Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not sure what you mean by your question, "Are you your own?"

Some Christian!

It gets to the heart and soul of this issue.

If you are indeed your own, then you are right, why would God want to deny you from your full potential? However, Christianity has a very different presupposition.

Think as to what biblical reference I refer to.

Can you re-quote it?

As soon as you mentioned APA I anticipated this tack.

Give me a minute.

[Aeson]

Kontiki,

I guess this will be a point we will disagree upon into perpetuity. I know what you are saying, I think you know what I am saying, and it seems to be the same thing outside the disagreement on the use of the terms jurisdiction, state, allow, prevent, ect.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117059&pagenumber=3

Bottom of page three.

I quote what you just posted.

[MrFun]

Ok -- I got your post where you countered with your continence statement.


As for . . .
"If you are indeed your own, then you are right, why would God want to deny you from your full potential? However, Christianity has a very different presupposition."

Which Christian denomination are you specifically referring to? This is besides the fact that I am currently a non-denominational Christian.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a biblical reference Mr. Fun, widely known.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Can they? Same way everyone else can. They can, if they so desire, marry someone of the opposite sex.

So you are saying this is the only way a homosexual can be a good parent? EDIT: Sorry, meant to use "single parent" not homosexual

Again, it changes the nature of the union. None of the others do. So far as I can see the only compromise that works is to do away with marriage altogether, and to kick things over to the churches.

The compromise in the other case is one between "allow only heterosexuals to marry" and "allow only homosexuals to marry". This is probably where those arguing for homosexual marriage are at a disadvantage. Almost no one is so extremist to suggest only homosexual marriage, but there are many who extremist enough to actively support only heterosexual marriage.

This makes the compromise look like it falls in an impossible region to legislate, when in fact the compromise is being suggested by the homosexual marriage supporters in the first place. (haggling rules I guess)

Interference is a broad term, to which I do not believe the state can avoid 'interfering' unless they do away with marriage altogether.

Which was my point. By "not interfering" I meant completely remove the government involvement from marriage.

I have never used the term 'abomination to God.'

I wasn't directly quoting you of course. It was referencing scripture you have used in the past to support arguments. Not sure if you've used Lev 18:22, but you have used some that paint homosexuality as a sin.

So are you saying homosexuality is not an abomination in God's eyes?

This is true, but on the whole, you get a much better outcome with two parents of the opposite gender.

So reward the parents who take care of their kids and do well by some criteria. Don't just reward heterosexual couples who may or may not meet that criteria, and ignore other couples and single parents who do.

No one has even tried to deal with my argument with respect to gender roles, which explains why we see this result. It makes sense to me, so why experiment with children?

If you look back through the thread to my initial replies you ignored, you will se I addressed this. I agree that children need positive male and female role models, but they don't necessarily have to be the parents.

Single parents can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples if they also include positive role models of the opposite gender in their child's life. Same with homosexual couples.

There are solid reasons for doing this by marriage. Raising children is one thing, but that does not give you the whole package. Having children, in marriage is the best outcome, and can be gotten by providing benefits for young families.

I am the result of a child raised in a loving heterosexual environment. I turned out extraordinarily unbalanced. I know those who have single parents who have adapted much better to life than I. I know those who have had homosexual parents and turned out better as well. I know kids who were adopted and turned out great. I have known many kids from heterosexual marriages where they were abused and neglected.

The only conclusion that my experience supports is that the quality of the parents matters, not the number, genetic status, or sexual orientation thereof.

[Giancarlo]

This is why I'm not christian...

[Whaleboy]

Wow this thread has really turned to brown

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's a biblical reference Mr. Fun, widely known.

And I'm wondering if different Christian denominations take different views on this Biblical text.

And let's remember that the Bible was written by humans who thought they were writing what God wanted them to write.

[KrazyHorse]

The Bible was physically written by humans, however it was divinely inspired and thus the unadulterated Word of God.

[Whaleboy]

If you're going to use the bible as documentary evidence, you need to provide sources for that, put simply, it doesn't cut any ice.

[MrFun]

The Bible can be a guide for one's faith as long as you do not take the text literally.

It would be impossible for anyone to faithfully follow all of the Bible's text literally.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So far every single legal precedent has failed to uphold freedom of religion.

I see.

Which faith are you currently being forced to practise?

Who are the state's enforcers?

Utter inflammatory rubbish, as usual.

As for 'changing the nature of the union'- how, exactly? Since marriage has never only been between one man/one woman- remember King Solomon, arrayed in all his splendour, with SEVEN HUNDRED WIVES, and concubines, too?

It's never only been between a man and a woman- but of course you'll discount gay marriages in other cultures, as per.

It's never only been for heterosexuals- as Loving -v- Virginia so aptly illustrates.

It's never always been for love, been for procreation, been between two consenting people, between two adults, been between two people (as Venice and the Adriatic shows).

So any more mirages to conjure up, Benny?

You've previously stated on this topic that even if gay marriage receives legal recognition in North America that won't stop it being a sin.

Well that point of view and two dollars will get you a piss poor cup of coffee. Sin might have some meaning to you- but for those of us with no religious blinkers on, it means diddly squat.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

At least now you have a chance to educate me, eh?


People in Canada are in favour of a model of eugenics


The state has tried through a variety of means to regulate how many children a person has, and rather than infanticide, wholly supports, and encourages abortion services.

Kropotkin may suggest an ideal state, but in reality, this state reverts to chaos.


Which religion?

No taxation without representation. If marriage, as a public institution, provides benefits, and is regulated by the state, then the members of the public have a say in marriage.

Let's address the last point first, shall we?

I pay taxes. I get no say as to how you get married. I think I should have a say in how I get married though, and to whom.

Gosh, which adherents of which creed militated to get the words 'under god' added to a previously religion free pledge? I'd have to say the Catholic Knights of Columbus, who clearly were ignoring the words of their chosen deity, in their chosen holy book, but one can't expect consistency from Christians (it's in the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew- you look it up, I'm tired of constantly 'educating' you.)

As for consistency, perhaps you could maintain some- the state in Canada is not interested in nor does it mandate, how many children you may, or may not have- clearly in your religious fervour, you're getting it mixed up with the Soviet Union, China, and Nazi Germany. 'People' are in favour of fast cars- the state doesn't force you to buy them.

The state provides some services, that's all. Use them, don't use them. It's your CHOICE.

Same with religion- for Jefferson (who you ironically partially quote) religion was a private matter, between the person and their deity, if they had one.

I don't see Jefferson, or Adams, or Madison supporting state subsidized religion. Nor the Anabaptists for that matter, but then your brand of Christianity seems to want things all ways, doesn't it?

So good to see that you've been educated with regard to the persecution of homosexuals though. You should read the whole of the text before chopping it up and asking for a cite, especially when it follows immediately after.

[Whaleboy]

The Bible can be a guide for one's faith as long as you do not take the text literally.

It would be impossible for anyone to faithfully follow all of the Bible's text literally.

Agreed, but we can't use it as evidence or argument, like the "God says so" argument, because there are merely statements, and no reasoning in Leviticus to my knowledge. As such, it is useless in a critical argument.