ES Gay Marriage Poll

[Jumbo]

The Bible is also very consistent on forbidding women pastors, but many churches seem to be moving away from that restriction as well. There are a lot of these issues where this is a divide among denominations and congregations, and I would hesitate to call any particular interpretation the "true nature" of Christian teaching with absolute certainty. We can never be completely sure of our current doctrinal interpretation of every detail, at least not in this world.

In the long run, I expect Christianity, as inherent with any other man-made institution that has come to know/seek/desire influence and power and a spread of its doctrine (as certain drives so powerfully demand with the vast majority of humans) will shape-shift as thought needed, and already has done a number of times, when it really finds/fears itself losing, or risking losing, significant numbers of its audience to a serious or dire degree.

There was a time and many places (even to this day) when the OT was taught as also being The Word without equivocation or qualification before The Greatest Makeover Ever Told. "Strategic restructuring" may be relatively minor, like it now being ok to eat fish on Fridays, to more substantive matters like "recreational sex" (sex for pleasure only than intended reproduction) being ok if between man and wife (even oral!!! <gasp> , but not sure about anal, even within marriage) to relatively serious, like allowing marriage for "even" Catholic priests someday, or allowing women to be Catholic priests.

Of course the more fundamental the tenet is perceived by that faith (i.e. Jesus being the One True Son of God and The Savior, and not "just" a prophet, for Christianity), the more resistance, and certain stances would likely be held inviolate. But I wouldn't be surprised to see a form of Christianity 5000 years from now (if still existing) that has many more restructured" tenets, including some held very dear currently.

Where tenets themselves may not change, at least how some of them are currently showcased can and will----i.e. one day homosexuality, if not actually morphing into something "un-sinful" somehow, may be treated in widespread fashion among Christians as "no more sinful" than telling a lie, which all humans do regularly anyway even if lying is a sin and we are supposed to stop knowingly sinning. I mean differently than currently manifested, where many say it's "supposed" to be this way already, but so many others of the faith deliberately ignore that and hate on the "sin" more than other "equally sinful" behaviors. And, of course, all of any such change being "perfectly" rationalized and "explainable" by interpretation of scripture. But this is all just typically human (for now), which makes sense to some folk.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

and to that I would ask why would they?

For a million reasons....marriage is a stabilizing force. When a country has too many young unmmaried men, you need to have a foreign war to reduce the surplus population or you are going to have a revoluion.

Marriage is a way to populate your country. Augustus wanted lots and lots of little, loyal Romans.

Marriage creates a way to move and consolidate wealth.

[Predicto]

Amazing how much better and less vitriolic the discussion is when ASF is the one taking up the "conservative" side.

That's a compliment, son. :applause:

[AsburySkinsFan]

But we are talking about 2013 in the secular government US of A, where marriage is a legal construct. All this talk of ancient history is just that, talk. It has no relevance to the present, where we are governed by the rule of law and not the rule of theocratic principles. There is no religious component in the marriage legal construct. None, zero, zip, nada.

So now makes right?

Want to get legally married? Go to the courthouse and get a marriage license and pay a fee. Don't want to be legally married to your spouse? Go to the courthouse and file for a divorce and go through the legal procedures to obtain a divorce. No religion there at all.

Agreed, but to deny that religion is not a major part of the cultural understanding of marriage in our day is to deny reality.

[Predicto]

For a million reasons....marriage is a stabilizing force. When a country has too many young unmmaried men' date=' you need to have a foreign war to reduce the surplus population or you are going to have a revoluion.

[/quote']

China, 2013. :yikes:

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

China, 2013. :yikes:

Um...yep.......

There is a reason Putin wants Russians to bang and have lots of little Russian babies. Eventually, China is going to be looking north and saying...."Wow...lots of space..."

[AsburySkinsFan]

Amazing how much better and less vitriolic the discussion is when ASF is the one taking up the "conservative" side.

That's a compliment, son. :applause:

Isn't it strange that I'm not even against the government recognizing gay marriage? This whole thing to me feels like a primer on how to discuss this issue with people of faith.

.....and thank you.

[Major Harris]

I sometimes feel like I'm the only person who has ever actually_____________

Fill in the blank, you tend to think very highly of yourself.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Fill in the blank, you tend to think very highly of yourself.

It's not my fault I'm so often so damn right.

[Unforgiven]

And the philosophy of others dictates the relationships of other people who may not have the same beliefs, and that philosophy is codified into law and is celebrated as a victory against pedophilia. And do not take that as "OMG he said homosexuality is pedophilia." The point is that we employ our philosophy in our laws all the time, and we dictate the appropriate terms of relationships between people all the time.

I have no earthly idea why you brought up pedophilia and then try and distance yourself from it in the next sentence. I'm also not sure the point you were even trying to make with that if you weren't comparing the two.

[Major Harris]

It's not my fault I'm so often so damn right.

Whose fault is it? :whoknows:

[AsburySkinsFan]

A few comments ago, you made a reference to "reducing religion to a philosophy", yet now you're using philosophy as a brush so wide as to paint over everything.

I didn't reduce it to philosophy, she did, and if it is a philosophy then on what grounds do you have to reject it in the law making process? Seriously, it is better for your side to separate religion and philosophy, at least then you have Church and State to fall back on.

Your religion can NOT constitutionally influence our laws. It was one of the main reasons for our constitution.

If religion is just a form of codified philosophy then to bar it from the process seems at best selective.

[RansomthePasserby]

I am always confused why so many Christians don't go straight to the event that changed the Christian understanding of food restrictions.

I thought about adding Peter's vision, but it's a long passage, and I figured Mark 7:18-21 laid it out pretty succinctly.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Whose fault is it? :whoknows:

I blame all the posters here who are so often so damn wrong.

[twa]

Your religion can NOT constitutionally influence our laws. It was one of the main reasons for our constitution.

I think my religion influenced our law and constitution...including the separation of church and state.....scholars even agree with me

[AsburySkinsFan]

I have no earthly idea why you brought up pedophilia and then try and distance yourself from it in the next sentence. I'm also not sure the point you were even trying to make with that if you weren't comparing the two.

You said that we cannot dictate the relationships with others who do not share our convictions, I just used our laws against certain relationships (i.e. pedophilia) as an example that we already do so, and we celebrate it whats more. Today we say it is against the law for a 30 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl. But, you want to argue that we shouldn't use law to dictate relationships. The reality is that the disagreement is with which relationships we should dictate through law.

[Botched]

People get vocal against gay marriage because if you have no attraction to the same sex, it's incredibly easy to be against it. It takes no restraint or effort on my part to not have sex with another man (assuming I'm never propositioned by RG3).

The more difficult rules, like no sex before marriage, or not wearing clothes made from different fabrics, are ignored by almost everyone because they take a tremendous amount of restraint and dedication to follow.

I can respect religious people who admit they constantly break the rules, but if they rally against gay marriage at the same time, that's just lazy and hypocritical. (<---and I'm pretty sure those are also against the rules)

[AsburySkinsFan]

People get vocal against gay marriage because if you have no attraction to the same sex, it's incredibly easy to be against it. It takes no restraint or effort on my part to not have sex with another man (assuming I'm never propositioned by RG3).

The more difficult rules, like no sex before marriage, or not wearing clothes made from different fabrics, are ignored by almost everyone because they take a tremendous amount of restraint and dedication to follow.

I can respect religious people who admit they constantly break the rules, but if they rally against gay marriage at the same time, that's just lazy and hypocritical. (<---and I'm pretty sure those are also against the rules)

Agreed, the inconsistency is a huge problem for those who argue against gay marriage, but pointing it out to them is not an argument for gay marriage either...it is instead an argument for greater consistency.

[Jumbo]

I think my religion influenced our law and constitution...including the separation of church and state.....scholars even agree with me

In the larger sense that "your" religion co-opted so many preexisting human social constructs (and holidays :pfft:) from many cultures/times/places, as well as adding their own modifications.

There were many heathen influences too, thank goodness. And some of the best ones (interests of women, children, blacks/other minorities) had to be added over the protest of many of "your" guys.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The reality is that we just disagree with which relationships we should dictate through law.

There is a long, long, long tradition that children do not have the same fundamental rights as adults. The definition of "adults" and "children" is often in flux. In the US, we seem to have no idea what is actually a child at this point. At some point, I imagine, there will be some kind of movment to clarify that and bring most of our laws in line with whatever definition we come up with.

But comparing laws governing children and laws governing adults is an apples to oranges situation. I'm pretty much an absolutist on free speech issues. But I think high schools have the right to censor student newspapers. Because I don't think children have the same rights as adults. I don't think a 14 year old has the fundamental right to marry another 14 year old, let alone a 34 year old. However, I think an 18-year-old has the right to marry a 91-year-old.

I recognize the contradictions here. But I do not see any inconsistencies (except in what we would call a "child" most of the time).

[Major Harris]

I blame all the posters here who are so often so damn wrong.

i'm sure this is your place to feel intellectually superior, but you have your sites where you aren't so smart.

[Jumbo]

i'm sure this is your place to feel intellectually superior, but you have your sites where you aren't so smart.

:ols::ols:

This is a great line in general. Major Gold.

[AsburySkinsFan]

There is a long' date=' long, long tradition that children do not have the same fundamental rights as adults. The definition of "adults" and "children" is often in flux. In the US, we seem to have no idea what is actually a child at this point. At some point, I imagine, there will be some kind of movment to clarify that and bring most of our laws in line with whatever definition we come up with.

But comparing laws governing children and laws governing adults is an apples to oranges situation. I'm pretty much an absolutist on free speech issues. But I think high schools have the right to censor student newspapers. Because I don't think children have the same rights as adults. I don't think a 14 year old has the fundamental right to marry another 14 year old, let alone a 34 year old. However, I think an 18-year-old has the right to marry a 91-year-old.

I recognize the contradictions here. But I do not see any inconsistencies (except in what we would call a "child" most of the time).[/quote']

But you just proved my point, and what's more I agree with you. However, there are those who would disagree with our shared philosophy regarding the division between adult and child and their standing under the law.

[Unforgiven]

You said that we cannot dictate the relationships with others who do not share our convictions, I just used our laws against certain relationships (i.e. pedophilia) as an example that we already do so, and we celebrate it whats more. Today we say it is against the law for a 30 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl. But, you want to argue that we shouldn't use law to dictate relationships. The reality is that the disagreement is with which relationships we should dictate through law.

Yes, we legislate relationships between minors and adults, that has nothing to do with the relationship between two consenting adults. There are a lot of things that adults can legally do that children cannot, using that as an example of dictating relationships is very poor and does nothing to negate my original argument.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

i'm sure this is your place to feel intellectually superior, but you have your sites where you aren't so smart.

I don't post to a lot of places anymore. I've posted maybe 50 times to TheFogbow over the past three years. But everyone there is pretty much a lawyer with 30 years of federal court experience and 95 percent of the discussion is on federal court questions. I learn more there by shutting up.

I used to post on wrestling boards in the late 90s and early aughts. I stopped when I realized that I was a 28-year-old with two degrees arguing with 15 year olds.

I still have an account on Democratic Underground that I have not used in years. There were some people I liked talking to there. There were a lot who I did not. All my FreeRepublic accounts have long since been zotted. (I was really only there to be annoying). I have accounts on a few WVU sites. But you can reason with a WVU fan. You can also reason with a chair for all the good it will do you.

My favorite message board ever was the Michael Moore Bulletin Board back in 2001 and 2002. That place was crazy. I was actually considered something like the NavyDave on that board, because I was a mainstream progressive and not an anarchist vegan. I actually got laid off that site. I have never gotten laid because of my posts here. Zoony did offer me a handy once.