proposal against same sex marriage
Below is a proposal i have and would like your endorcement or othe regional delagets yoou know to endorce it.
It is Called "No to same sex marriage"
I belive marriage should only be the union of a man and a woman. not two people of the same sex.
Even the Bible goes against same sex marriages.
"If marriage is a union between two persons who love each other - that's the new definition, without the allusion to sex - where does the notion stop? Will you recognize the marriage between a father and his daughter? Between a brother and his sister? Or two brothers or two sisters? . . . It's very dangerous because we don't know the consequences."
For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests or magistrates; for it is God's ordinance and not Man's; and therefore Friends cannot consent that they should join them together; for we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses.
George Fox (1669)
Below is a proposal i have and would like your endorcement or othe regional delagets yoou know to endorce it.
It is Called "No to same sex marriage"
I belive marriage should only be the union of a man and a woman. not two people of the same sex.
Even the Bible goes against same sex marriages.
"If marriage is a union between two persons who love each other - that's the new definition, without the allusion to sex - where does the notion stop? Will you recognize the marriage between a father and his daughter? Between a brother and his sister? Or two brothers or two sisters? . . . It's very dangerous because we don't know the consequences."
For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests or magistrates; for it is God's ordinance and not Man's; and therefore Friends cannot consent that they should join them together; for we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses.
George Fox (1669)
Too late - there are already 2 resolutions that state the opposite, and as there is no way to recall resolutions...you're S.O.L.
_Myopia_
19-09-2003, 19:08
Why is it that followers of various religions feel it necessary to impose their dogma on the rest of us by enshrining it in law? Religion has no place in government, and hence religous texts and dogma should not be used as the basis or the arguments behind laws - this applies to international law too. If you are going to take any religious scripture as the basis of laws, how far are you going to go? If you insist that we follow the bible to the letter, we should legalise slavery and have stoning as the legal punishment for any number of trivial offenses (many of which are no longer even considered crimes).
Homosexual relationships are no less loving or deserving of recognition than heterosexual ones. If the church objects to gay marriage, then it can (if it wishes to be discriminatory) deny gays church marriages (although I would see this as deeply wrong). It should not, however, have the right to deny them secular marriages recognised in law.
You say that allowing gay marriage would lead to a "slippery slope" in which incestuous marriages are recognised. This is easily preventable, by the simple expedient of not changing the current laws applying to incest - everybody can easily see that the idea of homosexual marriage is clearly in a completely different category to that of incestuous marriage.
Below is a proposal i have and would like your endorcement or othe regional delagets yoou know to endorce it.
It is Called "No to same sex marriage"
I belive marriage should only be the union of a man and a woman. not two people of the same sex.
Even the Bible goes against same sex marriages.
"If marriage is a union between two persons who love each other - that's the new definition, without the allusion to sex - where does the notion stop? Will you recognize the marriage between a father and his daughter? Between a brother and his sister? Or two brothers or two sisters? . . . It's very dangerous because we don't know the consequences."
Too late - there are already 2 resolutions that state the opposite, and as there is no way to recall resolutions...you're S.O.L.
For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests or magistrates; for it is God's ordinance and not Man's; and therefore Friends cannot consent that they should join them together; for we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses.
George Fox (1669)
You put your text in the first guys message. For those that don't see it, Wolfish said 'Too late - there are already 2 resolutions that state the opposite, and as there is no way to recall resolutions...you're S.O.L.'. Which is a shame because I agree with this. Be homosexual all you want, but marrage is between a man and a woman and is intended to be for reproduction. It gives them benefits for being a couple. If they don't have kids, they can still get married, but they don't get the exact same treatment by the government that a family with a kid does.
In that case, it'd only be fair to have SOME kind of union recognized by the government. But not marriage. Marriage implies religion, and religious texts specifically state (at least the Bible, and I suspect the Koran too) that 'sexual deviants' are bad. If you don't think homosexuals were considered sexual deviants under the context of the Bible, you buy into Modernist crap. The Bible was not made to be re-interpreted every time humans feel like sinning in a new way and want to ease their conscience. The word of God or Allah or what have you does not change unless specifically stated by a booming voice from the sky.
Don't say 'I'm a Christain and I think you're wrong!'. You think you can just pick and choose verses from the Bible and church doctrine and ignore the rest? That's hypocritical. Start your own religion if you think gays should be married in the traditional sense.
Not to rip on gays. I would probably support a government union overseen by a judge, but not a marriage by a Chrisitan priest.
Homosexual relationships are no less loving or deserving of recognition than heterosexual ones. If the church objects to gay marriage, then it can (if it wishes to be discriminatory)
Not really. There's a separation of church and state, remember? They don't have to have guidelines as to who they will and will not accept into the church.
deny gays church marriages (although I would see this as deeply wrong).
Not really. Read the Bible. I'll admit the Bible is corrupted by times (which at first seems to invalidate my last post, but upon further inspection it doesn't validate YOUR argument either, so we're both still even), but ignorance is bliss, as they say. If you follow God's teachings as the church says them to the word, he can't get mad at you. If you happen to get lucky and hit the right combination without following the Bible as is, good for you. If you don't, God might get angry.
_Myopia_
19-09-2003, 19:34
Marriage has evolved - it is now effectively a secular institution which CAN be made religious by being blessed by one or other religion. Hence, homosexual marriage is perfectly justified - to make a legal differentiation would be discriminatory.
Sorry i posted this before I had read the post before.
_Myopia_
19-09-2003, 19:44
Homosexual relationships are no less loving or deserving of recognition than heterosexual ones. If the church objects to gay marriage, then it can (if it wishes to be discriminatory)
Not really. There's a separation of church and state, remember? They don't have to have guidelines as to who they will and will not accept into the church.
deny gays church marriages (although I would see this as deeply wrong).
Not really. Read the Bible. I'll admit the Bible is corrupted by times (which at first seems to invalidate my last post, but upon further inspection it doesn't validate YOUR argument either, so we're both still even), but ignorance is bliss, as they say. If you follow God's teachings as the church says them to the word, he can't get mad at you. If you happen to get lucky and hit the right combination without following the Bible as is, good for you. If you don't, God might get angry.
Erm...what? Sorry I can't seem to make sense of what you are trying to say. I am arguing for allowing gay marriage and against the use of religious principles to determine laws. I am prepared to accept it if the church refuses to bless homosexual marriages - it will be the church's loss in the end as they lose followers - even though I myself would like to see all religions accept gay marriage. However I do feel that all governments must legalise gay marriage and give gays the same rights as heterosexuals.
Homosexual relationships are no less loving or deserving of recognition than heterosexual ones. If the church objects to gay marriage, then it can (if it wishes to be discriminatory)
Not really. There's a separation of church and state, remember? They don't have to have guidelines as to who they will and will not accept into the church.
deny gays church marriages (although I would see this as deeply wrong).
Not really. Read the Bible. I'll admit the Bible is corrupted by times (which at first seems to invalidate my last post, but upon further inspection it doesn't validate YOUR argument either, so we're both still even), but ignorance is bliss, as they say. If you follow God's teachings as the church says them to the word, he can't get mad at you. If you happen to get lucky and hit the right combination without following the Bible as is, good for you. If you don't, God might get angry.
Erm...what? Sorry I can't seem to make sense of what you are trying to say. I am arguing for allowing gay marriage and against the use of religious principles to determine laws. I am prepared to accept it if the church refuses to bless homosexual marriages - it will be the church's loss in the end as they lose followers - even though I myself would like to see all religions accept gay marriage. However I do feel that all governments must legalise gay marriage and give gays the same rights as heterosexuals.
I'm too wordy when we get to this issue. Point is, we can agree that a government union of two gays that gives them the same rights as a straight couple with no children would technically be fair. I believe religions should stick to their guns and not allow gay marriages. That's it. I don't think they care if they lose 'followers', because those followers will probably be gay and they consider them misguided (I believe is the term that Catholics use, as in not sinners and can just turn away from their way of life to be saved [they don't need confession or anything]) if they live that way, so they both win.
The only problem I see with encouraging gay marriages is that it's a possability that human reproduction can go down if mass amounts of people are strictly gay. An all female society could technically reproduce, if they all wanted to be clones, which is bad. An all male society would be screwed. I doubt this would happen in the near future, but anything is possible. Most inhibitions toward gays are strictly social, and not natural.
Marriage shouldn't even be a concern of government in the first place...
I do not beleive this should be a matter of the UN... this is a matter of an idividual government. But no UN proposal should deny a nation from acting on a similar proposal