Same Sex Marriage? - Page 18 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 21st, 2012, 11:10 PM   #341
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 5,001
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
Still no answer why homosexuals are not being lined up and shot in the street. This is God's word and you Christians are not following it. Me believes it's the whole cherry picking thing I mentioned earlier. After this question is answered, you can school me on why I'm not going to Hell even though I didn't sell my daughters into slavery.
Because God has Given us Jesus to allow us to be "set apart" instead of doing it on our own. IE- Killing homosexuals. I guess that last post didn't mean anything. Even though I put very little of my own opinion into it. There is a difference between 'cherry picking' and not wanting to see what the text blatantly says.

I would think that the Two greater commandments that Christ gave would be enough to point out what his true agenda was. So......the words I quoted from the bible clearly stating why the old law is fulfilled in Christ was not good enough?
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old May 21st, 2012, 11:30 PM   #342
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,269
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
Because God has Given us Jesus to allow us to be "set apart" instead of doing it on our own. IE- Killing homosexuals. I guess that last post didn't mean anything. Even though I put very little of my own opinion into it. There is a difference between 'cherry picking' and not wanting to see what the text blatantly says.

I would think that the Two greater commandments that Christ gave would be enough to point out what his true agenda was. So......the words I quoted from the bible clearly stating why the old law is fulfilled in Christ was not good enough?
I understand why Nuggets cannot get past the OT. He does not understand what Christ did and why He did it. It is really quite simple but sometimes the smart ones have the hardest time with simple things. Or he is just making us go round in circles trying to drive us nuts.
He already knows he just refuses to accept it.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2012, 11:45 PM   #343
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,456
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
Because God has Given us Jesus to allow us to be "set apart" instead of doing it on our own. IE- Killing homosexuals. I guess that last post didn't mean anything. Even though I put very little of my own opinion into it. There is a difference between 'cherry picking' and not wanting to see what the text blatantly says.

I would think that the Two greater commandments that Christ gave would be enough to point out what his true agenda was. So......the words I quoted from the bible clearly stating why the old law is fulfilled in Christ was not good enough?
But Jesus said that ALL the Old Testiment laws are true, every last one. Boy, contradictions in the Bible amaze me. It sure is tough to be a critical thinker and be told the Bible is the truth.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2012, 11:46 PM   #344
Kevlar
Newbie
 
Kevlar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-04-12
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 29
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Kevlar
Default

I don't quite feel the need to add my commentary on the issue right now (maybe tomorrow), but I did want to say, L4CX, I really appreciate your thoughtful responses in this thread. You've shared some welcome insight into the "other" side of the issue. I'm still steadfast in my beliefs, but it's good to see that critical thinking isn't lost on the "traditional marriage" side (I know many people who are vehemently against gay marriage for "religious reasons", but probably couldn't point to a single relevant passage in the bible).
Kevlar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 12:12 AM   #345
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 5,001
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
But Jesus said that ALL the Old Testiment laws are true, every last one. Boy, contradictions in the Bible amaze me. It sure is tough to be a critical thinker and be told the Bible is the truth.
Jesus also said to cut off your hand or gouge out your eye if it causes you to sin. Are you upset that Christians aren't doing that?

He did say they were all true, However, he said he came to fulfill them. In the exact, and only, verse that you have quoted about this single issue. I used the Author of Hebrews words, not my own, to show you what Christ meant in saying this. I also gave insight through the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5) of what Jesus was really concerned about.

Time and Time again Jesus fought against the Legalistic attitude that you have towards the Law of Moses. If you don't believe me in that, Read Matthew 23. Or just read the Gospels and see how many times Jesus breaks the Jewish laws himself to show love to a beggar or crippled person.

I dare you to prove that I'm using those verses out of Context. I am not. I do not believe in 'cherry picking' and I don't think you can really say I am because In those verses I've quoted, I had to cut out the two or three chapters I really wanted to put so you could see the context to the verses.

Who, in their right mind, would ask the person they are debating to look over the source for them selves if they were trying to twist the words of the author? Nobody!
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 01:30 AM   #346
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,456
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
Jesus also said to cut off your hand or gouge out your eye if it causes you to sin. Are you upset that Christians aren't doing that? Not upset, just wondering why you choose to defy God's orders (Jesus = God).

He did say they were all true, However, he said he came to fulfill them. In the exact, and only, verse that you have quoted about this single issue. I used the Author of Hebrews words, not my own, to show you what Christ meant in saying this. I also gave insight through the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5) of what Jesus was really concerned about.

Time and Time again Jesus fought against the Legalistic attitude that you have towards the Law of Moses. If you don't believe me in that, Read Matthew 23. Or just read the Gospels and see how many times Jesus breaks the Jewish laws himself to show love to a beggar or crippled person.

I dare you to prove that I'm using those verses out of Context. I am not. I do not believe in 'cherry picking' and I don't think you can really say I am because In those verses I've quoted, I had to cut out the two or three chapters I really wanted to put so you could see the context to the verses.

Who, in their right mind, would ask the person they are debating to look over the source for them selves if they were trying to twist the words of the author? Nobody! No twisting here, just reading what the book says.
I know the answers to the questions I've been asking you, I just wanted to present the contradictions.

It takes a certain person to be a Christian. I really don't feel a person who is a critical thinker or prefers to examin evidence in a logical manner can be a Christian. I'm not saying that critical thinkers are better than Christians, we just need more than one source of information to verify facts. Christians (and other religious people) base there belief on faith, what they've been told, and heart. I think it has something to do with personality type, brain chemistry, or other factor.

Oh well, back on topic. If the only real problem Christians are having on this subject is the use of the term marriage to signify the bond of two people, great, how about letting the Christians keep the word marriage for themselves and the gay community can adopt a new term to signify their legal union. If the homosexual community still wants to call it marriage, I'm out of this fight and they can fight it out with the religious community for title infringment.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 08:55 AM   #347
srlbotanical
Because I Said So...
 
srlbotanical's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-09-07
Location: Saranac, MI
Posts: 820
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

srlbotanical is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 09:10 AM   #348
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,584
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post

Oh well, back on topic. If the only real problem Christians are having on this subject is the use of the term marriage to signify the bond of two people, great, how about letting the Christians keep the word marriage for themselves and the gay community can adopt a new term to signify their legal union. If the homosexual community still wants to call it marriage, I'm out of this fight and they can fight it out with the religious community for title infringment.
Thats about where I am on the subject.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 09:27 AM   #349
srlbotanical
Because I Said So...
 
srlbotanical's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-09-07
Location: Saranac, MI
Posts: 820
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Marriage is the union of two people. Period. If your marriage is based on religion, great. You want to get married by the justice of peace becuase you don't have a religious affiliation? Fine. Both of these are known as marriage, because that is what we commonly refer to these days as a union between two people. It is only religious when made so by those two people.

Please recognise that this is NOT a mandated religious issue and it never should be. It's a religious issue only by the choice of those getting married.

It's also an issue of freedom. I will not have any part of government regulating how marriage should be defined, other then the union of two consenting adults. period.

40 years ago, over a dozen states had laws prohibiting the marriage of inter-racial couples. This gay marriage argument is just as ignorant.
srlbotanical is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 09:59 AM   #350
Scott2.0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-26-12
Location: Berkley
Posts: 197
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

^this. Said far better than I ever could and dead on.
Scott2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 10:53 AM   #351
osteologation
Everyday I'm Shufflin'
 
osteologation's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-31-08
Location: Caro, MI
Posts: 1,709
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Spot on
osteologation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 12:00 PM   #352
kerryann
German cars are hot
 
kerryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield
Posts: 11,447
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by srlbotanical View Post
Marriage is the union of two people. Period. If your marriage is based on religion, great. You want to get married by the justice of peace becuase you don't have a religious affiliation? Fine. Both of these are known as marriage, because that is what we commonly refer to these days as a union between two people. It is only religious when made so by those two people.

Please recognise that this is NOT a mandated religious issue and it never should be. It's a religious issue only by the choice of those getting married.

It's also an issue of freedom. I will not have any part of government regulating how marriage should be defined, other then the union of two consenting adults. period.

40 years ago, over a dozen states had laws prohibiting the marriage of inter-racial couples. This gay marriage argument is just as ignorant.
I agree. Also we called Jewish couples, Muslim couples, and every other religion represented in the U.S. "married" when they have their unions. Many of the posters in this thread seem to think that only Christians get married.
kerryann is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 12:24 PM   #353
Immortal
NO RELIGION WAT!
 
Immortal's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: In my garage
Posts: 26,342
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Default

I don't care.
Immortal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 12:53 PM   #354
mschaffer66
Senior Member
 
mschaffer66's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Posts: 9,288
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
I agree. Also we called Jewish couples, Muslim couples, and every other religion represented in the U.S. "married" when they have their unions. Many of the posters in this thread seem to think that only Christians get married.
According to Batman and Robin I'm sure they would say A)Those religions are invalid and B)Those people are going to hell no matter what they call it just like the homosexuals.
mschaffer66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 02:11 PM   #355
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,584
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by srlbotanical View Post
Marriage is the union of two people. Period. If your marriage is based on religion, great. You want to get married by the justice of peace becuase you don't have a religious affiliation? Fine. Both of these are known as marriage, because that is what we commonly refer to these days as a union between two people. It is only religious when made so by those two people.

Please recognise that this is NOT a mandated religious issue and it never should be. It's a religious issue only by the choice of those getting married.

It's also an issue of freedom. I will not have any part of government regulating how marriage should be defined, other then the union of two consenting adults. period.

40 years ago, over a dozen states had laws prohibiting the marriage of inter-racial couples. This gay marriage argument is just as ignorant.

I could just as easily say marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. Or one man and any number of woman. Period. Or any number of man and woman. Period. Or anyone and whatever animal vegetable or mineral they choose. Period.

My point being that we are all just drawing lines in the sand. How is defining marriage as one man and one woman any more or less valid that defining it as any 2 people?

As stated earlier, I see two separate issues year.
1) Defining the term “marriage”.
And more importantly:
2) Should 2 people of the same sex who want to make a lifelong commitment to each other be treated the same as 2 people of opposite sexes who want to make a lifelong commitment to each other.
Arguing over #1 just prevents discussing #2.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 02:19 PM   #356
GreaseMonkey
Pew pew!
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Madison Heights, MI
Posts: 18,045
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by srlbotanical View Post
Marriage is the union of two people. Period. If your marriage is based on religion, great. You want to get married by the justice of peace becuase you don't have a religious affiliation? Fine. Both of these are known as marriage, because that is what we commonly refer to these days as a union between two people. It is only religious when made so by those two people.

Please recognise that this is NOT a mandated religious issue and it never should be. It's a religious issue only by the choice of those getting married.

It's also an issue of freedom. I will not have any part of government regulating how marriage should be defined, other then the union of two consenting adults. period.

40 years ago, over a dozen states had laws prohibiting the marriage of inter-racial couples. This gay marriage argument is just as ignorant.
__________________
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 02:30 PM   #357
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevlar View Post
I don't quite feel the need to add my commentary on the issue right now (maybe tomorrow), but I did want to say, L4CX, I really appreciate your thoughtful responses in this thread. You've shared some welcome insight into the "other" side of the issue. I'm still steadfast in my beliefs, but it's good to see that critical thinking isn't lost on the "traditional marriage" side (I know many people who are vehemently against gay marriage for "religious reasons", but probably couldn't point to a single relevant passage in the bible).
I concur.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 02:40 PM   #358
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Marriage already has a definition...

Quote:
mar·riage
noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
See marriage defined for English-language learners »
See marriage defined for kids »
Quote:
mar·riage
   [mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
4.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5.
any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.
And since our justice system does not turn to the bible for definitions on the legality of issues, the same should hold true here. For the religious folk that feel differently, I would put forth the cases involving the honor killings that are happening here where the defendants are using the tenets of Sharia Law as their guide and the courts giving it consideration.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 03:34 PM   #359
Kevlar
Newbie
 
Kevlar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-04-12
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 29
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Kevlar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by srlbotanical View Post
Marriage is the union of two people. Period. If your marriage is based on religion, great. You want to get married by the justice of peace becuase you don't have a religious affiliation? Fine. Both of these are known as marriage, because that is what we commonly refer to these days as a union between two people. It is only religious when made so by those two people.

Please recognise that this is NOT a mandated religious issue and it never should be. It's a religious issue only by the choice of those getting married.

It's also an issue of freedom. I will not have any part of government regulating how marriage should be defined, other then the union of two consenting adults. period.

40 years ago, over a dozen states had laws prohibiting the marriage of inter-racial couples. This gay marriage argument is just as ignorant.
Bingo. I'm confident that in 40 years, we're going to look back on this issue in the same way we look at interracial marriages today. "Who cares, why was that ever an issue?"



Kevlar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 06:37 PM   #360
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 5,001
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
I know the answers to the questions I've been asking you, I just wanted to present the contradictions.

It takes a certain person to be a Christian. I really don't feel a person who is a critical thinker or prefers to examin evidence in a logical manner can be a Christian. I'm not saying that critical thinkers are better than Christians, we just need more than one source of information to verify facts. Christians (and other religious people) base there belief on faith, what they've been told, and heart. I think it has something to do with personality type, brain chemistry, or other factor.

Oh well, back on topic. If the only real problem Christians are having on this subject is the use of the term marriage to signify the bond of two people, great, how about letting the Christians keep the word marriage for themselves and the gay community can adopt a new term to signify their legal union. If the homosexual community still wants to call it marriage, I'm out of this fight and they can fight it out with the religious community for title infringment.
That last part is where I'm at. I'm even willing to accept another, more general, term that the Government will use instead of Marriage, for everybody. But most on here will tell you that they shouldn't have to change it and Christians are just to narrow minded and pushy about the subject. Most of them not realizing that the Christian population of this country have the same right to want the definition to say what they want it to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by srlbotanical View Post
Marriage is the union of two people. Period. If your marriage is based on religion, great. You want to get married by the justice of peace becuase you don't have a religious affiliation? Fine. Both of these are known as marriage, because that is what we commonly refer to these days as a union between two people. It is only religious when made so by those two people.

Please recognise that this is NOT a mandated religious issue and it never should be. It's a religious issue only by the choice of those getting married.

It's also an issue of freedom. I will not have any part of government regulating how marriage should be defined, other then the union of two consenting adults. period.

40 years ago, over a dozen states had laws prohibiting the marriage of inter-racial couples. This gay marriage argument is just as ignorant.
There is no verse in the bible, that I'm aware of, that is against Interracial Marriage. That's the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschaffer66 View Post
According to Batman and Robin I'm sure they would say A)Those religions are invalid and B)Those people are going to hell no matter what they call it just like the homosexuals.
Batman does not agree.

A) I call any union between a man and women marriage. That's where I draw my, preverbial, line. Which, I guess makes me a Gay hating Christian. Even though I'm willing to accept another term for the Governments defintion of what I have with my wife that would include everybody. From Man and women to Man and Candy cane.
B) - I will say that anybody without Christ, or that is not Righteous enough, will not make it to heaven. Not because God denies them but because they have sin which God cannot be in the presence of.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevlar View Post
Bingo. I'm confident that in 40 years, we're going to look back on this issue in the same way we look at interracial marriages today. "Who cares, why was that ever an issue?"
I don't think it will be that easy. Homosexuality is a big issue for many of the "religous" in our country and, unlike interracial marriage, there is a large amount of verses in thier holy scriptures to back up that feeling. I guess I might look back and say "what was the big deal with not changing it from marriage to <insert name here>?"
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.47835 seconds with 81 queries