| Welcome to The South Pacific Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Purely out of curiousity... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 4 2004, 07:42 PM (802 Views) | |
| Dawn and Sun | Feb 5 2004, 11:17 PM Post #26 |
|
Sec Intel - Retired
![]()
|
My initial reaction is almost always a knee jerk reaction against. I voted in the "whatever column" here and I'll give my reasons. I think a civil marriage option would be a good thing. I don't like even the hint of a government telling a church what it can or cannot do. The reason I favor the civil marriage option is then the legal system can better handle everything from health care (big concern among gay and lesbian friends who are in committed relationships.), estate planning, and seperation/divorce issues. Right now its all very muddled and confusing and I think if gay and lesbian people were held to the same legal codes and the protections therein, a lot of unnecessary problems arising from a lack of solid guidance or precedent could be dealt with efficiently. Peace |
![]() |
|
| MBFanClub | Feb 5 2004, 11:19 PM Post #27 |
|
Unregistered
|
Governments aren't telling churches what to do. For instance, in the three Canadian provinces where same sex marriages are currently recoginzed, no one can force a catholic church to marry gays or lesbians. That's up to the church. However, the government will recognize any gay marriage that has been solemnized according to the requirements of the law. This isn't about telling churches what to do. It's about maknig everyone equal under the law. |
|
|
| Dawn and Sun | Feb 5 2004, 11:26 PM Post #28 |
|
Sec Intel - Retired
![]()
|
I agree with you 100% and accept the Canada info under the "I didn't know that" catagory. I just get a little nervous whenver the government starts making noises in an arena that a church considers sacred or a sacrement. What happens to the right of the Episcopol church in the USA to marry according to doctrine if the conservatives in Congress get their way? I ask this because Lutherans will be fighting it out in 2005. |
![]() |
|
| Fudgie | Feb 5 2004, 11:31 PM Post #29 |
|
Guy Fawkes' Campaign Manager
![]()
|
Is that the Lutheran Church in the States PoJ (sorry, I'm a lutheran myself - hadn't heard anything on it here) |
![]() |
|
| Dawn and Sun | Feb 5 2004, 11:46 PM Post #30 |
|
Sec Intel - Retired
![]()
|
yep Evangelical Lutheran Church in America How about you. |
![]() |
|
| Fudgie | Feb 5 2004, 11:50 PM Post #31 |
|
Guy Fawkes' Campaign Manager
![]()
|
Traditional Lutheran here in Aust. I've been confirmed in the church, and was a sunday school teacher once apon a time too. I don't think we have any off shoots of the traditional church here, our services are in english but I do know that in Southern Australia there are some held in german. ARGH OFF TOPIC!!! (please can we get back onto topic - pm me PoJ) |
![]() |
|
| tsunamy | Feb 5 2004, 11:52 PM Post #32 |
|
Misses Big Picture.
![]()
|
Well the Evengelical Lutheran Church is in support of gay marriage I believe. I'm not positive but from what friends said, they are in favor of it...My church *Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod* is against gay marriage I know... |
![]() |
|
| Dawn and Sun | Feb 5 2004, 11:58 PM Post #33 |
|
Sec Intel - Retired
![]()
|
We are actually talking about the larger issue and that is the human sexuality one. Things like is sexuality a "choice" or genetic. I think that based on what I've heard ( a lot as I'm part of a focus group) we are probably going to come out against the ELCA blessing or endorsing gay marriage or unions in any way. LCMS is closer to me in many ways but we are apart on some fundamental issues unrelated to this board. Peace |
![]() |
|
| Nan | Feb 6 2004, 12:36 AM Post #34 |
|
filosofi Doktor
![]()
|
I'd like to be included in your pm's! I live on the campus of Luther Seminary in Minnesota --- an ELCA place. The Bishop - of the ELCA is my pastor...or was. I am thankful he IS the bishop at this time.............in pm's I could tell you more.
|
![]() |
|
| blackplaidrose | Feb 6 2004, 03:23 AM Post #35 |
|
Duchess Ann I of Music and Adoration
![]()
|
If you are implying that all interior decorators are homosexuals, I find this statement to be very stereotypical. It just so happens that I am in college to get a degree in Interior Design/Decorating, and I am most definitely straight. Therefore I take great offense to that stereotypical generalization. Sorry for the off-tpoic comment. Most of the people that I have known aren't or weren't at the time old enough to even think of getting married, so I don't know how any of the churches that I belonged to stood on this issue. I don't think that any of the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America) churches I've belonged to have accepted it, and the Episcopal church that I am now attending most definitely does not accept gay marriages. The issue has never come up there, but considering how much they are against the gay bishop, it's pretty safe to say that they wouldn't. I apologize again for the off-topic comment, but I and one of my good friends have been put into categories like GE did (my friend more than I because this friend is male, and is not only getting his degree in Interior Design, but is also in the theatre that I now belong to, and I feel for him). |
![]() |
|
| kloister | Feb 6 2004, 03:51 AM Post #36 |
|
Fudgie's 'Fronk'...
![]()
|
IMHO I would say that everyone has their free agency to make the choices they want to. Peoples faith and moral values will govern their actions. But they must not forget that those choices will impact on those around them. Society can only be harmed by the disintegration of the family which same sex marriages will contribute to. Therefore, although I voted 'it's up to them' this does not mean that I think it is the 'best' thing to do. I feel a wider moral stance forming here, so I will reign it in...Whoa Ned...
|
![]() |
|
| Military Force | Feb 6 2004, 07:26 AM Post #37 |
|
Wandering Ghost
![]()
|
Umm not to start a fight and i'm only gonna say this if everyone promises that they'll still talk to me afterwords. btw Fudge, children have nothing to do with the biblical idea of marriage. Biblically "for this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave unto a woman" I'd have to honestly say I am completely against same sex marriages. end of story. I have nothing personal against homosexuals, but i have a bible and a god who say that it is wrong. |
![]() |
|
| Mearnskirk | Feb 6 2004, 08:28 AM Post #38 |
|
Retired Undertaker
![]()
|
This is an interesting point, and one often used by Christians. However, many of the biblical references used are from the old testament, which also says not to eat pork, and Christians don't seem to have had too much trouble dispensing with that and other laws. Christ said that the most important commandment was to love your neighbour. Doesn't that mean that we should extend the same treatment to everyone, regardless of their race, sex, religion or sexual preference? So shouldn't things like property rights and child custody arrangements be the same for homosexuals as others? Of course, people don't necessarily have to be joined in a Christian marriage to obtain these rights, but society, in granting such rights, wants to be able to distinguish between people who are in a committed partnership and people who are in a more transient relationship, and traditionally "marriage" has been used for this purpose, although of course it could easily be some form of civil contract. |
![]() |
|
| DWC | Feb 6 2004, 10:01 AM Post #39 |
|
Impartially Biased
![]()
|
In Leviticus, the same book of the Bible and the Torah that condemns homosexuality, you can also find condemnations of eating pork and seafood without fins, and getting tattoos. A kosher diet is mandatory, wearing clothes made of more than one type of fabric is punishable by death, as is being disobendient to ones parents or worshipping a 'false god'. Paul, who never met Jesus but decided to make a living off a rather authoritiarian spin on his teachings a few decades after his death, repeated the earlier prohibition. By and large religions slowly abandon the restrictions that require universal observation and focus on the ones that allow practitioners to nail people outside the faith for their behaviour. People like isolating other people for their perceived flaws, using it as a means to make themselves and their groups feel virtous and to cover up their own weaknesses. Political ideology often achieves the same goal. It's sad that religion and politics, that have brought humanity its greatest moments and monuments, have also been the vehicles for the exercise of the greatest repression and oppression. For an interesting Bible check out the version edited by Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and America's third President. Strip away the Old Testament repression and the mystic stories spun to win over gullible peasants, and you're left with a compelling and practical personal and political philosophy. DWC |
![]() |
|
| DWC | Feb 6 2004, 10:07 AM Post #40 |
|
Impartially Biased
![]()
|
The below was circulated a few years ago when 'Dr Laura', a conservative American advice-giving radio show host, was explaining the naughtiness of gay people and how they needed to be 'cured', etc. I'm especially concerned with point 'd'. DWC *** Dear Dr Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you however, regarding some of the specific laws and how best to follow them. a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? b ) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15: 19 - 24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. d) Lev 25: 44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? e) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? f) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? g) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev19:27. How should they die? h) I know from Lev. 11:6 - 8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves. i) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of threads (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24: 10 - 16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? Lev 20:14. I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan..... |
![]() |
|
| Nan | Feb 6 2004, 10:33 AM Post #41 |
|
filosofi Doktor
![]()
|
I agree with what you say, Mearnskirk and DWC. One point to add --- the BIBLE is not the only guideline for life, or even any guideline for many, many people on this earth. There are any number of sacred books that whole nations of people live by, all as valid to them as the Bible is to Christians. If one does not accept the tenets of the fundamentalist Bible, then there can be no real argument but only opinions.... That's why I admire the Scandinavian and European countries (some of them) in making it a Civil issue - and, incidently, they have stronger family units for the most part than the US does! so there goes that little argument right down the tubes of logic!
|
![]() |
|
| kloister | Feb 6 2004, 10:50 AM Post #42 |
|
Fudgie's 'Fronk'...
![]()
|
I take your point but that makes no real allowance for truth. My beliefs are that through the plan of our Father in Heaven, persons who desire to do what is right but through no fault of their own are unable to have an eternal marriage in mortal life will have an opportunity to qualify for eternal life in a period following mortality, if they keep the commandments of God and are true to their baptismal and other covenants. In addition to the cleansing effect of the Atonement, God has given us agency?the power to choose between good (the path of life) and evil (the path of spiritual death and destruction [Moses 4:3]). Although the conditions of mortality can limit our freedom (such as by restricting our mobility or our power to act on certain options), when we have reached the age or condition of accountability no mortal or spiritual power can deprive us of our agency. To accomplish one of the purposes of mortal life, it is essential that we be tested against opposition to see if we will keep the commandments of God (Abr. 3:25-26). To provide that opposition, Satan and his followers are permitted to tempt us to use our agency and our freedom to choose evil and to commit sin. Because Satan desires that all men might be miserable like him, his most strenuous efforts are directed at encouraging those choices and actions that will thwart God?s plan for his children. He seeks to undermine the principle of individual accountability, to persuade us to misuse our sacred powers of procreation, to discourage marriage and childbearing by worthy men and women, and to confuse what it means to be male or female. It is this confusion that undermines the individual, the family and society. |
![]() |
|
| Mearnskirk | Feb 6 2004, 11:25 AM Post #43 |
|
Retired Undertaker
![]()
|
There is no need to take account of truth. Absolute truth is divine, and as we are not divine, we are incapable of knowing absolute truth. Therefore we must always bear in mind that our own particular version of truth is incomplete, and is not necessarily any closer to divine truth than someone else's. |
![]() |
|
| MBFanClub | Feb 6 2004, 01:08 PM Post #44 |
|
Unregistered
|
My view is we should all butt out and let our fellow humans be happy. If there is an ultimate judge at the end of this life, then we'll all be held to account at that time. Put another way, if you're against same sex relationships, then don't engage in them. If you are opposed to same sex marriage, then don't marry someone of your sex. It's a pretty simple concept, really. |
|
|
| Dawn and Sun | Feb 6 2004, 01:11 PM Post #45 |
|
Sec Intel - Retired
![]()
|
kloister, are you citing book of mormon? just curious as the thread says. Peace edit: just reread. your comments about "eternal marriage in mortal life" tell me you probably are citing B.O.M? |
![]() |
|
| Trahey | Feb 6 2004, 02:02 PM Post #46 |
|
Former Secretary of Foreign Affairs
![]()
|
This is getting scary, MBFC; we actually agree on something again. |
![]() |
|
| bistmath | Feb 6 2004, 02:18 PM Post #47 |
![]()
|
A really good page on Thos Jefferson.
"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291 "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428 "I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429 |
![]() |
|
| Nan | Feb 6 2004, 03:00 PM Post #48 |
|
filosofi Doktor
![]()
|
fully agree again Mearnskirk, MBFC, and Bisty. Again, I think T. Jefferson was a remarkable(if elitest) person. I think the question of "rights" isnīt as simple as letting everyone live their own lives though. Certainly I believe in the separation of church and state (such as that can be accomplished) - which is why I believe that the civil powers should govern with equality and justice for all, and that includes protecting the rights of avowed partners by law. Anything else is acting on religious beliefs in practice! I don't agree with that. Now as to what people think of as "eternal truth," well, I trust the higher power knows what it's doing. I am a more contextual person though - believing that we are creating what and who we are every day, and creating our societies too. In that regard, I really love the dialogues that arise out of different belief systems - as long as no one assumes I am the Devil because I don't believe like they do. Geez, I hardly EVER talk to the Devil anymore.........sorry, had to say that! :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Humanoids | Feb 7 2004, 04:10 PM Post #49 |
|
paininthea**
![]()
|
I voted whatever, but I am uncomfortable with Homosexuality in particular, why? Heck I am not really sure! I consider myself a "reformed Homophobe' reformed in as much as I do not, any longer, immediately yell "unnatural [censored]" whenever the subject is raised, and to be honest I used to do a lot worse than that. The reason for my discomfort with the idea is not religious I am an atheist. It is patently absurd to consider Homosexuality as a threat either to me personally or my way of life! I had a long hard chat with some friends when 'gays' were legalised within the British Military (which I am part of), after a long discussion the only reason I could put on my discomfort was what I call the perception concern. To clarify I define the 'perception concern' as the worry that if I am seen with a Homosexual other people will automatically label me as 'homosuexual'. Does that seem pathetic? It does to me, but if I was to ignore it I would not be being honest with myself or my friends. Also I am specific in regards to my discomfort being with homosexuals and not lesbians, like many other males I find the idea of lesbianism highly erotic, (even though this is obviously silly as while I might find a lesbian a 'turn on' by definition they are not going to be interested in me (a male) ). Any feedback on this view would be welcome, especially if anyone else has similar views, or even if someone else finds these views idiotic or whatever, let me know the reasons and I would welcome an open discussion. |
![]() |
|
| Nan | Feb 8 2004, 10:16 AM Post #50 |
|
filosofi Doktor
![]()
|
Sounds honest to me, Humanoids. At least you looked at the question. I think most of the uproar would go away if the civil question were settled. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Old Games, Polls, and Quizzes · Next Topic » |










3:38 AM Jul 11