Civil Unions For All Gay Couples or For All

[brightmorningstar]

Blackwater Babe,

Considering we are supposed to be in the world, but not of the world, one assumes the obvious answer is "let them".

Depends whether one believes that either.

 

[artybloke]

It's an opinion, not the acknowledgement of "all honest people."

Of course it's an opinion. But so is the other point of view; so "all honest people" is nothing more than rhetoric whether it comes from me or brightmorningstar is it not? So in other words, the only honest opinion is to say, we don't really know what the passage's context is, therefore to make one interpretation a rule above the other is nothing more than the trumping of your own opinion.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Yeah...long story. Basically, anything that can possibly upset anyone, at any time, for any reason, is banned on STR. It's like we're walking on eggshells around here. However, in practice, "conservative" complaints (like calling something modernism or heresy) receive a greater outcry than "liberal" name-calling ever does.

I see. Thanks for the explaination

 

[dandylion1984]

Everybody, not just Christians, is able to see part of the truth. Science is as objective as it can be, and that's part of the truth about our world and how it works. Art, music & literature are non-propositional ways of finding the truth about the world. Other faiths have truths we might learn from if we allow ourselves.

Yes, true. I did not mean to suggest that there is not truth outside of Christianity and that truth is only accessible to Christians.

Your last statement is why I chose the Christian-Seeker symbol. Because we should never stop asking questions, especially of those who claim authority over us...

Amen.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Blackwater Babe,
Depends whether one believes that either.

Thats it, I'm out.

 

[Adam Warlock]

Of course it's an opinion. But so is the other point of view; so "all honest people" is nothing more than rhetoric whether it comes from me or brightmorningstar is it not? So in other words, the only honest opinion is to say, we don't really know what the passage's context is, therefore to make one interpretation a rule above the other is nothing more than the trumping of your own opinion.

So do you believe that one's own personal interpretation is the highest authority, since it is as likely to be "true" as any other interpretation?

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dandylion1984,

This is where we disagree and no amount of argument is going to change our opinions.

Nope, I can see what the scripture says, and I can see you disagree with what it says.
Now if you do not believe that just because Paul wrote something, he is correct, then maybe he didnt receive what he preached from the risen Lord as he claimed and thus the parts of the Nicene Creed that come from his epistles are not correct?

Rather, we need to look at multiple points of view.

No we dont, you do, but I dont. I will give you what the scripture says I am not interested in your own judgements of the reliability of scripture.

 

[brightmorningstar]

artybloke,
[/quote] Of course it's an opinion. But so is the other point of view; so "all honest people" is nothing more than rhetoric whether it comes from me or brightmorningstar is it not? So in other words, the only honest opinion is to say, we don't really know what the passage's context is, therefore to make one interpretation a rule above the other is nothing more than the trumping of your own opinion. [/quote] I can see what they say and can quote them, cut the false accustion, thats also a sin btw

 

[brightmorningstar]

So do you believe that one's own personal interpretation is the highest authority, since it is as likely to be "true" as any other interpretation?

Spot on. Its called humanism.

 

[dandylion1984]

Dandylion1984,
Nope, I can see what the scripture says, and I can see you disagree with what it says.
Now if you do not believe that just because Paul wrote something, he is correct, then maybe he didnt receive what he preached from the risen Lord as he claimed and thus the parts of the Nicene Creed that come from his epistles are not correct?
No we dont, you do, but I dont. I will give you what the scripture says I am not interested in your own judgements of the reliability of scripture.

What you are saying is that because I don't believe in your interruption of scripture, I am wrong because you know the truth and I do not. Rather I say it is equally likely either of us is correct or incorrect.

I don't claim to have to know the Truth. Only that I have one interpretation of the truth. And that I think my belief is correct.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sometimes Scripture is plain as day, sometimes it's not. Scripture is very clear about homosexuality, very very clear. There is no "he said, she said" with this. Some people can put spin on the Pauline statements with speculation like, "oh, Paul wasn't condemning homosexuality, just unfaithful homosexuals who had multiple partners!" That's beyond a stretch! We can apply that stretchy logic to anything.

The OT and NT condemns gay acts, plain and simple. BMS is right on this.

What you are saying is that because I don't believe in your interruption of scripture, I am wrong because you know the truth and I do not. Rather I say it is equally likely either of us is correct or incorrect.

I don't claim to have to know the Truth. Only that I have one interpretation of the truth. And that I think my belief is correct.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don't believe in civil unions either. Homosexuals should not be allowed to approximate marriage either. It's immoral.

I think you're using some apples and oranges logic, Mark. Nobody suggested we stone sinners. Nobody is saying we take Mosaic Law as the law of the land. But we need a moral compass. Up until now that moral compass has been the Judeo-Christian views on marriage. But I also mentioned to you that male-female normal marriage has been not only the norm of the Christians and Jews but also the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even the very very very pro-gay ancient Greeks and Romans. You neglected to address that. The greeks and romans were renowned for embracing bisexuality and the gay lifestyle; yet never did they seek to normalize it as marriage or civil union level legitimacy. The United States is based not only on Judeo-Christian ethics but the model of democracy we use is based on the Greeks and Romans and encompasses values from both and those of Christian Europe. We holistically look at all the influences on democracy and we quickly see that there is no precedent for this innovative thinking with morality and marriage. Do you not also agree that this is a slippery slope to polygamy and other bizarre lifestyles? Mentioning that the OT and Muslims allowed polygamy doesn't really have anything to do with this equation. You say that stoning adulterers is a "judeo-christian" value. I don't recall Christians proposing stoning anyone? And Jews stopped doing so more than a millenium ago???? If anything, Christ stood in the way of stoning an adulteress so I don't understand your point there.

You're right. We agree. But sadly, Mark, we agree a lot and you always find a way to disagree with our agreement. It's too bad. Seems contrary at times....

civil unions? nope. another slippery slope.

Are you now arguing that we do not allow polygamy in the US because of scriptural reasons? As you well know, polygamy was accepted in the OT and in the Middle East until relatively recently. There is no biblical prohibition. This is part of the point. We use our interpretation of Scripture and Tradition to decide what laws we should all have.

As you know, I agree with your position regarding marriage. I agree precisely because the definition is NOT about Judeo-Christian values, but rather than the general good of society. And yes, the fact that Muslims and Hindus agree is important.

Scripture tells us to stone those found in adultery. Is that Judeo-Christian value OK? At minimum a scarlet letter seems right. Or so Christians thought at the time.

However, civil unions are a different issue. Do you agree or not?

 

[brightmorningstar]

dandylion1984

What you are saying is that because I don't believe in your interruption of scripture, I am wrong because you know the truth and I do not. Rather I say it is equally likely either of us is correct or incorrect.

You ahvent heard my interpretation of the scriptures cited, so how could you like or dislike it?
No what you have done is the common liberal tactic of attributing what the scripture says to what the person who quotes it thinks. This removes Christ as the authority of that scripture and thuis makes its a "tit-for-tat" relativist debate.

I don't claim to have to know the Truth.

I remind you that in the scripture Jesus when we do what He teaches we know the truth, but to not even recognise what one must do to know the truth is a hopeless position. Yes I know the truth, the truth is Jesus Christ and thus His teaching through the NT is also truth.

As gurneyhalleck1 says the scripture is clear, if you wish to call it unclear then fine I call that wicked suppression of the truth.. do you believe that verse either?

 

[brightmorningstar]

The UK passports applications will now have parent 1 and parent 2 on them. Why?
Simply why?
"The change, which is due to take place within weeks, has been made following claims the original form was ‘discriminatory’ and failed to include same-sex couples looking after a child."
every child has a mother and father,
hello?
Homosexuality is not only anatomically disordered but its whole thinking is outside reality.

 

[mark46]

We agree on many things. Consequently, it is much easier to have a rational discussion of issues where we may agree or disagree.
---------------------------------------------------
POLYGAMY
There is no one who really cares much about this issue. However, if a case were to come to the conservative Supreme Court today, I would guess that the laws against polygamy would struck down, in the context of religious liberty.

CIVIL UNIONS
We are discussing the rights and responsibilities of the state to protect the wishes of partners with regard to property, insurance and medical decisions. Personally, I believe that evangelical stand on this issue has backed the state(s) into a corner. There will be no civil unions because no one really will support that option. So, marriage or nothing the only choice for the state. It is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court declares that marriage cannot be restricted to one man and one woman.

Personally, I find it strange for senior adults in their 80's should be able to have their partnership regularized only if there are one man and one woman.
But I recognize the slippery slope. After all, we wouldn't want the state protecting the rights of all citizens who choose life partners.
===============
BOTTOM LINE
We strongly disagree on this matter. This is somewhat curious since we tend to agree on many other issues of political import.

I don't believe in civil unions either. Homosexuals should not be allowed to approximate marriage either. It's immoral.

I think you're using some apples and oranges logic, Mark. Nobody suggested we stone sinners. Nobody is saying we take Mosaic Law as the law of the land. But we need a moral compass. Up until now that moral compass has been the Judeo-Christian views on marriage. But I also mentioned to you that male-female normal marriage has been not only the norm of the Christians and Jews but also the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even the very very very pro-gay ancient Greeks and Romans. You neglected to address that. The greeks and romans were renowned for embracing bisexuality and the gay lifestyle; yet never did they seek to normalize it as marriage or civil union level legitimacy. The United States is based not only on Judeo-Christian ethics but the model of democracy we use is based on the Greeks and Romans and encompasses values from both and those of Christian Europe. We holistically look at all the influences on democracy and we quickly see that there is no precedent for this innovative thinking with morality and marriage. Do you not also agree that this is a slippery slope to polygamy and other bizarre lifestyles? Mentioning that the OT and Muslims allowed polygamy doesn't really have anything to do with this equation. You say that stoning adulterers is a "judeo-christian" value. I don't recall Christians proposing stoning anyone? And Jews stopped doing so more than a millenium ago???? If anything, Christ stood in the way of stoning an adulteress so I don't understand your point there.

You're right. We agree. But sadly, Mark, we agree a lot and you always find a way to disagree with our agreement. It's too bad. Seems contrary at times....

civil unions? nope. another slippery slope.

 

[dandylion1984]

Sometimes Scripture is plain as day, sometimes it's not. Scripture is very clear about homosexuality, very very clear. There is no "he said, she said" with this. Some people can put spin on the Pauline statements with speculation like, "oh, Paul wasn't condemning homosexuality, just unfaithful homosexuals who had multiple partners!" That's beyond a stretch! We can apply that stretchy logic to anything.

The OT and NT condemns gay acts, plain and simple. BMS is right on this.

Obviously, it is not 'plain as day', because I do not agree with you. I could equally say, it is 'plain as day' that the scripture has little to nothing to say on the subject, which, from my point of view, it is.

 

[kiwimac]

I don't believe in civil unions either. Homosexuals should not be allowed to approximate marriage either. It's immoral.

I think you're using some apples and oranges logic, Mark. Nobody suggested we stone sinners. Nobody is saying we take Mosaic Law as the law of the land. But we need a moral compass. Up until now that moral compass has been the Judeo-Christian views on marriage. But I also mentioned to you that male-female normal marriage has been not only the norm of the Christians and Jews but also the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even the very very very pro-gay ancient Greeks and Romans. You neglected to address that. The greeks and romans were renowned for embracing bisexuality and the gay lifestyle; yet never did they seek to normalize it as marriage or civil union level legitimacy. The United States is based not only on Judeo-Christian ethics but the model of democracy we use is based on the Greeks and Romans and encompasses values from both and those of Christian Europe. We holistically look at all the influences on democracy and we quickly see that there is no precedent for this innovative thinking with morality and marriage. Do you not also agree that this is a slippery slope to polygamy and other bizarre lifestyles? Mentioning that the OT and Muslims allowed polygamy doesn't really have anything to do with this equation. You say that stoning adulterers is a "judeo-christian" value. I don't recall Christians proposing stoning anyone? And Jews stopped doing so more than a millenium ago???? If anything, Christ stood in the way of stoning an adulteress so I don't understand your point there.

You're right. We agree. But sadly, Mark, we agree a lot and you always find a way to disagree with our agreement. It's too bad. Seems contrary at times....

civil unions? nope. another slippery slope.

So, you do not want homosexuals to marry and would deny them civil unions. What exactly would you have them do? I suspect I know.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

We strongly disagree on this? I wouldn't go that far. You are opposed to gay marriage; so am I. You are willing to concede civil unions to them and I am not. I understand your reasoning for wanting to do so and I don't find your reasoning lacking or foolish at all. I would say "strongly" is a very poor choice of words. We're not that far off and I think you make a good argument that makes plenty of sense. I am just not willing to give the gay community any quarter on unions.

But your statement about polygamy is really based on levels of interest. Since there aren't that many, you don't consider the ramifications of the slippery slope much; but that's not how law works. Open the door, you're dead, when it comes to slippery legal slopes. Once heterosexual normal marriages are no longer the "only" valid marriage, get ready for the floodgates because technically we're only basing things on love and property and caring about someone....I think this slippery slope aspect is greater than you speculate it is...And we should never base things on numbers. Just because there aren't a lot of polygamists doesn't make it moral or immoral, legal or illegal. It's all about the law and the rationale behind it.

We agree on many things. Consequently, it is much easier to have a rational discussion of issues where we may agree or disagree.
---------------------------------------------------
POLYGAMY
There is no one who really cares much about this issue. However, if a case were to come to the conservative Supreme Court today, I would guess that the laws against polygamy would struck down, in the context of religious liberty.

CIVIL UNIONS
We are discussing the rights and responsibilities of the state to protect the wishes of partners with regard to property, insurance and medical decisions. Personally, I believe that evangelical stand on this issue has backed the state(s) into a corner. There will be no civil unions because no one really will support that option. So, marriage or nothing the only choice for the state. It is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court declares that marriage cannot be restricted to one man and one woman.

Personally, I find it strange for senior adults in their 80's should be able to have their partnership regularized only if there are one man and one woman.
But I recognize the slippery slope. After all, we wouldn't want the state protecting the rights of all citizens who choose life partners.
===============
BOTTOM LINE
We strongly disagree on this matter. This is somewhat curious since we tend to agree on many other issues of political import.

 

[mark46]

Fair enough.

We strongly disagree on this? I wouldn't go that far. You are opposed to gay marriage; so am I. You are willing to concede civil unions to them and I am not. I understand your reasoning for wanting to do so and I don't find your reasoning lacking or foolish at all. I would say "strongly" is a very poor choice of words. We're not that far off and I think you make a good argument that makes plenty of sense. I am just not willing to give the gay community any quarter on unions.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Not sure what you mean by that...oh well. In any case, you're correct that I am opposed to marriage and civil unions for homosexuals. It is a disordered, sinful lifestyle and I feel it deserves no recognition as a valid relationship. Obviously you feel otherwise. We disagree. The way our world is going and the way morals are headed, don't worry, my opinion will not win the day. We live in a very fallen world.

So, you do not want homosexuals to marry and would deny them civil unions. What exactly would you have them do? I suspect I know.