Welcome to the 13th century, NC!

[CanuckMA]

Ballen, you're right, the Bible should never enter this debate. But it does.


In the end, it's simple. Gay marriage should be allowed because he current situation denies a large number of legal and economic rights and advantages to a minority solely because of what they are.There needs to be bullet proof protection for religious insttutions and clergy who do not want to perform those marriages. But marriage is a civil legal matter anyway. For an idea on how to draft such legislation, look at Canada. We've had gay marriage for quite a while now, and there has never been a lawsuit brough against clergy for refusal to perform a ceremony. And our society has not devolved into chaos.

 

[granfire]

While it is true that a country should not be concerned about the laws of another, I find it interesting that very Catholic and conservative nations already have the equality on the books.

 

[ballen0351]

And our society has not devolved into chaos.

I dont know about that ive been to canada and that stuff you call bacon is so NOT bacon

 

[CanuckMA]

I dont know about that ive been to canada and that stuff you call bacon is so NOT bacon

And that fat laced strips of pork bellies is?

But hell, what do i know. I never touch the stuff.

 

[ballen0351]

if marriage is only a civil arrangment then why not change all marriages to a contract. Let churches keep marriages but give them no legal standing.

 

[rframe]

The Bible keeps getting brought up because it is usuallly the fall back argument against gay marriage.

It is brought up because laws (including what legal rights or privileges should be given to people in various situations) are based on the moral outlook (what ought to be) of someone. In a democratic or republic society, those laws are to reflect the beliefs of the population.

Individuals build their moral standards on many things including their experiences and their guiding world views. For large numbers of people the bible is strongly influential to their world view. To say they are wrong for holding their views is close-minded and ignorant, even if you do disagree with them.

 

[CanuckMA]

Church marriages have no legal standings. It's the civil contract that is signed as well that convey legal standing. The civil document is just a convinient way to advise the state that those 2 people can enjoy all the advantages given by the state.

 

[Steve]

The biggest clue for me that the outrage over gay marriage is at its root unethical is that time and again, those who are staunchly opposed to it reverse their positions completely when someone whom they love comes out as gay. Pastors who have children who are gay are suddenly no longer staunchly against it. Once the issue is humanized and people stop thinking of it in terms of "gay agenda" or "gay community" and start thinking about it in terms of people who are gay, the injustice becomes, IMO, pretty clear.

That said, the most alarming thing about this in my opinion has nothing to do with gay marriage. It's the overt, public, ratified endorsement of discrimination against a specific subset of citizens. To date, this country and our States has taken a position that discrimination is okay against most groups, with a few very specific exceptions in the form of protected categories. This is, to my knowledge, the first time that any State has specifically endorsed discrimination to the point where it is illegal to NOT discriminate. While I can choose not to hire someone because they have tattoos on their face or multiple piercings or because they refuse to bathe, I can also choose NOT to discriminate on those grounds. Saying that we MUST discriminate against gay people by barring them specifically as a result of an amendment to a State's constitution is, frankly, scary to me.

 

[oftheherd1]

It likey meant sodomy. that is fairly clear. What is not there is averything else, including the idea that being a homosexual is a sin per say.

"Thou shall not kill"

Bad translation right there. The Hebrew reads "No murder"

How do you define sin, so you know what not to do?

I do not speak Hebrew, and therefore an unable to comment with as much knowledge as you. But in looking for commentaries on "Thou shalt not kill" I found this URL, http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nokilling.html and specifically this:

Ratsach is used only a few times in the OT. In long passages in Numbers 35, Deut. 19, and Joshua 20-21, it is used to describe the act of someone who has committed what we might call manslaughter, or negligence; but it seems that there is more to the matter. Passing by places where the word is used but there are no contextual clues (Is. 1:21; Jer. 7:9; Hos. 4:2), we have this:

1. In Judges 20:4, it describes the killing of a woman who was in a house that was beset upon by night by a gang of evil men.
2. In 1 Kings 21:19, the Lord rhetorically asks Ahab if he has ratsached. This is after Ahab has concluded a plot to do away with Naboth by having two fellows say they have heard Naboth blaspheme. (This word also describes Ahab in 2 Kings 6:32.)
3. In Job 24:14, it describes one who in the light sets upon the poor and the needy, and is a thief at night.
4. In Ps. 62:3, it describes the fate of someone who is not prepared for what will happen to them, for they have no foundation in God. In Ps. 94:6 it describes the wicked who kill the widow and the stranger -- those who are helpless and disoriented.
5. In Prov. 22:13, it describes something a lion will do to the slothful man. This verse, we shall see, is the key to the whole puzzle.
6. In Hos. 6:9, it is applied to priests who commit iniquity, with a comparison to a troop of robbers waiting for someone.

Taken together, we can discern a simple definition of ratsach: It refers to any killing that is done in the manner of a predatory animal -- which means either:

1. as an angry reaction to stimulus; or
2. lying in wait, as one waits for prey.

...


Nakah occurs in the OT almost 500 times. But it is a word that is used in the sense of striking (Gen. 19:11, where land is nakahed), defeating or conquering (Gen. 14:5, 7, where Abraham nakahs an army). It does not mean "to kill" but is given that definition by context alone. Being that nakah does carry this variety of nuances, it is erroneous to allege that there is some contradiction in Scripture over nakah.


Does any of that make sense to you with your understanding of Hebrew? If not, I would appreciate your comments on why not. Thanks for your reply.

 

[granfire]

if marriage is only a civil arrangment then why not change all marriages to a contract. Let churches keep marriages but give them no legal standing.

it IS a contract.
Always has been.

 

[CanuckMA]

oftheherd1, you don't need an analysis of the text. Hebrew has a word for murder and a word for kill. the commandement uses the word for murder.

 

[ballen0351]

it IS a contract.
Always has been.

It seems to me the fight is all over the word marriage not the defenition. In places where civil unuions arw legal thats not good enough they want to be called married.

 

[CanuckMA]

Because civil unions do not usually carry the exact same rights as marriage. You can call the contract whatever you want, as long as there is one word and one definition for gay and not gay couples. Using marriage is easier because of the seer number of laws that reference that word. All you need to do is change the definition from one man and one woman to 2 people. To use a new word means that every law has to be changed. To use a new word strictly for gay marriage, means that not only every law still needs to be changed, but it opens the possibility of granting rights to one but not the other.

 

[granfire]

It seems to me the fight is all over the word marriage not the defenition. In places where civil unuions arw legal thats not good enough they want to be called married.

Well, I do believe there is always a devil in the detail.
I think they don't care what it is actually called, as long as it entails the exact same benefits as marriage.

I have not kept up with it (got a bit busy with life as it happens around me) but the civil union and marriage do not include exact same right. That is the sticking point usually.

I am sure elder has the details on a hot key though.

 

[granfire]

oftheherd1, you don't need an analysis of the text. Hebrew has a word for murder and a word for kill. the commandement uses the word for murder.

and obviously English has a word for both, too....

 

[ballen0351]

Im not sure why they want to be married in the first place dont they see how sad us straight married guys are why do it to themselves

 

[ballen0351]

oftheherd1, you don't need an analysis of the text. Hebrew has a word for murder and a word for kill. the commandement uses the word for murder.

Taken out of context thats true but in the context of entire book you know what def they are talking about.

 

[granfire]

Im not sure why they want to be married in the first place dont they see how sad us straight married guys are why do it to themselves

LOL

You think us straight married guys fair better?! :lfao:

(on that note, MAKE them get married, they should be just as happy as we are.... )

That should read gals....

 

[WC_lun]

Marriage is a contract, submitted to the state, and following the state's laws and paying a fee to recieve the state's recognition of that contract. The issue now is that some member's of our society must pass fundamentalist Christian values test as well to recieve state recognition of thier marriage, even if they do not prescribe to that particluar belief system. If this same standard was held to different parts of our society, there would be hell to pay. To make matters even more wrong in my opinion, there has been no provable reasons why gays should not marry and many provable reasons why they should be allowed to. This means supposed religiuos beliefs are now the only basis for law. Whe that "relifious belief" is shown to be based upon prejudice, it makes it even more difficult to see how these laws are allowed to be.

The very same arguements against gay marriage were used to justify laws against bi-racial marriages. Bi-racial marriages are now looked upon as fairly common. Anyone proposing a law against bi-racial marriage today would be looked at as a bigoted fool, yet the very same reasons were used to defend such prejudice in our history. If the arguements did not hold up then, why are we as a country so quick to give them credence now. This is nothing more than some people legislating thier own prejudice into law, so the rest of us have to abide by someone else's bigotry.

As a country, we want to pride ourselves on our rule of law and our somewhat reasoned approach on how ideas become laws in this country. Someone sees a legitimate need for a law. A reason a particular law would help a segment of our society. It then becomes voted on and if enough people agree, yes there is a need for this and yes it would be beneficial to have this law, its becomes law. In this case, there is not benefit to outlawing gay marriage. Married gays posses no risk to society by being married. It could be argued with the ability to marriage, gays would pose less harm. However, laws are being passed state to state that have no benefit of being passed, they are just a result of prejudice. That bothers me and makes me ashamed that so many are prejudiced as to think these laws are anything other than the bigotry they are.

Prejudice and bigotry should not be the basis for law, any law. If this becomes acceptable how will you argue against a law that uses those same markers to pass a law that effects you. Will you be satisfied to wait out bad laws like this if you are the target? I know moving to a different state has been mentioned. What if you are poor or have many many ties to the community. This becomes much more difficult. Then you are also moving due to the bigotry of others.

In my opinion, we should be doing all we can to support people having loving, monogomous relationships. Those things have a positive effect on society. We should be doing everything we can to keep prejusdice and bigotry from being alloed purchase in our society. Bigotry and prejudice are not postive influences on our society.

 

[ballen0351]

And thats your opinion. In this case more NC voters dont share your opinion and thats their opinion.