Patchouli
Well-Known Member
Because there are derailed threads, doesn't mean every thread should be derailed.
Not that I'd particularly want input from the Official T9k Homophobe on here, but that's not the point.
The LGBT Thread
- Thread starter mcfar45
- Start date
Not that I'd particularly want input from the Official T9k Homophobe on here, but that's not the point.
that_taco_guy
Well-Known Member
StTheo
Well-Known Member
I completely agree. What I can't understand is why some people claim making gay marriage legal would be akin to forcing their opinions on other people. Criminalizing gay marriage in the first place seems like it's forcing opinions on other people. More so than legalizing gay marriage.
kimbal86
Active Member
Even the argument that the Bible is against homosexuality doesn't hold much water IMHO. The Bible bans a number of things that the majority of so-called Christians are happy to do on a near daily basis.
Besides, how many Christians would actually see an adulterer and adulteress put to death as commanded in Leviticus 20:10?
How many would see someone who's cursed a parent be put to death as in Leviticus 20:9?
When a virgin is raped by a man, how many Christians are demanding that she be stoned to death along with her rapist as instructed in Deuteronomy 22:23-24, or forced to marry him as in Deuteronomy 22:28-29?
I've heard it argued frequently that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible, the absolute and irrefutable word of God, says so. How come, then, the same people who use the Bible as an excuse to campaign againt LGBT are happy to ignore the parts of the Bible which say men should not have long hair (Corinthians 11:14-15) or that women should not wear jewellery and that they are inferior to men (1 Timothy 2).
Don't get me wrong; I don't have a problem with Christians or people of any other religious faith. People are entitled to have their beliefs and I respect that. What I do have a problem with is when people pick and choose on a whim which parts of their religion suit their agenda and then use it to force their own beliefs on and persecute others.
Written at 1:30am whilst half asleep so please excuse any mistakes.
TheGurw
Well-Known Member
Thank you!
This is a bit of a tangent; bear with me.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; if you say something, fucking stick to it or don't say it in the first place! I'm of the belief that large swaths of the Bible are no longer applicable to modern life. I follow the principles of the Bible to a point (I have my vices, but so does everyone -- everyone); but when I feel that what the Bible says isn't applicable today, I follow the movement of the Spirit what resides in me. There are hundreds of examples - the few you brought up barely scratched the surface - of where the Bible can no longer apply.
Having said that, where do I reside on the issue of homosexuality and all its various forms?
I feel moved that it is perfectly natural. A man may love a man, and a woman a woman, just as a man loves a woman and the woman returns in kind. In my own case, I have fallen in and out of relationships with both sexes, and more than one transsexual. Yes, I am bisexual in regards to my own sexual preferences.
On the topic of marriage. My opinion is that marriage, in the definition that describes it a holy union, should remain a religious union, documented and recorded by the religious institution of the couple's choice, according to that institution's dogma. Nay, marriage should never have become a state problem to begin with.
When any couple, neither currently in a legal union with any other person, wishes to be unified by law; that is a matter of the state. This includes heterosexual couples and otherwise.
The only time marriage and legal unification should be one is if both a entitled member of the church (or other institution) and an entitled legal representative are present as witnesses at the ceremony.
Although my preferences may vary widely from a typical "Christian" view; I still refuse to accept that a union should have more than two people. Although, one the other hand, I have never been moved to think that there is a reason against consenting adultery and therefore hold nothing against so-called "open relationships."
My two cents.
kimbal86
Active Member
The problem I have with that is that marriage is not unique to any particular religion. It exists across the world in some form in all cultures. People joined together in unification ceremonies long before Jesus walked the Earth. Even nature worship/pagan belief systems have a form of marriage. I don't believe any faith can claim ownership over the symbolic union of two people.
Arguing about the definition of the word 'marriage' is just semantics and does nothing except distract from the real discussion, which is about equality in the eyes of the law. As I've mention in a previous post the verb 'to marry' in the English language can also mean to combine two abstract ideas or inanimate objects together.
If you're going to consider the religious side of marriage, well, not all religions are opposed to same-sex marriage and some religious organisations recognise same-sex unions. In any case, a marriage is a legal proceeding independent of faith and governed by law. Marriages are documented by the state, not by any particular religious organisation, although people are free to confer upon marriage any values they wish, whether they see it as simply a legal status or whether they ascribe any deep spiritual meaning to it.
You are describing what I believe is the status quo. Marriages are currently independent of faith and members of any faith are also currently free to add religious or ceremonial elements to the legal proceeding. What I believe you are suggesting is simply renaming 'marriage' to something else. Would you have each faith come up with their own word for marriage or could you have Hindu marriage and Christian marriage alongside Pagan marriage? Would Atheists be able to get married or would they have a civil union? Would religious same-sex couples belonging to a belief system that recognises same-sex unions then be able to get married?
Would a marriage and a civil union be different or would they be idential in all but name?
Would it be a case of 'Separate but equal'?
AS it's now almost 3am here, I hope this post makes sense. I'll leave off posting again until tomorrow.
TheGurw
Well-Known Member
To clarify, I was describing marriage in the sense of a religious union, no matter what any particular religion calls it; I was merely using the word to point out the distinction between it and legal union.
I really don't care what each religion does, all I care about is that the law is fair, equal, and just in and of itself. Therefore, let the religious unions be religious but not legal; and let the legal unions be legal but not religious. In other words, becoming married before your faith is your own choice, but if you wish to have the union be recognized by the state, it must be witnessed (if not performed) by a legal representative of the state (state being the presiding government body). Just as a homosexual legal union will not (depending on religion, of course) be recognized by the religion; so should it be that a religious union will not be recognized by the law.
I believe we are on the same page.
GreenEarth
Well-Known Member
I think he was more acknowledging the fact that if he did contribute to this thread he would be immediately attacked due to his rather different views on the subject. As for everyone else, maybe don't freak out when someone you know holds differing views than you posts something that is maybe derailing but isn't clear derailing. You should look forward to differing views as it will encourage you to explore your views more.And you're here, derailing this one...
TheGurw
Well-Known Member
It is not his views that encourage attacks, it is the way they are put forward. We offer, "It is our opinion." He states, "It is fact."
I am perfectly willing to debate with the nature of a hard-core Christian point-of-view; provided the bearer of the view is willing to accept that what he brings to the table may not be the one and only truth in existence, no matter what they believe. I have had many such pleasant conversations with clergy members from the Southern States, and needless to say we nearly always parted ways having learned much from each other. However, previous discussions with the fellow in question predict that any further discussion would continue to feel like talking to a very loud and obnoxious brick wall.
Moving on.
Patchouli
Well-Known Member
Eh, I kinda get mad at it even being an opinion.
There are some things that just don't get to be "an opinion" that people are supposed to respect. When it deals with equality and human rights, I don't care how nicely they put the idea forward.
GreenEarth
Well-Known Member
No brick wall is invincible, and though he might be stubborn attacks don't accomplish anything.It is not his views that encourage attacks, it is the way they are put forward. We offer, "It is our opinion." He states, "It is fact."
I am perfectly willing to debate with the nature of a hard-core Christian point-of-view; provided the bearer of the view is willing to accept that what he brings to the table may not be the one and only truth in existence, no matter what they believe. I have had many such pleasant conversations with clergy members from the Southern States, and needless to say we nearly always parted ways having learned much from each other. However, previous discussions with the fellow in question predict that any further discussion would continue to feel like talking to a very loud and obnoxious brick wall.
Moving on.
TheGurw
Well-Known Member
Neither does polite debate, for he ignores it completely and/or assumes it is an attack regardless of obvious tone otherwise. Nor does ignoring him because h-....actually, I forgot that we can ignore people on the forums. Thank-you, good sir!
MOVING ON.
Pasaria
Well-Known Member
I know right? While I'm sure some people would become gay, if you will, the vast majority of the LGBT population was born that way...That's what the anti-gay activists don't get. Ignorance is the root of all (or at least most) of the problems. Also, gotta love how those hard-core Christians want to force their views onto everyone else. So much for separation of church and state.
But I guess I'm just preaching to the choir here. ;D
On a side note, I'm glad you are choosing to not post here Admiral. I don't want to see another flame war.
Patchouli
Well-Known Member
Yeah, my mom used to be a derp at one point and thought that people become gay because they can't get a date with the opposite gender.
Audi
Well-Known Member
...I don't even.Yeah, my mom used to be a derp at one point and thought that people become gay because they can't get a date with the opposite gender.
mcfar45
Well-Known Member
Interesting....there is a petition that has been launched to change the dictionary definition of marriage to be more inclusive of homosexuality.
Link to article
Thoughts?
Link to article
Thoughts?
kingjok3r
Well-Known Member
I'd go with choice. Genes makes it sound as if it were a defect. But i assume some people can see it as a gift?
kimbal86
Active Member
This is interesting, but...
Unlike other languages such as French or Spanish, there is no institution responsible for moderating the English language or setting the rules of grammar, spelling, or the definition of words. Whilst English dictionaries do give definitions of words, they are not authoritative definitions and merely reflect common usage. In other words, the meaning of a word in the English language depends more on the common usage of the word than the dictionary definition. For example, the dictionary still has 'happy' as a definition for the word 'gay', which is clearly not what it means to the majority of people today.
In short, although it would be nice to see the dictionary definition changed, I don't think it's that important. In any case, if laws allowed same sex marriage and called it marriage then dictionaries would have no choice but to update the definition.