― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:57 (nineteen years ago) link
There's no real reason why the french *have* to give it a different name, though, other than to pander to homophobia. After all, in France, religious marriages are not considered legally valid, and haven't been since the 19th century. So why - considering that all couples who want a religious wedding in France aren't legally married unless they have a civil wedding as well - is there a need to differ between a marriage and a civil pact?
― caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 4 November 2004 20:50 (nineteen years ago) link
― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 20:56 (nineteen years ago) link
― J (Jay), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― One of the guilty (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:01 (nineteen years ago) link
-- James R. (jgw...), November 4th, 2004 10:51 AM. (later) link)
And what a great idea this would be, except there are so many fundies who would call you a secular humanist and try to mandate teacher-led in-school prayer for your sins and then they'd bash you over the head with that big stone copy of the ten commandments they've been hanging in the courtrooms.
― J (Jay), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:18 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:29 (nineteen years ago) link
― caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:34 (nineteen years ago) link
What I'm wondering - when did it become legal (in the US and/or the UK) to marry without religious supervision? That is, when did civil marriage - by a judge, notary, or what have you - become recognized? Was it controversial?
Are people who were not married by clergy considered "not really married" by some?
― Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:39 (nineteen years ago) link
― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:52 (nineteen years ago) link
I'm not saying I'm in the anti-camp, but if you want to understand the intelligent side of the anti-camp your best bet is to research where they are coming from. A lot of them get their position from the bible. Ignore it if you want to just blindly oppose them without understanding them, and that will get your agenda no where.
and your stuff about Jesus is cute. Don't forget about him crying too.
― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:04 (nineteen years ago) link
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj_l.htm#menu
― J (Jay), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:07 (nineteen years ago) link
― amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:10 (nineteen years ago) link
― amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:11 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:15 (nineteen years ago) link
― daavid (daavid), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:16 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:17 (nineteen years ago) link
― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:19 (nineteen years ago) link
see nabisco's point on my "why do people hate 'the homosexuals' so much" thread.
― amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:21 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:22 (nineteen years ago) link
― sorry! (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:23 (nineteen years ago) link
― amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:25 (nineteen years ago) link
― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:26 (nineteen years ago) link
― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:27 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:28 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:28 (nineteen years ago) link
― amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:30 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:32 (nineteen years ago) link
They're either homophobes or they profoundly misunderstand the church/state nature of the argument.
― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:33 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:33 (nineteen years ago) link
― amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:35 (nineteen years ago) link
"Circles" - Meat Beat Manifesto
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:35 (nineteen years ago) link
Deuteronomy 23 to thread, pls.
― don weiner, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:57 (nineteen years ago) link
― Deuteronomy 23, Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:01 (nineteen years ago) link
― Slept at Sunday School (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:12 (nineteen years ago) link
OTM. i love you alex.
― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:34 (nineteen years ago) link
― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:38 (nineteen years ago) link
1 - I should love my neighbor as myself.2 - When I am at a fault it would be best for others to rebuke me with the truths of scripture.3 - So, loving my neighbor would entail rebuking them with the truths of scripture (as the bible often tells to do, and in a gentle manner).4 - Scripture makes known the wrongness of homosexuality5 - I should vote aginst a law that would give the impression that the government encourages (or does not discourage in anyway) a same-sex relationship
― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:39 (nineteen years ago) link
― Fred Beetle Barnes, Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:43 (nineteen years ago) link
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
4 - Scripture makes known the wrongness of homosexuality
No, we've been through this.
5 - I should vote aginst a law that would give the impression that the government encourages (or does not discourage in anyway) a same-sex relationship
This is where the invalis jump is made. (even if we assume the other premises, which I feel are false). 'Rebuking' and pointing out someone's sins is not the same as coercing them with force, as the law would entail. Also, the idea that morally wrong = illegal is nonsense. Adultery is legal. Lying is legal. etc. etc.
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 00:32 (nineteen years ago) link
4 - Many of them see this in the scripture. Like I said earlier it would be under the "sexual immorality" label
5 - This is too where I agree their easist to contest fault may be, but what they are concerned with is not coercing with force but rather not having the government endorse it.
― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:04 (nineteen years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:10 (nineteen years ago) link
Good heavens. You seriously thought this?
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:15 (nineteen years ago) link
Yes it would. Christ was comforting those who scripture condemned, and protecting them from the indignation of those who seek to dish out God's Law. He comforts adultresses, prostitutes etc.
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:19 (nineteen years ago) link
― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:20 (nineteen years ago) link
also, apart from the general homophobia issue, i heard in an interview on the radio yesterday (i.e. i don't know the veracity of the statement) that some US states have gone further with their referenda and are in fact considering excluding homosexual relationships from other benefits, such as caring benefits and superannuation and insurance. which will eventually place an increased cost on a welfare system under great pressure. that's not cool either if you ask me.
this stuff makes me feel a bit queasy about the world we are living in.
― gem (trisk), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:25 (nineteen years ago) link
but there is a difference between "letting oneself be used by God to gently let someone else realise their fault" vs. "Thinking oneself is better than someone else and looking down on them; judging them" (in action they may appear very similar, but in motive they are opposite)In the case of stoning the prostitute, Jesus was speaking to the second group.
This is the kind of thought that needs to be examined to see how to get your agenda across (to the non-homophobe intelligent conservative Christian). Just saying, "that kind of thought is religious and wrong" will get no where.
― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:40 (nineteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:51 (nineteen years ago) link
― Dan I. (Dan I.), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:53 (nineteen years ago) link