Help me understand.............

The Torah (first five books of the Bible) have been written in Hebrew and also many other chunks of the Old Testament written in Aramaic. Much of the New Testament was written in Greek, though one would have expected Hebrew or Roman. The texts were transcribed through the ages by male scribes of various religious orders. Then, the Council of Nicae decided which books would be in the Bible. The ones they didn't like became known as the Apocrypha. Some provide better testimony to the existence of Jesus Christ, though they differ with the accepted gospels. Then, King James I decided to have them translated into english by his scribes, each with their own sensibilities.

It might interest some people to know that the hebrew word for virgin does not mean sexually inexperienced. It means never have born a child before. As in, any first time mother is a virgin.

Reading is one of my vices. My bad.

PurplePets22

I just don't understand why my partner and I are denied the same rights and protections as the straight couples ????????? What IS the problem ? 

MY biggest issue is that I have trouble taking a lot of gay people seriously-one minute they are gay, the next they aren't.  

 I'm back.........and you guys have impressively kept this up. 

This is a very complex issue.  One that is felt very deeply by a lot of people.   Some look at it from a legal standpoint.  Others from a religious standpoint.  Maybe "religious" isn't the right word ?  Maybe more from a moral standpoint....   

I was raised in a Catholic family.  I understand the Bible verses and the Catholic rules.  Here is where I have a problem with organized religion of any sort.   I don't care how you want to live your life....just don't think that you can force your beliefs on me.

I mean this honestly.  I'm not trying to be antagonistic.  The Catholic Church says divorce and birth control are wrong.  Yet millions who claim to be Catholic are participating in both.  The Bible says we should not eat animals that chew their cud or have cloven hooves.  So anybody eating hamburgers, steak, bacon and pork chops are sinners.

My point is that the Bible is full of great lessons that we should all strive to live by.  Don't steal, lie, cheat, murder.  Treat others as you would like to be treated.  Love thy neighbor......  If "you" (this is a general you, not anyone specific) are going to use the writings of the Bible as a guide to your life........use the whole thing.  Please don't cherry pick out a couple verses to argue against a particular issue you don't like.  

Really.......what difference in your life will there be if I can marry the woman I love ???

This is a legal issue.  Live your life as you see fit as long as no harm comes to others, and let me have the same opportunity.  SAME opportunity......not special.

sillysally

I don't think that values should be forced on anyone else, but apparently you do.  By voting yes you may not be forcing anyone to accept Christ, but you are FORCING your values on them.  YOU think homosexuality is wrong so YOU are forcing others to conform to what you believe simply because you believe it. 

I don't know that I think that this is a fair statement.  

Should she vote yes whether she believes in it or not?  She is not forcing anyone to do anything..she is placing her vote.

dyan

Should she vote yes whether she believes in it or not?  She is not forcing anyone to do anything..she is placing her vote

Excellent point. And, as I have said before, one of the dangers of democracy. People can and will vote something that is, if not patently against the law, certainly a violation of the freedoms stated or implied in the Constitution. IOW, if California wishes to run counter to the Constitution, let them secede from the union. And they will also lose federal funds if they secede. Full, free-form democracy. Vote yourselves what you wish. Germany did at one time. They voted for Hitler. Then he decided elections were no longer necessary. Democracy is a two-edged sword and must be handled with care.

Or, we can decide that the state may establish a religion and have our own version of Iran. You say it couldn't happen? More of the world is muslim or non-christian. I have had pagan friends, too. What about representing their religion? Their ancestors were burned alive a few hundred years ago.

dyan

sillysally

I don't think that values should be forced on anyone else, but apparently you do.  By voting yes you may not be forcing anyone to accept Christ, but you are FORCING your values on them.  YOU think homosexuality is wrong so YOU are forcing others to conform to what you believe simply because you believe it. 

 

I don't know that I think that this is a fair statement.  

Should she vote yes whether she believes in it or not?  She is not forcing anyone to do anything..she is placing her vote.

If you vote to ban something, then yes, you are attempting to force people who will be subject to said ban.  Otherwise, what would be the point of a ban? 

I have been bitten by a Great Dane before.  Let's say that I therefore believe that all Great Danes are huge and dangerous and nobody should have them as pets.  Let's also say that a proposition comes up voting to ban Great Danes.  If I were to vote yes to that ban, hoping that it passed, would that not be forcing my values on you by helping vote your breed out of existence?  If I don't like Great Danes then I don't have to get one--I can even avoid them in public, but would it be fair to say that because I don't like them and don't think they should exist as pets that you should have to get rid of your dog?

Of course she has a right to vote either way, just as I would have the right to vote a ban on Great Danes if it is presented.  However, when you are talking about restricting the secular rights of others based on religious reasoning, it is a *very* slippery slope.  If we can do it in the name of one religion, what stops it from being done in the name of another?

I think Christ is fantastic and i wish everyone could come to know Him.  I am truly blessed to be living in a country where I am able to worship as I please and live according to the values that I have chosen.  However, I did not have these values shoved down my throat--I came to them willingly.  Therefore I feel weird trying to force religious values on others.  If I have a choice between discrimination and tolerance, I'm going to aire on the side of tolerance......

I was trying to think of how this could have turned into a religious discussion. But the laws prohibiting gay union are based on religious opinion. As someone else pointed out, other religions, such as Islam, may also not look favorably on gay marriage. Is anyone here ready to allow the words of Allah to be the law of this land? How many here have a knowledge of the Koran?

Devout christians, "conquered" the heathens of this continent. They saw first americans as heathens that needed "saving." Saving took the form of nearly eradicating the culture, taking their land and ghetto-izing them onto "reservations". And that's just for the ones who survived the germs europeans brought over. Spaniards, in the name of God and country, squashed the remnants of the mayan and aztec empires. Even told people how they should relate to each other in the privacy of their bedrooms. Devout christians in the USA owned other humans as chattel and property. George Washington. Thomas Jefferson, to name a few. Jefferson sired children with one of his house servants out of wedlock. I'm not bashing christianity. We can't say a religion is fiat merely by the failings of humans. But we can protect each other from imposition of one religion upon another. Separation of church and state.

Granted, California has already voted but that can be undone. No, you say. Texas repealed Statute 21.06, which criminalized some private behavior between consenting adults and was used primarily to persecute gays. And Texas is a "red" state, as well as sometimes a redneck state. So, if some rednecks can drop an unenforcable law, so can some west coasters.

This is the 21st century and we are going forward, even if it's kicking and screaming.

We are going forward.  

As a member of a minority, all I ask is that "you" try to keep religion out of legal issues.

I can't stand peas.  Hate them !  My partner on the other hand loves them.  She will stink up the whole house and have a pot of peas for dinner sometimes.  Do I prevent her from doing so because I think they taste awful ?  No.  She has every right to eat what she wants for dinner.  I will eat something else. 

That analogy may be lame, but this whole same sex marriage issue is not that much different for me.  I want to get married.  "You" don't like that idea.  How does that give you the right to tell me I can't ?

I know this is a loaded topic, and I truly appreciate all the honest participation from everyone.  We didn't need the moderator to speak up at all !

Perhaps if we can keep talking to each other, someday we can come to an agreement that we should all have the same opportunities while agreeing to disagree.

Thank you everyone.
 

I have no issues with it as long as half the couple isn't going to tell me in six months they aren't gay anymore.  That to me just makes a joke of the whole thing.

willowchow

I have no issues with it as long as half the couple isn't going to tell me in six months they aren't gay anymore.  That to me just makes a joke of the whole thing.

And don't confuse the ideal with the capricious nature of some humans. A person changing their mind down the road doesn't invalidate the concept of unions between consenting adults. Otherwise, we might as well get upset with humans (that happen to be heteros) saying that they love each other forever and six months down the road are getting annulled or divorced.

willowchow

PurplePets22

I just don't understand why my partner and I are denied the same rights and protections as the straight couples ????????? What IS the problem ? 

MY biggest issue is that I have trouble taking a lot of gay people seriously-one minute they are gay, the next they aren't.  

 

Wow, that's a new one.

My experience has been the opposite - gay people being pressured into heterosexual relationships that obviously do not work out.  Someone I know married and had kids with a gay man.  There was so much pressure from the religious community saying that he could change, he really wanted to believe it, not b/c he didn't want to be gay, but he wanted to finally fit in and not be outcast by the community anymore.  It didn't work out, they divorced.  Now he has a life partner, she is remarried, and the four of them spend holidays together.  The only gay people I've known that question their sexuality are only b/c everyone else keeps telling them it's a choice and if only they try hard enough, they can change.  Personally I find that terribly abusive.  I've yet to meet a gay person I can't take seriously simply b/c they are gay, but I live in a very conservative, traditionally religious community so for people to be "open" around here, they've really been put through the ringer already.  It would be so much easier for them to say they are not gay.

ron2

willowchow

I have no issues with it as long as half the couple isn't going to tell me in six months they aren't gay anymore.  That to me just makes a joke of the whole thing.

And don't confuse the ideal with the capricious nature of some humans. A person changing their mind down the road doesn't invalidate the concept of unions between consenting adults. Otherwise, we might as well get upset with humans (that happen to be heteros) saying that they love each other forever and six months down the road are getting annulled or divorced.

 

I so agree. There are plenty of high-profile examples of people getting married on a whim and then divorcing nearly immediately afterward. Not to mention affairs, babies out of wedlock, fathers running out and refusing child support...

IMHO heterosexuals (as a general population) have proven themselves wildly irresponsible when it comes to making a supposedly-lifelong commitment to another heterosexual. Why shouldn't homosexuals have a shot to see if they can do better? Plus, there are plenty of irresponsible heterosexuals out there making babies they can't and don't want to care for. At least if the homosexuals are irresponsible they won't be popping out babies that will require taxpayer financial support.

Just for the record, MY personal problem with the word marriage yes, IS not necessarily religious in nature, but rather spiritual.  I am not saying that I object on the grounds of anything in religion or in the Bible, but rather that to me, civil commitment is the STATE recognizing a union, while marriage, to me, is a very spiritual thing.

That said, I guess it's unfair of me to get hung up on the word, because everyone should be entitled to that spiritual commitemnt.  Sigh.  Guess that's the old fart in me showing.  But, to my credit, well, I have been battling that particular "bug" for sometime now, trying to not let the word stand in the way of being open minded.  However, in some recess of my mind, a little demon rares its ugly head and INSISTS that marriage is something that happens between a man and a woman.  Guess that old fart values die hard....

Ron, I agree with you too.

But, what bothers me is not the fact that they aren't working out and separating.  It's that they are separating and then next thing they are with the opposite sex.  If I was to divorce tomorrow I wouldn't suddenly become gay.  I just don't see how it's such a big deal-they want to be married, they are partners, we should be treated like everyone else--then the next thing they aren't even gay anymore.  I have no problem with same sex marriage or couples but the flip flopping.

glenmar

Just for the record, MY personal problem with the word marriage yes, IS not necessarily religious in nature, but rather spiritual.  I am not saying that I object on the grounds of anything in religion or in the Bible, but rather that to me, civil commitment is the STATE recognizing a union, while marriage, to me, is a very spiritual thing.

That said, I guess it's unfair of me to get hung up on the word, because everyone should be entitled to that spiritual commitemnt.  Sigh.  Guess that's the old fart in me showing.  But, to my credit, well, I have been battling that particular "bug" for sometime now, trying to not let the word stand in the way of being open minded.  However, in some recess of my mind, a little demon rares its ugly head and INSISTS that marriage is something that happens between a man and a woman.  Guess that old fart values die hard....

Well that's all fine and good, but whatever term you use for which, in this case the state is constitutionally banning ANY form of legally recognized union (marriage, legal union, partnership....whatever).

Personally, I view "marriage" as the religious ceremony and the civil union as a civil ceremony and the union that is recognized by the law.  Ergo, you and I are not in disagreement, but I just don't see how believe that should result in someone voting in favor of the ban.  The proposal has nothing to do with religious/spiritual unions/ceremonies.