 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
molly:
quote:
But didn't you say in another thread you weren't meant to judge people 'spiritually' when I brought up the 'let he who is without sin' bit of Christian moral relativism?
|
The distinction is made between those who are inside the church, and those who are outside. If you have someone who claims to be a part of the church, who actively opposes the teachings of the church, then that is a much different case from the one who is outside of the church who is a sinner. For if Christians were to shun all sinners, they would never bring anyone to Christ.
You see that in my quote. God will judge those outside, we are only to judge those inside the church.
quote:
In which case, what on earth are you doing opposing civil (non spiritual/religious marriages) for gay men and lesbians?
|
For civil affairs, and civil matters. I believe this policy to be detrimental to society.
quote:
'Render unto Caesar'
|
But is that not precisely the question? Is marriage within the realm of the state to determine and define?
quote:
cherry pick bits of bible to use as your rationale for disagreeing.
|
I think most would reject your characterisation of my use of the bible
[quote]
More to the point- how can you live in a country whose head of state is a woman, and belong to a party that might elect a woman as its head?
[quote]
'Let the woman learn in silence in all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.'
I Timothy, 2:12
Refers to whether or not women ought to preach and be pastors inside the church. This has nothing to do with their role outside.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
So you say. But honestly, I (and, it appears, Ming) don't believe you.
|
If I believed that it ought to be solely a religious matter, why don't I just say, go ahead, get married. It won't matter to the rest of us, whatever you call your 'marriage'.
quote:
Your arguments re: social benifit are a poorly conceived and unsubstantiated* veil for your real reason for your position: that your religion tells you gay sex is immoral.
|
Again, I will reiterate. One argument that I had after I became Christian is that gay marriage reduced sin, and was therefore moral. It took some secular arguments, in that sexual preference is not fixed that I changed my position on gay marriage.
quote:
Children? Sure, but if the idea is to provide benifits to parents, the benifits should be tied to having children, not just getting married.
|
The two are intertwined. It is not just having children, but providing a stable environment in which to raise children. Marriage is the best way to accomplish this goal, between a man and a woman.
Look at it this way. We all have gender roles. It is only by some sort of example provided, that children learn to work within their own role, and with the role opposite to them.
quote:
Not to mention that there are lots of children that need adoption,
|
Are there? There is a long list of couples waiting to adopt, who cannot, because there are no children, or it is very difficult for them to adopt.
quote:
perhaps most importantly, surely you understand that a gay person is not going to produce children ANYWAY.
|
I dispute that sexual preferences are fixed. People can and do change.
quote:
Ok, moving on, what other benifits does society get from a hetro marriage that it doesn't from homo marriage? I don't see any in particular.
|
Start with my counter-arguments.
quote:
Covering it up by trying to argue this "benifit to society" angle isn't fooling anyone.
|
People see what they want to see, regardless of the truth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
Ming:
quote:
YEP... they obviously didn't belong married. It's good that divorce gave them the option to get out of an unloving and bad relationship.
|
So my question to you, did the availability of divorce, in any way contribute to the breakup of their marriage? Yes, the difficulties are there, but does it make sense to say that all divorces only happen because of the difficulties in the marriages?
Many people stay in marriage through the rocky times. Heck, I would think those who stay learn how to work with these problems.
quote:
Yep... they obviously didn't belong married. It's good that divorce gave them the option to get out of an unloving and bad relationship.
|
Right. So all divorces break up unloving relationships. People are resourceful, when they really want to be, and can be very quick to give up, when they are not. They see divorce, and they think, what would be easier? Sticking together and patching things up, or to just start over?
quote:
Some degree... yes. But if that fact that gays can get married makes you totally rethink your marriage... than you probably shouldn't be married.
|
One thing I've thought about, it may seem silly, but why would married people, if the definition changes, see marriage as monogamous? It's just about the love, not the sex.
quote:
yep... I cans see how you would see discrimation against people you consider sinners good
|
Well, I consider everyone to be sinners. So that is not a good argument, Ming.
quote:
I would argue that society derives many benefits from any GOOD marriage... because you have happier and more stable people.
|
What about the averages? Most marriages are good, we just talk more about the bad ones.
quote:
As far as you bringing children up again... don't do so again until you start advocating that ALL people that aren't planning to have children should be discriminated against as well
|
What about bachelors? If we give financial benefits to married couples, why should they not also receive the benefits? After all, we can't discriminate against them for choosing not to have children.
quote:
yet you have been unable to quantify a single benefit.
|
What about this one?
http://www2.duq.edu/familyinstitute...f/children.html
Family structure directly influences the income of the various family systems in which American children are being raised. Traditional nuclear families enjoy a median income of $48,000. Stepfamilies average an income of $45,900. Cohabiting couples subsist on a common annual wealth of $25,000. Divorced/Separated families live on approximately $18, 500 a year. Finally, never-married, single families exist on an annual income of $15,000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Begging the question here.
It presumes that all discrimination is in fact bad. |
Huh? I didn't say "all discrimination". I said "pointless discrimination". So far, I have yet to see even one decent argument for discrimination against gays, therefore I deem it "pointless". Pointless discrimination has no place in our nation's law.
quote:
How would one quantify 'happiness?' |
How about in numbers of ecstatic couples?
quote:
And what does this have to do with gay marriage whatsoever? Would not reforming the instutitions involved in child adoption accomplish the same task, by clearing away some of the red tape? |
No, I don't think gay people will ever be allowed to adopt on anything like a equal footing as long as they are locked out of marriage. Gays will simply be caught in a Catch-22: gay-haters will cry that we shouldn't place adopted children in homes of unmarried people. The same folks will argue that gays shouldn't be able to marry. Lockout.
quote:
Are there? There is a long list of couples waiting to adopt, who cannot, because there are no children, or it is very difficult for them to adopt. |
According to the US Dept of Health and Human Services, you are wrong.
"(A)s of October 2000, there are about 568,000 children in foster care of which an estimated 118,000 are awaiting an adoptive placement."
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/foster.htm
Gay couples could provide loving homes for many of these kids growing up in institutions. Unless people like you have their way, of course.
quote:
I dispute that sexual preferences are fixed. People can and do change. |
You are one of a small and fast-shrinking number who still cling to this odd, unsupported notion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2004 08:00
) that term from that contract, and rather call that contract a "civil union".
|