Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

reply to post by windword


Hi Windword

You wrote:

QUOTE

"I'm sorry if I was mistaken, therefore offended you. I thought that the Muslim world also shared the same history of the Old Testament, as descendents of Abraham through Ismael. Am I wrong? Do you deny that the events of the Old Testament were true, or do you just break doctrine at that point? "

UNQUOTE

I take it you cannot read Classical Arabic and therefore do NOT know what is in the Qu'ran. Have you been able to thumb through it in English, if that's all you can read?

If you do, you might be interested to know of SEVERAL DIFFERNT TRADITIONS contained in it = as oposed to say the so-called Tanakh of the Hebrew Scriptures -

To cite one example: the Hebrew Scriptures state that Avraham was prepared to sacrifice Yitzaak (=Isaac) whereas the Qu'ran states that Ibrahim was about to sacrifice Yishma'el (Ismael), not Yitzaak.

Probably both traditions rest on an earlier oral tale about Avraham being ordered by EL (or YHWH or Allah or Dagon or Ba'al etc.) to 'sacrifice your first born son' - the question is who is the first born; his physical first born Ishmael by his concubine Hagar, or his so-called legal son through his 'wife' Sarai?

But PLEASE read the Qu'ran (in any language you can understand) before you go about making un-supported assumptions of ancient traditions..you're bound to be found out on ATS sooner or later !!!

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by beezzer
If a man and a man or a woman and a woman want to own a chevy and call it a mercedes, then they are free to do so. I have no problem with whatever they want to call their chevy.

Calling it a mercedes does not make it a mercedes. But if they choose to call it that, then fine. If the state recognises that their calling it a mercedes makes it a mercedes, then fine.

But it's still a chevy.

It does not affect my mercedes, nor does it lessen the value of my mercedes, because side-by-side, you can obviously see the difference between my mercedes and their chevy (that they call a mercedes).

Hope that cleared things up.

Peace.

beez

It's posts like this that make me wish there was a "spangle with stars" option!

As a followup note, if both the mercedes and the chevy get them where they want to go, what's the problem? I don't really care what they call it - heck, they can even swap emblems to try to disguise the fact that the chevy isn't a mercedes, it's not going to change whats under the hood either way you go!

edit on 2012/7/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

Answering for a question you asked Annee about what are your hangups. I'd say just read above! So basically after all your posts talking about state, laws, etc., blah, blah, the real reason is just because you don't consider marriage real unless it involves a man and a woman. Why didn't you just say that at the beginning and save everyone the time?

Things evolve dude. 50 years ago, some people considered a black and a white marrying as not real. I'm pretty sure if you'd been of age then, you'd have been one of them.

reply to post by MountainLaurel

"But sadly my ex husband was a closeted gay guy"
If not for all the discrimination maybe that closeted gay guy could've been just a gay guy if he wasn't afraid of all the religious nuts and then maybe you would've married a nice straight guy.
You seriously sould've said that in your first post. Would've saved me a lot time. You have your mind made up. With experience like that you'll be against gays until you die.

reply to post by Sigismundus


I have not read the Quran, and truthfully, I probably won't. But I have read some lovely poetry that it has inspired.

I admit to lumping all 3 religions. I was under the (wrong) assumption that the Quran was equivalent to the New Testament for Muslims.

Oh well, live and learn. Hopefully, because of my ignorance, others will be more informed, in the future.

Given that the institution of marriage as we currently know it, was shaped according to the patriachal, Abrahamic religious movements, was designed for the purpose of establishing paternity, defining exclusive sexual access to a woman, and legitimising off-spring for the purposes of inheritance, it would seem appropriate to allow homosexuals who intend to raise children together access to marriage so that their children can have the same equality of legitimacy.

Prior to the spread of Abrahamic laws, in most cultures, globally, homosexuality was socially accepted as a natural minority, and it is only those laws that made homosexuality illegal and 'taboo'. It is probably about time that the balance was redressed and that those faiths born of that tradition accepted that a wrong has been committed.

Certainly many Christian sects are learning to accept homosexuality, particularly in the UK, and there are a small, but growing, number of clergy that are openly gay. Some are celibate admittedly, but that does in no way detract from the acceptance of their sexual preference, both by themselves and their communities.

Marriage has evolved over the years, most women, for example, are not expected these day to 'obey', it seems a little change to allow everyone, gay and straight, access to the same privileges, if they so want them.

reply to post by Spotless


That's where you are incorrect...I am not at all against gay people.....I do have empathy for the struggles gay people are faced with, and infact took the "brunt" of the blame for the divorce to help him save face with his family and our daughter. The fact that he was so unfair and spinless to allow me to do that, is as much about why we divorced as anything.

In this day and age, especially where I lived at the time, Bay Area, CA.....very liberal, gay friendly community, I see hiding that your gay as a pretty cowardly move, and outright selfish if you marry someone to make you a baby. Anyways, I'm getting off topic.......I'm with Neno on this one at this point, I don't care to participate in the "marriage" game as defined by the government, and actually the tax breaks aren't that great unless you have kids, or are very wealthy.

Call it Marriage if that will settle the issue, I really don't care.....We ALL have much bigger things we need our governments to worry about...

reply to post by OpinionatedB


You can believe whatever you want, just don't tread on others civil rights.

The masses in the USA used to believe inter-racial marriage was not the same as normal marriage, even was illegal. Some people still think that way, go ahead...just don't try to ban it BECAUSE of whatever you believe. When your thoughts start causing discrimination in the physical world that is when it becomes a problem.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Thats ok... I am currently thinking of moving into the middle of no where very very very far the any man or civilization and just praying this all ends soon.

Neno is right, its time to just back way up.... screw all of society. And all this insanity.

Originally posted by Spotless

@nenothtu that idea perfectly fine. You can call the man/woman uninion however you want.
But that doesn't fix the problem. You'll start screaming again when one or two gay couples want to call their union a "Spiritual Union".

Maybe, but probably not. I figure a diety can handle it Let them duke it out.

But your whole idea is not friendly toward gay people at all. Why do you feel the need to run away from them and name your union something different, like you're superior in some way.
You're not.

I missed the part in the rule book where I have to be friendly to anyone at all.

Me and my wife are atheist but got married. We did not do it in a chuch, but we did have a priest and we exchanges rings. Does that sit right with you ?

Fine with me. That's between you and your priest and his God.

Or should i call my marriage a union or whatever ?

No - I presume it's the normal pairing off between male and female found throughout nature.

We did it symbolicaly and we really wanted a big party.

edit on 27/7/2012 by Spotless because: (no reason given)

Nothing wrong with a party. I used to engage in that sort of thing myself.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Congradulations, i have nothing wrong with marriage it is a big step mentally just because you do have to be ready to commit( but if you love them a lot then you are commited enought already). and it does work for a lot of people, and lawyers especially . All i am saying is that the people that follow certain words(which is all they are) to a degree where they compeletly miss the message of those words, and then put their own twist on it and sell it as FACTS, and people are eating it up like a buffet you know what i mean.

Benevolent Heretic the rest of the post is not pointing at you, just at the whole debate in general ;P


Why is it so hard to question something, there is nothing humiliating about having questions, no god will punish anyone for being curious, we were all created equally and god created us because he him self or (all of us) were curious

And even the bible says that no person can judge another, all current laws were made by people who swear by the book, so why are they judging the gays? it has nothing to do with anything, just two people in love thats it.
They say they read the bible, but how did they miss the message to treat other people around them as they would like to be treated.

And all religious people get so offended when you talk not against them, but just like i said questioning them. Why do they get upset if they do exactly the same thing to everyone else whos not a "believer" thats right there shows how many of them still dont get the message.

Its not about the gays, it will effect no one, its not like a walking zombie terrorist and as soon as it gets married it activates. people are treating them like criminals. you know what they did in rome and greece, and so did the spartans back in the day during combat training, since they are younge when they train, they were made to make love to one another, in order to create a strong brotherhood, one guy goes down, all the loved ones will fight to the death, and it was all man.

and they are the ones that created religion. and murdered thousands in the name of it, oh wait they are still doing that.

reply to post by windword


No, the Bible does not deny the concept of love in same sex relationships, and neither do I. What it denies is the spiritual dimension, the approval of a diety. Nature also excludes approval - it would be the death of a species if none of them paired to procreate, and nature likes good procreators.

Nature DOESN'T like non-procrerators. They are at an end of existence, according to the rules nature itself has set up.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

Thats ok... I am currently thinking of moving into the middle of no where very very very far the any man or civilization and just praying this all ends soon.

Neno is right, its time to just back way up.... screw all of society. And all this insanity.

edit on 27-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

If you think that way, it doesnt matter where you go, if you see garbage and death and all kind of evil around you, doesnt matter where you are, in the middle of a desert, or a jungle you will see garbage and death and all kind of evil.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by windword

 

No, the Bible does not deny the concept of love in same sex relationships, and neither do I. What it denies is the spiritual dimension, the approval of a diety. Nature also excludes approval - it would be the death of a species if none of them paired to procreate, and nature likes good procreators.

Nature DOESN'T like non-procrerators. They are at an end of existence, according to the rules nature itself has set up.

Ah but...humans have thrived on co-operation. That is really the fundamental secret of our success. And, given the difficulties involved in raising our off-spring, not to mention the inherent difficulties in giving birth alone, it has been part of our evolution to work as a group to raise our children. Until fairly recently in our evolution. It seems to me, that given that dynamic, a male that has little or no interest in procreating with women himself, would be an advantage. Having a male that can guard the pregnant and nursing mothers while the males go to hunt, for example. I don't think that you can simply say something is unnatural just because it doesn't itself procreate. Obviously this theory gets a little foggy around female homosexuality, but I can definately see where male homosexuality would serve the needs of the group in aiding successful procreation.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by windword

 

No, the Bible does not deny the concept of love in same sex relationships, and neither do I. What it denies is the spiritual dimension, the approval of a diety. Nature also excludes approval - it would be the death of a species if none of them paired to procreate, and nature likes good procreators.

Nature DOESN'T like non-procrerators. They are at an end of existence, according to the rules nature itself has set up.

Yeah, nature doesn't like women past the age of menopause, or men past the age of virility either. But, we've found a way to cheat nature, and live beyond that.

And I believe that Jesus wouldn't have a problem with two people genuinely loving each other, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
spotless has a point... we are just going to leave Muslims out of this one.

edit on 27-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

Isn't excluding Muslims sort of like excluding gays?

When is exclusion no longer exclusion?

I would think there would have to be some sort of logical reason to enforce any sort of an exclusion.

That's why I say let the gays have their secular marriages - they can't touch the spiritual ones. It's not people excluding them from those, it's nature itself. Let them rage against nature, and see how well that goes.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
spotless has a point... we are just going to leave Muslims out of this one.

edit on 27-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

Isn't excluding Muslims sort of like excluding gays?

When is exclusion no longer exclusion?

I would think there would have to be some sort of logical reason to enforce any sort of an exclusion.

That's why I say let the gays have their secular marriages - they can't touch the spiritual ones. It's not people excluding them from those, it's nature itself. Let them rage against nature, and see how well that goes.

That's ridiculous, since when did organised religion have anything to do with what is natural? Calling it 'spiritual' does not make marriage any less of a construct of organised religion.

reply to post by Biliverdin


well... since we are talking natural and you are the one who made it to where I feel like vomiting for the past 30 to 45 minutes or so.... lets discuss natural

How can a child be legitamite in your eyes since a child born within the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman is the declaration of legitimacy....

so how can a man and a man,..... or a woman and a woman... who are married.... have a legitimate child?

My mind cannot do those mental gymnastics

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Have you not heard of adoption...surregacy...? It's in the Bible...Hagar acted as a surregate mother...for example.

You obviously have a weak stomach, you should get that looked at

reply to post by Biliverdin


Adoption does not create a legitimate child

Abraham was married to Hagar... legitimate... Ishmael was not a surrogate child, but Abrahams first born son through his wife Hagar

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

Adoption does not create a legitimate child

Abraham was married to Hagar... legitimate... Ishmael was not a surrogate child, but Abrahams first born son through his wife Hagar

Hagar hay'gahr (Hebrew: הָגָר, Modern Hagar Tiberian Hāgār, meaning "uncertain";[1] Greek: Άγαρ Agar; Latin: Agar; Arabic: هاجر;‎ Hājar) is a biblical person in the Book of Genesis Chapter 16. She was an Egyptian handmaid of Sarai (Sarah),[1] whom she gave to Abram (Abraham) to bear a child. Thus came the firstborn, Ishmael, the patriarch of the Ishmaelites. The name Hagar originates from the Book of Genesis, is mentioned in Hadith, and alluded to in the Qur'an. She is revered in the Islamic faith and acknowledged as a matriarch in all Abrahamic faiths. In mainstream Christian faiths, she is considered a concubine to Abram.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Concubine. Not married. It was a wife's right, in the case of barreness to seek a proxy. That is surregacy, to all intents and purposes.

And, adoption is a legitimate means of 'having' a child.