibition against homosexuality), which were never lifted.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
generalgrog wrote: The dietary and ritual laws were assigned specifically to anyone who was an Israelite, and to take that out of context like the modern atheists(and some cults) do to try and say that Christians should also practice the dietary and ritual laws shows a fundamental ignorance of Christian theology and the Bible.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
You do realise that there is more to Christian theology than just the Bible, right?
As Jesus said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus came to fulfill. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New.
Which indeed means that the old Mosaic laws do not apply to Christians and those who claim otherwise have a horrible lack of knowledge about the Christian religion.
You do realise that there is more to Christian theology than just the Bible, right?
As Jesus said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus came to fulfill. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New.
Which indeed means that the old Mosaic laws do not apply to Christians and those who claim otherwise have a horrible lack of knowledge about the Christian religion.
It doesn't say that, how do you know that's what it means? That's conjecture. That is your interpretation of the English translation, or it's someone else's you've latched onto. How in heaven or earth do you or any mortal get to tell me what Jesus said 'actually means' something else...?
Are you the risen Christ? I doubt it.
'It says this, but what it actually means is this' on the one hand, then it's 'but the bible says this is wrong' on the other.
Such hypocrisy, it's almost as though certain elements claiming themselves Christian think they can 'interpret' the Bible to allow them to act in one way whilst denouncing others acting in another, as though it's literal for one man's 'sin' but entirely allegorical for another.
I would remind you of Matthew 5:19, you're either in or your out.
Really you people grasping at straws and seeking evasive measures to excuse yourselves from one part of the good book whilst damning others for another sound far less like people of God and far more like lawyers pawing over the small print and seeking loopholes or 'interpretations'...
Keep wriggling, it makes you look terrible. And hilarious.
Crimson Heretic wrote: the bible beaters vs the smart people will cause this thread to crash and burn
I do hope you're not implying that devout Christians cannot also be smart people. Or indeed, that all devout Christians are against gay marriage.
No, a bible beater is different to a devout christian. A bible beater is somebody who gives up the job of actual moral reasoning and supplementing it with the black and white rules of their interpretation of various holy texts, which is often either selective or simply misinformed. They're the sort of people who would say "The bible says X, therefore it is/isn't thus" as opposed to somebody who would cite the bible in their reasoning but not simply follow what they understand of it without any judgement.
MGS..I have already "briefly" explained that the dietary laws were for the Israelites during the old testament dispensation....not the Christian, and that the moral laws are transcendent. I don't mind having an exchange with you through PM. This is sort of off topic.? But maybe not...
GG
Where does it state that the dietary laws are temporary?
We've been through this several times, the dietary restrictions and ritual laws (laws for dress and hair and such), God ordained specifically for the Israelites, and were lifted during the apostolic era.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
generalgrog wrote: The dietary laws and ritual laws are different than the Moral Laws, such as the 10 commandments, and the other moral laws ( such as the prohibition against homosexuality), which were never lifted.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
generalgrog wrote: The dietary and ritual laws were assigned specifically to anyone who was an Israelite, and to take that out of context like the modern atheists(and some cults) do to try and say that Christians should also practice the dietary and ritual laws shows a fundamental ignorance of Christian theology and the Bible.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
You do realise that there is more to Christian theology than just the Bible, right?
As Jesus said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus came to fulfill. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New.
Which indeed means that the old Mosaic laws do not apply to Christians and those who claim otherwise have a horrible lack of knowledge about the Christian religion.
If the new testament replaced the old one, doesn't that mean there's less than the bible?
Also, does fulfilment mean automatically removing the old? I fulfil several things, but that doesn't mean they stop being there. I fulfil the requirements to be alive, therefore I am alive. The requirements don't disappear; if I stop existing within those parameters, I am no longer alive.
MGS..I have already "briefly" explained that the dietary laws were for the Israelites during the old testament dispensation....not the Christian, and that the moral laws are transcendent. I don't mind having an exchange with you through PM. This is sort of off topic.? But maybe not...
GG
Where does it state that the dietary laws are temporary?
Where in the Bible is this stated?
So in the interest of brevity...
Christian doctrine (and I'm speaking from the reformed theological tradition, that being of Luther, Calvin and so forth) is taken from the Bible, which includes the old testament, the gospels, the acts of the apostles, and the apostolic epistles.We also refer to the early church fathers to try to gain an understanding of how the early church thought about these things. So there is a past history of theological thought and study that we can reference to help us understand what God is trying to tell us in regards to theological issues.
And to be honest, there was a large debate even in the apostolic era regarding these very issues, covered in the book of Acts, and also several epistles. There arose a group of converts called the Judaizers which were trying to force newly converted Gentile Christians into following certain old testament customs to include circumcision, and so forth. This issue is clearly spoken about and condemned by Paul the apostle in several of his epistles, which are part of the Bible. And if you reject Pauls teachings, and writings you may as well reject the entire new testament, because he was an apostle, which we believe was chosen by God, to lead the evangelical mission to the Gentiles. Therefore we believe that since he was directly chosen by God, his writing were inspired by God, therefore we accept them as scripture and therefore part of the Bible.
So having said that...in regards to the issue of dietary laws..Jesus said in Mark 7: 14-23
14And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
acts 10:10-15
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Those are two examples from the Bible, where we draw our theological argument that Christians are not required to follow the dietary restrictions, from the old testament.
Also from the book of the acts of the apostles.
Chapter 15 deals with the issue of circumcision..this is why Christians are not required to perform the act of circumcision.
I would also recommend a study of the book of Hebrews, which was an epistle written by(we believe the apostle Paul) to the Hebrews where he goes into detail on a lot of these issues we are speaking of.
Those are just a few biblical examples, but I could quote pages and pages of biblical references.
MGS there have literally been volumes of books written on these issues, on basic Christian doctrine, and where in the bible we draw our doctrine from.
not to mention that you could easily google search this and find all of this information fairly easily yourself.
You do realise that there is more to Christian theology than just the Bible, right? As Jesus said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus came to fulfill. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New. Which indeed means that the old Mosaic laws do not apply to Christians and those who claim otherwise have a horrible lack of knowledge about the Christian religion.
It doesn't say that, how do you know that's what it means? That's conjecture. That is your interpretation of the English translation, or it's someone else's you've latched onto. How in heaven or earth do you or any mortal get to tell me what Jesus said 'actually means' something else...?
Are you the risen Christ? I doubt it.
'It says this, but what it actually means is this' on the one hand, then it's 'but the bible says this is wrong' on the other.
Such hypocrisy, it's almost as though certain elements claiming themselves Christian think they can 'interpret' the Bible to allow them to act in one way whilst denouncing others acting in another, as though it's literal for one man's 'sin' but entirely allegorical for another.
I would remind you of Matthew 5:19, you're either in or your out.
Really you people grasping at straws and seeking evasive measures to excuse yourselves from one part of the good book whilst damning others for another sound far less like people of God and far more like lawyers pawing over the small print and seeking loopholes or 'interpretations'...
Keep wriggling, it makes you look terrible. And hilarious.
It has been official Church doctrine (all major denominations) for centuries. The Old Covenant has been superseded by the New, and texts like Galatians 5:4 leave little doubt about it: "You who are trying to be justified by the Law have been severed from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Paul here refers to the Galatians, who attempted to reach spiritual purity by observing the (Mosaic) Law. However, their devotion to the Law hindered their devotion to each other)
The Laws have been fulfilled, they were there to prepare for the coming of the Messiah, and are no longer necessary. As Thomas Aquinas said, the judicial laws are no longer binding as new ones have been put in their place, and to still observe the ritual laws would be equal to denying the coming of Christ. No person knows what Christ actually, literally said, and we can't ask him questions of "what did you precisely mean when you said that." All we have is interpretation. Other people get to tell you what Christ said (or rather how they interpret what Christ said) because they spent their entire life studying every aspect of the Bible. Their words, though not infallible, are of great value. If you get to a different conclusion, fine, but that does not mean that the other is wrong.
MGS..I have already "briefly" explained that the dietary laws were for the Israelites during the old testament dispensation....not the Christian, and that the moral laws are transcendent. I don't mind having an exchange with you through PM. This is sort of off topic.? But maybe not...
GG
Where does it state that the dietary laws are temporary?
Where in the Bible is this stated?
So in the interest of brevity...
Christian doctrine (and I'm speaking from the reformed theological tradition, that being of Luther, Calvin and so forth) is taken from the Bible, which includes the old testament, the gospels, the acts of the apostles, and the apostolic epistles.We also refer to the early church fathers to try to gain an understanding of how the early church thought about these things. So there is a past history of theological thought and study that we can reference to help us understand what God is trying to tell us in regards to theological issues.
'Church fathers' are human beings interpreting the bible, not the bible. What a pontiff or hermit decides, not in the bible, is opinion of mortal man, born of original sin.
And to be honest, there was a large debate even in the apostolic era regarding these very issues, covered in the book of Acts, and also several epistles. There arose a group of converts called the Judaizers which were trying to force newly converted Gentile Christians into following certain old testament customs to include circumcision, and so forth. This issue is clearly spoken about and condemned by Paul the apostle in several of his epistles, which are part of the Bible. And if you reject Pauls teachings, and writings you may as well reject the entire new testament, because he was an apostle, which we believe was chosen by God, to lead the evangelical mission to the Gentiles. Therefore we believe that since he was directly chosen by God, his writing were inspired by God, therefore we accept them as scripture and therefore part of the Bible.
So there was misunderstanding that far back and yet you know how to interpret the Will of God... ok then.
So having said that...in regards to the issue of dietary laws..Jesus said in Mark 7: 14-23
14And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Excellent, so he does not mention homosexuality there at any point and only references the foods being eaten, which would have precluded the animals forbidden as food items according to the Leviticus guide to eating. This in no way removes the onus on not eating certain foods, only states that what comes from man's intention and deed is 'evil', since pork or shellfish would not have been considered 'food' or 'eaten' at that time, there is no reason to conclude what he said refers to those things. No absolution for your bacon there buddy...
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
So if food levitates down from heaven, regardless of it's status, and God commands you to eat it, you can totes eat it. That's great, again it in no way sanctions shrimp cocktail, which is obtained by getting shrimp from the sea, rather than supernatural transportation...
Those are two examples from the Bible, where we draw our theological argument that Christians are not required to follow the dietary restrictions, from the old testament.
No they aren't, I've just shown you how they can be entirely differently interpreted.
MGS there have literally been volumes of books written on these issues, on basic Christian doctrine, and where in the bible we draw our doctrine from.
not to mention that you could easily google search this and find all of this information fairly easily yourself.
All by people, with people's bias and I can just as easily obtain counterpoints to any of those arguments about potential meanings of verse. You are forsaking the literal text (in whichever interpreted version you choose to read... ) to rely on a number of people's opinions on what it meant, which means you're also ignoring or rejecting the opinions of many more people about the meanings of the scripture.
The new testament also deals, on several occasions, with the keeping of slaves, at no point does it damn or overturn the keeping of slaves and our friend Paul, on receiving Onesimus, who requests sanctuary, returns him to his master... very 'Christian'. So, are you in favor of slavery?
Allright..so as I predicted MGS doesn't really want to discuss this honestly. So I'll bow out and let the other watchers decide who is really debating with honesty here, and who just wants to make political soundbites.
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.
"the doctrine of predestination"
synonyms: creed, credo, dogma, belief, teaching, ideology;
It has been official Church doctrine (all major denominations) for centuries. The Old Covenant has been superseded by the New, and texts like Galatians 5:4 leave little doubt about it: "You who are trying to be justified by the Law have been severed from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Paul here refers to the Galatians, who attempted to reach spiritual purity by observing the (Mosaic) Law. However, their devotion to the Law hindered their devotion to each other)
You mean they were using their interpretation of the religious laws to excuse their improper and unfair treatment of those around them...
The Laws have been fulfilled, they were there to prepare for the coming of the Messiah, and are no longer necessary. As Thomas Aquinas said, the judicial laws are no longer binding as new ones have been put in their place, and to still observe the ritual laws would be equal to denying the coming of Christ.
Thomas Aquinas was born one thousand, two hundred and twenty five years after the death of Christ, tell me again how his opinion is law and the opinion of Dudley Moore, Christopher Hitchens, Attila the Hun or the next person I accost in the street is relevant to what is actually WRITTEN in the bible?
Hey, Aquinas, this is for you!
No person knows what Christ actually, literally said, and we can't ask him questions of "what did you precisely mean when you said that." All we have is interpretation. Other people get to tell you what Christ said (or rather how they interpret what Christ said) because they spent their entire life studying every aspect of the Bible. Their words, though not infallible, are of great value. If you get to a different conclusion, fine, but that does not mean that the other is wrong.
And with that one, you've done my job for me. Because they're not wrong, they have the absolute right to hold to their opinion... but they don't get to legislate based on an opinion of an interpretation of the possible things that a person who died over 2 thousand years ago said. They DO, absolutely, get to live to that interpretation for themselves, in their churches, in their homes, they do not dictate their religious dogma via legislation or political manipulation.
This is a democracy, not a theocracy. As I said in the very beginning, go attend to your house and stay the hell out of attempting to govern everyone else's.
Is it safe to assume this thread has now become a "Bible is true/no it isn't", conversation between two groups that will never convince each other of anything?
generalgrog wrote: Allright..so as I predicted MGS doesn't really want to discuss this honestly. So I'll bow out and let the other watchers decide who is really debating with honesty here, and who just wants to make political soundbites.
GG
You have in no way debated and in every way sought to alter the goalposts of what others were discussing by including extrapolation and disguising opinions, both your own and those of others, as 'Christianity' and protection for your bigoted and exclusionary viewpoint.
The Church, whichever version that might be, may support your viewpoint, a theologian might well do so, but the Holy Bible does not and the rest is frankly conjuration and the prejudices of mortal men.
At this point, we must take a deep breath and ask ourselves, what would Brian Blessed say? Never mind, I can well imagine. I only wish I could be there to hear it.
The Bible is a great book to guide you on a path to living your own life. It makes *several* statements on how it is *not* a guide, or even a mandate, to tell other people on how to live theirs.
It also, in fact, explicitly suggests against being the sort who prays out-loud in public and making a great show of how "faithful" one is.
noun, plural dogmas or (Rare) dogmata [dawg-muh-tuh] (Show IPA)
1.
an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church.
Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2.
a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption;
the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility.
Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3.
prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group:
the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
4.
a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle:
the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation.
Synonyms: conviction, certainty.
It bears noting that the full definition of dogma contains the description of "opinion" or "set down by an authority" several times. It's an opinion that is held as fact by a group. That is different that it being an objective fact.
To some Christian beliefs, it is a dogmatic truth that the Earth is only 5000 years old. This is, obviously, not a widely-held belief, even amongst various Christian theologies. There are others who hold the dogmatic belief that God spent only six twenty-four-hour periods in creating everything... even though the Sun did not come to exist until Day 4, and prior to that we just had Light and Darkness, and (apparently) some motive force that allowed one to pass into the other... and, even earlier than that, the universe was not "nothing", it was simply formless and desolate, a darkness described as a raging ocean (sounds rather a lot like the Warp, doesn't it?) that covered everything.
This to not even mention that the Moon does not produce its own light, as some versions of the Bible claim (1 Genesis 14-18, GNT). Upshot? It's a parable, a story, not a literal telling of events (since there was no one else there to witness it). The Bible... most especially Genesis... is not meant to be taken literally. It's a Creation myth, something that existed in some form or another in every ancient culture and every culture that remains "primitive" in the modern world (such as various African or Amazonian tribes).
It is, by way of example, doctrine that Christ was crucified. This is laid out explicitly in the Bible, and no Christian group denies this. Even most non-Christians do not deny this event, whether they hold that Jesus was just a prophet, a conglomerate historical figure based on the deeds of several men, or something else entirely. It is doctrine to Christianity that he underwent the resurrection on the third day following his crucifixion, again the event being explicitly laid out in the Bible.
It is dogmatic to the LDS that in those 3 days he zipped over to the New World and visited with the faithful in what would become America, performing miracles and calling to him twelve new disciples to create His Church in the Americas. (Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 11:18; 3 Nephi 12:1-2)
Jesus talks about it in John 10, verse 16, when he tells about the other sheep he will go to.
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
Yes, again, dogmatic to LDS. Not accepted by any other major Christian organization. The link you provided is to a discussion on their own dogma by the LDS. It is interpreted to mean that he came to the Americas to meet with... natives, I guess?... to preach to them. This is not backed by historical record in any way (how many Christian Natives did the waves of explorers encounter? None.) and is not held as factual by other denominations.
