Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2008 - 08:41pm PT
|
many don't want to acknowledge the foundations of "religous views". Like an Egyptian obelisk with a cross stuck on top of it or Christmas taking place on the winter solstice, the "judeo-christian values" are based on older laws/values.
All people are created equal is an American value. Personally I believe in that value more than religous values that discrimintate.
It would be interesting to ask politicians what is more important to them American Values (equality) or Religous Values. Of course most wouldn't have the guts to give a straightforward answer.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2008 - 09:00pm PT
|
Jody wrote:"You haven't read a single post I have made on this thread have you? You, and the others on this thread who continually say that if you don't accept every behavior of a person then you don't love them...are so close-minded it is pathetic. You people keep spouting off with the same talking-points..."If you don't accept their behavior you don't love them", "Judge not lest ye be judged", "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", etc. Yet nobody answered the post where I spelled out how out-of-context you were taking all those Scriptures. Nobody has given me any reason why we have to accept ALL behavior ALL the time in order to love someone. "
I might have read one or two of your posts, but what's the point? You just put words in my mouth, you lump me in with liberals, and assume to know what my thoughts and motivations are. You insult me. You are like a broken record.
If you really had an open mind you would read what I have to say and take value out of it, instead of being insulted by it.
There is acceptance and there is tolerance. You don't have to accept that being gay is ok, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But being tolerant is not only good for those you don't agree with, it's good for you.
Sure you can love someone without accepting any/all of their behaviors.
Put yourself in other people's shoes for a moment. What if you were born gay? You knew you were absolutely attracted to the same sex and everything you tried to change it did nothing. Wouldn't you want equality?
I used to believe in civil unions. Mainly because a gay friend said she was ok with it, if not calling it marriage doesn't offend some people she could live with not calling it marriage. But now i believe that is seperate but equal, which or course isn't really equal.
All men are created equal. I believe that is a great ideal to live up to.
It's up to us how we intepret the scriptures. And that says a lot about us as people.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2008 - 10:29pm PT
|
No worries Jody. I would guess your strong desire to pursue what you see is good/right fuels your posts and thoughts.
There is a whole spectrum of feelings and people. There are even some people who are much more conservative than you! You California hippy! :-)
I would not consider myself liberal or conservative, because I think once you label yourself it contributes towards accepting other peoples views, instead of making my own mind up about what I think is good and just.
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2008 - 11:33pm PT
|
Damn, I'm out of town for 5 days and this thing is still growing. Who would'a thought.
Take note though, there are 1000 wildfires in California burning right now. Maybe this is the beginning of the end. ha
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 26, 2008 - 12:07am PT
|
Yes Jody, there are many things I believe are immoral, too many to list: almost all inflict some kind of pain/damage to someone else. Basically, violations of "Do unto others..."
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2008 - 12:48am PT
|
I'm curious as to how those advocating for 'traditional' marriage would address the situation of those with XXY chromsomes, XXY chromosomes, or the various other unusual combinations. Perhaps less than 1% of the population, but then the active homosexual population of the U.S. seems to not be more than 4% or 5%, and perhaps less.
So, are those with XXY or XYY chromosomes male, or female? Who should they be allowed to marry?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2008 - 01:22am PT
|
"I think the only question remaining is "Will any given Government or Church recognise a particular marriage?" Or even "Do they HAVE to?"
That was a fine post Rox but folks are hanging on to their perspective and since when has common sense or a superior argument changed anybody's mind around here? It happens about %5 of the time, maybe %15 of the time among the lurkers who might not have felt strongly about it enough to post.
We're living in our own worlds and believe what we want to believe.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2008 - 01:27am PT
|
Please, I ask that you go back and read my last post
Fine thoughts. Too bad the people slinging mud at each other on this thread won't stop to read it.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2008 - 01:36am PT
|
Rox,
"Nobody will like this, (too bad), but again I will tell my most cherished secrets to make my point. My wife and I were not married by any established rite, or by civil act."
I can't imagine that there are very many here who would disagree with your method of marrying. There is a benefit that you may be depriving yourself of though, or at least making it more difficult to obtain, and that is social security benefits for a surviving member of a marriage. If one member of a married couple dies, the surviving spouse can continue to receive her/his own Social Security benefit, or 100% of the deceased spouse's benefit, whichever is more. If your wife earned less over her lifetime than you did, and she outlives you, she'll start receiving your benefits. And vice versas or so I understand.
This is of course the benefit that Homosexual couples would like to have and one I see no reason to deny them, even though I believe God meant sexual relations to be between a man and a wowan.
So there is a benefit to having that legal document. Plus Idaho does not recognize common law marriages for relationships that started after 1996. I don't know when your marriage started, but that legal document makes life easier. That is if you end up staying together through old age.
.....................
About Quaker marriages, there is a part that I think you left out. In the Friends meeting that I attended, to be recognized as married by the Quakers, one has to declare their desire to marry, then the meeting appoints a clearness committee that determines if they think the couple is ready to marry and if the marriage is sanctioned by God. If the couple passes this, then the wedding ceremony they choose is up to them. They could in effect just stand up in meeting and declare themselves married, though it usually involves a worship service in which you meet in silence and anyone who feels led to speak, can.
As I understand it, the clearness committee is an important part of Quaker beliefs. I could be wrong as I only attended meetings for about a year. I attended an unstructured meeting, one without a pastor which could also be called a silent meeting. It isn't exactly silent though, it just doesn't have a formal preacher. In the meeting I attended anyone who felt led by the spirit could get up and speak, although there are leaders in the church who could override you if turned out to be a whacko. If no one felt led by the spirit, then no one spoke.
As I said earlier, I only attended meetings for about one year, so I could be wrong about some things.
John
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2008 - 02:12am PT
|
I already posted that, Karl.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2008 - 03:17am PT
|
Jody, Jennie and others keep bringing up the “homosexual lifestyle”, what the f’ is this lifestyle you’re talking about ?
As far as quoting the bible, talking about God or being Godless, that’s all religious stuff and I fail to see the relevance when discussing US Law and a US citizen’s right to equal protection under the law as clearly outlined in the US constitution?
If we must talk about religion, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian (Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Protestant, Unitarian, etc., etc.) do not define marriage in the same manner, given the first amendment, I fail to see where the US Government and / or US States would be justified in taking it upon themselves to define marriage. Perhaps those with a greater expertise in Constitutional Law, or law in general can help me out.
LEB wrote : It guarantees that no action based solely in religious ideology becomes the law of the land nor that we enact laws which require others to think in that same (religious) way. If the religious ideology and the legal ideology happen to overlap e.g. injunctions against murder or theft - that is permissible.
Succinct and well put.
Rokjox,
For what it’s worth, I read your post from beginning to end. Nice post.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2008 - 03:36am PT
|
Jody wrote: You haven't read a single post I have made on this thread have you? You, and the others on this thread who continually say that if you don't accept every behavior of a person then you don't love them...are so close-minded it is pathetic.
Plenty posters, okay at least I have clearly stated that I’ve understood the distinction you are making. I understand that you love a lot of people who do certain things of which you do not approve.
Jody wrote: You people keep spouting off with the same talking-points...
As do you.
Jody wrote: Nobody has given me any reason why we have to accept ALL behavior ALL the time in order to love someone.
No one’s trying to get you to accept all behavior all the time. Condoning a behavior and being tolerant of the legality of certain behaviors are not the same.
I don’t condone overeating and smoking (and especially combining both), should we modify the CA state or the US constitutions to ban both?
I can point to plenty of Jewish and Muslims in the US who do not approve of (“accept” as you put it) eating pork, yet you never here a peep from them asking that the law prohibit others from eating pork. Sure, they could state,
“Everyone has equal protection under the law to consume other foods for nourishment, no one’s stopping them from doing that!”
But that would be imposing religious dietary laws on the population as a whole. And as you seem to be aware, that’s a big no-no according to the US Constitution.
Any chance you see my point?
|
|
Doug Buchanan
Mountain climber
Fairbanks Alaska
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2008 - 06:00am PT
|
What is the record for absolutely non-climbing threads on SuperTopo?
Back at 318 I stated: There is a process for more intelligent gays and straights to acquire the full, complete benefits of marriage, without exception, without government involvement or intervention, but this sentence just as well be written in Swahili when presented to the gullible Americans who have been fooled into believing inherently lying lawyers, government dolts, news journalists, and not ask questions of we of the Higher Order, the Mountain Climbers.
Now therefore we know there are no SuperTopo readers of this entire thread who are interested in their own gay marriage with full benefits, or who understand the value of asking questions, who have not already figured it out.
And God can speak for herself on the issue, to the entire universe. If she needed humans to speak for her, she is obviously not God, much to the confusion of all the laughable human religious leaders who claim to speak for what is therefore obviously not God. Check out Astronomy Picture of the Day to consider the ludicrous nature of a suggestion that God needs humans for anything.
And the Alaskan Alpine Club museum just got a pair of Embick's rock shoes, but we still need donated carabiners of any condition, to hang stuff. Gay, straight, believer or non believer biners are welcome.
Doug
AlaskanAlpineClub.org
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2008 - 08:52am PT
|
Doug wrote
"Back at 318 I stated: There is a process for more intelligent gays and straights to acquire the full, complete benefits of marriage, without exception, without government involvement or intervention, but this sentence just as well be written in Swahili when presented to the gullible Americans who have been fooled into believing inherently lying lawyers, government dolts, news journalists, and not ask questions of we of the Higher Order, the Mountain Climbers. "
Come on Doug, this is about the bazillionth post where you claim to have some advanced insight, but instead of actually posting your knowledge and opinion. you merely claim to know it and spend the rest of the post knocking others down.
Why not just tell us in as simple a terms as you can manage?
Peace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2008 - 10:24am PT
|
Once the Islamic Raghead terrorists invade and take over this country due to the weakness of the PC crowd, they will begin to feed the Christians to the Lions and Jody will be calling for "Equal rights and Justice for the minority"
God forbid
Peace
Karl
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2008 - 10:49am PT
|
While we may never see eye to eye on this subject, I think we can all agree on one thing:
Doug Buchanan is as nutty as a fruitcake.
Are there any passages in the Bible about handicapped people? How should they be treated? Since they have chosen to be retarded, I'm guessing they are no different than gays in God's eyes.
|
|
Todd Gordon
Trad climber
Joshua Tree, Cal
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2008 - 11:12am PT
|
I'm single, boys......any takers?
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2008 - 12:17pm PT
|
Good post Rockjox, but a religion did have a big influence on marriage.
The Cannanites in what is now Israel had a pretty lax policy on relationships. Part of their religion was focused on fertility/sex and celebrating it, including watching priests have sex and temple prostitutes. When the Jews took over they saw the problems inherent in that lifestyle and made "rules" and put forth "marriage". At that time it wasn't monogamous marriage though!
Over the years marriage came to be generally accepted as a man and a woman. It leads to a stable society and stable families, less transfer of disease, etc.
Much later our founding fathers promoted the idea of equality as a value. At that time equality meant white, male, land owners, but the idea was greater than the men. Over time the conditions have been and are being removed from equality. Why should someone born gay have less rights than someone born straight?
Of course gay marriages aren't the same as straight marriages. It is better to have a father and mother when raising kids, to give role models of behavior, etc. But when someone doesn't want to be married to and isn't attracted to the opposite sex should they be prohibited from marriage? It's better to have enough money for good education and nutrition, but should poor people be prohibited from having kids?
Society and it's view points change. The original and most basic meaning of a conservative is someone who wants to hold on to and do things as they have been done in the past. While a liberal/progressive wants change. This topic is a perfect example of that.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 26, 2008 - 12:39pm PT
|
Wow. Gotta hand it to you Rokjox, that was one hell of a fine post.
"Smile and be happy for the people who think they are happy with the homosexual life. They (I think) give up a lot to pursue it. But that is not my business, or concern. Just be happy for them, as they have won a hard battle to get this recognition of their marriages. A lot of happy tears are being shed over this. "
Excellent stuff!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!