Page 6 of 7

PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:17 pm
by Steno
Well, I guess this video sums up my view. The first interview kinda made me vomit in mouth.



PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:37 pm
by KnoxVegas
Civil Union definition, as defined by the state of Vermont:

“Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under Vermont law, whether they derive from statute, policy, administrative or court rule, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.”

Vermont Act 91, 2000 Session

PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:06 pm
by Beta
So a group of a religion wants the country to not allow something because they say it's against theirs or makes them feel bad, angry, or whatever.

So basically...

- If Islam in America wished to ban the consumption of pigs in America.

- Or Hindu in America wanted to ban the eating of cows.

All because it was against their religion and questioned their moral fiber...what would Christians would have to say about that?

PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:26 pm
by StrykerFSU
Again, it's not just some Evangelical Christians who oppose same-sex marriage. In nine states where amendments or resolutions were on the ballot that would define a marriage as being between a man and a woman during the 206 election the amendments passed seven times. Another example, a Time magazine poll from June, 2008 showed 51% of registered voters opposed gay marriage to 42% approving. The numbers just don't support your statement because surely this random sampling of 805 registered voters did not include 51% Evangelicals.

Sorry, you can't blame this on Evangelicals.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:37 pm
by KnoxVegas
From the 2004 Republican Party Platform regarding Civil Rights:

Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage

We strongly support a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we [oppose] forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. The well-being of children is best accomplished [when] nurtured by their mother & father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.

Whatever happened to this? Or the flag burning amendment I was promised?

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:24 am
by Hamburger
Just a real quick question....

Will the same Christians who oppose homosexuality and gay marriage because it is "unbiblical" stand up and support the Mormons in Arizona and Utah who want polygamy legalized? Polygamy is Biblical.

Pick and choose...... Pick and choose......

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:58 am
by JW
Hamburger wrote:Just a real quick question....

Will the same Christians who oppose homosexuality and gay marriage because it is "unbiblical" stand up and support the Mormons in Arizona and Utah who want polygamy legalized? Polygamy is Biblical.

Pick and choose...... Pick and choose......

Hamburger, show me the scripture where it says Polygamy is Biblical, where it is permissable.

I think you might be thinking of Jacob who had 4 wives and Abraham who had 2 wives, Solomon who had many wives.

I understand that on the surface these pillars of the faith look like they are practicing God's will for marriage, but digging deeper into the text you will realize that they recieved limited blessings because of their practice in this act.

The recording of historical acts, including instances of polygamy, is not necessarily an endorsement of it by God. The Bible records both good and bad actions of people, even people considered to be righteous. The fact that David and Solomon had several wives and that it's in the Bible doesn't automatically imply that God was pleased by it, any more than the records of David's adultery and the arguments in the early church implies God's approval of either.

Monogamy is first mentioned in Genesis 2:24 - it was God's intention from the beginning. While God did allow polygamy for a time, it was probably for the same reason as his allowance of divorce: "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning" (Mt 19:8).

Genesis 2:24
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Deuteronomy 17:17
17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

1 Timothy 3:2
2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

All scripture is taken from the NIV. And for people that see all of the old testament quotes and think, well when Jesus came all of that changed. False. Jesus did not change the Old Testament, He fulfilled it.

Steno, thanks for posting that movie, and it is pretty horrible what those people were saying. I can't believe that I am going to say this, but I am going to have to agree with Rev. Sharpton. I may be against this form of civil union, but if the government decides to allow homosexual marriage, believe me when I say, i won't be one of those crazy yahoo's out their protesting.

Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean that my beliefs have to be what everyone else believes. I want everyone to believe what I believe, and that is that Jesus Christ came to earth through the miracle of the virgin birth, was crucified and died and rose again to conquer my sin and the sin of humanity.

Thanks again for the great discussion.

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:24 am
by Hamburger
The passage of Deuteronomy 21:15-17 is a specific instruction in the Law Itself to any man with "two wives". If polygamy was a sin, then it would not be possible for a "man to have two wives" in the Law.

"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Deuteronomy 21:15-17.

And about King David....

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
2 Samuel 12:8.

The context of the verse is that of God, speaking through a prophet (Nathan), calling out David for David's sin of taking another man's wife (Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite), which is adultery indeed, and for setting up the death of Uriah the Hittite to try to hide David's sin.

Also, at the point in time of this situation, David had already been married to at least seven known-named wives. (1_Samuel 18:27, 25:42-43, 2_Samuel 3:2-5.)

But, in this verse 12 (above), God was not condemning David for all his wives! In fact, this verse 12 shows God Himself actually saying that HE was the One Who had GIVEN David His wives.

If God was against David's polygamy, He certainly would not have said that He had GIVEN David his wives.


"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. "
1 Kings 15:5.

I grew up Southern Baptist and can argue scripture with anyone to argue on behalf of just about anything. Southern Baptists are great at pick and choose. Thankfully, I am now atheist.

Just know that I argue to prove a point, not to condone polygamy.

My favorite bible verse to throw out at Christians who argue about gays, gay marriage, or really, just about anything?

2 Timothy 2:23 "Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless arguments, for they only breed quarrels and the servant of the lord must never be quarrelsome"


PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:54 am
by MBlax327
I think it would be prudent for all parties in this thread to re-read stryker's posts. It is not just christians who object.

However, I do wonder if the majority of people who do object are objecting because of their christian faith.

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:46 am
by StrykerFSU
A few things for the record:

In 1996,
Senators voted 85-14 (48 Dems; 52 Rep) for the Defense of Marriage Act. The House overwhelmingly passed the bill in July, and President Clinton has said he will sign it.
President Clinton did, in fact, sign the Defense of Marriage Act into law.

What about Hillary?
Hillary stated categorically that she opposed legalizing same-sex marriage. She provided a clear explanation that to this day is the most quoted statement enunciating her position. "Marriage has historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship."

Hillary said she backed her husband's signing of the Defense of Marriage Act. She said what everyone wanted to know: Yes, if she had been in the Senate in 1996, she would have supported the law.
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.189-190 Jul 18, 2007

And Barack?
Decisions about marriage should be left to the states
One of Obama's pragmatic stands troubling to progressives is on gay marriage. In the Senate debate, Obama opposed the right-wing Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage nationally and said: "I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states." However, Obama also declared, "Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." At the same time, Obama has strongly supported civil unions, arguing that it is a way to protect equal rights without taking the politically risky approach of gay marriage.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.114-115 Oct 30, 2007

And just for fun...Al Gore:
Supports same-sex partnerships; but not “marriage” title
Q: What are your thoughts and feelings about legalizing same-sex marriage?
A: I’m for domestic partnerships having legal protections, but not the same sacrament, not the same name, because I favor protecting the institution of marriage as it has been understood between a man and a woman. But I think that a partner should have legal protection and contractual rights and health care and the rest
Source: Democrat Debate at Dartmouth College Oct 28, 1999

I'm outraged that those pillars of the Republican Party, the Reverends Bill and Hillary Clinton along with Reverends Obama and Gore would be so bigoted as to oppose same-sex marriage! Wait...what do you mean that they are all Democrats? They're not even Evangelicals??? Crap...well at least none of them had affairs...he did what? Double crap...At least none of them are secretly homosexual because we all know that is Eleventy Billion times worse than actually being homosexual. :roll:

It would be so refreshing to have a little honesty in this debate and to quit pointing fingers at certain religious groups or political parties. The record seems to indicate that this issue does not cut along party lines.

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:04 pm
by TheBearcatHimself
Maybe the Supreme Court should adopt a similar position to same-sex marriage as they have with pornography: I know it when I see it. Since pornography cannot be satisfactorily defined and apparently neither can same-sex unions, this method will give some clarity.

Then they can decide who should be married and who shouldn't on a case by case basis, then everyone is happy!!! YAY!!

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:46 pm
by MBlax327
Why can same sex unions not be defined? I'm not so sure i follow here...

A couple, of the same sex, want the same rights as a couple of different sex..same health benefits, the right to see a dying loved one in the hospital, the right to remain as the guardian of a child after the death of their partner....

As far as i see it, the definition is pretty clear: homosexual couples want to be married, just like heterosexual couples.

Could you elaborate more? I'm intrigued.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:37 pm
Some food for thought:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
(Source: Virginia trial judge upholding conviction of Mildred and Richard Loving for interracial marriage, quoted in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3 (1967))

Allowing interracial marriages "necessarily involves the degradation" of conventional marriage, an institution that "deserves admiration rather than execration."
(Source: A U.S. representative from Georgia quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, May 19, 1996)

"[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."
(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton,eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage)

"It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races."
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 26 and n.5 (summarizing the State's argument in favor of ban on interracial marriage))

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:58 pm
by Steno
you probably should have done that as a "fill in the blanks." Funny how people use the same arguments (Biblical, moral, whatever) to push forward whatever crusade is currently popular.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:32 pm
by JW

Thanks for the post.

That is so embarrasing to me. I am ashamed at his comments. God does not care about skin tone, if God did, then you wouldn't have verses like Acts 1:8, Matthew 28:19-20, the Abrahamic Covenant.

The only place where God tells people not to intermarry with another group of people is with the Israelites. He tells them not to intermarry people outside of the Nation of Israel because they would fall into idol worship, which they eventually did. However, now with the spread of the Gospel throughout the nations, God just wants a man and a woman to join in marriage with God as the center of that marriage.

I am sorry that people do not do the correct Biblical research before making comments like the ones made in the post that Oaks brought to our attention.