Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

[Queller]

Yes, that's the legal definition. When 2 people have intercourse, they are spiritually married.

Well, we're talking about the legal definition so why don't we stay with that.

 

[Queller]

It also depends on a person's values. If marriage to a Christian is something sacred, of God, and is to be for life, then that person will place more importance of defining it correctly. I guess for homosexuals, it's more of a wishy-washy thing to change the meaning of so it's fits their own definition, even if it means the overthrowing of the will of voters when the question is brought to them to decide.

Can I assume then if it was the will of the voters to reinstate slavery, you would be OK with that vote?

 

[Queller]

Apparently, neither do the values of the majority of voters.

That's right, they don't. Not when that will infringes on the rights of others.

 

[Cute Tink]

Yes, that's the legal definition. When 2 people have intercourse, they are spiritually married.

So, when two people of the same sex have intercourse they are spiritually married? Good to know!

 

[Queller]

The vote was whether or not to allow gay marriage. Gay marriage hadn't existed yet. The voters decided they didn't want it in their communities. What does that tell you about what the majority wants and values? So the fact that it is law doesn't mean it was by the will of the people.

The "will of the people" cannot be used to deny or prevent Americans from accessing their rights without a significant secular reason to do so.

 

[Aldebaran]

What does that tell me about what the majority wants and values? That people want to be heavily involved in the lives of people they will never meet, even when it is something that will not affect them in the slightest.

Well hey! If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

There are plenty of Christians who believe marriage is between any two consenting, non-related adults. There are even Christian churches in NC suing to be able to perform same-sex marriages.

"Plenty" for what? Just because they exist doesn't make them the majority and it doesn't make them right. Plenty of gays didn't want to see gay marriage pushed through either because they thought it made them seem like they were getting too pushy on the subject.

Except you are wrong. There are plenty of limits and actually more are coming into place. You and other religious people are being restricted about how much you can use your religion to control other people's lives.

And, apparently, to stop people like you and other gays from pushing your values on the rest of us. Yes, that is what you are trying to do, or you wouldn't be on this forum.

Can I assume then if it was the will of the voters to reinstate slavery, you would be OK with that vote?

Does it matter what I think? The law would still be the law, right? The voters vote and the majority wins. It doesn't mean you'd have to go along with it, however, just as many didn't go along with it back when it was legal.

 

[bhsmte]

Well hey! If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?



"Plenty" for what? Just because they exist doesn't make them the majority and it doesn't make them right. Plenty of gays didn't want to see gay marriage pushed through either because they thought it made them seem like they were getting too pushy on the subject.



And, apparently, to stop people like you and other gays from pushing your values on the rest of us. Yes, that is what you are trying to do, or you wouldn't be on this forum.



Does it matter what I think? The law would still be the law, right? The voters vote and the majority wins. It doesn't mean you'd have to go along with it, however, just as many didn't go along with it back when it was legal.

Are you allowed to believe in whatever God you like and values you choose to subscribe to, or is someone interfering with your personal beliefs and values?

 

[Belk]

Actually, they can consent to anything they want. It's just not recognized in the legal sense of the word. But just watch the laws slowly change. There doesn't seem to be any limits anymore.

Wow, that slope is slippery.

 

[Queller]

Well hey! If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

Nothing except for that pesky little document we call the Constitution.

"Plenty" for what?

Plenty for disproving your claim that Christians believe "marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman." Had you said Some Christians believe that, there would have been no problem.

Just because they exist doesn't make them the majority and it doesn't make them right.

Didn't say I did in either case, did I?

Plenty of gays didn't want to see gay marriage pushed through either because they thought it made them seem like they were getting too pushy on the subject.

That's true. So what?

Does it matter what I think? The law would still be the law, right? The voters vote and the majority wins.

Sorry but no, that isn't how it works.

It doesn't mean you'd have to go along with it, however, just as many didn't go along with it back when it was legal.

Just as many didn't go along with the laws banning same-sex marriage and look where that is going. Every single lawsuit against the bans has been successful so far.

 

[Cute Tink]

Well hey! If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

Other than the fact that it's unconstitutional and/or a complete violation of the principles of freedom?

And, apparently, to stop people like you and other gays from pushing your values on the rest of us. Yes, that is what you are trying to do, or you wouldn't be on this forum.

I'm sorry I'm pushing the values of freedom on you. I know that's rude.

And I'm on this forum because I find it very enjoyable to discuss a variety of issues with people.

I'm frankly not trying to push any values on anyone. What I'm trying to do is advocate against having other people's values oppress people.

 

[Aldebaran]

Are you allowed to believe in whatever God you like and values you choose to subscribe to, or is someone interfering with your personal beliefs and values?

I thought I was, but some people on this forum seem to like arguing about it.

Nothing except for that pesky little document we call tehe Constitution.

The constitution hasn't stopped your president from doing what he wants. It doesn't have the same authority it used to have.

I'm sorry I'm pushing the values of freedom on you. I know that's rude.

Freedom? Do I have the freedom to not agree with you? Do I have the freedom to see God's word as the way I want to live? Those freedoms don't seem to be respected here. Am I wrong? If I am, then I don't understand what some of you guys have a problem with when I state my values.

 

[bhsmte]

I thought I was, but some people on this forum seem to like arguing about it.



The constitution hasn't stopped your president from doing what he wants. It doesn't have the same authority it used to have.



Freedom? Do I have the freedom to not agree with you? Do I have the freedom to see God's word as the way I want to live? Those freedoms don't seem to be respected here. Am I wrong? If I am, then I don't understand what some of you guys have a problem with when I state my values.

People disagreeing with you doesn't stop you from believing as you wish. Do you expect everyone to agree with you?

No one has a problem with you stating your values, they just don't agree with them. You can still have them though, correct?

 

[Aldebaran]

People disagreeing with you doesn't stop you from believing as you wish. Do you expect everyone to agree with you?

No, I just expect you to make sense. But of course you have the freedom to not make sense. Your choice.

 

[Freodin]

I thought I was, but some people on this forum seem to like arguing about it.



The constitution hasn't stopped your president from doing what he wants. It doesn't have the same authority it used to have.



Freedom? Do I have the freedom to not agree with you? Do I have the freedom to see God's word as the way I want to live? Those freedoms don't seem to be respected here. Am I wrong? If I am, then I don't understand what some of you guys have a problem with when I state my values.

Your freedom ends where another one's freedom begins.

You can freely state your values. And we can freely disagree with them.

You cannot have the one without the other.

 

[bhsmte]

No, I just expect you to make sense. But of course you have the freedom to not make sense. Your choice.

Oh the irony, but that's ok.

Keep stating what you like, no one is stopping you. Of course, you may get people who disagree and they will state their position, just as you have stated yours.

And of course, having a degree of intellectual honesty in the process always helps.

 

[Cute Tink]

Freedom? Do I have the freedom to not agree with you?

Yup. I don't see where I tried to stop you in any way. Feel free to point it out if you saw it.

Do I have the freedom to see God's word as the way I want to live?

If that's how you want to live your life, then I'm not going to stop you.

Those freedoms don't seem to be respected here. Am I wrong? If I am, then I don't understand what some of you guys have a problem with when I state my values.

I don't see how your ideas are not being respected. Please feel free to quote how your ideas are not being respected.

You are free to state your values. I am less free to state mine here (certain rules restrict what I can say).

My problem begins when you (or others) want to use your personal values to restrict the freedoms of others.

 

[Aldebaran]

Your freedom ends where another one's freedom begins.

There seems to be plenty of disagreement as to where that line is drawn. If I say that I believe gay sex is deviant behavior and that it shouldn't be endorsed by government in the form of recognizing people who it as being married, then I'm called a hater. Does that indicate respect for MY freedom? If a christian baker doesn't feel right about baking a cake for a gay couple for the "wedding", he's taken to court and sued, even though the couple could have simply gone to another baker. Is that a show of respect for HIS freedom?

Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. So why should it be strange or hateful of me when I see it as abnormal when suddenly 2 men want to do what, up until very recently, was between members of the opposite sex?

Here's my viewpoint about this whole subject:
Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.

Now, if you don't believe in God or the credibility of the bible, then you're not going to have the same basis of belief as the majority of members on this forum, which seriously makes me wonder why you and many others here come and bring up topics like this. You don't seem receptive to what we say. So really, what is it you're trying to accomplish?

 

[Cute Tink]

If I say that I believe gay sex is deviant behavior and that it shouldn't be endorsed by government in the form of recognizing people who it as being married, then I'm called a hater.

Um... equating sex and marriage doesn't necessarily endear you. Unless you mean that ALL marriage is just about sex, then please feel free to clarify.

Does that indicate respect for MY freedom?

Having freedom doesn't necessarily mean that your opinion is going to be respected.

If a christian baker doesn't feel right about baking a cake for a gay couple for the "wedding", he's taken to court and sued, even though the couple could have simply gone to another baker. Is that a show of respect for HIS freedom?

He broke a law. This has been covered. He didn't (as far as I'm aware) do anything to change the law or to alter his business so as to avoid the law. That was his error. That's what got him sued.

Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. So why should it be strange or hateful of me when I see it as abnormal when suddenly 2 men want to do what, up until very recently, was between members of the opposite sex?

I'm curious. I know some people refer to that position in and of itself as hateful, but I seem to have missed where you were called hateful in this topic for just saying this. Can you point it out? If not, then why bring up this at this point in the discussion?

Now, if you don't believe in God or the credibility of the bible, then you're not going to have the same basis of belief as the majority of members on this forum, which seriously makes me wonder why you and many others here come and bring up topics like this. You don't seem receptive to what we say. So really, what is it you're trying to accomplish?

I'm trying to accomplish a few things on this forum. In topics like this, I'm hoping to convey the reality that in the US, legal marriage and religious marriage are two separate and distinct topics. Legal marriage is the only thing I'd like to see change. Religious marriage is not a matter for the law or government to regulate.

Now, that being said, why isn't having sole control over what marriages are conducted within your church enough for you? Why do some people believe they must deny legal recognition of a relationship to other people?

 

[Aldebaran]

why isn't having sole control over what marriages are conducted within your church enough for you? Why do some people believe they must deny legal recognition of a relationship to other people?

Because these things are never an end in themselves. They are always a stepping stone toward something else. One thing is legalized, so then it becomes an argument for something else to be legalized. First, blacks were freed, then desegregated, then allowed to marry interracially, then formed special interest groups where they demanded preferential (not equal) treatment. At this point, we have a black president and plenty of black people in the highest levels of government, and yet they still claim we are a racist country. If they were to look back at where they came from and where they are now--accusing anyone who is white of being 'racist" simply for disagreeing with them--they should be happy, but are they? (I know I'll get plenty of feedback on this!)

I see the homosexuals doing the same progression: First they are allowed to be gay, but in the "closet". Then they want to display what they do publicly and in gay pride parades, then they want to have civil unions, then to marry each other and have it recognized as equal as traditional marriage, then they want to force people who are opposed to it to recognize it. I don't think it would be too far fetched of an idea that they'll be demanding that pastors will no longer be allowed to preach homosexuality as being a sin, lest the church lose its tax exempt status. Yeah, I've heard of that being proposed already.

And don't even get me started about how schools are now allowing children who "feel" like the opposite sex to use the opposite sex's restroom and locker room. I mean, come on!

It's a progression of events that the "progressives" use to get what they want. If it's not stopped at some point, this country will be in 25 years something that even you will think has gone too far. Many NOW already think so.

 

[Blessedj01]

I'm not addressing your other remarks because it's all your opinion versus mine.

If there is absolutely no difference between these two concepts in NZ... then why bother with having two different concepts?

Precisely. Civil Unions were created for people uncomfortable with the concept of marriage, but then society shifted and all of a sudden marriage was something everyone wanted a part of even if they had no identification with it's culture.

To that other poster, I know there are gay Christians. I consider that to be an unnecessary label anyway. We are all sinners.