Forums | MacLife

If that's what the majority supports, why have numerous states make specific laws defining it as between a man and woman?

resedit wrote:

If that's what the majority supports, why have numerous states make specific laws defining it as between a man and woman?

Oh please, how much can one gleam from that?  If miscegenation had been put to a vote decades ago you'd have seen the same thing.

bedstuy wrote:

resedit wrote:

If that's what the majority supports, why have numerous states make specific laws defining it as between a man and woman?

Oh please, how much can one gleam from that?  If miscegenation had been put to a vote decades ago you'd have seen the same thing.

I only brought it up to make a point that a few local state elections on specific issues is not an indication that the dems are closer to the general public than the repubs are.

resedit wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

resedit wrote:

If that's what the majority supports, why have numerous states make specific laws defining it as between a man and woman?

Oh please, how much can one gleam from that?  If miscegenation had been put to a vote decades ago you'd have seen the same thing.

I only brought it up to make a point that a few local state elections on specific issues is not an indication that the dems are closer to the general public than the repubs are.

But the narrative by conservatives has been exactly that for the past 6 years, when in fact the country has been pretty much exactly split down the middle.  Republicans got into the executive office by 500 votes 6 years ago in one state, but did not win the popular vote.  Their margins in both houses have been slim and have been won on the backs of a national tragedy but we still have to keep hearing about how the country is conservative at heart.  That's just simply a falsehood.

Gay marriage initiatives mean nothing for the very reason I stated above and I'll stand by that.  If you're honestly comfortable formally instituting miscegenation laws under the guise of the "homosexual" label then so be it.  It's the same thing whether or not people comprehend what they are doing or not.  Places like Virginia were not studies in social justice in the 60's with Loving v Virginia I'll tell you that much.

bratboy wrote:

I think that many people support similar rights for homosexual couples under a name other than "marriage."

That's why these hateful groups made sure to concoct amendments that would ban both this time around.  It's a gamble, but one they knew they could probably win anyway.

How many of these people believe they're acting out of christian beliefs?  I may be agnostic, but I have a difficult time believing that Jesus would have supported any of this.

Jesus forgave sin, but when he did so - he had very explicit instructions that followed.
Now go and sin no more.

It's always easy to pretend to know what Jesus would have or would not have done, because rarely is there anything comparable in the accounts of Jesus to prove his actions - he stayed out of politics, he wasn't here for the purpose of politics. He came to forgive sin, and he did forgive sin, but he did not condone sin, nor did he look the other way when there was sin.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Jesus forgave sin, but when he did so - he had very explicit instructions that followed.
Now go and sin no more.

It's always easy to pretend to know what Jesus would have or would not have done, because rarely is there anything comparable in the accounts of Jesus to prove his actions - he stayed out of politics, he wasn't here for the purpose of politics. He came to forgive sin, and he did forgive sin, but he did not condone sin, nor did he look the other way when there was sin.

Do you believe Jesus would approve of his followers spending their time and money attempting to use the law to withhold rights from certain individuals?

What are our rights in this context, and what makes them our rights?

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

What are our rights in this context, and what makes them our rights?

Equal rights.  Those given to the heterosexual couple, but not to the homosexual couple.  The right to inherit the spouse's estate without being taxed by the government.  The right to visit a loved one in the hospital who is sick.  Adoption rights.  etc.

Those are separate from marriage.

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

What are our rights in this context, and what makes them our rights?

Equal rights.  Those given to the heterosexual couple, but not to the homosexual couple.  The right to inherit the spouse's estate without being taxed by the government.  The right to visit a loved one in the hospital who is sick.  Adoption rights.  etc.

Those are separate from marriage.

Sorry, you are completely wrong.

Marriage is simply a legal contract, a partnership. 99% of what constitutes the legal aspects of marriage are exactly what are outlined above.

Been this way long before scripture.

As amatter of fact Judaism had no "marriage ritual" for most of it's existance, as marriage was largely a secular matter.

And here in the US, the power to marry a couple is invested in the STATE, not the church.

Every wedding I ever went to, religious or not, the person presiding ALWAYS says, "with the power invested in me by the state of...".

If that isn't marriage then why is the government involved in marriage at all?

resedit wrote:

iSeamas wrote:

resedit wrote:

Those are separate from marriage.

Sorry, you are completely wrong.

Marriage is simply a legal contract, a partnership.

From your perspective.
From the perspective of Jesus, it is something quite a bit more.

All this seems to go against your statement earlier that "[Jesus] stayed out of politics, he wasn't here for the purpose of politics", that is that Jesus wouldn't want his followers to deal with christianizing government.  I suspect that Jesus would be agnostic at worst toward gay marriage.  Something along the lines of if marriage is really a covanent between a man a woman and god, then who is the government to make that call, and if its just a contract, why does the church care what someone else calls it.

iSeamas wrote:

resedit wrote:

iSeamas wrote:

Sorry, you are completely wrong.

Marriage is simply a legal contract, a partnership.

From your perspective.
From the perspective of Jesus, it is something quite a bit more.

Jesus never got married, what does he know about marriage?

The Church is the bride of Christ.
Marriage is a representation between the union between Christ and the Church - a covenant union, not a contract union.

Besides, there ARE non-Christians in this country, in case you didn't know.


What ever happened to the sepparation of Church and State?

I didn't bring Christ into this. Bratboy did.

This happens a lot - someone outside of Christianity brings Christ into a discussion, and as soon as it is shown that they don't have a point - someone then gripes about church and state.

Sorry - but if someone else wants to bring Christ into a discussion in order to argue how christians should act, then I'm going to respond from a Christian perspective - that's only fair.

If you want separation of church and state, then trying to use our church to say how we should act with respect to state is hypocritical, since you want separation and don't want our religion to affect how we treat state issues.

Lefty bloggers are saying the leading heroes of the election are Ned Lamont for focusing the elections on Iraq's failures and to Howard Dean for his 50-state strategy.  http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/11/08/r … -election/

I agree.

Last edited by Tetrachloride (2006-11-08 2:33 pm)