The Supreme Court And Redefining Marriage

[Jedidiah]

Let's ponder the paranoia on display here. You're actually worried that gays will begin to legally force conservative anti-gay pastors like Cow Poke to marry them. You must be out of your cotton-pickin' mind. There might be some who go to that extent, but it will be rare enough for the media attention to be huge and public sympathy will be for the anti-gay pastor, not the obvious idiot troll couple.

Seriously, you should be embarrassed that you think you'll be persecuted en masse this way. Most lesbian couples wouldn't think to go to such lengths to force an anti-gay pastor whose bigoted views they don't share to marry them. Think.

We shall see.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not exactly a fan of protests or demonstrations myself

I don't care.

[Starlight]

i have a degree in English, and am a professional writer

I encourage you to read posts more carefully rather than resting on your laurels.

your new explanation is precisely saying the answer I asked for,

You're welcome. I do try.

Now try this. IF all joinings were called "civil unions" under law whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals....and had the same rights....while "marriage" was a strictly religious ceremony....with rights only associated with religious bodies....

For hundreds of years people have used the English word marriage to refer to all marriages: Those of Christians and atheists alike, those of Indians and Europeans alike, and those of polygamous African Muslims. When a Sikh in India gets married, Christians have never had any issue whatsoever calling it a marriage. So the term 'marriage' itself in English has never in been reserved for Christianity nor for unions approved by Christianity. It's just the standard English word for unions. Gay people want to have unions like anyone else can have unions. In English, that's called 'marriage', therefore they want 'marriage'.

Christians are, of course, free to invent their own special theological term like "holy Christian matrimony" if they now want to create a special type of Christian union that applies only to Christians.

But if Christians try and take the approach of "I am anti-gay and don't want gay people marrying, so let's "take back" the term 'marriage' for Christianity and just let the general public get 'civil unions'" then that's going to fail for two reasons:
1. Society as a whole is just going to laugh at Christians trying to steal the English word marriage from themselves, and not let them do it.
2. The anti-gay motivation that underlies this is going upset gay people.

Then why did you say they didn't understand the newfangled civil unions?

The streams of feminist thought, that underlay a significant part of the push for civil unions in the minds of some activists, were not mainstream. The majority of the general population had not heard of those ideas, and the majority of those who had heard of them didn't necessarily agree with them. The average gay person, by and large, just wanted the unions everyone else had. They weren't interested in trying to invent something 'better' (as judged by modern feminists) in some grand feminist social experiment to retire the concept of 'marriage' due to its historic associations of the diminishment of women and replace it with something new. And gay people certainly weren't interested in being told they were inferior and so couldn't have what everyone else had. All they wanted was participation in the existing institution of marriage, which as numerous courts have now found, was both a fundamental right and a basic requirement of legal equality.

And please take courses in remedial English. Thank you.

I encourage you to tone down your rhetoric, it substantially detracts from the discussion.

[Cow Poke]

But he first showed love by defending her, THEN gave her that command.

You weren't breastfed, where you fm?

Can you please post the Bible verses that showed that Jesus "showed love" - I mean - he stood up to the bad guys, sure, but it's not like he hung out with her, or had any appreciable discussion with her.

You seem to be wanting to turn this into some touchie feelie moment.

Jesus was clearly setting the tone for forgiveness, but PLEASE post the verses that back up your little love-in scenario.

[jpholding]

I encourage you to read posts more carefully rather than resting on your laurels.

I read it carefully. Your writing still sucks.

Gay people want to have unions like anyone else can have unions. In English, that's called 'marriage', therefore they want 'marriage'.

So gay people are shallow people who care more about terms than solid concepts? But I didn't say they could not have marriage. If they can find a religious group that will marry them, fine.

Don't you approve of seperation of church and state?

If so, what's wrong with giving their ceremonies two different names?

I also never said "marriage" would be reseved for Christianity. But it would be reserved for any religious ceremony of joining.

The streams of feminist thought, that underlay a significant part of the push for civil unions in the minds of some activists, were not mainstream. The majority had not heard of those ideas, and the majority of those who had heard of them didn't necessarily agree with them. The average gay person, by and large, blah blah blah

I saw no explanation for why you insulted gay people's intelligence.

I encourage you to tone down your rhetoric, it substantially detracts from the discussion.

Heal thyself, fizzician! As I tell them all here...if you don't want to be called stupid, don't say stupid things! Simple.

[fm93]

They were going to stone her, IOW they were going to carry out sentence. No one is suggesting that for homosexuals. All people are doing is warning them that their behaviour is sin and asking that they repent and accept God's forgiveness for it.

I have given specific examples of instances where that's not "all people are doing." In this very post, for instance, you've also said:

This will sound quite jaded but from what I have observed of how gay people operate, Pope Francis is a work in progress and they will first butter him up and then start applying the screws.

So this comes across as "All I'm doing is telling gay people that I believe homosexuality (just sex acts? the relationship itself? Sure not the orientation itself?) is wrong, and I just want them to repent. Now let me tell you about how gay people are manipulative sleazeballs who pretend to admire someone just so they can tear him apart later."

I don't doubt that some gay people really are manipulative sleazeballs, but when you use what appears to be an insulting stereotype right after you said you were just innocuously trying to warn them of sin...

[Cow Poke]

Like these people?

Dear fm... if "these people" want to protest, they're totally 100% free to do so. But look closely -- no police cars are being pooped on, no buildings are being burned, no stores are being looted, and they appear to be peacefully and legally standing outside the perimeter of that building. And I seriously doubt any of them is shouting anything like "F the police" or otherwise spewing forth hate.

My issue, if you had taken the time to read the exchange, was that one of your less impressive colleagues was demanding that I take to the streets to protest, which is none of his business.

I prefer to do productive stuff, using my talents, abilities and gifts as God leads.

Now, are you OPPOSING the right of those people to stand there and protest? Or are you just looking for another fight?

[Starlight]

Your writing still sucks.

I make an effort to communicate clearly, and people regularly compliment me on the clarity of my posts.

I also never said "marriage" would be reserved for Christianity. But it would be reserved for any religious ceremony of joining.

So in your proposal, all the religious people would have 'marriage', including gay people who were religious, except for the atheists who wouldn't have 'marriage' and would only have 'civil unions'? I don't understand the motivation for doing that... the only purpose of that would then seem to be to try and discriminate against atheists.

If so, what's wrong with giving their ceremonies two different names?

Nothing. As I've said, marriage is the historic English term for the state-recognized ceremony, and religious people are totally free to come up with a new term or phrase for their own religious ceremony to suit themselves.

[Cow Poke]

I make an effort to communicate clearly, and people regularly compliment me on the clarity of my posts.

And sometimes you even say funny stuff that makes me nearly pee my pants! Like claiming to be a "pretty much a neutral third party..." while saying incredibly ignorant things like "Alito, Thomas, and Scalia are just monkeys in robes".

But, yeah, your grammar is usually pretty good.

[Starlight]

And sometimes you even say funny stuff that makes me nearly pee my pants!

I think you live in a bit of a bubble, and I try to expose you occasionally to carefully measured doses of alternative viewpoints to your own.

But, yeah, your grammar is usually pretty good.

Your backhanded compliment is much appreciated.

[Cow Poke]

I think you live in a bit of a bubble, and I try to expose you occasionally to carefully measured doses of alternative viewpoints to your own.

Yes, it's always good to take a visit to the zoo.

Your backhanded compliment is much appreciated.

A bit backhanded, perhaps, but sincere.

[JimL]

Does that hold true for those who want everybody to accept and tolerate their beliefs? Such as the belief that homosexuality and all it's permutations are fine and good?

Because I don't like those beliefs and think they are wrong. Yet they are being forced down our throats.

And no one is forcing you to believe anything. Is someone forcing you to personally accept homosexuality. No? The only ones trying to force their personal beliefs down the throats of anyone is the anti-homosexuals. In fact both groups are at liberty to personally believe an live according to their own beliefs. If you believe that marriage is only meant to be between a man and a woman, then just don't marry another woman and you'll be fine.

Oh, and you really ought to be concerned about a next life. That is the most important thing of all.

Well, I respect your opinion on that mossrose, but I don't have to agree with it or live my life in accordance with your opinion.

[Cow Poke]

You weren't breastfed, where you fm?

Can you please post the Bible verses that showed that Jesus "showed love" - I mean - he stood up to the bad guys, sure, but it's not like he hung out with her, or had any appreciable discussion with her.

You seem to be wanting to turn this into some touchie feelie moment.

Jesus was clearly setting the tone for forgiveness, but PLEASE post the verses that back up your little love-in scenario.

I'll tell you what, fm... I'll do the hard work for you... posting the scriptures and providing commentary, then you can try to make your love bomb point.

By the way, that's found in John chapter 8, and I'll post it in the English Standard Version - an "easy to read" version, but you can post any other version that you think might help support your (cough, sputter) point.

John 8:1-11English Standard Version (ESV)

8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.

Now, in verse 3, the woman is brought, and there's not even any indication that Jesus even LOOKED at her or acknowledged her in any way, and we're already to verse 9!!! Then Jesus FINALLY addresses the woman with two questions, and she gives one answer.....

10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.”

That's quite a conversation, isn't it, fm?

And the third sentence Jesus spoke to the woman is....

And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Now, where's this lovefest you keep droning on about? Jesus was teaching a lesson, and most of it had to do with the scribes and Pharisees who trying to trap Jesus into saying something they could use against him.

Your turn.

[Cow Poke]

The only ones trying to force their personal beliefs down the throats of anyone is the anti-homosexuals.

I really wish you anti-Christian bigots would stop calling us "anti-homosexuals".

[Sea of red]

Dear fm... if "these people" want to protest, they're totally 100% free to do so. But look closely -- no police cars are being pooped on, no buildings are being burned, no stores are being looted, and they appear to be peacefully and legally standing outside the perimeter of that building. And I seriously doubt any of them is shouting anything like "F the police" or otherwise spewing forth hate.

My issue, if you had taken the time to read the exchange, was that one of your less impressive colleagues was demanding that I take to the streets to protest, which is none of his business.

I prefer to do productive stuff, using my talents, abilities and gifts as God leads.

Now, are you OPPOSING the right of those people to stand there and protest? Or are you just looking for another fight?

Damn that's a good joke.

Anyways, I never demanded you do anything, or even came close to it. I just pointed out the curious lacking of passion on other issues in this country doing far more damage to what YOU say is Gods creation, while going after an activity you can't even get the dictionary definition of correct. But you do whatever it is you do that feeds your sense of righteousness.

And don't refer to people in anonymous tones like we don't know who you're talking about, it makes you look cowardly.