Posted by AuntieMel on March 7, 2005, at 15:59:15
In reply to Re: marriage isn't religious.., posted by rayww on March 7, 2005, at 3:12:24
Sorry, Ray. Usually we can discuss things rationally, but I'm feeling a bit angry right now. Hopefully I won't be irrational.
Picking out a few sentances, and hopefully not ruining the intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<<Actually, Christianity was here in the beginning. Remember the story of Adam and Eve? ...... Even though they could remember God's perfect teaching and were very intelligent, they were required to live out their days by faith. They never walked or talked with the Gods again. This is called the "fall". ........ Jesus knew this was going to happen because it was part of God's plan, so before we were born he offered to be our Redeemer. To start with, after the fall, he communicated with prophets like Enoch, Noah, Moses, Abraham, etc, and had them write about it.
> We pray to God the Father in the Name of Jesus Christ because it is through him we are saved, .......
>
> Adam and Eve had pure religion, call it Christianity if you want, I think it was called the Church of the Firstborn, but I'm not certain. They had many sons and daughters, and at least one of their sons left the church and became a murderer. ........
>
> So, you see, pure religion was here before politics and also before all the variations of religion.
>
>I understand that this is the way you believe. But 'thinking doesn't make it so' and it is not the way I or billions of others believe. Can we remember that in this discourse, please?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<<<May I be so bold as to say marriage is central to pure religion? Pure religion is caring for the poor and the needy.
> One by one, one person at a time, as they are touched by pure religion, gain a proper understanding of what it all means. If as you say, mine is the only religion that centers on marriage, a lot of you are coming over, one by one. It is god's way. ..... If you don't know what i mean, let me remind you that at any given time there are at least 60,000 missionaries teaching about marriage. My son for one, has convinced couples who are living together to get married. I think that's big.
I'm hoping you will correct me, but it sounds like you are saying that you and others of your faith are the only ones that have "pure religion." Is that so?
------------------------------------------------------------
> > And ofcourse I don't think that all laws that match with, say a commandment, should be removed.
> <<<<Hey, I agree.That's an argument that I've heard over and over in the US. That the commandments should be posted because of they are the basis of all our laws.
But when you look at them, only 2 of them are laws: don't kill and don't steal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Civil marriage is a perfectly acceptable way for hetorosexual people to marry. Its a legal contract with NO religious involvement. Why should that legal contract, in a legal context, be removed from a large section of the population, simply because they are homosexual.
> <<<<It has never been removed if it was not given in the first place.
>Say what???? That makes it ok?? I had to read that one two or three times before I realized it actually said that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > I'm speaking about it in a purely legal sense. I know that a religious marriage is about pro-creation, and I can completely understand why the Church and its members would be against religious homosexual marriage.
> <<<<<thank-you. Religious homosexual marriage is a religious mockery of the term "marriage". It lessens its value. It absolves the couple from the responsibility of children and treats it as something sexually centered. When you mock God's laws, you mock God. If you want to be turned over to the buffetings of Satan for your whole life, mock God and see if you can get away with it. I personally don't think you (I) can.
>
>Again, that is your opinion. Like I said before, I don't think anyone should force your religion to perform gay marriages.
But if another religion chooses to do so, that's their business.
=========================================================
Now here's where my feathers start getting ruffled. Big time.
> > You say "Rights and privileges can be offered, but they must be different, not entirely the same.". Why must rights and privileges be different? What rights must be different?
>
>
> <<<<<If we knew those answers we could solve the problem.How about you give us an example of a right or privilege *you* think should be denied. You seem to have something in mind or you wouldn't have said 'not all rights.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<A gay couple has the right to be gay and live together. They have the right to be my next door neighbor, but they do not have the right to abuse my kids. I'm trying to remember back to when we had a gay couple living in our neighborhood.
And I have a black couple living next door.....
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<<It was a long time ago, but as I recal we tried to include them in things, and help them get involved in the school system, but they revolted and tried to destroy it, and got funding for another school's bus to come into our town and pick up their kids. It was kind of ugly, but the community honestly tried to be fair and treat them as equals.
Again, I'm hoping I'm reading this wrong, and I'd need more details, but if they were the community 'token gays' I can see how it could get ugly.
How did they try to destroy the school system? By wanting to be treated the same as others? By wanting the curriculum to not gay bash? Please, more details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<They were two women and each had daughters the same age as my daughters. They played together at school, but i have to admit I was uncomfortable sending my girls over to their place at night for sleepovers. I don't think I ever let them do that. Do you blame me?
I'm trying really hard not to be uncivil here, but I think a refusal to allow your girls to go over shows an ignorance of the facts (which Emmy has touched on.)
My sister is gay and I never thought twice about leaving my daughter with her.
I was very, very good friends with a lesbian couple - even went on trips and shared condos - and I wouldn't think twice about leaving my daughter with them either. {FYI - the reason we don't hang now is they've moved and we lost touch}
My best friend for years was a gay male and I wouldn't have thought twice about leaving my son with him either.
ALL of the above examples were in serious long term loving relationships. {Two still are in the same relationship, but my best friend died.}
So - to put it frankly - when people say things that I take to be disparaging about *my* family and *my* friends *I* start to feel *very* offended.
----------------------------------------------------------------
> <<<<<When did being equal ever mean equal rights?I don't know about everywhere, but it is in the US constitution and ammendments, and the UK had the Magna Carta. Doesn't it mean that in Canada??
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<<There is always going to be poor and homeless, as well as rich and famous. Each person has their station in life. Some are here to be helped and others are here to help.
Gee, by that logic I'd be a rich slave owner. That was my ancestors' station in life.I myself believe that the poor and homeless have the same rights I do.
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<<<< So why not call it monogimony? (like matrimony) and make the law specific to gay "couples". give them a list of rights, if it can be agreed upon, which I doubt it ever could, and then enforce them.
Give them a list of rights???????????????
Are you serious?????????????????????????
------------------------------------------------------------
While doing this, lets also allow common law heterosexual couples these same rights and let them enter the contract of monogimony if they don't want to get married.Well, civil unions like you are talking about have been called marriage for ages.
They have never been called matrimony.
Rats!!! I had something good to say, but it bordered on sarcasm.....
-------------------------------------------------------------
Common law couples should also be entitled to certain rights, but not equal rights because they have chosen monogimony rather than matrimony.
Again, which rights would you deny Nikki or anyone else that has a civil marriage?
And doesn't this go back to "It has never been removed if it was not given in the first place?" Here, you seem to me to be implying that Nikki should lose some rights. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, please.
==================================================
<<<< We can be equal without having to be given equal rights.
No we can't. Unequal rights means unequal.
------------------------------------------------------------
> I hope you feel my willingness and desire to understand and discuss this sensitive topic.Well, actually I'm not feeling it. Maybe if you expound.
But if it is going to be about religion only, maybe Dr. Bob can redirect it to the faith board.
poster:AuntieMel
thread:464602
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050122/msgs/467869.html