Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:41:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2740 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
| |
| |
| |
Good point! As long as no one is being harmed, they should go for it.
|
Then I guess we disagree.
|
I knew that. What I don’t know is why. Why are you opposed to those in
particular?
|
Practical and other utilitarian arguments aside, let’s just say they go
against my religious belief system.
|
Fair enough. When the Government and your church leaders tell you that you must
accept the marriage of gays within your church, you can protest all you like,
and I’ll be right there with you in expressing that feeling. Unfortunately,
that’s not what’s happening in this case; rather, it’s a case of a religious
majority attempting to lay sole claim to what is in its functional sense a
*legal* relationship.
| |
| |
Or maybe, like you,
they buy into the sacred institution of marriage, but just think it should
apply to them too.
|
Unfortunately, that is sacriledge.
|
Here’s the crux of the problem (no pun intended). What gives you, or any single
religious denomination for that matter, the right to use your standards to
define what members of other religious (or irreligious!) communities do? The
fight against abortion is at least understandible from the viewpoint of the
secular prohibition of murder, but who are gays hurting by wanting to marry?
Who are you, as a Christian, to tell the Buddhists (say) who they can unite in
marriage, and to tell the state how to handle secular legal matters pertaining
to said union?
Are you seriously concerned that they will damage the sanctity of marriage?
Because, of course, heterosexuals would never, ever, ever cheapen holy
matrimony. It’s not like we have Elvis impersonators and drive-thru wedding
chapels or anything, right? Right?
| |
| |
I dunno, I don’t currently have any close gay friends to
ping about it.
|
Pity. I have heard more than a few gays speak out against this attack on the
institution of marriage. They recognize that debasing marriage does no real
good for gays, but merely to engender bitterness towards them.
|
So let’s see, it’s a bad idea because other people have a problem with it,
other people who are not in the slightest bit being harmed? Great rationale
there, and while it may be true, it is not in itself valid. “Debasing
marriage?” Please read above, look at the divorce and infidelity incidence, and
please restate the whole question of “debasing marriage.” If you don’t agree,
then don’t let them marry in your church. Stop denying them the benefit of
civil union just because you hew to some long-discredited Kinsey canard about
“the average homosexual” and the belief that someone who would violate one
aspect of your sexual mores would obviously violate them all pell-mell.
If gays could marry, are you really worried that your marriage would somehow
fall apart? What are you really afraid of here? The implications of such a
causal chain are making my eyebrows arch at this very moment.
| |
| |
I don’t think so. They are merely attempting to achieve parity in the
easiest way.
|
It is going to blow up in their faces.
|
Because of people with kneejerk reactions, feeling threatened about things that
do not directly affect them.
| |
| |
This has yet to be shown. At every turn you (and others who share your
general stance with whom I’ve talked) refuse to point to this alleged harm.
|
This issue is going to split the Episcopalian Church in half.
|
Yeah, the timeless Episcopalian (Anglican) Church is under threat! I mean, wow,
I don’t think the question of marriage and its “debasement” has ever caused a
religious schism like this...
**cough cough** **Henry VIII** **cough**
| |
| |
| |
and is completely unnecessary.
|
But it’s approachable.
| |
That is, unless there are ulterior motives involved.
|
What are you suggesting? I can’t even fabricate a tasty conspiracy in my
mind which is what you’re seeming to point toward.
|
Normalizing homosexuality/bisexuality as a lifestyle choice. Though I
realize that many gays (especially men) are hardwired the way they are, I
believe that sexuality is a lot less preset than once believed. Your attempt
failed at a later stage in life; influences earlier on may have made the
difference.
|
I’ve never met anyone who portrayed homosexuality as a “choice” somehow. I
mean, who the heck would choose to be a member of a group hated, reviled,
occasionally killed brutally by strangers, and otherwise maltreated by large
segments of the population?
Your statements strike me as disingenuous at best.
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| "Mr L F Braun" <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:HzMHDG.1E6q@lugnet.com... (...) mean, wow, (...) caused a (...) Yea, anyone who is at least nominally a Christian who isn't Catholic has no business worrying about splitting churches. If (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Practical and other utilitarian arguments aside, let's just say they go against my religious belief system. (...) Life is hard; it's no excuse. I'd say you may be correct and that that realization is irresponsible. (...) Unfortunately, that is (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
