Politics

If gay people want to get married by a priest let them. If its truly wrong in the eyes of god then he will be the one to punish them when the time comes. its not for us to judge others, and whoever would presume to speak for god is a fool.

Seperation of church and state. Equality. We should not choose when and where we apply these beleifs. They are either the fundamentals of our country or they aren't. You can't discriminately apply them as you choose, that ruins the integrity of the american spirit--regardless of your religous beliefs.

Pro Rights, indifferent on gays, anti gov. trying to legislate morality, anti "religous-types" acting as the voice of god.

peace out.

 

Segregated, adj., restricted to one group; set apart.

Yep, that's exactly what it is.

The idea that marriage, in this country or any other, was formed from christian beliefs. . . marriage predates christianity by a long time. Marriage originally had little to do with religion or with love, it had to do with money/power/improving the class of the family. It also had a lot to do with controlling women's sexuality ( which is probably one of the reasons people feel threatened by gay marriage, because it upsets the current gender (im)balance of power). Marriage has changed a lot, it will continue to change a lot, and people are going to have to deal with it.

Right now, marriage is attached to a whole host of legal rights that have a real impact on people's lives, not just their pocketbooks. If someone tried to tell me that I should be excluded from making emergency medical decisions for my wife ( whether because of the color of my skin, where I like to stick my dick, or anything else that is none of their fucking business ), I'd punch them in the face.

If you want two titles, why not have religious organizations make up their own name for "two people who've stood in front of a priest and said some stuff" ?

 

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, male-female marriages have about a 50% success rate. That's an F. Even a D is passing. 50% is an F. I would think that could shake your belief in the tradition.</div></div>
AMERICAN male-female marriages have a 50% succes rating. Also those statistics reflect a certain era. To me that says more about the people than the concept of marriage.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't see why you're so concerned about personal things outside your own life.</div></div>what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable in the society one lives in does affect ones life.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are a lot of dogmatic people out there that want to interpret certain "documents" literally</div></div>Scripture, when talking about matters of right and wrong, is often clear and doesn't allow for figurative interpretation. In contrast to the story of creation, wich can. God is not limited by space and timee like man, so any mention of time can be interpreted figuratively.

"X is bad" simply means, "X is bad."

Anyways the religious arguement is never going to appeal to irreligious people. And religious people are not going to accept something that goes against clear scripture so...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If its truly wrong in the eyes of god then he will be the one to punish them when the time comes. </div></div>
God sent down Prophets with laws to be followed, and enforced.

 

When it comes to other people's relationships, acceptance is personal choice (unless, say, someone else is controlling your brain).

 

It is, but the way things become accepted in society is when people start practising what they do openly, untill over time, it will become 'normal.'

Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it's a bad thing.

I personally don't care what people do in their own privacy, even from a religious standpoint I don't. But when something becomes the accepted norm I will start to care.

 

Those same Christians who formed the constitution also had slaves. . . just something to think about. Everything they did wasn't right and they wouldn't want us to think they were always right too. They're whole thing was to think for yourself and to challenge injustice even if they didn't always do so themselves.

Whenever deeply religious people tell me scripture isn't open to interpretation I can't help but say something. I'm not one to challenge someone's religious beliefs because it pisses me off when people challenge mine but the idea that you can only read someone one way and see it one way is ludicrous simply for the fact that people actually HAVE come up with different interpretations of the same scripture and different branches of the same religion has formed due to this fact.

You can say they just aren't practicing your religion as it's ment to be but the fact still remains they interpreted it different than you do and they read the same stuff so that argument I never buy/get/understand how it makes sense to people. But again I'm sure you don't understand how I can see various interpretations of the same sentence.

2nd You say that the laws god says you should live by are clear cut and not open to interpretation. So holding that to be true just for now, how is it other things that is written can be open to interpretation. Sounds like you pick and choose what is interpretable and what isn't based on conviece hence that seems fishy applying a rule sometimes and not others but no clear way of defining the line between them.

I probably didn't change your mind but I hope the hundreds of lurkers will get a jog to their thought patterns.

 

I hope you'll consider how the accepted norm actually affects your own life. Norms that infringe your rights ought to be challenged. If someone is attempting to, say, ban the practice of all religion and punish those who continue to adhere to their faith, I'd back the oppressed if they wanted to take a stand. I'd do it simply because rights that don't harm others ought not be restricted.

Now, since allowing gays to marry does not infringe upon my right to marry the opposite sex, I'm pleased to see people enjoy what I'm enjoying.

For me, if a person's mind won't be changed - they won't accept that gays should be allowed to marry - an appropriate reaction to show protest would be to marry and love someone of the opposite sex.

If I was truly bothered by the knowledge that gays in my vicinity are wed, I would expect that the married couple would be truly bothered by the knowledge that I manifested such a narrow and rigid outlook in their vicinity.

 

Very well put Talis.

 

Note that I used to word 'often.' Never did I say there is no interpretation involved. In another thread I defended those who hold a minority oppinion on a certain matter in our religion because of how things can be interpreted in the light of proof. Difference of oppinion is perfectly fine but as I said it has to be based on proof, and not mere 'common sense' and reflection. Because like you said everyone reads something a certain way, but religion is not about finding your truth, it's about finding THE truth.

If the interpretation is in conflict with what the Prophets and those who lived with them believed, the interpretation is null and void.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can say they just aren't practicing your religion as it's ment to be but the fact still remains they interpreted it different than you do and they read the same stuff so that argument I never buy/get/understand how it makes sense to people. But again I'm sure you don't understand how I can see various interpretations of the same sentence.</div></div>Scripture to me is a source of guidance, and I take the clear laws that are written in it. BUT, those matters that need interpretation I have no authority to interpret myself, it takes learning to understand the word of God.

All those people accusing religious folk of speaking for God when they simply repeat what He said (though I don't believe Christians have any authentic scripture but that's another story). Are doing much worse when they make their own unlearned interpretations of His law, they are forging lies against Him.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2nd You say that the laws god says you should live by are clear cut and not open to interpretation. So holding that to be true just for now, how is it other things that is written can be open to interpretation. Sounds like you pick and choose what is interpretable and what isn't based on conviece hence that seems fishy applying a rule sometimes and not others but no clear way of defining the line between them.</div></div>
I don't pick or choose. The rule in our religion is that everything is meant literally, unless there is a reason not to (based on proof, not whims).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I probably didn't change your mind </div></div>You didn't.

Your outlook is worldly, my outlook on the matter is how it compares to what our Prophet taught us about Allah Ta'ala.

 

prop 8 marks the first time in american history where a majority of people voted away the rights of a minority.

just throwin' that out there.

 

I agree. I take the worldly outlook.

I do not think that your faith need allow gays to marry. I do not expect followers of your faith should attack or attempt to dilute what is written. I think it appropriate that homosexuals in your faith wishing to marry each other ought walk away from your faith and seek another that accepts them. At the same time I would hope followers of your faith not act to deny rights of marriage to those outside.

I walked away from the Catholic church. I do not agree with their stance on birth control, abortion, homosexuality, and probably a few other things. I was born into Catholicism and followed the path until I was 30 years old. I realized I did not agree and I walked away. It did not cause me pain.

 

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At the same time I would hope followers of your faith not act to deny rights of marriage to those outside.</div></div>If a believer sees something wrong he should try to change it with his hand, if that's not possible he should change it with his tongue, if that's not possible he should hate it in his heart, and that's the least of faith.

That's something the Prophet taught. In polls like these muslims have a chance to change things by hand.

 

I'm not educated in your faith. Do you believe some things to be more wrong than others? Are there minor and major offenses? Is the marriage shared by two gay people of whom I'm unaware believed to be as wrong as, say, a girl in the arcade trying to seduce my wife?

I view things I don't like on a scale of severity. One end of it elicits nothing while the other demands every fiber of my being to fight.

 

What is the greatest Jyhad?

 

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(though I don't believe Christians have any authentic scripture but that's another story)</div></div>
I find this rather amusing. The muslim faith is based/influenced a great deal by religions around it. And as you told me yourself, a lot of the scriptures have never been written down but only been passed down by talking from generations upon generations. That's hardly reliable. (Or in the very least, it requires quite a bit of faith to believe that it is)

 

I have a real problem with organized religion. Its the oldest form of control. You can never walk the straight path because even the thought of sin is sinning. It doesn't have to be the act just the thought of it. So I find it impossible to live or be governed by these rules, I don't care what religious background you have. I also have a problem with people that use parts of religion that only benefit them and ignore the rest. These people are such hypocrites, and you can't deny that they exist in every religion. I think that if you have strong morals, respect people, and don't preach hate you shouldn't have anything to worry about. In the end its not what book or scriptures you studied but what you have done in this life.

 

I realize I just quoted myself - still, does this blog make sense to you (Fulan) as a starting point for me?

 

Yes there are major and minor sins. Adultary is worse than fornication (both major sins though, but too illustrate there are degrees).

Actually having homosexual sex would be worse than only flirting with the same sex.

Your scale of severity is based on how it hurts you as a person, while the actual scale is defined by God.

 

In my estimation, the Gay marriage vs. Gay civil unions distinction is not worth risking one congressional seat over. The GOP are looking for a new wedge issue and teh gays and dems are taking the bait.

Essentially we are talking about having feelings hurt because someone's monogamous union is legally called a civil union instead of a marriage.

I think politicians are smarter when they work to produce tangible results for their constituents. Call me old fashioned.