Forums > Social Discussion > US Gay marriage questions

Posted: 13th Dec 2004
popular topic this one.

to be old skool marriage is a christian act of unity between one man and one woman. i'll stick to that but i wouldnt exactly say that its correct in this day and age with only semi christian rules still enforced by the populus. since many people in once totally christian counrties are nolonger christina it makes problems. hence i think marriage should be retained as christian and homosexual relationships classed as something else, although i do realise thats still hypocritical with the divorce rate and all, i spose at some point you have to try and regain lost ground.

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Posted: 13th Dec 2004
Hmm. Does Australia lack the value "Separation of Church and State"? In the US we're only pushing for the legal, governmental recognition, and everyone is against churches having to do it.

And I deny that there is, or has ever been, any country anywhere in the world that is or was entirely Christian.

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 13th Dec 2004
yeh, i agree about there never being an entirly christian country. its just that supposed christians are in power and hence write laws to fit themselves.



establishmentarianism is a bit of a joke, thoughout history the church WAS the state, now that you want to separate them, which sort of works, you get mixed values and problems rise such as this topic.

how can you say that there is seperation of chuch and state in america when its reported that christian groups got bush back in because of his christian morals? and its heavily reported than bush is a born again christian, and in his speaches he says things about need for prayer and trust in god?
EDITED_BY: Mr Majestik (1102989211)

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Posted: 14th Dec 2004
How can we say there is separation of Church and State? The US was established with this separation by our Founding Fathers, who came here to get away from religios oppression, etc.

While the current administration has a great deal of support from the Christian Right, that does not give the administration leave to dictate religious values to the rest of America. I know that it may seem as if that is exactly what the US is doing, but these issues will be challenged, and, hopefully, the courts will find that the US is getting dangerously close to sanctioning religion.

You also need to know a little bit about the "political machine." A lot of people say that the entire controversy around gay marriage is smoke and mirrors. In this context, the Bush political team saw an opportunity to capitalize on a very polarizing issue. When you throw the abortion argument into the ring, you've got two very polarizing initiatives which get very conservative folks' pants in a twist, which gets them out to vote.

I suspect Bush is playing on the "religious revival" movement that's taking place in the US, and using it to his advantage. I doubt he has the strong convictions he says he has, but plays up to those in this nation who are believers.

There are others who can give you the history of this nation, and how it all ties into today's political arena better than I can.

You ask how can we say there is separation of curch and state.....there is. We do not have a nationally recognized religion, and there are rules and guidelines to keep that separation in place. Yes, we are on a trend to lose separation of church and state, but we're not there yet.

Politiians can create laws, but if those laws are deemed Unconstitutional, then they can be overturned.

Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Posted: 14th Dec 2004
Straying slightly off topic, but not far:

The below is an open letter to President Bush (circulating on the web, soz if it's already appeared here):

I have a book printed in the latter half of the 19th Century, "Enquire Within - Upon Everything". It makes interesting and amusing reading. There a recipes for things like cakes and bread which involve multiple pounds of Flour and Sugar etc and must be cooked for well over an hour. No temperature guide, for obvious reasons, which is probably why these things took so long to cook, the oven door was constantly being opened to check whatever was in there. There's also a section on Etiquette, the conventional rules of social behaviour which dictated the type of jewellery that wom... Ladies should wear according to her age, the occasion, and weather she was married. Ladies were also instructed on which parts of the News Paper she should read and to impress her husband when he returned home by discussing those parts she had read. Ladies were expected not to indulge in gossip columns and politics. There were particular times of day to visit people at home depending on the purpose or occasion of the visit. Morning was always formal, and you should never visit anyone in the morning unless your Butler or other senior servant had first called to present your card. A card returned in exchange for yours would be formal approval for you to visit in the morning in person. However, if you received a card with one of the corners bent back, you could call on that person any time of the day. I'm surprised that they had any time to do anything else but dress suitably for the time of day, wait hours on end for a meal, sending and receiving cards, and trying to decide if, in the women’s case, they should wear diamonds or pearls.

Sod that! could you be bothered? I don't think anyone would choose to live their life by that book now. It's well over 100 years old! So why do some people live their lives according to a book which, in places, was written about five to six thousand years ago, and at least the best part of two-thousand years ago in it's newest parts?

It beggars me! Anyway, I need to go out. I need to make a few sacrifices and I'm right out of Pure White Bulls (Hope the Butchers Counter at Tescos can help). I also need to make a trip to WH Smith - Do It All. I want a new Alter and I need to build it with stones that have not been worked with metal tools. I have to do everything my self, I don't have a clue where the nearest slave market is.

I haven't seen my neighbour at the Temple for weeks. I met him yesterday at a stoning of a 13 year-old woman who dishonoured her Father by having a child with a man she was betrothed to be married to. It seems my neighbour was at a similar meeting when a stray stone missed its target and crushed his knackers!!! now they wont let him in the Temple!


Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people. I learned a great deal
from you and understand why you would propose and support a Constitutional
Amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God
marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22
clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice
from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to
follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7 In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9.The problem is, my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
Oh, sorry. IS there degrees ..

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How
should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to
curse and blasphemes lots. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble
of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Morph

Posted: 14th Dec 2004
The letter that goes through those ten points is very similar, if not the same as a letter that was circulated here in the states to Dr. Laura, a TV/Radio host who played psychiatrist, even though she had a PhD in Nutrition, of all things.



She had a real hang up about gays, and was adimantly against divorce, even if someone realized, after getting married, that they were gay.



Anyway, she also had a tendancy to quote the Bible, hence the letter.



~SF, losing her mind.
EDITED_BY: SpitFire (1103060130)

Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Posted: 14th Dec 2004
Funny, "Dr. Laura" was in a porno once, she never brought THAT up now, did she?

**snarls** She still makes me mad.

I'm weird. Just work through that and we'll all be fine.

"If you are a dog and your owner suggests that you wear a sweater suggest that he wear a tail." - Fran Lebowitz

Posted: 14th Dec 2004
Gee, I think she should arrange for herself to be stoned for adultery, don't you?

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 14th Dec 2004
everyones a hypocrit at some point(although that would be pretty funny to arrange your own stoning)

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Posted: 15th Dec 2004

Written by: Mr Majestik

---

to be old skool marriage is a christian act of unity between one man and one woman. i'll stick to that but i wouldnt exactly say that its correct in this day and age with only semi christian rules still enforced by the populus.

---

On a similar note: If the Christian church is going to dictate law to us in this country, are non-Christians subject to our laws? If I tout Atheism, am I free to steal and kill without reprecussions? As I've always said, if the churches in this country want to pay taxes, then I'll be fine with them chiming in on public policies and social issues. Until then, they should shut the up.

If the church wants to recognize marriages as being between a man & a woman exclusively, and deny religious rights and priviledges to gays, that's OK with me. That's their perrogative.

But if the State wants to recognize a Civil Union, and grant state rights and priviledges to gays, they should be able to do so without interference from the religious right.

Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.

Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.

Posted: 15th Dec 2004


Well said, Prometheus.

Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Posted: 15th Dec 2004
Props to Prometheus, the people's benefactor.

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 16th Dec 2004
i see what you mean, its a good point.

laws are just made by people who can inforce them, if you're athiest then go ahead and kill and steal, see where it gets you in a (supposedly) christian controlled society. in refence to the churchs paying taxes the church is made of groups of tax payers who have the same beliefs, what they are doing in politics is making a united voice for those beliefs.

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Posted: 16th Dec 2004
The members of a congregation are also taxpayers, true enough, but they want to establish public laws based on their religious beliefs. Our legal system, when you really break it down, proclaims "do what you want as long as it's not hurting anyone else." It's a system based on fairness.

During our recent presidential campaign, pastors were preaching from the pulpit who to vote for, or who not to vote for. A local preacher tried to ban black T-shirts and heavy metal music in my high school. A minister in Mississippi wrote to the FCC 27 years ago and within a few months, you couldn't hear certain bands on the radio anymore, and you still can't. These are examples of the church exclusively targeting public issues which have nothing to do with private religion. The reverse would be the State saying that minors cannot receive communion because they're under 21 and can't legally take that sip of wine. This is why separation of church & state is so important.

Our founding fathers realized that if a majority of citizens trampled on the rights of a minority, regardless of the numbers, it's still just as bad as a monarchy. That's why if the entire nation hates Steely Dan, they can't pass a law saying the 8 people that do listen to him are in the wrong.

Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.

Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.

Posted: 16th Dec 2004
It's called the tyranny of the majority. The Framers specifically designed our democracy NOT to be absolute for fear of it. I just read a lengthy paper on the topic by an ABD PhD candidate in PoliSci.

And, btw, if MY church started openly endorsing candidates, it would lose its NFP status quick. I think the Roman Catholic church should have lost ITS NFP at least 20 years ago. Taxing them would not only be just, it would close the budget gap. And if they can't pay out of cash-on-hand, they can sell off properties. Think what valuable condos could go into a deconsecrated St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, for example.

(I'm not seriously advocating this. I DO think churches should have to obey the terms by which they're entitled to tax-exempt status, and I think the only way they ever will is if at least one of them (probably not the RCC) loses it.)

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 16th Dec 2004
(BTW, the Framers weren't just worried about injustice down the road. Several of them were Deists, or professed Deism as a way of avoiding being lynched outright for Atheism.)

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 16th Dec 2004
The Framers were a smart lot, for the most part. Have you ever read the Constitution? The language is simple and easy to understand. They did a good job of being perfectly clear, for the most part. Forked tongue politicians try to warp their words by interpretting the document, but if you take it word for word? It's an eloquent document.

Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Posted: 16th Dec 2004
I'm sorry... Can someone please explain to me:



When was "Thou shalt not kill" a Christian rule?



First, it's a JEWISH rule.



Second, it's a SECULAR rule because every single civilization, whether religious or secular, and regardless of what religion, has tightly regulated (mind you not banned) the circumstances under which someone is allowed to take another's life. And generally with rather severe consequences for failure to give due consideration to said regulations. (Read Hamurabbi's Code...killing a slave OK, killing a noble NOT OK.)



The same goes for the rest of the lot of rules. You know, stealing, rape, destruction of property. The fact that these rules wind up in religious texts does NOT necessarily mean that they cease to exist in the absence of religion. Christians eat, too. That doesn't mean that non-Christians don't.



Where it gets sticky is that there ARE some specific rules that some religions have that others don't. The whole abortion thing is a perfect example. The sodomy bit is another.



So this idea of "Christian Law" as a foundation for this country is ludicrous. It's "JEWISH LAW."
EDITED_BY: ...Lightning... (1103213248)

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

Posted: 16th Dec 2004
Actually, it's English Common Law. But that's a nitpick.

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 17th Dec 2004
I don't care if it's Buddha's, Jesus' or Charles Manson's law. The origins are irrellevant...Keep it off the books if it has purely religious rationale. I'm don't wanna finance it with my taxes.





I'm not talking about right & wrong, I know it's generally agreed upon that it is wrong to kill, steal, etc. But reading Playboy magazine, cussing on TV and eating non-kosher sausage is not hurting any one else. It's called freedom of choice.

Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.

Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.

Posted: 17th Dec 2004
prometheus, i understand what you said about churches trying to ban different types of music or telling people who to vote for, it needs to be said that this is not the religion talking(how can religion talk when its not a person?), this is just a person who happens to be believe the doctran of the religion in a certain circumstance. what they do is wrong i'll definatly agree in those situations.



i'd just like to say, incase people dont realise, that people and religions are two seperate identities. the religion as such is basically a moral code by which one(1)should lead their own life. i think its when that person decides that thier religion(which might suit them) is THE religion problems occur. trouble always seems to occur when somebody stops looking at themselves and trys to change somebody else. religion is a journey for the soul(sole person) and shouldnt be forced onto anyone. it is when groups get together that problems arise, this all frustrats me to no end.
EDITED_BY: Mr Majestik (1103279001)

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Posted: 17th Dec 2004
You've hit on an important point, Majestik.

There is a group in the US that have taken it upon themselves to "Put the Christ back in Christmas."

This group says that since the "Moral Majority" won so convincingly during this last election, they now have leverage to force people and business to change their holdiay greetings from something like "Seasons Greetings" to "Merry Christmas."

They want people to avoid saying things like "End of year party" instead of Christams party. They are organizing boycots and petitions against businesses that don't have Merry Christmas on their holiday banners, etc.

What this group has clearly forgotten is that this country's Constitution guarantees people freedom of religion, which means if you are JEwish, then you can celebrate Hannukkah, if you're Pagan, you can celebrate Yule, or if you're athiest, you can ignore the entire affair.

Forcing businesses to change their greetings is crazy, but there you have it. I don't suppose these peopel have considered what to do if the business owner is Jewish...if they force a Jewish person to celebrate Christmas, instead of Hannukkah, then aren't they denying the Jewish person freedom of religion?

I know...off topic, but it's related to the point Maj made. These people feel they have the right to force their religious beliefs on others, and have the right to dictate policy to everyone, basing that policy on their religious doctrine. They forget that not every American is Christian.

Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Posted: 17th Dec 2004
just to play devils advocate here....

Christmas by its very name is about christ. its also alot of fun though so alot of non religio peeps join in the fun. this was born xmas and so on...

now if i started to celebrate hannukah.... using associated traditions but wanted to call it a completly different name. Would the Jews let me?

please note my complete absence of taking sides in this. its just a thought.

happy weekends for everyone

Love is the law.

Posted: 17th Dec 2004
Most practicing Christians (at least, the ones I've met) object strongly to the use of the word 'Xmas'.

I remember when I was young my church used to tell us that saying Xmas was wrong cos it took Christ out of Christmas (and that was about 15 years ago).

The point is, just because the name has been changed, doesn't mean Christians approve of that change.

Getting to the other side

Posted: 17th Dec 2004

Written by: Mr Majestik

---

i'd just like to say, incase people dont realise, that people and religions are two seperate identities.

---

Well said.

I hadn't heard of forcing "Merry Christmas" on anyone, but I've heard of entire shopping malls that prohibited it. It was actually a mall policy that people had to say 'happy holidays' or 'seasons greetings.'

Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.

Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.

Posted: 17th Dec 2004
Yeah, that seems almost as insane...how many folks who aren't Christian get offended if someone wishes them Merry Christmas? The reverse of that? How many Christians get offended by someone saying "Happy Holidays?" Well...we know of one group who's vocal about it.

The article I read was either on CNN or Yahoo. I can't recall which.

Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Posted: 17th Dec 2004
A few years ago, in Birmingham (UK) they did away with Christmas and had what they called a 'Winterval' instead.

This was apparantly to avoid giving offence to ethnic minorities that do not celebrate christmas, and Birmingham is a very 'multi cultural' city, almost to the point where 'minority' is a misnomer (unless you are talking about white christians!).
But still, it's a stupid thing to do, and a stupid made up word that probably offended everyone just through it's ridiculous PC stupidness.

Eat when you're hungry
Sleep where it's dry
No one is ever what they seem
Gabriel King - The Wild Road

Posted: 17th Dec 2004
I find that incredably bizarre.

I don't really see why people try to get all PC about christmas, they certainly don't about the religious events of other faiths.
Should Jews be told off for mentioning Hannuka? How about Muslims being chastised for talking about Eid? Of course they shouldn't, so why do people come down hard on the Christians?

Besides, christmas isn't about being a christian anymore, it's all about how much loot you find in your stocking

But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Posted: 17th Dec 2004
You know... Take this from a weirdo's perpective.

But it seems to me that in order to make lafe more happy, we're losing the diversity that makes life interesting. There are towns doing away with Christmas, either by law or by suggestion. We're trying not to step on "minority" toes, and so on...

All the while there's no sense of cultural identity for people who are afraid to bring ANY ammount of pain to others, so they'll do away with something they hold dear to them. "the holiday season" now refers to how much profit a company makes, not the religious holiday that it surrounds.

Plus you have people making up holidays to try to... well feel some cultural bond in this season. And it all just seems so stupid to me. Christmas is a holiday that's celebrated by people, why should they be afraid to celebrate it? I've got a friend who's muslim, and hearing about Ramadan was facinating to me. I just think that this SHOULD be the season for sharing, and learning, and growing.

But as my sig says, I'm weird.

I'm weird. Just work through that and we'll all be fine.

"If you are a dog and your owner suggests that you wear a sweater suggest that he wear a tail." - Fran Lebowitz

Posted: 17th Dec 2004

Written by:

---

There is a group in the US that have taken it upon themselves to "Put the Christ back in Christmas."

---

Only because the political-correctness movement has grown to such a ludicrous level that they're starting to lash out against it.

This is all stemming from several locations (primarily elementary/middle schools, of all places) where administration has tried to ban celebration of Christian-based holidays, while at the same time promoting non-Christian faiths... all in the name of "tolerance."

A school has made big news in your own area (Texas) because their "Winter Break Party" actually went so far as to prohibit red and green clothing and party plates because it "reminds people of the Christmas holiday." Does that seem a bit absurd and offensive to you?

Honestly I think squashing all religious activity is not the right answer... I think if they're going to hold a winter holiday festival, presentation, program, whatever, they should be inclusive of all religions the student (and parental) body encapsulates. A "celebration of all holidays - Hanukkah, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, etc etc" would be much more well-received than what we're seeing happen. But instead, it's okay to persecute the majority just because they're the majority, and the left-wing nutballs (it's always just ONE angry idiot mother with an agenda who gets this fur flying) are reveling in it.

I have a feeling we're set to see some big changes in the near future in America, for better or worse, but the pendulum's starting to swing the other way and it's gonna be a very dynamic road ahead of us.

What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.