Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

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.

I wasn't attempting to argue "how christians should act."

I view attempts to block homosexuals for obtaining equal rights (and note I have been talking about prohibitions on civil unions, not marriages) as hateful and mean-spirited acts.

I was raised, educated, and confirmed a Catholic.  I'm not completely ignorant on the teachings of Christ.  I only question whether Christ would approve such hateful acts by his followers and often made in his name.

resedit wrote:

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.

That makes no sense.  Of course conservative christians are trying to force their view of christianity onto the rest of us.  They are already allowing their religion to mingle with the state.  Your "point" is completely bogus.

bratboy wrote:

I wasn't attempting to argue "how christians should act."

I view attempts to block homosexuals for obtaining equal rights (and note I have been talking about prohibitions on civil unions, not marriages) as hateful and mean-spirited acts.

I was raised, educated, and confirmed a Catholic.  I'm not completely ignorant on the teachings of Christ.  I only question whether Christ would approve such hateful acts by his followers and often made in his name.

You can call it a civil union, but that it just semantics, is it not?
Now the rights you mentioned, such as estate, hospital visitation, medical decisions, etc. - I should have the ability to grant those rights to anybody I choose - married to them or not.

resedit wrote:

You can call it a civil union, but that it just semantics, is it not?

Is it?  So are you opposed to civil unions as well?

Why is that?  You know that there are religious leaders throughout the country who would grant a "marriage" or a "union" to a same-sexed couple.  Why should the government approve only the unions granted by some religious institutions, and not others?

Now the rights you mentioned, such as estate, hospital visitation, medical decisions, etc. - I should have the ability to grant those rights to anybody I choose - married to them or not.

...well the reality is that those rights do NOT exist.

resedit wrote:

Adoption right - I still think it is emotionally healthier for a child to be raised in a family with a mother and a father.

That doesn't mean single parents should have their kids taken away, but children placed for adoption by the state - first choice should be relative (married or not), because natural family is important. If that can't be done, then the state should look for a home that will be the best possible home to raise a child in, which is IMHO a home with a mother and a father.

We'll make sure to let all those children without stable, loving homes at all know how you think.

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

I wasn't attempting to argue "how christians should act."

I view attempts to block homosexuals for obtaining equal rights (and note I have been talking about prohibitions on civil unions, not marriages) as hateful and mean-spirited acts.

I was raised, educated, and confirmed a Catholic.  I'm not completely ignorant on the teachings of Christ.  I only question whether Christ would approve such hateful acts by his followers and often made in his name.

You can call it a civil union, but that it just semantics, is it not?
Now the rights you mentioned, such as estate, hospital visitation, medical decisions, etc. - I should have the ability to grant those rights to anybody I choose - married to them or not.

Well guess what?

Those are exactly the rights that the anti Gay lobby in this country are trying to deny Gay Couples!!


And YES it's semantics as to calling them "Civil Unions" or "Marriages", because the fact of the matter is it is a marriage. Simple as that.

resedit wrote:

Adoption right - I still think it is emotionally healthier for a child to be raised in a family with a mother and a father.

That doesn't mean single parents should have their kids taken away, but children placed for adoption by the state - first choice should be relative (married or not), because natural family is important. If that can't be done, then the state should look for a home that will be the best possible home to raise a child in, which is IMHO a home with a mother and a father.

Which has as much validity as me claiming that homosexuals make much better parents.

If the Dems gained about 30 House seats, so-called 'moderates' might account for 15. The others break for ''progressives'. So, I'd argue the 'working' majority is due to the more left leaning elements; these won despite neglect and being generally ignored by DCCC and/or MSM.

The idea to 'play along' to solidify seats is wrong-headed.

Look how much was done by the conservative alignment. They executed their priorities, calling their razor thin margins a 'mandate'.

What then is this widespead repudiation of that 'minority' that acted like a majority?

People want action. ACT.
---------
EDIT: just browsed around to this item which talks about this very issue (and written prior to polls closing yesterday; posted today.)
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/ … nment.html

Last edited by Beagle/Bro. (2006-11-08 3:10 pm)

NAG wrote:

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

A question often asked by folks like me, but rarely answered by those on either end of the spectrum on this matter.

Beagle/Bro. wrote:

If the Dems gained about 30 House seats, so-called 'moderates' might account for 15. The others break for ''progressives'. So, I'd argue the 'working' majority is due to the more left leaning elements; these won despite neglect and being generally ignored by DCCC and/or MSM.

The idea to 'play along' to solidify seats is wrong-headed.

Look how much was done by the conservative alignment. They executed their priorities, calling their razor thin margins a 'mandate'.

Agreed.  And those so-called "conservatives" are populist anti-NAFTA Lou Dobbs Democrats for what it's worth, or a lot of them are.

Tallgeese wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

NAG wrote:

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

A question often asked by folks like me, but rarely answered by those on either end of the spectrum on this matter.

Maybe I should make this my Futile Political Cause. Just for fun.

Go for it.  I, actually, don't think that it's all that futile.  Getting the government out of the marriage business would, actually, allow groups opposed to gay marriage to continue on their merry way and would allow basically anyone to get married under the contract (and religion, I guess) of their own choosing.  A trip to the church (or no church) of one's choice, followed by a trip to the lawyer to sign a contract... and viola!  You're married.

The sole role of the government would be to enforce the contracts.

There would have to be some simultaneous changes in tax law, etc.  But that's about it.

NAG wrote:

resedit wrote:

NAG wrote:

And weren't the early christians actually anti-marriage back when they were kind of an apocalyptic cult?

No. They were anti polygamy - a church leader was to be a husband of one wife, for example.
There may have been sects that called themselves christian that were against marriage, there were a lot of different sects early on, just as there are now.

I'm talking about really early christianity.

No, that isnt true. Peter was married and had kids, for instance.

Why should married couples recieve special rights anyway?  What kind of equality is that?