early christian leaders deciding that gentiles need not become jews before they become christians was purely a marketing move. you arent going to get many converts when they need to be circumsized at age 30. especially if were talking about 2000 years ago.
i was reading the newspaper today and one article kept making reference to conservatives trying to make marriage a “heterosexual-only institution”. that phrase has some very scare undertones. perhaps we should build some homo-only drinking fountains.
I’m not sure how I feel about the spiritual aspect of homosexual unions, but I definitely think that some sort of civil unions should be allowed.
I keep hearing about gay partners being allowed to have the benefits of being in unions (such as those involving taxation or insurance coverage), but I hear next to nothing about assuming the responsibilities that may arise (like assumption of debts upon death and things like that). Is that a given with the concept of allowing unions, or is it consciously overlooked by someone somewhere? That could just be a media thing, but I dunno.
Originally posted by VickiMints
[b]I’m not sure how I feel about the spiritual aspect of homosexual unions, but I definitely think that some sort of civil unions should be allowed.
I keep hearing about gay partners being allowed to have the benefits of being in unions (such as those involving taxation or insurance coverage), but I hear next to nothing about assuming the responsibilities that may arise (like assumption of debts upon death and things like that). Is that a given with the concept of allowing unions, or is it consciously overlooked by someone somewhere? That could just be a media thing, but I dunno. [/b]
no, homosexuals will only reap the benefits of marriage because they are a special class of humans.
Originally posted by Silhouette no, homosexuals will only reap the benefits of marriage because they are a special class of humans.
I hope that you’re being sarcastic. If you want equality for everyone, then you won’t be so arrogant to imply that one group is better than any of the others.
Originally posted by Silhouette goodnight, folks. i quit.
Gah. You must have misinterpreted what I said. I didn’t mean that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry. On the contrary, I’m all for it. I just don’t think it is wise of you to say “X” group is better than any other, which is how I perceived your comment. Please don’t leave, you’re not a bad guy. :o
People seem to forget in lil ole vermont, same sexes can get married or have civil unions. Personally i think it’s silly not to just call it marriage or to have a problem with calling it marriage, but then i suppose everyone has a word or two or million that gets to them, i know i do. I might be wrong because I don’t know everything to it but I’m pretty sure vermont has civil unions, i think this state does or at least gives same sex couples some rights.
I’m all for it (something of a surprise since homosexual people I know don’t want it). My only issue is the word “marriage.”
Now, the Church ain’t gonna support this for a long time, if ever, so we should just call it “civil union” and be done with it. Just because we’re homosexual doesn’t mean we’re lesser humans than the rest of you. In Massachusetts, there’s at least 1,000 laws that apply instantly to married couples (like being able to go into their spouse’s room when s/he’s dying in a hospital) that haven’t been given to homosexual people because there’s been no law for it. Honestly, I believe that this should even require a law.
I, in my opinion, don’t even see what they’re using for a basis to battle this on. Legally, I don’t see what’s wrong with it. Morally, people would have problems but if it doesn’t affect them, what does it really matter? The only grounds I can see are religious in nature and unless I’m mistaken, religion and government don’t mix.
I don’t see why homosexuals shouldn’t be married. We do a lot of things on an every day basis without the bibles consent, so I don’t see why this is any different. Granted that marriage isn’t something we all do everyday, one has to wonder why if we’ve evolved in any numerous ways why this is still an issue. Why is it that this aspect of the bible is taken so far above all others?
I don’t think I’ll ever “understand” religion, and quite frankly I’m ok with that. But come on - why doesn’t everyone have the equal right to be happy? Happiness comes in many forms to many people - and if it comes in the form of hot sweaty man sex, then I don’t see why other people should be insulted by what makes someone happy.
In my mind, marriage is diluted enough by straight couples. The straight community fucked it up enough on their own - I don’t see what further torment or turmoil gay marriage will put on it.
Originally posted by Megaman984 The notion of homosexuality being a sin comes from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I’m not sure on all of the specifics, so I won’t even try, but that is where it comes first and foremost. There might be some other notions of it being a sin in the Old Testament, but the S&G one is by far the most famous.
In the OT, there’s the bit about any other sexual position than missionary being sinful and worthy of hell, that includes that sodomy is a sexual position.
But I’d need to ask my Myths : Arts and Litterature to know exactly WHERE in the OT that thing is, and the exact text (as I don’t carry a Bible on me at all times)
Cala : In Canada, the debate should normally be done and over with, as the supreme court of Ontario (And a couple other provinces) that ruled that denying the rights for homosexuals to marry is discriminatory and goes against the Rights Charter of Canada (most probably has another name since I don’t know the name in english). If anyone can get the same supreme court ruling, in the US, for such an issue, then the debate should normally be done and over with.
Too bad it won’t though, but hey, I no wanna marry a man at the moment.
Originally posted by Shinobi All in all, the seperation of church and state is crap.
Actually no it’s not. VERY BAD THINGS have happened when you join Church and State. Look at the Middle East. Look at the Inquisition. Look at the Crusades. The Bible even recognizes this to an extent: “Give unto Caesar what is his.”
I’m probably misquoting, but I don’t particularly read the Bible. My point lies as such though: When you give religion secular instead of spiritual power, you forget that those running the religious institution are as corruptable as the layman. The Catholic Chruch had incredible secular power in the Middle Ages. But because of abuses by those power hungry, hypocritical, or too intolerant of anything but thier own views (liks the rest of humanity), the Reformation occured. Not to mention that they pretty much had the “We are messengers from God, do what we say or you’ll burn in hell!” thing going.
Heh. I suppose not. But the message from the bible is simple: Follow your country, as long as it does not replace God in your heart or as long as it doesn’t force you to break God’s laws.
If I recall, the USA doesn’t force you to be homosexual. God allows you to make the choice for yourself.
Originally posted by StarStorm Actually no it’s not. VERY BAD THINGS have happened when you join Church and State. Look at the Middle East. Look at the Inquisition. Look at the Crusades. The Bible even recognizes this to an extent: “Give unto Caesar what is his.”
Well, that passage was about taxes specifically, but your point is still valid. Having a religion control a government is a bad idea.
On the main topic, I think they should be given the same rights, since our government is based on the idea of equality for all (even if it hasn’t been fully applied in practice).
Edit: Didn’t see 984’s post right there already saying that.