|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 10, 2005 11:07:12 GMT -5
Okay I'm big on family stuff and what not so I've been very excited to see this amendment pass. I used to baby sit for a person who has been called one of the big movers and shakers in some previous pro family actions in Texas.
Anyways that aside I'm very pro traditional family. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Nov 10, 2005 11:09:27 GMT -5
Pro-family here. And pro-sacramental marriage. (No surprises here...)
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 10, 2005 11:35:52 GMT -5
by sacramental marriage is that just meaning marriage as a religious ceremony in general or are the particular requirements for one?
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Nov 10, 2005 14:07:14 GMT -5
Its ironic how when I was writing about my anti-gay views people were bitting my head off but now its alright for everyone to vote that its right to take rights away from gays.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Nov 10, 2005 14:19:11 GMT -5
cenk, I don't think anyone who has posted here was biting your head off.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Nov 10, 2005 14:20:58 GMT -5
by sacramental marriage is that just meaning marriage as a religious ceremony in general or are the particular requirements for one? That's a good question... kind of tough to give a short answer. I've posted a lot elsewhere: The Sacrament of MatrimonyIt really has more to do with the intentions of those marrying each other than it does a ceremony or religious requirements.
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Nov 10, 2005 14:43:59 GMT -5
cenk, I don't think anyone who has posted here was biting your head off. Maybe you should have a good read of that Morality thread.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 10, 2005 15:02:06 GMT -5
Hey that was cool stuff. My church also places a great deal of significance on marriage. I think it is sad to see when people try to reduce it to a mere social contract.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Nov 10, 2005 15:44:57 GMT -5
Maybe you should have a good read of that Morality thread. Just did, and I don't see a single post from teancum or myself regarding your views on homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 10, 2005 15:59:28 GMT -5
I just took a look through the thread as well. What can I say when your right I’ll support you and your views. (Oh that sounds so arrogant, but I still like it.)
Homosexuality is a complex issue and feelings run very strong and deep. I however have the Bible God and common sense on my side (or rather I took their side) so I figure I'm good to go.
Oh your statement about taking away their rights. We are not taking away any rights we are simply not creating a new and harmful one.
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Nov 10, 2005 20:21:18 GMT -5
There was no option for "other" on this poll. I don't think the state should decide what religious institutions should do. Marriage is a religious thing. Civil unions is a state thing.
|
|
|
Post by ophelia97 on Nov 10, 2005 20:45:02 GMT -5
I agree we need an "other" on the poll.
I think they should be allowed to marry, but not in a church wedding; there are other non-religious ceremonies to get married. It doesn't bother me because I've never felt threatened by people of a different orientation.
I used to have a male friend who was gay, and that didn't bother me at all. He wasn't brash about it, nor did being in his company cause me to want to change my own straight orientation. It wouldn't have bothered me at all if he wanted to marry another man. And if you think about it, everyone deserves to be happy.
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Nov 10, 2005 20:50:02 GMT -5
I think they should be allowed to marry, but not in a church wedding; there are other non-religious ceremonies to get married. Yeah... civil unions. Even heterosexuals have civil unions. Neither have I.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Nov 11, 2005 8:15:38 GMT -5
Christian opposition to redefining marriage has nothing to do with being "threatened". It has everything to do with God and His will for us.
I'm trying to think of something to compare this to, and it will be amazing if I can since no one seems to have been able to break through this communication barrier.
Suppose you are a parent, and you are giving a vitamin capsule to your children each day for nutrition. Then when you go to the drugstore one day, the pharmacist says, "We still carry bottles that say "Vitamins", but now the capsules are filled with herbs."
Assuming no allergies to the herbs (which, granted, is a big assumption), you are certainly not "threatened" by this... nor are your children. Any objections you may raise are not because you feel "threatened".
It is the same with packaging up something completely different and calling it "marriage".
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Nov 11, 2005 9:28:59 GMT -5
the USA is meant to be a secular country, so in my opinion religious views should have very little, if any bearing on what laws should be passed. i couldn't really give a crap to be honest, but in general i don't see why gays can't be happy with something that gives them the same rights as normal married couples just under a different name (though the south park parody of this line of thinking was quite amusing
|
|