If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Douglas Berry" wrote in message ... Of course not. But since marriage is a legal state, those governments can redefine it as they wish. Why is marriage a legal state? What gives government the authority to redefine it? Is marriage not older than government? Excellent point, for a change. Yes, marriage is older than government. Coming-of-age rituals, such as circumcision, First Communion, confirmation, etc., are older than government. Becoming a recognized cleric is older than government. Religions do very nicely managing these rites on their own. The rules of one religion may very much conflict with those of another, such as Islamic polygamy, State Shinto obligation, etc. To a large extent, we leave these things up to the religious leadership. I actually don't have a problem if, according to the teachings of Islam or of the older traditions of Latter-Day Saints, people want to enter into a religiously-approved plural marriage. I'd simply like the governemt to record the marriage and the associated property, inheritance, parental control, medical surrogacy rules. In other words, people can have religiously defined marriages, plus civilly defined unions/contracts. Since in the US we have freedom not to be in a religion, logically, the state should be able to record the legal details of a civil union. But you keep repeating a religious definition, but a definition that applies only in specific religions. I will ask specifically: the Koran allows, with conditions, a marriage to be defined between a man and up to four wives. By your reasoning, isn't that a religiously defined marriage? Or are you saying that only SOME religions get to define marriage? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: || "Magda" wrote in message || ... ||| ||| In your neck of woods, maybe. ||| || || Everywhere. Steven, sometimes it depends on the individual's definition of the word "marriage". Some people simply define it as a union between two people in love and of mutual consent; however, that definition is vague and secular-based and based on individual *preference*. On a secular level, that's fine, but in a religious framework the definition is not quite so vague and not so out of personal preference. This is one of those debates that will just go on and on because there are so many elements and opinions involved in it. You can choose to get caught in the whirlpool of it or not. The whirlpool gets all muddy if the participants get zapped with zingers between each other, when it gets to that point, best to pull yourself out of it and leave it be. I provided a link in another post in this thread, use references when trying to argue your point, and that link has mention of some specific references. Good luck, I've said my piece on it, although I had intended on not returning to the NG quite so soon. Toodles.... Here's the link for quick reference for you.... http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1D121A75 http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/ |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"~Nins~" wrote in message newstq%b.25231$AL.466780@attbi_s03... Steven, sometimes it depends on the individual's definition of the word "marriage". When individuals can define words to their liking language ceases to have meaning. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
|| "~Nins~" wrote in message || newstq%b.25231$AL.466780@attbi_s03... ||| ||| Steven, sometimes it depends on the individual's definition of the ||| word "marriage". ||| || || || When individuals can define words to their liking language ceases to || have meaning. True, sometimes, but that is the reality sometimes. You did read the rest of my post, didn't you? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"~Nins~" wrote in message news:VMq%b.418336$na.808874@attbi_s04... You did read the rest of my post, didn't you? Yup. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"~Nins~" wrote in message
news:jtq%b.25230$AL.466402@attbi_s03 wrote: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message hlink.net. ... " wrote in message ink.net... You see, once more you have engaged in an erroneous usage of the language. Marriage, is a socio-politico-religous institution and therefore may change in accordance with whatever is acceptable within the many multitudes of social, political and religious institutions of the world which are many more than most people fully comprehend. Within that framework, marriage between two individuals of the same sex is eminently a possibility. Now, I am rather hard pressed to come up with something that is an absolute impossibility save that any behavior is impossible among the many and diverse social-political-religious institutions of the world or that any particular form of behavior by homo sapiens sapiens is impossible is as close to impossible as one may find in the world. You don't get it. Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex. No, it doesn't. Since it is defined within a human social-political-religious framework it will be whatever any human social-political-religious group can come up with. Well, it depends on values and beliefs. It dates back to the Old Testament (Genesis, Leviticus, etc.) where God made specific reference to the act of same gender sex and the union of two, which would invalidate the same-sex marriage issue. Marriage is a covenant involving God and two people (man-woman). The Church recently addressed the issue with a 12-page document of considerations which *cited various biblical references*. Below is the link to this document which also mentions legislators when voting on the issue. "When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it." In some religious frameworks (churches), the possibility of gay marriage is indeed an impossibility. http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1D121A75 You sir, are either incredibly naive or incredibly illiterate. It is a union meant for two people of different gender. Homosexuality is not something I agree with and never will agree with it. However, if that's what they have decided for themselves and if it brings them happiness in some way, while I might voice my opposition to their act, I would not be unkind to them for continuing it. Just as I would not be unkind I would never condone/accept a gay marriage in the religious sense (you mentioned religious framework). Snark, if having such an opinion that marriage is meant for male-female, is naive then I guess that makes the inspired word of God naive? It has nothing to do with naivety or illiteracy, but more to do with values and beliefs built from a foundation that has its roots in the Bible (the inspired word of God), at least in the religious framework anyhow. This is a debate that has no end in sight, at least not now. I prefer to go with what's been in place for a couple thousand years or more. Does that make me one or both, naive or illiterate? Back to my break. Toodles. It probably makes you devout in your beliefs. Within my own religion I must oppose any acceptance of such a union as being contrary to it's system of beliefs, tenets and religious laws. However, in the US my religion and yours are not the only ones that are followed by the many and diverse peoples of this country and I don't feel that it is mine to judge them. Also, in terms of the socio-economic and civil institutions of marriage before the civil authorities of the land, such an issue must be addressed and if the civil authorities of the land wish to recognize that such couples have the same rights, priviledges, duties and obligations as any other marriage under those civil authorities it is simply, to quote an oft used part of the New Testament, used in justifying murder in the name of the state, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's". Now in my own faith, such a use of the word god as if it were the proper name of he who cannot be named would be as bad or perhaps worse (depending upon the argument of the relative "badness" of this act) than a same sex marriage. :-) Live and let live I say. Perhaps it is because I made/make my living enforcing the will of one group of people over another and sometimes see that my side is not always in the absolute right and that sometimes there is no "right" in such situations I try to allow for that which is different from my own ways so long as it does not harm others. Snark |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in message link.net... "~Nins~" wrote in message news:jtq%b.25230$AL.466402@attbi_s03 wrote: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message hlink.net. .. " wrote in message ink.net... You see, once more you have engaged in an erroneous usage of the language. Marriage, is a socio-politico-religous institution and therefore may change in accordance with whatever is acceptable within the many multitudes of social, political and religious institutions of the world which are many more than most people fully comprehend. Within that framework, marriage between two individuals of the same sex is eminently a possibility. Now, I am rather hard pressed to come up with something that is an absolute impossibility save that any behavior is impossible among the many and diverse social-political-religious institutions of the world or that any particular form of behavior by homo sapiens sapiens is impossible is as close to impossible as one may find in the world. You don't get it. Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex. No, it doesn't. Since it is defined within a human social-political-religious framework it will be whatever any human social-political-religious group can come up with. Well, it depends on values and beliefs. It dates back to the Old Testament (Genesis, Leviticus, etc.) where God made specific reference to the act of same gender sex and the union of two, which would invalidate the same-sex marriage issue. Marriage is a covenant involving God and two people (man-woman). The Church recently addressed the issue with a 12-page document of considerations which *cited various biblical references*. Below is the link to this document which also mentions legislators when voting on the issue. "When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it." In some religious frameworks (churches), the possibility of gay marriage is indeed an impossibility. http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1D121A75 You sir, are either incredibly naive or incredibly illiterate. It is a union meant for two people of different gender. Homosexuality is not something I agree with and never will agree with it. However, if that's what they have decided for themselves and if it brings them happiness in some way, while I might voice my opposition to their act, I would not be unkind to them for continuing it. Just as I would not be unkind I would never condone/accept a gay marriage in the religious sense (you mentioned religious framework). Snark, if having such an opinion that marriage is meant for male-female, is naive then I guess that makes the inspired word of God naive? It has nothing to do with naivety or illiteracy, but more to do with values and beliefs built from a foundation that has its roots in the Bible (the inspired word of God), at least in the religious framework anyhow. This is a debate that has no end in sight, at least not now. I prefer to go with what's been in place for a couple thousand years or more. Does that make me one or both, naive or illiterate? Back to my break. Toodles. It probably makes you devout in your beliefs. Within my own religion I must oppose any acceptance of such a union as being contrary to it's system of beliefs, tenets and religious laws. However, in the US my religion and yours are not the only ones that are followed by the many and diverse peoples of this country and I don't feel that it is mine to judge them. Also, in terms of the socio-economic and civil institutions of marriage before the civil authorities of the land, such an issue must be addressed and if the civil authorities of the land wish to recognize that such couples have the same rights, priviledges, duties and obligations as any other marriage under those civil authorities it is simply, to quote an oft used part of the New Testament, used in justifying murder in the name of the state, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's". Now in my own faith, such a use of the word god as if it were the proper name of he who cannot be named would be as bad or perhaps worse (depending upon the argument of the relative "badness" of this act) than a same sex marriage. :-) Live and let live I say. Perhaps it is because I made/make my living enforcing the will of one group of people over another and sometimes see that my side is not always in the absolute right and that sometimes there is no "right" in such situations I try to allow for that which is different from my own ways so long as it does not harm others. I agree with you, Snark, but that's easy .... coz I live in Canada where same sex marriage is permitted ... Furthermore, if one wanted to take the Bible literally to the word, we would be mandated to call upon the death of homosexuals: Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Now, does the government really want to get involved in *that* nasty business? - nilita |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:21:33 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll" came forth and told this tale in us.military.army "Douglas Berry" wrote in message .. . Since marriage does grant rights, it is unconstitutional to deny those rights without due process of law (14th Amendment, Section 1) Here in California, Article I, Section 31 of the State Constitution forbids discrimination in public contracts, which includes marriage. Who is being denied marriage? Same-sex couples. Now, I'd like you to explain what has happened to your life now that over 3,000 gay couples have been married in San Francisco. By "gay couples" I assume you mean same-sex couples. No same-sex couples have been married in San Francisco. Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are free to marry persons of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals are. No rights are being denied to anyone. Wrong. over 3,100 people have been married. Not one of thiose unions has been successfully challenged. In four different hearings judges have refused to stop the marriages from occuring. I am, for almost 13 years now. My marriage is still solid as a rock. What harm is being done? Explain it to me. Harm is not the issue. Actually, it is. -- Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail WE *ARE* UMA Lemmings 404 Local |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"la n." wrote in message
" wrote in message link.net.. .. snip It probably makes you devout in your beliefs. Within my own religion I must oppose any acceptance of such a union as being contrary to it's system of beliefs, tenets and religious laws. However, in the US my religion and yours are not the only ones that are followed by the many and diverse peoples of this country and I don't feel that it is mine to judge them. Also, in terms of the socio-economic and civil institutions of marriage before the civil authorities of the land, such an issue must be addressed and if the civil authorities of the land wish to recognize that such couples have the same rights, priviledges, duties and obligations as any other marriage under those civil authorities it is simply, to quote an oft used part of the New Testament, used in justifying murder in the name of the state, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's". Now in my own faith, such a use of the word god as if it were the proper name of he who cannot be named would be as bad or perhaps worse (depending upon the argument of the relative "badness" of this act) than a same sex marriage. :-) Live and let live I say. Perhaps it is because I made/make my living enforcing the will of one group of people over another and sometimes see that my side is not always in the absolute right and that sometimes there is no "right" in such situations I try to allow for that which is different from my own ways so long as it does not harm others. I agree with you, Snark, but that's easy .... coz I live in Canada where same sex marriage is permitted ... Furthermore, if one wanted to take the Bible literally to the word, we would be mandated to call upon the death of homosexuals: Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Now, does the government really want to get involved in *that* nasty business? All governments do get involved in *that* nasty business. In fact one of the parts of my job is to commit murder and assault upon people as my government may direct. Governments decide which murders are characterized as criminal and which are not. Ultimately, I believe I _will_ answer to god for my part in them and will stand before him unbowed as those were and are my acts for which I am responsible and felt were necessary at the time. What god will determine thereafter is up to god. Snark |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
At Dear Ol' AVL Airport, Asheville, NC | jls | Home Built | 39 | May 2nd 05 02:20 AM |
From "Dear Oracle" | Larry Smith | Home Built | 0 | December 27th 03 04:25 AM |
About death threats and other Usenet potpourri :-) | Dudley Henriques | Military Aviation | 4 | December 23rd 03 07:16 AM |
Dear Dr. Strangewater | pac plyer | Home Built | 8 | August 20th 03 12:45 PM |