• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Why the definition of marriage matters

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
I can, perhaps, be forgive for not remembering the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, but, for Dawkins, an Englishman, to have forgotten it is quite surprising. Unless he means to define the timeline as "over the last 30 or so years"- and I in no way claim to be speaking for him- his omission is difficult to explain. He is quite a militant Atheist and has never missed an opportunity to point out what he sees as failures of Christianity and Judaism.

However, there does seem to be a realization among at least some on the Atheist movement to realize that there is a very great difference between the way that Christianity and Judaism handle disagreements and disapproval with the way Islam does, and to admit that Islam, at least as the Islamic Supremacists practice it, presents a much greater danger to the world than does Christianity and Judaism. The very fact that his board exists for us to argue over such issues here and does not in the Middle East proves this point quite well.
 

DeletedUser

The Balkans and other areas around the world have seen religious conflict between various "Christian" groups for centuries.
Thanks to the media we often get a rather distorted view of the world.
Most Muslims like most Christians and majority of people everywhere just want to get on with life.
They have zero interest in forcibly converting or wiping out other people.
The problem as it has always been is the radical fanatic few who are in reality looking for their own worldly gain and not at providing spiritual support and guidance for those of their faith.

The same sort of fanaticism that sees Islamic suicide bombers also gives us Waco, and individuals walking into abortion clinics with guns.

Majority of world religions preach tolerance for others, it's only when they get warped by individuals seeking their own gain that you start having issues.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
Zero deaths even alleged among Muslims in the All Africa piece.

Meanwhile:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/isis-iraq-numbers_n_5659239.html
At least 500

The number of Yazidis killed so far by Islamic State fighters in northern Iraq. An Iraqi government minister told Reuters on Sunday that militants had buried some of the Yazidis alive, while they killed others in a mass execution.
For the record, "zero" is less than "500".
And that's just one small example of the deaths of non-Muslims at the hands of Muslims.
 

DeletedUser5198

First off,

Red Knight of Vienna must be a member of the Westboro Baptist church because all that rant was missing was "God hates Fags" and "U.S. Troops burn in Hell."

I don't know how I got this thread when I searched Post-Modern but I've read enough where I feel like I should put in my opinion.

The argument seems to be that the definition of marriage as stated in the original post was meant to be between a man and a women and nothing more. Now since we are talking about America here I will keep it within the American Law. The main complaint I've heard when it comes to definition of marriage is that it is considered archaic and too traditional for modern society. Now it seems we mostly agree that Same Sex couples should have the same legal rights that the word marriage provides in this country as it affords to Non Same Sex couples. The dissent then arises should we label the Same Sex couple's Union as a 'Marriage' 'Civil Union' 'Gay Marriage' etc. The fact of the matter is this is only a problem because the US has a history of Separate but "Equal" not actually as being so Equal. From the Native Americans, to African Americans and so forth. The main problem then is how can you make sure that Separate but Equal actually makes everyone Equal. The simple answer is you can't. No matter how many laws you put into place to make sure everyone is afforded equality and no matter how many "The More You Know" announcements you make people will still have this enduring feeling that they are more superior than their fellow man. When at the end of the day we are all the same. So the next best way some people see is to change the definition of things so that when the "ignorant" people die off their children or their children's children will eventually follow the societal opinion as that is all they know. While others say we must resist all changes to our way of life for it is the most correct way we know. I say the best way is to accept the differences of all people and let that be the way we come together and celebrate diversity. Now I know this is very Utopian and that we must also have things that we cannot allow which we all can pretty sensibly agree on. The fact of the matter is the definition is going to change regardless of who likes it or not, it's how society is today. They all want to feel like they are treating their fellow man with respect and equality. They see the only way to do this is to change the definition because, lets be honest, it is much easier to sow a single cloth into a blanket than to patchwork a bunch of cloths together and expect it to hold up over time and against the known expectation of abuse by others. I personally agree with Same Sex couples having the same legal rights as Non Same Sex couples but I still struggle with my faith and the fact that we can never truly have Separate but Equal laws that work. I would prefer that the definition not change but that there be a creation of a new term that would be equal in weight to marriage in the legal sphere. Now as the question for homosexuality, I do believe it is a sin but it is not a grave sin as it doesn't violate God's Golden rule that even Jesus uses "Love Thy Neighbor As Thy Self." That then brings up another question. Why does God create homosexuals if they are a sin? If God plans everything and we all know that it isn't a result of upbringing or choice or societal views since it has been around since the dawn of man. And since the fact that if one twin is born gay then other one has almost a 99% chance of being gay. Then is it genetic? Then why would that be a helpful adaptation to have? All these questions swirl around my head when I think of LGBTQ rights. All I can do is love the sinner and hate the sin. I am a sinner myself so I have no right to condemn their actions as wrong as long as they aren't bringing harm. Even Pope Francis said, "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Now I know some of you will say then that means that forgiveness or acceptance comes with a caveat. Well it does. If you do ill will now matter who you are there will be judgement. Also some will say you have to search for the Lord to have forgiveness. Again True. The act of looking for God is what brings you closer to him, now the search for the Lord is not so specific is because when you look for something greater than yourself and are able to have the ego fall away, then you are searching for the Lord, just in a different way. It's the same as saying Cosmologists and Biologists both looking for the answer to the reason why we are here. Both are seeking truth just in different forms. With different tools and understandings.

Now for the whole thing about the government having church and state separate. When our government was conceived it was created by White Christian men. Some more than others wanted equality for all but knew that wasn't realistic for that time or for there to be Unity, so they made the ability for amendments, to adjust for social change. The reason they made church and state separate was because they came from descendants of Puritans that were discriminated against for their religious belief by the government they were ruled by. They were still Christians so they still had Christian ideals and morals when they wrote the Constitution, hence all the usage of "Their Creator," "Supreme Judge of the world," and "the protection of Divine Providence." Also the fact that "In God We Trust" is on money should also say something. Now they made church and state separate because they knew that you can't have democracy in a nation ruled by one religion. They also knew that the nation would be made up of people and that people have religion as a way to behave in their daily life and their choices, so to say that our government should be without religion is like saying you should have a nation without people. You should just have a government that recognizes all religion equally. Now again equality is hard to come by since people are who they are but I feel like you guys get the point of this very long post. Now if you read until the end, Good for you, and would like to continue a conversation with me personally I am all for it. Just message me. May God be with you always. :)
 

DeletedUser10415

Also the fact that "In God We Trust" is on money should also say something.

It does say something, but not what you think.

"In God We Trust" was added to U.S. coins during The Civil War for propaganda purposes. 'God is on the Union's side'. It wasn't until 1956 that the motto was added to paper currency, and for a similar reason - To distinguish the U.S. from the 'Godless' Communist U.S.S.R.

I like the original motto best. 'E pluribus unim' - 'Out of many, one'
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
Baron-

The unconstitutional usurpation of SCOTUS imposing SSM on the states is the real issue here, at least it is for me. SCOTUS substituted the wisdom of five Justices for the wisdom of well over 100 Founders, Founders who included the Tenth Amendment in the Constitution for a reason. Simply put, since the Constitution does not mention "marriage" in the context of being a power either given to the Federal government to regulate or expressly denied to the Federal government to regulate, the power to define and/or regulate "marriage", under the Tenth Amendment, lies with the States. That is the plain language of the Constitution, which five Justices chose instead to ignore.

And now, of course, comes the unintended consequences of the Justices' usurpation: the First Amendment's guaranteed right to the "free exercise of religion" is under assault. To this point, individuals who hold deep-seeded views on traditional marriage have been either threatened by government into violating their beliefs or have actually been taken to court and found guilty of 'discrimination' and told that they must pay the poor, aggrieved gays huge sums of money. Alleged discrimination against gays has become actual discrimination by gays. Next we will see religious locations forced to allow their facilities to be used to perform SSM, culminating with clergymen of various faiths being forced to actually perform SSM or risk punishment by the government.

As far as your first paragraph, it is more than a bit utopian, but idealism isn't necessary a bad thing. I found a great deal to agree with.

I would take issue with one thing you said (paraphrasing a bit): 'Why did God create homosexuals if they are a sin against Him?'

I do not claim to be a Biblical scholar, but I think that Scripture says that it is homosexual activity which is the sin, not the homosexuals themselves, in much the same way that certain heterosexual practices- sex outside marriage, for instance- is likewise considered a sin.
 

DeletedUser

Baron-

The unconstitutional usurpation of SCOTUS imposing SSM on the states is the real issue here, at least it is for me. SCOTUS substituted the wisdom of five Justices for the wisdom of well over 100 Founders, Founders who included the Tenth Amendment in the Constitution for a reason. Simply put, since the Constitution does not mention "marriage" in the context of being a power either given to the Federal government to regulate or expressly denied to the Federal government to regulate, the power to define and/or regulate "marriage", under the Tenth Amendment, lies with the States. That is the plain language of the Constitution, which five Justices chose instead to ignore.

And now, of course, comes the unintended consequences of the Justices' usurpation: the First Amendment's guaranteed right to the "free exercise of religion" is under assault. To this point, individuals who hold deep-seeded views on traditional marriage have been either threatened by government into violating their beliefs or have actually been taken to court and found guilty of 'discrimination' and told that they must pay the poor, aggrieved gays huge sums of money. Alleged discrimination against gays has become actual discrimination by gays. Next we will see religious locations forced to allow their facilities to be used to perform SSM, culminating with clergymen of various faiths being forced to actually perform SSM or risk punishment by the government.

As far as your first paragraph, it is more than a bit utopian, but idealism isn't necessary a bad thing. I found a great deal to agree with.

I would take issue with one thing you said (paraphrasing a bit): 'Why did God create homosexuals if they are a sin against Him?'

I do not claim to be a Biblical scholar, but I think that Scripture says that it is homosexual activity which is the sin, not the homosexuals themselves, in much the same way that certain heterosexual practices- sex outside marriage, for instance- is likewise considered a sin.
The constitution guaranteed everyone a degree of freedom to do as they will, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
Your insistance upon trying to impose your views regarding marriage upon others IS an infringement of their rights.
As has been stated several times previously the laws regarding marriage are in place to insure the benefits and rights for the parties involved in as simple a manner as possible. Denying that status to a group based on race, religion, sexual orientation whatever is wrong. Making any group of individuals have to laber with additional or different legal systems to achieve the same benefits and protections is wrong and goes against the idea of equality for all.
Further more bowing to pressure from fundamentalist religious groups on marriage could set a very dangerous precedent, today it's marriage, tomorrow it's any non Christian or Muslim or Hindi or Buddhist, then it's what day you decide to worship on, what church you can attend. Those are the things the original settlers in America fled from and the very reason our founding fathers did their best to create a clear seperation between church and state.
Most of them were devote believers in their own faiths, but as a government they couldn't allow those beliefs to stand in the way of fair and impartial treatment and protection for all citizens.
 

DeletedUser

First off,

Red Knight of Vienna must be a member of the Westboro Baptist church because all that rant was missing was "God hates Fags" and "U.S. Troops burn in Hell."
. I personally agree with Same Sex couples having the same legal rights as Non Same Sex couples but I still struggle with my faith and the fact that we can never truly have Separate but Equal laws that work. I would prefer that the definition not change but that there be a creation of a new term that would be equal in weight to marriage in the legal sphere. Now as the question for homosexuality, I do believe it is a sin but it is not a grave sin as it doesn't violate God's Golden rule that even Jesus uses "Love Thy Neighbor As Thy Self." That then brings up another question. Why does God create homosexuals if they are a sin? If God plans everything and we all know that it isn't a result of upbringing or choice or societal views since it has been around since the dawn of man. And since the fact that if one twin is born gay then other one has almost a 99% chance of being gay. Then is it genetic?

om
Jesus!! Do you actually hear yourself when you talk out loud? Do you HEAR the hypocrisy that you have smattered all over your post?! I see that my LAST post was DELETED by the candy assed staff! So much for free speech! It was the threads author who obviously didn't like what I had to say - not only was I censored (post deleted), but he had the balls to attack me for it! Hypocrite for sure! You can argue all you want - God will ultimately have the last say in everything! Homosexuality is WRONG no matter which way you slice it. God doesn't make people homosexual, but rather the Devil does! The holy bible says that "A man shall not lay with another man, nor shall a woman lay with another woman". Romans chapter 19-32 says all that you need to understand what God thinks of homosexuality, and only God instituted marriage between ONE MAN, and ONE WOMAN. I don't make the rules, but rather I only follow them. If you were truly a Christian as you claim then you wouldn't support homosexuality for any reason. Nor would you support the sin that it is when they pretend to be married by the states' supreme court. This should fall under the "Separation of church and state", but because of the hypocrite lobbyists they went and pissed and moaned until the government gave way to popular opinion and let them have their evil way. It's funny how the insurance companies reported an increase of "gay" couples coming forth with insurance claims since this was instituted (bastardised) by U.S. government. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with equality, but rather with doing what's popular in the eye of public opinion which will never change Gods' will! There's no telling WHO will be arguing this when we're all dead a hundred years from now. Know this - no amount of popular, or public opinion will make what's right wrong, or make what's wrong right! I'm not judging - that's for God to do on judgement day. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with Gods' will, or how people are born. Loving thy neighbor, and abhorring homosexuality are two different things entirely! Africans aren't Americans, and Americans aren't Africans - this is a derogatory term. When this was coined by Eddie Murphy in "Coming to America" saying that "We're African/Americans" when he MEANT to say - "We're Africans soon to be Americans". Since Africa has more than BLACK people living in it, and more than one race, and more than one language, or country - 55 to be exact, white people are still considered to be "white", and Mexicans are now "Latinos" when no such place exists, and no one speaks Latin any more! "Political Correctness" is a horrible misnomer by the advertising imbeciles as a way to kiss ass to the elite snobs of the U.S. populous. This country hasn't lost its' moral compass, but rather they've completely thrown it away!! The founding fathers didn't want religion to intertwine with politics since most people couldn't agree on religious views any way. Also they allowed free speech as they knew that Merry Old England didn't allow for such a practice, and neither does this forum!! I've said my peace, and now I'll gracefully (if I'm allowed to!) :rolleyes:
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
"Perhaps a picture of a squirrel playing a harmonica will make you feel better? "

Apparently not.
 

DeletedUser8152

Huh, I don't do much moderating in the debate hall, but I see there is a rule that threads are locked after 100 posts. That seems appropriate here, I guess that everyone has had their say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top