MO bans *** marriage

[iamnemo]

Yeah, I searched for *** marriage on here to make sure I wasn't reposting like woah. This is an issue I've had some tough times with...

On one hand, I'm a deeply religious person and can't say that I find *** marriage as right in the eyes of God. It says it many places in the Bible (NOT out of context) that a man marries a WIFE, not husband, not animal, not anything else but a wife. SO, you'd think I'd support a ban of *** marriage.

Nope.

Seperation of church and state was one of the principles this county was founded on. The government has NO place whatsoever to dictate how a church should practice, or how individual people should practice their religion. By banning *** marriage (38 states have I believe), it's saying that even if a religion finds it ok to marry homosexuals, they can't. This is just wrong. Everyone can have their own opinion on it, government officials included, but once you start telling ANY religion how to do things (I may not believe in what they do, but it's their right to do it) then you've got problems.

We've opened Pandora's Box...

Oh, please don't post a reply unless it's semi-intelligent...

[usc]

Then one might want to take into account what truly "defines" a marriage. Is it a piece of paper? Or is it a commitment between two individuals?

Ideally, one would think it is the latter but people still gripe. Why? Because they don't get the tax-breaks and other "benefits" without the paper. Therefore, what is really more important here? The need to be recognized by the government so the couple can get the same breaks and benefits? Or the actual commitment of two individuals to one another?

[ZigenBallZ]

gawd...

this is such a non issue in my book... who really cares is the way I see it.. if 2 guys or 2 chicks ( take a sec and think about that...MMMMMMmmm) want to tie the knot...and be entitled to all the same priveliges and rights as a man & woman legal union why is it such a big frickin deal...???

It's like the fun police gone mad... ya know... why be so concerned about other poeple's conduct when maybe you should be taking a closer look at your own...perhaps that's exactly why... people want to tell you how it is, how it should be and why you should like it...just so they don't have to take a look at their own miserable, pathetic lives...

THIS IS MY MAIN POINT THOUGH:

If you ask me... certain issues like this one are brought to the forefront just to trivialize the world and keep people from getting upset about some of the more important issues... things like AIDS, poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc...

It's a conspiracy I tell ya...

[92accordDx]

hey man im with zingin to each his own.

[Prez808]

Personally it doesn't matter to me. Whatever people do is between them and God. I am not the one to judge them. So I don't care. What I do care about is if my religion allows *** marriage. That is what I would have a problem with.

[uncle_el]

Originally posted by usc
Then one might want to take into account what truly "defines" a marriage. Is it a piece of paper? Or is it a commitment between two individuals?

Ideally, one would think it is the latter but people still gripe. Why? Because they don't get the tax-breaks and other "benefits" without the paper. Therefore, what is really more important here? The need to be recognized by the government so the couple can get the same breaks and benefits? Or the actual commitment of two individuals to one another?

while i can't argue that there are tax-break benefits and whatnot, you know that in the dental and medical fields, relationship to a patient can be a big deal. for those that don't know, let me explain...

in the icu (intensive care unit), generally only family members are allowed in. not family, no admission (of course assuming ancillary staff is on top of things). with that said, a partner may indeed be allowed into the icu under soft guidelines. however, the partner would not be allowed to make any medical decisions for the patient.

while it might sound stupid, this actually came up in texas a few years ago... one lesbian partner, estranged from her family for 10-15 years, was in an accident, ended up in the icu. the second lesbian partner came to the hospital... but when it came time for treatment decisions, she was not allowed to make any because she was not family (in most states, if you do not have a living will/durable power of attorney, your family gets to make decisions for you- in order 1. spouse 2. parents 3. children- must be of adult age 4. other relatives).

and even outside of the icu, there are other places in medical settings where the legal status of a partner does indeed play a role.

in any event, i think that the powers that be (i.e. politicians) are arguing that the definition of marriage is man and wife because that's the way that it is in the bible (of course, not relating the fact that paul actually states that it's better for man to be alone, but if he can't, then he should have a wife... but i digress)... politicians are using a biblical reference in order to justify their position, which is a no-no to me.
hell, back in the day, people attempted to use biblical arguments to justify slavery and the banning of interracial marriages! i would like to think that we all feel that in both of those cases, the powers that be were in the wrong.

i think it's funny when you hear politicians try to sound reasonable in their justification for the banning of *** marriages, especially here in the south. last weekend, or the weekend before, a guy running for office was for banning *** marriage because "i'm a christian and i believe what the good book tells me. marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman."

that doesn't seem to be a great argument to me, because the bible says plenty of things are wrong in the eyes of God, but people aren't trying to ban them.

i think the argument is poor, because politicians are blatantly using a Christian definition, since they refer to the bible as their source for definition of marriage... and if that's the case, then shouldn't marriage only be restricted to christian men and women?!? of course the argument won't go that far...

maybe the *** marriage ban is being spun differently in cali and elsewhere, but here in the bible belt, people say it should be banned because it's in the bible, case closed.

idk... i believe the other argument is that "it tears at the very fabric of the institution of marriage"... well, according to current divorce statistics, we heterosexuals aren't doing a great job with the institution of marriage... perhaps we could stand to learn something from our homosexual counterparts.

sorry for typing so much, been studying all day, please carry on.

[iamnemo]

Originally posted by uncle_el

(of course, not relating the fact that paul actually states that it's better for man to be alone, but if he can't, then he should have a wife... but i digress)

True he does say that. I've actually gone through 1 Cor recently and really thought about those verses. I've heard people twist those verses around to mean that heterosexuality is immoral...idiots .

The thing is though, Paul says it's good to be alone, but if you can't contain yourself, it's better to take a WIFE than "to burn with passion". So, if they were just tsalking to me and used those verses to back up that marriage is between a man and a woman in the eyes of God, I'd be fine. HOWEVER, they're messing with the laws of a nation. It's like you said, they shouldn't back up national laws with religious context.

If they want to ban *** marriage, show me actual stats and figures as to why it should be banned...not something I use in church.

[uncle_el]

Originally posted by iamnemo
True he does say that. I've actually gone through 1 Cor recently and really thought about those verses. I've heard people twist those verses around to mean that heterosexuality is immoral...idiots .

haven't heard that one before. you read that on the 'net, or just some friends/someone on tv/newspaper/etc.?

[ZigenBallZ]

Well since the subject of the bible has come up....

It is totally moronic to take literal meaning from the exact words since some words in the more current versions of the New Testament aren't exact by any means...

The original gospels in the bible were never ever written in english... greek, latin and hebrew... I have seen some translations that put a whole new spin to the bible...
For instance the greek word that was translated into virgin in the context of the virgin Mary was not literal... it was more a description of an unwed woman and not one who was a literal virgin...

Not to mention the New Testament's political spin... seeing as how many many relevant gospels were left out... in some instances gospels from people in direct contact with Jesus were left out... and mary magdalene's gospel is another example... the gospels were chosen by a church commitee and the new testament is very incomplete... They included what coincided with the doctrine they wanted to promote long after Jesus had died (30-60 AD if I remember right) and left out anything that would raise any doubt or not be reassuring to what they wanted to promote...

But i totally agree that the bible is not a very good justification at all... you can not pick and choose which portions to follow... it's an all or nothing thing... the bible says some crazy shit about stoning people to death and leaving your house on the sabbath being grounds for death...amongst other things...

One thing I fear more than anything else is a Christian trying to save my soul... The Catholic religion is basically a legitimized version of the old British empire that has tried to spread to every corner of the world and save everyone in their way and if you did not want to be saved they would just as surely kill you in the name of God and decry you a heretic...

[WiKKeDV16]

Originally posted by 92accordDx
hey man im with zingin to each his own.

its mr. zigen..

[uncle_el]

Originally posted by ZigenBallZ
Not to mention the New Testament's political spin... seeing as how many many relevant gospels were left out... in some instances gospels from people in direct contact with Jesus were left out... and mary magdalene's gospel is another example... the gospels were chosen by a church commitee and the new testament is very incomplete... They included what coincided with the doctrine they wanted to promote long after Jesus had died (30-60 AD if I remember right) and left out anything that would raise any doubt or not be reassuring to what they wanted to promote...

well... the definition of gospel would need to be defined in order to say that gospel's are left out of the bible or not.
in short, gospel is good news, or the written doctine/body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group.
with that said, i would agree that there are tons of "gospels" that are not in the bible, as they are stories written by people. anyone who wrote a story, or for that matter writes one now, has a gospel.

so the new testament isn't incomplete in the sense that it has what it has... but there are other stories/gospels out there. for instance, i'm sure that paul wrote letters to many people other than what's in the bible.

also, you can find/buy a version of the bible with the apocrypha- 14 books written after what is accepted as the old testament, and before what is accepted as the new testament. the apocrypha contains, amongst other things, the maccabean revolt which is, according to some, important to understanding the political/historical backdrop for the new testament.

in any event, we're saying the same thing (i think) in different ways. it's all good.

[iamnemo]

Originally posted by uncle_el
haven't heard that one before. you read that on the 'net, or just some friends/someone on tv/newspaper/etc.?

Read it on a message board I was browsing one day. The guy took it completely out of context. I just wanted to smack him. I like that you put actual thought into your responses...it's refreshing. Same with most of the people who have replied to this!

In regards to what Zigen said about people trying to "save him", I'm kinda with you. I was never full on confronted and said, "What you're doing is wrong. You need to search for the Lord." I was inspired by the preaching of Dr. Adrian Rogers...he never said, "If you're doing this, it's wrong and you need to come to God." He always puts it as, "If you feel that something isn't right in your life and you want to change it and you want to give your life to God, come up and we'll pray with you."

I HATE people who force their religion down your throat. If I feel like God could help somebody, I will probably mention that I'm a christian and ask if they are. I WILL NOT tell them that they're sinners and need to turn to God. It's a free will decision to follow God's ways, not a forced one.

[akrodha]

you can't stop what is already written. why concern yourself? live your life to the best of your ability.. if it's true about the plan and all, this whole *** thing is part of the plan. people trying to stop it is part of the plan.. you being for or against, is part of the plan..

the homosexual bid is all a ploy like zigen said, just like abortion and state executions. it's always a topic especially around election time.

your not going to stop homosexuality with a ban on marriage, hell it's been around way before us, before them and before laws. i guess it's the laws of nature, what is it that draws same sexes together? i don't know nor will i waste my precious short time to try and figure it out.

i hope ya'll all turn ***, it's just more women for me on ladies night!! lol.. it's already 2-3 girls to each strait guy here. JC is *** capital of TN I beleive, actually a few years ago, per capita, it was the *** capital of the States.

[ZigenBallZ]

Originally posted by uncle_el
well... the definition of gospel would need to be defined in order to say that gospel's are left out of the bible or not.
in short, gospel is good news, or the written doctine/body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group.
with that said, i would agree that there are tons of "gospels" that are not in the bible, as they are stories written by people. anyone who wrote a story, or for that matter writes one now, has a gospel.

so the new testament isn't incomplete in the sense that it has what it has... but there are other stories/gospels out there. for instance, i'm sure that paul wrote letters to many people other than what's in the bible.

also, you can find/buy a version of the bible with the apocrypha- 14 books written after what is accepted as the old testament, and before what is accepted as the new testament. the apocrypha contains, amongst other things, the maccabean revolt which is, according to some, important to understanding the political/historical backdrop for the new testament.

in any event, we're saying the same thing (i think) in different ways. it's all good.

I didn't know that about the apocrypha... I had heard the name bandied about before though... interesting...

I would disagree though... the new testament is incomplete as a plethora of gospels (or sections or whatever semantics you like to put forth describing the books of the bible) were up for consideration before the commitee that was deciding what to include in the new testament and several "books" that gave a clearer description of certain events and many written by authors that had more import, ie: apostles, etc. were left out because they were not helpful in pressing the doctrine they were trying to form...

there are tons of pre&post-commitee works that include what is believed to be the gospel of Mary Magdalene, a heretofore unaccepted work chronicling Jesus' younger years and one possibly even by Jesus himself... that hint at the fact that Jesus did not die on the cross, was married to mary Magdalene, possibly had children with her and she was not the whore she was portrayed to be by the church leaders.... and that Peter was jealous of her place and the early catholic church somewhat spun her image to downplay the import and role of women in religious matters... and as a result their place in society... and the Holy grail is not a cup...

When I started researching this stuff is when I realized that people's faiths can be incredibly irrational at times and they will go to enourmous, unbelievable lengths to protect it...so much so that you cannot even present an idea that doesn't fit in with what they were taught no matter what the evidence to the contrary is...

I believe it is from this irrational place that the same sex marriage arguement originates from on the religious right's side...but by blocking such things they are also usurping what is accepted as God's right of judgement and vengence...which is not man's place... making alot of the religious arguements moot by way of hipocrasy...

You spend the beginning of your life hearing that you can do whatever you want... and if you are silly enough to believe "them"... you spend the rest of your life discovering and being shocked at all the things you really can't do...

I thought god was all about love and forgiveness... that's what I was taught... but it seems to me that alot of the people that seem to think they know exactly what God would want are the ones with the least amount of true acceptance, love for all of his creatures, and forgiveness...

We need a new fucking bible...

[ZigenBallZ]

Originally posted by iamnemo


In regards to what Zigen said about people trying to "save him", I'm kinda with you. I was never full on confronted and said, "What you're doing is wrong. You need to search for the Lord." I was inspired by the preaching of Dr. Adrian Rogers...he never said, "If you're doing this, it's wrong and you need to come to God." He always puts it as, "If you feel that something isn't right in your life and you want to change it and you want to give your life to God, come up and we'll pray with you."

I HATE people who force their religion down your throat. If I feel like God could help somebody, I will probably mention that I'm a christian and ask if they are. I WILL NOT tell them that they're sinners and need to turn to God. It's a free will decision to follow God's ways, not a forced one.

I feel you brother.... You know those people that wake you up early on saturday morning to tell you about god and whatnot... I love those people... I haven't done it in a long ass time but I would invite them in and let them pitch me... and I would ask them questions if I didn't understand... they didn't really have alot of answers most of the time... usually had to do with god's will or faith...used to piss them off so badly...

My way of thinking is that I don't need some jackass in a robe allowing me to speak to or hear from god thru him... if it is truly that way then church people are just God salemen... selling god to the masses...

A person's relationship with his or her god is his or her own business... that pertains to worship, their actions and anything else for that matter... people need to worry about themsleves a bit more...and a little less about what other people are doing wrong in their eyes...

I think as long as you believe in something and try and do right by that belief... that is all you need... and is your own business... I will never knock someone's beliefs unless they are blatantly selfish and reek more of conformist individuality then any kind of positive message...

and far be it for me to tell you that you picked the wrong horse and you're going to hell... What makes one's beliefs any more justified than anyone else's? For christians it's solely because they have a little book that they can point to and say, "See, I told you so...."