How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

[clv0116]

Christianity before Constantine was tiny and not at all similar to christianity today.

 

True.

 

 

It was also the unorganized heathen religion of the poor.

 

False. It was an organized minority religion, complete with a central overseeing body and organized congregational groups.

 

 

Nero was no fan of the poor so he got to be thought of as the first to oppress the christians as well. Like he was the first emperor to crap on the poor or something!

 

True.

 

 

Prior to Constantine commissioning the bibles, christianity was just some essays floating around. He decided which of these essays to use, which to chuck, and which ones still needed to be written for his agendas. The bible is an over edited version of Constantine's design.

 

False. In every case where an older version of those essays has been found the degree of copy fidelity is extremely high compared to more modern versions. In addition, the books of the Bible canon are internally consistent and in many cases internally referential, with well accepted providence.

 

I'm certainly no fan of major religion but I'm not gonna use every story I can dream up to smear their holy book, nor do I blindly trust The History Channel.

[sally4sara]

I'm certainly no fan of major religion but I'm not gonna use every story I can dream up to smear their holy book, nor do I blindly trust The History Channel.

 

I don't blindly trust anything.

My post was about offering up conflicting THEORY to offered THEORY and pointing out how THEORY should not be used to deny the rights of others.

And your points are also only THEORY about things we cannot prove entirely and cannot go back and witness for ourselves. Further making it not worthwhile to use to deny anyone their rights.

The point of the history channel comment is that the theory I was using was not obscure nor something I was creating on the fly as was suggested.

Smear their book?

Hebrew translations were not correct. How about looking into how the Hebrew word they translated to mean "virgin" is incorrect and translates as "young" making it that Jesus was born to a young woman and not a virgin woman. A god impregnating a human woman would be a miracle whether she was a virgin or not. Making yet another of the main themes of their holy book also questionable; certainly. Is that my creation? Is that a smear?

 

You don't know me and may not like some of the things I post. This makes it harder for you to want to lend anything I might offer on this subject any credibility. I know this. I don't offer you anything of MINE. Nor am I trying to take any of your rights away with what I post. It is hard to not make this argument personal. But that is part of what keeps people from remembering that this was never suppose to be a religious argument. Separation of church and state, right? Don't want one's faith in their chosen theory called into question? Keep it out of the legal arena. The legalities of one's right to worship has already been addressed long ago and it was decided that it shouldn't be discriminated against. Let them worship who they will.

Why then should it be used to discriminate against other people? Is that completely crapping on the "sanctity" of the reasoning for their rights?

 

We shall over come, we shall over come, we shall over come and step on the necks of others?

[clv0116]

Hebrew translations were not correct. How about looking into how the Hebrew word they translated to mean "virgin" is incorrect and translates as "young" ...

 

Actually it can mean young or young virgin, and given the context I think the translators did a reasonable job.

 

"18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins.'"

 

 

Whether we choose to BELIEVE is a different matter.

[sally4sara]

Actually it can mean young or young virgin, and given the context I think the translators did a reasonable job.

 

"18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins.'"

 

 

Whether we choose to BELIEVE is a different matter.

 

Still theory.........can you prove any of it one way or the other? No.

People can believe or not believe. Belief does not justify or qualify for everyone - believers, disbelievers, and doubters alike. It all needs to be removed from the argument. Continuing to not recognize the logic of this simply because I typed it is getting this issue where?

Are you arguing for any point or are you just arguing with me?

[clv0116]

Still theory.........can you prove any of it one way or the other? No.

 

Yes, one can prove with reasonable certainty what the original Bible writer wrote. As I said, whether we choose to BELIEVE that writer is another question entirely.

[sally4sara]

Yes, one can prove with reasonable certainty what the original Bible writer wrote. As I said, whether we choose to BELIEVE that writer is another question entirely.

 

It wasn't a "the original bible writer", but many writers. You also don't take into consideration the texts that were excluded or why they were excluded or even what the excluded texts say.

 

But claim away....

 

Then I like you to do so because I don't blindly trust your claim. Please include your credentials for translating and as well as those of the carbon dater you hire for verification of the documents you use. I'll check back in a couple of days. I don't think its too much to ask when you consider it is the rights of others at stake. You would have to do so if this were a court of law.

[clv0116]

It wasn't a "the original bible writer", but many writers.

 

Only one writer for the text we were discussing. Of course the Bible had many writers.

[NoIDidn't]

Only one writer for the text we were discussing. Of course the Bible had many writers.

 

I don't get this argument. Of course the Bible had many writers. And for the text you referenced, there is ONE particular writer who has his name on the book. (I'm agreeing with you). I get that you were talking about the writer of this particular book of the Bible.

 

All this desire for proof? Its a copout. Asking for proof in this case is just a way of saying I'm not interested in anything you present. Why not just say this instead of attempting to send someone on a wild goose chase?

[NoIDidn't]

If you look at the size of all the countries which, as S4S says, "...shows where gay partnerships have found acceptance," it IS roughly half of the world. And actually READ what she says rather than trying to find some nit to pick in a vain attempt to solidify your VERY shaky ground on the subject. She didn't say "gay marriage," she said, "shows where gay partnerships have found acceptance," which is a FAR cry from what you are bleating on about.

 

I don't agree with Boxing much, but I agree with him on this map. I took a look at it and while the majority of the land masses were "homosexuality not illegal" still showed that there was no legislation in place to recognize gay partnerships in any way. At least the US was yellowish pointing towards legislation being passed (that may be violated). That is hardly half of the world.

 

And looking at the map further, the most populace places in the world were actually dark blue stating that homosexuality is illegal and there were legal penalties for it. The size of the land masses is not enough, its the population counts that matter. And this map did not show that half of the world accepts gay partnerships. It may have shown that more than half of the westernize/modernized world accepts is, but even that isn't close to half of the world population.

[kakui215]

And yes, heteros cheat, especially noticeable on a site like this. But millions do not. On a long enough time line ZERO gays are monogamous. Usually a very short time line.

 

"ZERO"??? And this is based on . . . what? Nothing at all, right? You just pulled this little "factoid" out of your supposedly virgin behind, didn't you?

 

It's hard to take someone seriously when they just make stuff up and expect you to swallow it.

 

Oh! Sorry! Swallowing has nothing at all to do with procreation, does it?!

[sally4sara]

All this desire for proof? Its a copout. Asking for proof in this case is just a way of saying I'm not interested in anything you present. Why not just say this instead of attempting to send someone on a wild goose chase?

 

Because one of the main reasons cited for why gays should have their rights limited is religious dogma. If it is to be used as a legitimate reason for denying their rights - shouldn't it be a reason that can be proven? It is a legal issue and in the U.S., our legal system requires proof.

 

If I told you you couldn't marry someone you wanted to marry, would "because Thor said so" be a good enough reason for you?

 

I think I'd want Thor to tell me in person. And then I'd question his power within our courts. In the U.S., there is SUPPOSE to be a separation of church and state. It is THE reason why churches do not pay taxes on the money they receive through donations. Either they give that up and our country adopts one religion for our courts to recognize, or they keep out of legal matters entirely and keep their tax exemption.

 

In California, gay marriage passed. Mormon money was used to grease palms with the ability to get it reversed.

 

Mormons. That's right, mormons..........pardon me while I laugh about the whole "sanctity of marriage between ONE man and ONE woman" coming from mormons!

 

I'm sorry, but if I'm ever going to listen to the wisdom of any religion on any issue, they better practice what they're preaching!

[sally4sara]

Only one writer for the text we were discussing. Of course the Bible had many writers.

 

You came back after all that time with only this to show?

 

I'm sorry but this also would not hold up in court. You are ill prepared to address a legal matter concerning the decision to continue the with holding of a group's rights from them.

[zilverenvlinder]

I hate the "procreation" argument. We don't need any more people on Earth. Marriage is not to make babies. Marriage is to express love between 2 people.

 

It doesn't negatively affect anyone. I think it's selfish to be against gay marriage.

[clv0116]

You came back after all that time with only this to show?

 

It's been a while but as I recall you asserted that the phrase rendered "virgin girl" in a specific passage was mistranslated and I showed that given the original context the linguists who did the translation work actually seem to have done a reasonable job.

 

Your response was that it's not possible to know what the original writer wrote, and I showed that experts in the field have reasonably persuasive evidence to the contrary.

 

I never claimed the passage was TRUE, nor that it should guide our lives, nor did I try to make a legal argument.

[clv0116]

All this desire for proof? Its a copout. Asking for proof in this case is just a way of saying I'm not interested in anything you present. Why not just say this instead of attempting to send someone on a wild goose chase?

 

I'm not sure who you're talking to or about here.

[clv0116]

Because one of the main reasons cited for why gays should have their rights limited is religious dogma.

 

Um, not from me.

 

 

 

In California, gay marriage passed. Mormon money was used to grease palms with the ability to get it reversed.

 

Concerned taxpayers use their constitutionally assured freedoms to influence their elected representatives and to enact laws they feel are appropriate. Whether it's MPAA, RIAA, AARP, KKK, NAACP, PETA, NRA, Mormons, etc. it's part of the process.

[sally4sara]

It's been a while but as I recall you asserted that the phrase rendered "virgin girl" in a specific passage was mistranslated and I showed that given the original context the linguists who did the translation work actually seem to have done a reasonable job.

 

Your response was that it's not possible to know what the original writer wrote, and I showed that experts in the field have reasonably persuasive evidence to the contrary.

 

I never claimed the passage was TRUE, nor that it should guide our lives, nor did I try to make a legal argument.

 

But these are legal rights we are discussing. Opinions are not fact, best guesses are not fact. If I denied one, some, or all of your legal rights....I'm sure you would want a factual reason.

 

My point with biblical text is that no one living today was alive then to know anything about the scriptures to be FACT. Theories of theories of theories at best hold up the entire religious aspect of this argument. It all needs to be ignored when it comes to passing these laws.

[sally4sara]

Um, not from me.

 

Yes, I was completely under the belief that you, and you alone, are the one person keeping gays from being able to legally get married.

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

Concerned taxpayers use their constitutionally assured freedoms to influence their elected representatives and to enact laws they feel are appropriate. Whether it's MPAA, RIAA, AARP, KKK, NAACP, PETA, NRA, Mormons, etc. it's part of the process.

 

Individuals DO pay taxes and get to vote.

 

CHURCHES who DO NOT pay taxes and get no voting rights should not be able to declare themselves as representatives in our government or it's functions. It is illegal. They may represent individuals in their personal spiritual path, but they are not elected governmental figures. Money accumulated through donation and tithing is not taxed nor is it given with the intent to buy representatives or judges. To do so is illegal.

Your average individual person who goes to a mormon church can place their individual vote when asked, but they cannot buy sway in the process without taking illegal actions. Who taught your government class? They lied to you.

[clv0116]

Yes, I was completely under the belief that you, and you alone, are the one person keeping gays from being able to legally get married.

Nope.

 

 

 

Individuals DO pay taxes and get to vote.

 

Yup, and they donate to all sorts of organizations, some of which are tax exempt and some of which spend some of the money to influence politics. Why single out churches?

[clv0116]

But these are legal rights we are discussing.

 

No, you and I were discussing a slightly obscure point of Bible translation. It may bear on something larger but the larger thing is not the point we were discussing. I would never try to force someone else to live by my religious beliefs or lack of them nor would I promote the Bible as a basis for modern political guidance.

[clv0116]

CHURCHES who DO NOT pay taxes and get no voting rights should not be able to declare themselves as representatives in our government or it's functions. It is illegal.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "declare themselves as representatives in our government" but at first reading it looks like you have an issue with basic freedom of speech when it is afforded religious organizations. Why would it be illegal? Are you asserting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is guilty of illegal activities in connection with this? Can you provide any sort of proof?

[silktricks]

uhmmmm - coming from a decidedly non-religious point of view I'd like to voice my opinion here.

 

I (personally) don't believe that gay marriage negatively affects traditional marriage

 

HOWEVER

 

I don't want them to have that word. I want them to have the ability to have legally binding civil unions with ALL of the rights and responsibilities therein. I want the word marriage to remain meaning what it has always meant - a binding union between heterosexual people (preferably one of each).

 

I honestly don't think my opinion is fair at all. But it is what I want.

[NoIDidn't]

I'm not sure who you're talking to or about here.

 

I was talking about sally's demand for proof on the biblical practices you referenced.

 

The argument for proof is a copout to me. It matters not what religion says it. The argument for proof basically comes down to "go back to the person that started your religion and get the proof that I want". Its impossible. It shows that the person isn't interested in considering your point at all, so they send you on a wild goose chase for "proof".

 

That's all.

[sally4sara]

I was talking about sally's demand for proof on the biblical practices you referenced.

 

The argument for proof is a copout to me. It matters not what religion says it. The argument for proof basically comes down to "go back to the person that started your religion and get the proof that I want". Its impossible. It shows that the person isn't interested in considering your point at all, so they send you on a wild goose chase for "proof".

 

That's all.

 

Exactly. Its impossible and for that reason not a viable reason to use for denying someone their legal rights.

Mark Twain could've said it one night over dinner and it still wouldn't matter because he is dead and cannot vote. Does this clear up the point?

[sally4sara]

No, you and I were discussing a slightly obscure point of Bible translation. It may bear on something larger but the larger thing is not the point we were discussing. I would never try to force someone else to live by my religious beliefs or lack of them nor would I promote the Bible as a basis for modern political guidance.

 

Go back and read the thread title. We are discussing gay marriage and the gay community being denied rights.