Obama backs gay marriage

pkm said:
Added in with the fact that the religious right see's marriage as a religious ceremony and this is exactly why they take issue with it. So, simple solution, the government no longer gives a flying fuck if you're married or not. Any benefits/protections granted to a "married" couple are only applied to civil unions. The state ONLY grants civil unions and no longer gives a flying fuck about marriage. You can continue to have your marriage ceremonies if you choose to but it counts for nothing as far as the state is concerned, you would still need to enter into a civil union for any of the benefits/protections. The religious right gets to have their religious ceremony and the state removes any potential religious significance from the government recognized civil union.

At this point, if the right continues to bitch about the idea of homosexuals getting "civil unions" you tell them to go fuck themselves. Homosexuals may not get a "marriage" but in all honesty that would be up to individual churches to decide and they could probably find one that would allow it anyways.
Click to expand...

How do I give you multiple positive ratings?
 
Tomatketchup said:
Really? Are you sure that's not what they said in the past (as in the 17th century and before when homosexuality was still considered okay), because then I wouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...

Edited because Lord buzzkillington over there beat me to the punch and busted out proof.
 
Tomatketchup said:
Still find it odd how they respect homosexuality but not homosexual sex.
Click to expand...
It's not because it's homosexual. All sex outside marriage is considered a sin. Homosexuals can't get married because marriage is intended to facilitate procreative sex, which homosexuals can't have, so that's why the Church disapproves of homosexual sex
 
pkm said:
Snip.
Click to expand...
That's also an issue though. There are religious gay couples, so not being able to marry is a huge insult to them. The idea that your culture rejects your union has caused a lot of anguish and drama for gay rights and institutions.

Traditionally though, since all the major religions were founded before the middle ages, it's no surprise that they encouraged reproduction and unions. It A) kept the possiblity of spreading diseases down and B) stimulated population growth in the safest way possible. The issue is not with the government and their regulating of religion, but the religion themselves. I don't see why the government should have any legal authority over religious unions, thats an issue for the church. Which needs a reality check for the 21st century.
 
Tomatketchup said:
Still find it odd how they respect homosexuality but not homosexual sex.
Click to expand...

But it's not odd in the slightest. The only ones that view homosexual urges as some horrible sin are the whackjobs that probably couldn't understand the Bible even if they had read it. We have no control over our urges and it's partially why you probably won't find any scripture to back up that idea. It's always been the actual act of following through on those urges that sin enters the picture. You can have the desire to fuck that pretty little thing sitting next to you but the moment you act on that urge outside of marriage, that is when you have sinned. The current stance by the church would be the most accurate when viewed in light of scripture. God never commands us to not have the desire to fuck someone of the same sex, just that we shouldn't act upon that urge and follow through with it.
 
Famicon said:
That's also an issue though. There are religious gay couples, so not being able to marry is a huge insult to them. The idea that your culture rejects your union has caused a lot of anguish and drama for gay rights and institutions.

Traditionally though, since all the major religions were founded before the middle ages, it's no surprise that they encouraged reproduction and unions. It A) kept the possiblity of spreading diseases down and B) stimulated population growth in the safest way possible. The issue is not with the government and their regulating of religion, but the religion themselves. I don't see why the government should have any legal authority over religious unions, thats an issue for the church. Which needs a reality check for the 21st century.
Click to expand...

This will sound harsh but I truly don't mean it that way but, who cares. It comes across extremely arrogant, petty and disgusting to want to force churches to marry a homosexual couple despite the fact that it completely goes against what they believe in. It's a horribly dangerous line they would be walking with that kind of power given to the government and such a disrespectful attitude to take towards another fellow human.

As I said, even now where legal, you can find churches that would be willing to marry a homosexual couple, none of that would change with my idea so why would someone force those that refuse to go through with it?

It may cause anguish if a homosexual catholic can't get married in a catholic ceremony but what right do we have to force someone to go against their religious beliefs and perform a ceremony that would make a mockery out of their religion? At that point the marriage becomes a sham, makes a mockery of the process and the homosexual catholic couple has now partaken in a ceremony which means nothing in the eyes of their church. That kind of policy cannot be forced upon them but would have to come with time and evolution of the church and its policies, it must come from within for it to have any meaning.

And I just now actually read through your second paragraph so it kind of seems we're on the same page but hey it never hurts to flesh out a topic for clarity.

While we might think they need a reality check, its a long time coming as it's not a matter of simply declaring that homosexual marriage is okay, you're talking about going against crystal clear scripture. However as you said, the government has no place exercising power over a religious ceremony (at least when no other life is in danger). I think both sides need to come together, find a middle ground that can work and let this issue finally die.
 
DaivdBaekr said:
Exactly. Ever since Cain left I've felt progressively less enthusiastic about each candidate. I still don't understand why Santorum took the bait about social issues when it was obvious he should be making the case for fiscal responsibility.

Also I'm not entirely sure how a president with liberal ideology has liberal social views makes news, unless it's solely from the angle of making or breaking re-election.
Click to expand...
Santorum's entire platform was built on social issues, it was the only thing that he had going for him. If he wasn't such a crazy right-wing radical, then he would have been left in Romney's dust long before he actually dropped out.

As for Obama taking the pro-gay marriage stance, It's not really that big of a change when you think about it. For the past three years, despite what everyone on the Right claims, Obamas been pretty moderate, and so he took the moderate stance of Pro-Civil unions. The fact that he's now gone from being Pro-Civil Union to Pro-Gay Marriage doesn't really surprise me. It's likely he was always for gay marriage, but just thought it would be too much of a burden when trying to gain a margin of the republican vote. But, that's just a theory, and I can't really be sure whether that's the case or not. However, I don't think this is any worse than when Romney pulled a complete 180 and decided to go from being Pro-Choice to being Pro-Life.
 
LordScrambles said:
Santorum's entire platform was built on social issues, it was the only thing that he had going for him. If he wasn't such a crazy right-wing radical, then he would have been left in Romney's dust long before he actually dropped out.
Click to expand...
Dude, be nice to poor Ricky. He's a regular on our forums and right now he's going through some pretty hard times, so don't be such an ass to him.
 
pkm said:
snip.
Click to expand...

You're kinda confusing me, with saying who cares about the rights, practices, and beliefs of a church then saying its bad to force someone to go against their religious beleifs

Heres the thing with religion. It's a moral guideline of how to live one's life based on scripture, usually from omnipotent sources. There are three problems with this basic idea when applying religion to modern day society

1. The moral attitudes of a culture change with the times. The guidelines are absolute for that time period and culture.
2. The scripture must be copied, translated, and publish through hundreds if not thousands of years. Even if it is the word of God, the word is now lost in translation.
3. Ties back to 2, except the possibility that the church or some powerful entity was able to change the scripture and pass it off as legitimate.

So when taking the word as an absolute, you are likely to get your extremists that follow their interpretation to a tee. "There's no need to argue it, because this source I believe in is right." This is where the zealots get their power from, and causes so much friction with a logical, modern day society. No one can discredit it, and if you do without evidence then you are a heathen or prejudice towards the group of people.

Bottom line, theres no easy solution to this. The issues lay with the Church meshing to society. It's not going to go away because your views of the world say to just give in. I believe there were about 5 or 6 crusades about that very issue.
 
I was saying who cares in reference to homosexuals being caused anguish because they can't necessarily get married in a certain religious ceremony. We can't dictate law based on the feelings of someone.

Your view of the church is correct however that isn't as they see it. Their "guidelines" of morality aren't supposed to be something that changes with society, they see it as being directly from God, society changing isn't going to be and will never be reason enough in their eyes to violate what they see as the never changing word from God himself.

We don't need to wait for the Church to change, the problem is we have people that keep trying to force them to. We simply go around the church, give them their religious ceremony and we move on with our own construct, civil unions. The argument should never be about forcing churches to marry a homosexual couple, we shouldn't care if they don't want to and anyone trying to force them is just as bad as the hard core religious right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mewkin
To be honest, I do agree that a church shouldn't be forced to have to perform a marriage for a gay couple (But if they do want to refuse doing so, then they better stop taking federal funding.) Then again, I don't really support businesses' having to follow the guidelines of Affirmative Action. I just think that any organization that would chose to be prejudice too anyone because of their race or sexual orientation, should be scorned and destroyed in the public eye, but that's just my opinion.

I truly believe that gay marriage is the civil rights movement of our generation. A couple decades from now, gay marriage will be legal everywhere, and our grandchildren will be wondering how anyone could justify holding to such a primitive way of thinking. At this point, the Church will be hard at work trying to explain why passages like Leviticus were misinterpreted, or why they no longer "count." It's kind of funny when you think about it. Imagining all those hardcore fundamentalists having no problem with gay marriage, as society slowly evolves. Maybe then we can actually go back to getting stuff done.
 
Churches don't get federal funding. They just don't have to pay taxes on tithes and donations. Also no church is forced to perform or a recognize a marriage it doesn't view as valid, which is also a right held by individual states.
 
Anyone else thought of this:

Anyway, love is love and if you hate on love then go fuck yourself.
 
Text of 1 Timothy 1:9-10:

The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." ​
The emphasized term translates the Greek word "arsenokoitai."

Arsenokoitai is a word coined by Apostle Paul to denote people, usually greeks who labor or indulge in the sex trade. If you've never heard of it, don't feel bad. I never heard of it until just now, and I can't imagine anyone who is not a biblical scholar has ever heard the word. In any case, it's of conveniently mistranslated to homosexual as to say "for them that defile themselves with man" whereas man meaning males instead of humans.

So I'll just follow that up with another quote...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

Lewis Carroll - Through the Looking Glass
 
  • Like
Reactions: wokmage
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back