Should committed same-sex relationships be recognized by the government?

[Pah]

It depends on on which bible laws you are talking about. We are no longer under obligation to obey the religious laws (dietary laws, etc.) or civic laws (stoning someone for a crime) but are still required to obey the moral restrictions.

Some Christians will disagree with you. If you can pick and choose from the Old Testament, they would say you are not a true follower of God

The whole point of faith is that, despite all reason and logic, there is something that tells us that this is truth. I can't convince you. I can only explain my point of view. If you choose to disregard it, then that is your free will. However, I must live by my faith. If I do not, then God is no longer first in my life and my faith says He must be. To live any other way would be hypocrisy.

I agree with everything you have just said - just don't try to force that on others.

 

[Melody]

I have no problem and a great deal of respect for your chosen worldview. I only ask, as is my right, that you not try to force me to it. Not voting at all would seem to satsify both worldviews.

Pah,
To be perfectly honest, I've often wondered if I should have just sat silently by....but could not convince myself (at the time the vote was held) that was the best course of action. I haven't yet decided if I'm being hypocritical if I sit back and do nothing.

 

[Melody]

Some Christians will disagree with you. If you can pick and choose from the Old Testament, they would say you are not a true follower of God.

Yes....fortunately I don't have to answer to them. I don't have my bible with me at work so can't find the quote in the NT that speaks to this issue of following the laws of the OT.

 

[Melody]

Yes, with full fledged marriage rights that are equal in all way to heterosexual marriages! I am bisexual and personally, I don't understand why people want to deny GLBT community rights. I mean, why? What is so wrong with letting us have rights? Are we subhuman or something??

Holly,
I've always hated the glib little "hate the sin, not the sinner" that some christians throw out. How can you hate one and not the other. I don't hate homosexuals or considered them subhuman or somehow less worthy. I just can't agree that it is right because it goes against my faith.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Melody-- It would seem to me that not believing in the divinity of Christ is far more serious than a gay couple being allowed to visit each other in the hospital when the other is sick. Why not concentrate on getting an amendment passed that bans anyone from blaspheming the name of Christ by claiming he is not Divine?

Maybe governments instituted by people should concentrate on enforcing laws that protect the rights of people to pursue happiness the way they see fit. I don't agree with Muslims, Christians, or Satanists beliefs, but I would defend their right to have those beliefs, and to live out their religion/beliefs in any way they choose as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. If it's against God's law to claim that Christ is not Divine, or to share health benefits with a gay partner, then so be it, but let God enforce God's laws. I don't think, if he exists, that he needs the help of the Ohio State legislature.

 

[Melody]

Melody-- It would seem to me that not believing in the divinity of Christ is far more serious than a gay couple being allowed to visit each other in the hospital when the other is sick. Why not concentrate on getting an amendment passed that bans anyone from blaspheming the name of Christ by claiming he is not Divine?

There is a difference between the two but I'm not sure I'm able to put it in words right now. I'll work on it. In the meantime, we have a lot of laws on the book that are very much biblically based, which the courts (at the time) had no problems with. However, they always stopped short of a law that tells people they *must* be Christian. Apparently they saw the difference as well.

At this point in time, I can't in all good conscience vote for something that is against my beliefs. I'm on the fence as to whether abstaining from voting is an option or just a cop-out.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

At this point in time, I can't in all good conscience vote for something that is against my beliefs.

So if they put it up to a vote whether or not people should be allowed to worship idols, you would vote to make it illegal?

See this is the problem with our society nowadays. We think the government should be ruling our lives, setting religious and moral standards, raising our kids for us, etc. Since when did Americans stop believing in liberty?

 

[Fluffy]

The whole point of faith is that, despite all reason and logic, there is something that tells us that this is truth. I can't convince you. I can only explain my point of view. If you choose to disregard it, then that is your free will. However, I must live by my faith. If I do not, then God is no longer first in my life and my faith says He must be. To live any other way would be hypocrisy.

I just find it so saddening that in the end, there is no real compromise that can be reached. It has come to a difference of beliefs where yours are vested in the Bible and mine are not. Since we don't accept a common sector for the basis of our belief, are we really forced into relying on a vote of the masses? This won't determine the right or wrong of the situation, it will just prove that more people believe in the Bible than not or vice versa. So in the end the issue becomes nothing to do with what it should be.

What I want is for those people who believe that it is wrong for homosexuals to be allowed to marry, and we aren't talking about a Christian marriage here, to come up with an arguement for why this is so beyond "it says so in the Bible". There HAS to be a reason behind why God has told you this so I challenge you to find it. It has been done for a large portion of the rest of the morals found in the Bible so why not this one as well?

 

[Druidus]

I agree with Spinks. I wouldn't vote that people should stop eating animals, because it isn't my right to interfere with the choices of others. However, I do believe they shouldn't. I would vote to allow them to do so, if they wanted to. That way, both sides could be happy. Stop trying to mediate the morals of other people, and worry about yourself.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Stop trying to mediate the morals of other people, and worry about yourself.

Although I agree with you in principle, Druidus, I think it's important to note that being against government laws against something is not equivalent to "stop trying to mediate the morals of other people". There are many ways, besides enacting amendments and laws, that a person can influence the morals of others. How about distributing pamphlets?

 

[Fluffy]

I agree with Spinks. I wouldn't vote that people should stop eating animals, because it isn't my right to interfere with the choices of others. However, I do believe they shouldn't. I would vote to allow them to do so, if they wanted to. That way, both sides could be happy. Stop trying to mediate the morals of other people, and worry about yourself.

That is an excellent example and one that I would follow completely, until there are more clear views on how, exactly, we compare with other animals.

 

[Druidus]

I don't mean that Spinks. Pamphlets are expressing of opinion, and does not really force anything on anyone, laws (which are based wholly off of a "moral opinion" which has no effect on the people who do not participate) force people to do something they may not want to.


1000TH POST :woohoo:

 

[Doodlebug02]

Holly,
I've always hated the glib little "hate the sin, not the sinner" that some christians throw out. How can you hate one and not the other. I don't hate homosexuals or considered them subhuman or somehow less worthy. I just can't agree that it is right because it goes against my faith.

I'm sorry but I fail to understand what is so "wrong" about letting us have rights.

 

[Melody]

There HAS to be a reason behind why God has told you this so I challenge you to find it. It has been done for a large portion of the rest of the morals found in the Bible so why not this one as well?

Fluffy...and that is the problem. There does not have to be any other reason. It doesn't matter whether I think it's "fair" or "right" but rather what God tells us. I will never put anyone before God...and that is the bottom line.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it has been done for a large portion of the rest of the morals found in the bible." The moral laws for Christians are still imperatives and we are bound by them.

 

[Melody]

I'm sorry but I fail to understand what is so "wrong" about letting us have rights.

Holly, according to your world, it's a "right". According to mine, it's a sin. That means I can't in all conscience support it.

I'm truly sorry if I've offended anyone, but I can't do any more than I believe is correct in God's sight.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Fluffy...and that is the problem. There does not have to be any other reason. It doesn't matter whether I think it's "fair" or "right" but rather what God tells us. I will never put anyone before God...and that is the bottom line.

If only it were that easy, Melody. If God Himself came down from the sky and started saying things, I would agree with you--we better do what He says. However, it's not truly a matter of "what God says", it's a matter of "what some people say God says". See what I'm saying?

Could you answer the questions I posed earlier? What about tax-exempt status for Mosques and synagogues--would you take that away, too?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Holly, according to your world, it's a "right". According to mine, it's a sin. That means I can't in all conscience support it.

I'm truly sorry if I've offended anyone, but I can't do any more than I believe is correct in God's sight.

In the name of your religion you cannot support it, and no one is asking you to. Do you not subscribe to separation of church and state though, Melody? As a social issue, what case can you present against it?

No one is forcing churches to recognize gay marriages. It would be nice if they did, but churches are private institutions, and therefore are not affected by such social decrees if they choose not to be.

Could you support gay marriage as a social issue, if not a religious one?

 

[Pah]

Yes....fortunately I don't have to answer to them. I don't have my bible with me at work so can't find the quote in the NT that speaks to this issue of following the laws of the OT.

I'm guessing it would be the part about forefilling the law. I'm sure that has more than one meaning.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Marriage is an institution.

Yes, and legally it's a secular institution.For a goverment to have put forward amendments regarding something for which the only real arguments against seem to have some sort of a religious basis was muddying the waters of seperation.

Actually yes. That is what it's about. The government isn't stopping you from love.
Now whether you want to add evil, or other adjectives in their its up to you, and everybody else. You can be as narrow-minded as you like, but the fact is that I have family that's gay, and three members of my bible study that are gay. To assume that I, or others, think that homosexuals are evil is the height of ignorance.

[/QUOTE] Actually, I'm far from narrow minded, and while I freely admit that there are areas in which I am ignorant, this is not one of them. This may sound condescending - if so I apologise, because I don't mean it to - but you haven't been around here for a long time, and there have been some very nasty things said...more than enough to suggest that people have some serious problems with homosexuals. I was in no way suggesting that you thought they were evil, but I can assure you, to assume that no-one else feels they are is the height of ignorance.

Right.....
Ok, lets say there is an old man who hear's about a car in an auction that he has been dreaming to own for his entire life. The auctions a few months away and he's researching to find out how much money he'll need to get the car, as well as working his butt off to be able to afford it. The day of the auction comes and the man is excited. He's raised the $50,000 he knows will allow him to buy the car. Well, auction time comes and he wins the bid at $50,000! He's thoroughly excited and loves this car! Well, as he goes to write the check, the auctioneer bring up the little issue of taxes. The cost is actually $65,000, with taxes. The man, of course, only brought the $50K and of course can not afford it, so it goes to the next highest bidder. Is it responsible for the man to blame the government after he got so worked up and excited, and close to buying it? No. It was his lack of foresight. He knew about taxes. Does it make the government happy? No. Does it make anybody happy? Well..... the next highest bidder maybe, but in general no. The laws are their, amd easy to find. If you get caught up in emotion, and you can't control the situation, then it's not the governments fault.

Now that's a simple illustration. If you want to defend her by passing the buck, then go ahead, there's no harm in it. But in REALITY, that's how it is.

I have had a lifelong desire to own a dressage trained Fresian horse - for preference black.
Having said that, I would never equate the feelings I have for my husband to the desire I have to own such a horse. What I took exception to was the idea that falling in love with someone is something that you can weigh up the pros and cons on and then proceed with due care. It is not the way most normal people conduct a relationship. Generally by the time you need to consider whether loving that person is a good idea you're already there.
By the way, I wasn't defending anyone by passing the buck, I was merely trying to explain to you - who clearly either has a strange idea (or none at all) of how the human heart works - that where the heart leads, people will follow.Lack of foresight doesn't come into it. Personally, I think it's a huge lack of foresight to be bossom buddies with a bloke who will sell you up the river to the authorities so they can nail you to a tree. Many would disagree with me, I'm sure. Let us leave logic out of love,then, shall we? No sense forcing something in where it doesn't belong.
It is true that people have the right to vote as they see fit. However, not only are they denying homosexuals the right to marry - which they never had in the first place - but also denying homosexuals who are legally married elsewhere legal recognition of their perfectly legal union.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Holly, according to your world, it's a "right". According to mine, it's a sin. That means I can't in all conscience support it.

I'm truly sorry if I've offended anyone, but I can't do any more than I believe is correct in God's sight.

If you could not support it, would it go against your conscience to abstain from voting on the subject? I'm not having a go, just interested if that is something that would work for you.