Thread: SCOTUS decides on Prop 8 :D

Like I said... this whole argument is about acceptance, not equality. Its an argument based on a semantic term to accept certain lifestyles. I suggest everything you want. But that's not good enough. You want the term to be accepted, and ratified, by the very people who read a book that specifically states the practice of homosexuality is a sin in the first place.

And you wonder why there is resistance. You're asking people to either ignore, forget, or at the the very least, look the other way when their core convictions are being tested. Then turning around and asking that the very term their holiest book created, marriage, be used as a title for a lifestyle it prohibitively states.

Why don't we take the term "jihad" and say it every time we mow the grass. Let's change the definition of that. Eventually its whole meaning will be changed to fit our purpose. Sounds reasonable doesn't it?

Ranger, I like your proposal. I said that earlier that would be a probable solution.

The only problem, and it isn't necessarily a problem but I do see this coming up, is that once same-sex couples get civil unioned, and then get married by a gay-friendly church, they are married. They've fulfilled whatever religious requirements demanded by their church/religion. Do you think those who don't believe they are married will accept that? How is that any different from me saying to a Hindu couple that they aren't really married because it wasn't done by a Baptist minister, etc.?

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

Yes.

You no more proved to me that the christians created the term or idea than I did to you evidently. The SUMERIAN records date back 5000 years. I said the first recorded JEWISH marriage contract was 2500 years ago. I'd say the sumerians win on the RECORDED front.

I never said "Christians" created the idea of marriage. Did you read that the first time? And the Jews have been around as long as the Sumerians. But YOU said...

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

Ancience Jewish marriages (2500 years ago is the oldest known marriage contract)

You said that. You. So now you're wrong, and it must be the Sumerians that created it now? Convenient.

Originally Posted by SgtRazor

Ranger, I like your proposal. I said that earlier that would be a probable solution.

The only problem, and it isn't necessarily a problem but I do see this coming up, is that once same-sex couples get civil unioned, and then get married by a gay-friendly church, they are married. They've fulfilled whatever religious requirements demanded by their church/religion. Do you think those who don't believe they are married will accept that? How is that any different from me saying to a Hindu couple that they aren't really married because it wasn't done by a Baptist minister, etc.?

Right. The problem I have is that the STATE is determining the nomenclature. Let churches do that. The state has no business sticking its nose in anyone's marriage. Leave the legal contract issues to the state, things like taxation and the other civil liberty stuff. they shouldn't be dictating what religious terms they use to identify contractual obligations of its citizens. It violates separation of church and state.

The state should concern itself with the licensure, and contractual obligations of two people involved in a civil union. Leave the term marriage out of it. Its no different than saying, "Apple makes Mac's, but everyone else makes PC's".

It accomplishes the same exact thing, but doesn't ask people of faith to ignore, or vote against their faith based beliefs. It's EVERYTHING the LGBT community wants, without asking another section of our society to compromise their beliefs.

I agree but I am curious to your response of the points I raised.

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

And you decided to skip over the entire first part of it where I said

Or did you just selectively want to pick out the part that suited you?

The Jews were around just as long. They wrote all the early parts of the Bible. So now what? Maybe the Sumerians and Mesopotamians adopted their ideas from them?

Prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by SgtRazor

I agree but I am curious to your response of the points I raised.

If you mean a "gay church" endorsing gay couples as "married", then I have no problem with it. I'm simply asking to keep the federal government out of acting as the final adjudicator of a faith based term. That includes everything though, not just the idea of marriage. I wouldn't want the government calling all future wars, "Jihad's". That way, those churches are answerable to God, where others aren't. Because Christians believe homosexuality is a corruption of the human spirit and a twisted form of how God created the union between two people. Asking them to simply ignore that part is going to meet with significant resistance. The forcing the same government they put in place to ratify it, is why so many politicians don't want to touch the subject.

But if you take away the part where their opinion matters at all (i.e. they have a vote), then you can skip the middle man, and only focus on the things that aren't overtly biblical. Like taxation, and civil liberties, which are institutions used by the US government... and things which we can all get behind.

They very fact I have to make that distinction is why the separation of state and church exists in the first place. But the state is the representative of all of us. Churches can represent different people.