Today, pastors and religious leaders rallied in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment at press conferences in Raleigh and Charlotte. Over 250 faith leaders signed a statement encouraging North Carolinians to support the May 8 ballot initiative preserving marriage as the union between one man and one woman in the State Constitution. The pastors in attendance at the press conferences represented only a portion of the 6,000 churches that are partnering in the effort to protect marriage in North Carolina.
... “Faith leaders across our great State understand the need to preserve marriage with a constitutional amendment,” said Tami Fitzgerald, Chairwoman of Vote FOR Marriage NC. “The threat to marriage is real in North Carolina, and we must protect marriage from judges and politicians who seek to redefine our values and pose threats to our religious freedoms. We are thankful for the faithful support of the 250 pastors and religious leaders and countless others across North Carolina who are taking a righteous stand for truth in North Carolina.”
Vote FOR Marriage NC is the referendum committee working to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment on May 8. The campaign is comprised of a multitude of policy organizations, denominations, and civic groups. Its Executive Committee consists of the Christian Action League, NC Values Coalition, a coalition of African American pastors, NC Baptists, and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).
North Carolinians interested in more information about Vote FOR Marriage NC may visit the campaign’s website: www.VoteForMarriageNC.com.
54 Comments
Well, B73, judging from the tone of your comment above, it appears there are not a lot of champagne bottles being put on ice at this point by the marriage corruption operatives down in NC..........
Go NC! Today is your day to have your say not only in your state, but to also send a message to the rest of the country, the SCOTUS, and the White House. Let's all get out there and rock the vote "FOR" protecting marriage!
Hope NC votes to preserve marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
Let's have a chat about this video before anyone votes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY
B73:
Thanks for clarifying.
Certainly no one could reasonably suppose that an amendment winning so vastly, across all demographics- even Democrats!- would need to resort to such despicably unAmerican tactics.
Of course, a guy who spend a lot of time explaining to us how the votes are meaningless anyway since the courts will simply toss them out, is not exactly the most credible source for safeguarding the integrity of the process.
Have a free beer, B73.
After all, you have nothing to worry about.......
Right?
Looking forward to the vote count so I can start breathing again
Go NC !
Rick, I'm not sure how pointing out the basic principles of equal protection decreases my credibility. But then again, the anti-gay lobby doesn't exactly place a high value on facts so maybe I shouldn't be surprised. That's okay, the concept still has credibility in the court and that's where it matters. Someday when the Christianists are a tiny and powerless minority, you'll appreciate the fact that voters can't just do whatever they want with their laws without regard for the U.S. Constitution.
Ahh, there it is.
The mask finally drops, the real face of the marriage corruption movement slips out into plain view.
Thanks, B73.
It is Christianity you hate, and it is Christianity you just destroy in order to destroy marriage.
Sir, you will fail.
Please attend to the demonstration underway in North Carolina.
The vast majority of courts have upheld the REAL meaning of marriage B73 in spite of your biased activist ramblings. Check it out at:
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.Jan2011-2-american-courts.pdf
And the U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states. For example, few states still had laws requiring racial segregation or outlawing interracial marriage by the time the Court struck those laws down. Most states had already struck down or repealed their own laws against same-sex intimacy when the Supreme Court finally invalidated Texas’s law in Lawrence. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most liberal members of the court, has indicated that it is counterproductive for the Court to go "too far too fast." Although she tirelessly defends abortion rights, she has still said that "[t]he court bit off more than it could chew" when it decided Roe v. Wade.
It is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule 30 state constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman and 31 out of 31 referendums and force gay marriage on everyone. Any lawyers bringing such a case before the Court will need favorable votes from five of the nine justices. Yet as Constitutional law scholar Andrew Koppelman put it, "When I try to count the votes in favor of same-sex marriage on the Supreme Court, I have trouble getting to one."
"It is Christianity you hate, and it is Christianity you just destroy in order to destroy marriage."
No, not at all. In the United States of America in 2012, there are MANY Christianists, but very few Christians.
In case you were wondering, Rick DeLano is DEFINITELY a Christianist. Not at all a Christian.
But Max, isn't Christ the only one qualified, or authorized to judge the Christianity of an individual?
Daughter of Eve,
See, there you go again. You diverted from maxv's point and created another point that you think supports your point, which it does only, but it has nothing to do with the point maxv is making. Your point has nothing to with anything except to you.
And
"But Max, isn't Christ the only one qualified, or authorized to judge the Christianity of an individual?"
Yes, absolutely, to you. Just because you have chosen this pov does not mean the whole of humanity is required, demanded, expected, commanded, to share your pov for any reason.
Yours is not the only way.
Daughter of Eve,
Oops, forgot to add that diverting from the point being made looks like an attempt to not acknowledge what the point is.
Apparently required to be a proud NOMulan.
Eliasm, you're trying too hard. You've become so vaue, I cannot honestly determine what your "point" is. BTW, what does the name-calling ("Nomulon") say about your character? Just a thought.
So, what was your thought?
Daughter of Eve,
Why do you constantly attack, divert and deflect? What are you afraid of? Can't you just respond? I have no malice with the term NOMulan (I am not calling you names). I find the verbage 'you people' to be unkind and try not to use it and I don't want to say things like what we get called.
You have made it perfectly clear where you and the NOMulans stand and that no other thoughts are heard. Evidenced by you and others not seeing the point.
I know that having a discussion about the bible is pointless, and that is very unfortunate for all of us, since that seems to be the area that has created this contension. Your mind is made up even though there might be another way to look at what is there that sure seems to fit in with what Jesus would have taught and the word of God. This other point of view would seem to make this issue go away, and go away in a good way, not in the bad way it is going right now, for all of us.
But you don't have time. Like I said, that's all you have to say. That pretty much covers it.
Peace and Love
I have time, elias.
The Bible is quite clear on the question of marriage.
Let me see if we can clarify your understanding on this score.
Oh Rick,
You are so not a worthy opponent. Your 2 out of 3 sentences says enough.
Eliasasm,
I am perfectly happy to discuss marriage from a scriptural and a secular point of view. I've heard the pro-SSM arguments, secular and religous. Watching your video won't reveal anything new as far as arguments going.
From what I can observe, you've talked about making an argument for SSM, but you've never actually presented one. Unless you did so on another thread, which I've missed. You accuse me of dodging the the point, you insist that you have a different perspective, but you have yet to actually make a point, or defend your position. All you've done is to pick on me, without actually pointing out exactly where my point of view on marriage goes astray. I find you incredibly vague.
Please, make a statement, such as "Marriage is_____," and then back it up with either scripture or secular opinion. Then, at least, we'll have something to work with. My mind IS made up, but I can explain why. Can you?
Peace and love to you, too. Truly.
Daughter of Eve,
Oh my gosh, I am mostly trying to show you how what you are doing looks from a postion other than your's. It's not complicated. You cannot or won't acknowledge anything that doesn't fit with what you want to believe you see, so you completely set the stage the way you want it to be and dictate every step of the way. Your whole persona looks as though you are right, you have the answers, and don't need to be bother with any kind of re-evaluation. Now mind you, this is not an attack, merely an observation without judgement. I will use your words to explain.
Your very first sentence starts off looking like you will happily discuss and we will discuss what you choose to discuss from your point of view in the manner in which you want to discuss it. You can't be bothered with another pov.
"I am perfectly happy to discuss marriage from a scriptural and a secular point of view." That's how you want to discuss it, but not necessarily the only area that needs to be discussed, especially if another thought makes it all better.
I'm am not picking on you, you can choose to see it that way, but I'm not. I'm here to maybe see if we can't get this fixed somehow, that's all, and that takes dialog. So thank you for doing so. But please see there that maybe there is more to this issue than just marriage. It's about how and why it would be an issue in the first place and where the thought came from that we should have an issue with homosexuality. It seems logical that if there were no issues with homosexuality, we would not be doing this right now. My point is to appear as you seem to appear isn't going to help make things any better. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the way we think on the issue is absolute or that there is not another point of reference. That does not have to mean a present stance is wrong. I think that that is where the dialog needs to begin. If you would like. I'm not forceing anything on you, just sharing. It's all good, well at least to me it is.
"I am mostly trying to show you how what you are doing looks from a position other than your's."
Well, that's fine, but when it comes to defining marriage, what does how it looks when I do what I do, matter? Isn't the issue marriage definition and eligibility laws, now how I look? You seem to care for more about how I look, than I do. Which is very sweet, but is neither here nor there. I'm not out to win any popularity contests. I'm here to maintain the man/woman definiton of marriage.
"You cannot or won't acknowledge anything tha tdoesn't fit with what you want to believe you see, so you completely set teh stage the way you want it to be and dictate every step of the way."
Can you give an example? Please don't mistake prompts for conversation starters, for dictation. I'm really having trouble understanding what it is you think you want to say. Let's call it a communication break down.
"You can't be bothered with another point of view." I'm perfectly cognizant of other points of view; I simply see all the holes in them, after years of studying the same arguments, and am not inclined to exchange mine for arguments that don't follow logic, or hold water.
"...Especially if another thought makes it all better." So, please dont keep me in suspense! You've been hinting and teasing about this "other thought," but you haven't come out with it. So, WHAT IS IT????
"I'm not picking on you." I'll take your word for it. I think we're talking past each other. Having different paradigms makes that likely to happen. No hard feelings.
"There is more to this issue than marriage." OK, what is it? Let's here your take on, as you said, "how and why it would be an issue in the first place and where the thought came from tah twe should have an issue with homosexuality." Please give references, sources of authority for arriving at your conclusions, and be extremely concise. I'll look forward to your insights. You should know, though, that for me, a person's sexual orientaion is a non issue. I don't see anyone with SSA as being "lesser," I don't wish to make homosexual behavior illegal (though I don't want it promoted in schools because of moral and health reasons), recognizing that "straight" people engage in homosexual behavior as well as those who identify with the gay political identity, or have any desire to prohibit someone who identifies as "gay" from getting married. To sum it up, if someone chooses to self-identify as "gay," I figure that's their business and their choice.
So, please, share your point of view, or others' point of view, and by all means, dialogue away. But if I see a contradiction in an argument, I will point it out. That's not mean, that's just good debate.
And on that note, have a great evening.
Daughter of Eve,
Good morning. Congratulations on your victory. I hope that makes you happy. It doesn't me.
The reason why how you come across matters is because how you come across leaves no room for debate. But if you do debate it will be your way, only.
"Please give references, sources of authority for arriving at your conclusions, and be extremely concise". There has to be sources of authority? A point of view has to be authorized or it's irrelevant?
I need to have authority to have a point of view? Really?
The point I keep making to you that you keep proving to me is that your way is the only way and there is no other way. You are right and anything else is wrong. It's all about you. Life on Earth is about all of us, not just you. A wise person would not come across the way you NOMulans do. A wise person would say that I have based my view on the information I have available at the time.
You obviously have issues with homosexuality, 'moral and health reasons', Why? Morals. Here's where this starts. You believe that homosexuality is immoral based on your religion and the bible. If you would have taken a peek at the video, you would know what the other thought is and is probably more concise than I can relate. But I'll try. The young christian man in the video looks into the areas in the bible where people have come to their conclusions regarding homosexuality. And to me looks valid and falls in line with the teachings of Jesus and the word of "God". Sexual orientation does not seem to be the issue. The Lot story where the guys came to have their way with the two angels is not about orientation. It's about doing something that is unnatural to another. The bad guys wanted to have their way with the angels to humiliate and harm them. It doesn't seem to be about orientation. It's about harming someone in a way that is unnatural to the victim. An abomination. Do unto others...
Laying with a man as with a woman. Having sex with a woman in a way that is unnatural to you to deny who you are is an abomination. Be true to yourself and be who "God" created you to be.
Looking at these things from this point of view seems to make perfect sense and fall in line with the bigger message. It doesn't seem logical that "God" would create something (homosexuality) and then condemn it, for what purpose? The current view of the bible has made for considerable negative situations on this issue to what ends? Nothing good, apparently. I like to think that "God" creates good situations.
Your turn.
Daughter of Eve,
Just a comment about not following logic or not holding water. You say there are health risks to being gay. How is that? A comment like that seems to mean that all gay people are diseased and there are no health risks to being straight. I'm perfectly healthy.
E said, "The reason why how you come across matters is because how you come across leaves no room for debate. But if you do debate it will be your way, only."
I had said, "I am perfectly happy to discuss marriage from a scriptural and a secular point of view."
Is that not leaving room for debate? And, are you not putting forth a scriptural point of view which you would like to discuss homosexuality and marriage? It seems to me that by answering your assertions, based on your interpretation of Holy Writ, we are debating "your" way.
And, my way too, since I already expressed a willingness to discuss things from a scriptural premise.
Next:
E said, "There has to be sources of authority? A point of view has to be authorized or it's irrelevant?
I need to have authority to have a point of view? Really?"
Well, sure. Unless you are God, and I don't believe you think you are, if you're going to say, "Thus saith the Lord," and expound doctrine, you need to be able to demonstrate that you've been authorized by Him, to dictate what is acceptable behavior, and what is not. If you're going to discredit the Bible, you must do so on the assumption the the men who kept the records did not have the authority to say, "Thus saith the Lord." But if your assumption is wrong, what then? Wouldn't it behoove you to move past your own guesswork and assumptions, and find real Truth? I assume you have a basic knowledge of right and wrong. You are, of course, entitled to your own point of view, but ultimately, will living by your point of view get you where you want to be someday? Where do you want to be, when this life is over? Do you believe in God? What are the consequences of relying only on your own intelligence and limited perspective? These are questions only you can answer, but you won't be able to escape the consequences, if it turns out your were wrong in some of your assumptions.
E said, "The point I keep making to you that you keep proving to me is that your way is the only way and there is no other way."
Obviously I haven't "proved" anything, because you have yet to accept as irrefutable, anything I've stated.
E, I am responding, point by point, but some of my points aren't showing up. Hopefully, they all will. If my answers seem disjointed, probably something is missing.
"It's all about you. Life on Earth is about all of us, not just you. A wise person would not come across the way you NOMulans do. A wise person would say that I have based my view on the information I have available at the time."
If you could please show an instance where I've said that the way we define marriage is "all about me," it would add some credibility to your assertion. As to the rest, I do base my p.o.v. on the information I have available at the time. But you must recall that there are generations of research on family structure showing marriage between a man and a woman to be the best environment for family life, and also a mountain of research showing the ill effects of divorce, fatherlessness and motherlessness, etc., and comparatively few studies showing the effects of neutering marriage on society at large. Have you considered that? How many years, exactly, have you studied the subject?
E said, "You obviously have issues with homosexuality, 'moral and health reasons', Why? Morals. Here's where this starts. You believe that homosexuality is immoral based on your religion and the bible. If you would have taken a peek at the video, you would know what the other thought is and is probably more concise than I can relate. But I'll try. The young christian man in the video looks into the areas in the bible where people have come to their conclusions regarding homosexuality. And to me looks valid and falls in line with the teachings of Jesus and the word of "God..."
Again, this would be an excellent to point out that the young man you look to as an "authority figure," is merely given his opinion, based on the limits of his own understanding. Are you content to base your choices on the limited perspective of a fellow mortal? What do you the Holy Prophets, both ancient and modern, who were called personally, by God Himself, have to say? Have you done due diligence to ask God, yourself? Why rely on the "arm of flesh," for your understanding about what God meant, regarding homosexuality? Christ promised His followers the Gift of the Holy Ghost, to tell them Truth, so they won't be tossed by "every wind of doctrine." Do you have the Gift of the Holy Ghost? How do you know that the young man in the video isn't also "tossed by every wind of doctrine?" Have you done due diligence?
"Sexual orientation does not seem to be the issue. The Lot story where the guys came to have their way with the two angels is not about orientation. It's about doing something that is unnatural to another. The bad guys wanted to have their way with the angels to humiliate and harm them. It doesn't seem to be about orientation. It's about harming someone in a way that is unnatural to the victim. An abomination. Do unto others..."
I agree with you. Shocked?
"Laying with a man as with a woman. Having sex with a woman in a way that is unnatural to you to deny who you are is an abomination. Be true to yourself and be who "God" created you to be."
Recognizing, of course, that a man cannot, due to biology, lay with a man as with a woman. Coitus and sodomy are not the same thing, nor can sodomy every lead to procreation.
According to Holy Writ, God considers any sexual behavior, outside the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman, an abomination, whether or not the person has SSA or not. I.e., God is no respecter of persons, and doesn't make commandments for some, but not for others. The original commandment was, (and which has never been revoked), "Thou shalt not commit adultery," (Exodus 20:14), and further explained by the Apostle Paul (whose authority came from Christ, personally), that it is “the will of God” that we “abstain from fornication,” which is sexual intercourse between an unmarried person and anyone else (1 Thessalonians 4:3). Homosexuality was also forbidden, as stated clearly in Romans 1:24-32 KJV. You'll recall that it's not just persons with SSA who've been known to engage in homosexual behavior, or just those who affiliate with a gay political identity. The commandment not to engage in homosexual behavior was for all, and has not been revoked.
If God wanted us never to change, and to "be true to ourselves," then why did He command His children to make changes through repentance? Why provide a Savior, if everyone is fine the way they are?
I agree that a person with SSA is not inherently evil for having SSA, but anyone who engages in any sexual intimacy outside of marriage between a man and a woman is committing sin. Certainly, there is enough evidence in the Bible to suggest that there is no moral rationale for using homosexuality as a reason to neuter marriage.
"Looking at these things from this point of view seems to make perfect sense and fall in line with the bigger message."
It sure seems like a good excuse to do what feels good, and to follow that which is pleasing to the carnal mind. But, can you live with the inescapable consequences? Wouldn't it be better to get your p.o.v. verified by the Holy Ghost? Just to be on the safe side? Consider this:
"For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit--and would that I might not drink the bitter cup and shrink--"
If you're going to use Holy Writ to justify homosexual behavior, hadn't you better make absolutely sure you're interpreting it correctly, and if you're going to depend on a fellow mortal to interpret scripture, by which you'll make choices, hadn't you better make sure that person is speaking with God's authority?
DoE, Hello!
#25
You're giving me a headache.
Obviously I haven't "proved" anything, because you have yet to accept as irrefutable, anything I've stated.
OK, let's break this down to 2 areas. #1 your way and #2 the creation of the negative attitude towards homosexuality.
#1...Obviously I haven't "proved" anything, because you have yet to accept as irrefutable, anything I've stated.
There is nothing to refute at this juncture. You want me to accept your pov because it is irrefutable. It's only irrefutable to you. Right off the bat you slam the door to dialog because, to you, you are right. How can I make that any clearer? How can we communicate when you believe your way is irrefutable?
#26,
Yes, it is beyond frustrating.
"The current view of the bible has made for considerable negative situations on this issue to what ends? Nothing good, apparently. I like to think that "God" creates good situations."
Well, wresting the scriptures and cherry picking is nothing new.
I'm not sure what you mean by "considerable negative situations."
I like to think God "creates good situations," too. He loved us enough to give us prophets, who acted with authority to write down His word, as a guidebook for life, so that we could avoid making bad choices. And, because He knew we'd goof, He provided us with his own Son, as a Savior, so that we could had have a chance to repent and be forgiven, and come back clean into His presence. But He also gave us freedom to choose, which makes us free to choose eternal life, or eternal death. It's up to us. In the end, we'll all get exactly what we want.
But, back to the subject of marriage definition, there is nothing in Holy Writ to suggest that there is a scriptural rationale for neutering marriage.
There is also no secular rationale the that can hold water as to why marriage should be neutered to cater to those with SSA, or who choose to engage in homosexual behavior, or to mollify those who affiliate with a gay political identity.
There is plenty of rationale to maintain the current definition of marriage as being a sex integrated public union between two unrelated adults, one man and one woman, which will ensure both of them maternal and paternal rights (rights which are compromised and rendered vulnerable with SSM), and which will ensure that children are connected both biologically and legally to the man and woman responsible for their creation, leaving we-the-peole unburdened by another's poor sexual choices.
"You say there are health risks to being gay. How is that? A comment like that seems to mean that all gay people are diseased and there are no health risks to being straight. I'm perfectly healthy.
Actually, I said there are health risks to engaging in homosexual behavior. "Gay" is a political affiliation/philosophy. A person can be "gay" and be involved in heterosexual or homosexual sex, or be abstinent. A "gay" person may or may not have SSA.
Obviously, then, not all gay people are diseased, but those who engage in homosexual behavior are at a much higher risk for becoming so. There is no "safe" homosexual sex. Condoms are not fail-proof. The CDC won't accept blood donations from men who have sex with men, making no distinctions as to whether or not the men are "gay," or also have sex with women.
And, I'm glad you're healthy. I hope you make good choices, and stay that way.
E said, "You want me to accept your pov because it is irrefutable. It's only irrefutable to you. Right off the bat you slam the door to dialog because, to you, you are right. How can I make that any clearer?"
E, I'm afraid you're not understanding how logic or debate work. I never said you "had" to accept anything I said, as irrefutable; I said that if I had proven anything to you, you would accept it as irrefutable. You would have accepted it as a portion of Truth.
I haven't "slammed the door on dialogue." Our back-and-forth IS dialogue. I've gone through your post #23, point for point. You made assertions--I answered them. You used your point of view to explain things, and I used mine.
I think what you're really frustrated with, is that you haven't "proven" anything to me, to cause me to change my mind on the definition of marriage, whether from a scriptural perspective, or a secular one. You could, for example, share your insights, your point of view, on the core meaning of marriage, and how our society has settled on the eligibility requirements for it, that we have. I'm not saying you have, to, of course, but simply suggesting it as a good point for beginning dialogue. NOM and I don't really make homosexuality (a behavior in which two individuals of the same sex engage in sexual behavior, whether the individuals have SSA, are "gay," or none of the above) a sticking point for marriage, but you may, if you like, naturally.
#27,
Ok here, the first thing you do is attack the messenger and paid no attention to the message and claimed, to suit you, that I am looking to him as an authoritative figure. You guys always do that, you like to think that you know what I am doing and thinking. Your ways seems to say that I am not mentally equiped to think for my self, that I have to have things explained to me by someone who knows better and that person better the right person and unless I go through all the right channels, according to you what those channels are, my view is meaningless. In other words, I am stupid, I have to think that what you think is the right way instead of thinking for myself. All that stuff about the Holy Ghost, Jesus, God has nothing to do with reading something and seeing what is there. I don't have to be told. You're bringing all this stuff into the equation that has nothing to do with a point of view in the bible. I know it does to you, but it is not necessary to discuss an observation. That's all we are doing. but you brought all this in to divert from the point, and reiterates how you come across which is there is only one way, your way.
The point here is that it does not look as though orientation is the issue like so many like to claim so they can view homosexuals as something different and evil..
#33,
refer to my #37
#28,
No I am not. I would be more shocked if you had another pov.
E, I really do think you're projecting your p.o.v. onto me. I think you're really revealing how you feel and think about yourself, as opposed to really understanding where I am coming from. The use of "you guys" is very revealing. You referenced a video, and inferred that you agreed with the perspectives of the young man featured in the video. If I was mistaken, then I do apologize. But you referred to that guy's interpretation of scripture, on a couple of points, as though you agreed with his conclusions. I.E., you relied on him as an authority, whose opinions you agree with.
And now, let me state emphatically, that I agree that the issue isn't sexual orientation, nor is it homosexual behavior, at least as how we as a society define, license, and regulate marriage. I can't speak for other's views on those who engage in homosexual behavior. I can speak for myself: those who engage in homosexual behavior are beloved sons and daughters of God, who are choosing to engage in a behavior forbidden by God. They will stand accountable for those choices, and they will be judged by God, who knows perfectly well their heart, mind, and degree of knowledge of light and truth, their circumstances, the influences that shaped their decisions, etc. Their choices and their consequences are between them and their creator. I don't condemn them, and I don't consider them inherently evil. I don't, however, find the choice to engage in homosexual behavior a compelling reason to neuter marriage, and thus render every man, woman, and child at loss for the valuable and irreplaceable protections guaranteed ONLY if marriage keeps its sex integrated requirement.
Society may not agree with "my way," (which, incidentally is shared by a lot more people than just myself), and will make choices accordingly. So be it. I am only responsible for acting according to my conscience.
#29,
Oh dear, here we go.
"Recognizing, of course, that a man cannot, due to biology, lay with a man as with a woman. Coitus and sodomy are not the same thing, nor can sodomy every lead to procreation"
Of course, but this doesn't seem to be what the issue is, again, in this story. Nothing is said about the dynamics of the sex act. It seems to me to make the point of being true to yourself, which I have stated, seems to fit in with the bigger picture of the whole message. Again, lying about who you are doesn't seem to fit. What's the point.
Well, E, that's an interesting perspective, but what does it have to do with how we define, license, and regulate marriage?
What's the whole message?
What does "lying to yourself" have to do with defining, licensing and regulating marriage?
E, looking over the entirety of your posts, you appear to be looking for validation for homosexual behavior (perhaps hoping that neutering marrige will lend such behavior a legitimacy it doesn't have with the general public), rather than a willingness to discuss the ramifications to society which will ineveitably follow if we as a people allow for the segregation of the sexes in marriage, one sex discriminating against the other in a public institution. What think ye?
Daughter of Eve,
We aren't getting anywhere. Probably never will.
My "God" created homosexuality for a reason and a purpose and that pupose is being served like every other thing under the Heavens that "God" created. But, obviously, to you, my "God" isn't the right "God". Only your's is, according to you. And so the divisions between us humans will continue.
Homosexuality does not do anything. It just is.
I will address one more point, though, and maybe it will get across. It is beyond the concept of reality to think that gay sex is any different than straight sex. It is absurd to think that gay sex is any more at risk than straight sex. It's ignorant and juvenile to think just because someone is homosexual that they are going to be compelled to live their lives anyway that is different than a heterosexual. It is beyond all rational to treat anyone differently just because of who they want to share their lives with. How pathetically sad. Really? Really? Really?
"We aren't getting anywhere, probably won't."
Where were you hoping to get?
Homosexuality is sex between two individuals of the same sex. God allows a lot of things He doesn't "create" or endorse. God set the standard for sexual behavior, and it is to be employed between a man married to a woman.
I've never implied that 1)I believe in a different God than you, or that 2) there's such a thing as a "right" God and a "wrong" God, though I do believe there are false gods, which people worship all the time. Nothing new there.
You and I have different beliefs about God's will and teachings. I fully support your right to do so. In fact, "[I] claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of [my] own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (Articles of Faith 1:11).
"It is beyond the concept of reality to think that gay sex is different than straight sex."
Well, let's think that assertion through. There are all kinds of sexual behaviors, implemented by men and women, some who affiliate with gay identity politics, some with SSA, most without SSA, and some who are, shall we say, "equal opportunity," when it comes to sexual partners both male and female. But, not all sexual behaviors are the same; certainly coitus is physiologically and fundamentally distnct from sodomy, with the most basic difference that it is the means for procreation to naturally take place between a male and a female. I won't go into the details on mechanics--you are, I'm sure, well versed in the differences. Society has an interest in regulating coitus, because children are the natural result, and they don't have any say in their association, and must be protected, preferably by the man and woman who bring them into existence. Marriage is the best way to ensure that the male and female who choose to engage in coitus, and find themselves expecting a baby, will take equal and full responsiblity for their offspring, such that we-the-people don't have to step in as a third party and manage the situation.
So, regarding your original statement re. "gay" sex and "straight" sex and their differences, perhaps you'd care to expound on that a little? Your assertion seems a wee bit simplistic.
Who is compelling anyone to live a certain way? This is America, remember? You are free to choose how you'll live. What you're not free to do is to ignore or escape the consequences of your choices. Seems a bit juvenile and uninformed to suppose otherwise.
What does a person's sexual orientation, or sexual behavior have to do with how we define, regulate, and license marriage? You never really did say.
Oh, and regarding the vote in NC? I admit, I'm feeling absolutely gay.
DoE,
You said a couple of things that I find quite disturbing. About things having to be authorized. I can't have a point of view about something unless it is authorized and authorized through the right channels by the authorized person in charge? And to claim that I authorized the young man to tell me how to think? The young man did absolutely nothing to me. I saw a thought that was interesting and possibly important and I decided all by myself to mull it around. How so many people think that it is ok to be told something, that it first has to be authorized by an authorized person seems to be antithetical to the purpose of Life.. I am perfectly capable and able to look at something and see what it says without it being authorized. For my view or anyone's view to not be as good or valid or pertinent without authorization doesn't seem like a good idea. You don't see that as problematic? You are looking at things the way you are authorized too, said by your own words. I find that highly disturbing. The first thing I would do if I was told to look at something from what someone is telling is the authorized version, so therefore it is the right version cause we authorized it and authorized ourselves to say so, is run as far away from that as I could. I don't have to have an authorized version to know what "God" is and what "God" is all about. I just find it kinda twisted to think there is only an authorized way to know "God".
Which is the delema we have that you don't see. You are authorized to have one view of things and your one view on marriage is the one you have allowed yourself to be authorized to have, even though an unathorized view could possibly fix all this. That's why a dialog with someone who has an authorized view from an authorized person through the right channels isn't possible. I'm not authorized. I'm not valid. Quite disturbing, indeed.
You are telling us all that we are not valid because the authorized version about us that has gone through the right authorized channels and been authorized by the authorized person because we authorized ourselves to make the authorization, says things to make it look like there is something about us that isn't right, and it's authorized so it must be so.
eliasasm, what are your criteria for deciding whether or not a type of sexual behavior is moral or immoral?
Is it okay to refer to that chosen criteria as having authority in your thoughts and terms of argumentation on these matters? That is, do the criteria shift and change depending on the end goal you have pre-chosen or do you live with the conclusions drawn from those criteria?
Are you the authority over what is right and wrong or is there some other source of authority -- especially in light of your remarks regarding scripture and God? And the law of the land?
And what has the sexual stuff got to do with "how we define, regulate, and license marriage?" (as Daughter of Eve asked).
Chairm,
eliasasm, what are your criteria for deciding whether or not a type of sexual behavior is moral or immoral?
What's yours?