What's the fuss about same sex marriages?

Fascinating Rob, something similar happened to me.

I went to church fairly regularily growing up. I too declined to 'be confirmed' because I actually made my consious decision to keep going the day my family first visited that church when I was 4 years old. I felt to 'make that promise in public for the first time', again, would be hypocritical of me.

Mostly I went to hear the pastor speak rather than for any classical 'faith' reasons. Sadly the man left a few years ago to teach, so I no longer go.

He has a gift far and beyond the religion to which he perscribes (Lutheran if it matters, I say it dosen't.) I did get the chance to discuss my own version of theology with him at one point, quite enthralling. The man was a poet, no other way to describe the way with which he was able to communicate and move people of all walks and creeds.

I'm probally squarely between the scientist who has seen the likes of which he and his contemparies cannot explain, and an athiest. I aproach life like any other endevor, with the assumption going in that I know nothing. And that what I can do is establish relative models for the way I observe things to be, while embracing the ability to 'see' one step beyond those models, to what may be out there in the True Nature of Things.


Enjoy it guys, share it with those you love.

 

Please explain. Are you saying it's ok to pick and choose whichs parts of a 'holy' book to believe in? I love the examples about Leviticus... I've brought up the same argument many times and never get a straight answer from anyone. If you believe gays are bad because it says so in Leviticus, it stands to reason that you must believe the other stuff as well. If not, please explain why it's ok to treat your religion like a cafeteria plan.

-R

 

Some us know so much about theology that we are no longer theists! The Leviticus stuff shows that you are simply picking and choosing what parts to believe and what parts not.

 

Why is the bible being brought up? The USA is not a theocracy, so any mentioning of religion is clearly irrelevant and out of place.

 

If gay marriage is really wrong then you should have no problem addressing every one of these…

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

 

Right you are, but try telling that to the president and about 40% of our population and elected officials.....

-R

 

Mitch, "you" means me, aye?
How many times do I need to tell you specifically that I don't buy into Leviticus any more than you do? I simply listed, not quoted - the verses somebody else quoted, for reference's sake, so someone could say, "ah, yes, that's where the verses I, not wax, quoted are."

Read all my posts and you will see I armchair-solved the "problem" of same-sex marriages a long time ago.

 

This is outstanding, may I have your permission to use it as a quote?

 

I dig that quote too. It works for most people. But the analogy does have it's flaws if you think about it: sexual preference is a behaviour while height is a physical characteristic. Then again, it didn't stop the Air Jordan shoes from leaving the shelves.

 

Hey this is great, a step in the right direction! Glad to see some of you have been reading the Bible. Your on the right track, keep up the good work. Just don't get stuck in the Old Testament, flip to the New Testament too. Or better yet read it from cover to cover.

 

Not exactly... There's sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual preference. Orientation is what you *are*.. for instance, most people are born heterosexual. You didn't CHOOSE to be hetero, you just are. Behavior is what you actually do. Kinda like the classic female college roommates experimenting..... even though they're hetero, their beer-induced experimation session is an exhibition of sexual behavior. If our lovely coeds decide they like being with eachother more than being with guys, they're acting on sexual preference. The distinction is significant, but is lost on most people.

-R

 

Interesting Robin, but in a way this was more along the lines of what I was trying to take a stab at on the analogy. If, for example, 5 college girls out of 100 just happened to watch Howard Stern at night while they studied, they'd be exposed to a) the Stern show, which is full of lesbians from time to time and b) girls gone wild where there are suggestive bi-curious scenes. This isn't to knock either one of them. But it's just to bring up a possible theory on experimentation which was spawned by exposure to similar cases.

I suppose you could even string this out a little further and there you go - the argument as to why gay parents shouldn't have gay children. Interesting debate.

 

I went back and reread this thread.

When I wrote: 'you' I was meaning you in a very colloqual sense as "those other guys", and in particular it is pretty easy to misconstrue this to imply WAX was supporting something he does not.

I was wrong, and I am sorry for the confusion. I appologise to WAX for this grevious error.

Mitch

 

Gay marriage? Serves 'em right.


BTW, the divorce lawyers are salivating..