Badmovies.org Forum

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38560562/ns/us_news-life?GT1=43001

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians."

Word.

My household was thrilled when we heard the news.  :cheers:   A judge with some common sense. Very refreshing.

 Choke on it, fred phelps!

I have no sympathy for Phelps - he's a shameless hatemonger.

But I do not approve of gay marriage, for reasons I gave in a previous thread long ago. To sum it up here:
Words mean things. Since the dawn of time, in every culture, in every nation, marriage has been an arrangement between men and women, exclusively.  Even places like ancient Greece, where homosexuality was widely accepted and carried no social stigma, never referred to homosexual relagionships as marriages.

Consenting adults are free to engage in whatever relationships they wish.  But calling a relationship something it isn't doesn't make it such.

Or, as one farmer I know put it, "You can call a cow a chicken all day long, it still won't lay eggs."

I'll be glad if the 9th Circuit gets overturned on this one, as they are on about 70% of their rulings.

 Once upon a time blacks weren't allowed to marry whites, and it was seen as just.

 The modern discrimination against gays is just the current fallback that prejudice, xenophobia and intolerance have retreated to now that they're no longer allowed to openly express themselves against people based on race as they were a few decades ago.

 Someday they'll be beaten even further back.

So, I take it you're OK with polygamy, right?  It's also a time-honored tradition in many, many cultures.  So is infanticide, for that matter.  Separate issues, yes, but I don't think "we've always done it this way" is a solid enough argument for determining civil rights issues. 

As far as the legal basis of the ruling, that I'm not so sure of. 

Actually, the prohibiion on interracial marriage was mostly an American thing.  In many past cultures it had been common.  I think that you can make a strong argument that sexuality is a BEHAVIOR, whereas race is an inborn condition.

As far as polygamy goes, no, I don't favor it here, but in cultures where it is a time-honored tradition and a longstanding institution, then I have no problem with it being allowed in those places.

I think one reason that this issue inflames so many temperaments is that marriage is both a religious and civil institution, and many religions regard homosexual relations as inherently sinful.

As I said, I believe consenting adults are free to do what they want in the eyes of the law.  But changing the fundamental nature of the oldest societal institution in the world to meet the demands of a few activists, against the will of a large majority of the nation's population, is foolish and ill-advised.

I guess your next step will be to call me a bigot or a homophobe.

OFkeKKszXTw

I have to respectfully disagree, Indy.

Societal standards can change, even if they're older than dirt.  I personally don't think age of a standard is any reason to disallow rights.  If the church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, that's fine because it's their ballgame.  As for the rest of society, I think we should all have what's fair.  Also, I don't see how a marriage between two men isn't a marriage.  I don't think marriage has to do with love, because there have been plenty of loveless marriages between straight people, and they've still been called marriages.  I don't think it has to do with breeding, because infertile straight people can still be married.  Definitions are human ideas, and ideas can change.  That's just my opinion.

But as I said, I still respect your viewpoint. 

Thanks, Joe.  While antiquity and precedent should not be the sole deciding issue, I think it is foolish to completely disregard them - especially on an issue like this where the judge's ruling was clearly against the will of a majority of the people, not just in the state, but nationwide.

 I was listening to Mark Davis, my favorite talk radio guy, this morning, and he made some very interesting points on this issue.  I can't begin to make it as eloquent as he did, but his argument boiled down to this:

He said how we feel about the issue is completely irrelevent - or should be - to the court's ruling.  A court must base all its rulings on what the Constitution actually says.  His take was that, according to the 10th Amendment, this is purely a state matter and that the Federal government should have no jurisdiction at all in it.  The invocation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amerndment, in his opinion - and he argued his opinion very persuasively - was irrelevent to this case and baseless.  Each state creates its own marriage and divorce laws, and in this case, he said the will of the state - as expressed by the voters - should be sovereign.

It was a very interesting dissertation from a radio host who doesn't yell at his callers, claim to be smarter than all who disagree with him, or  pull any of the other crazy stunts that make so many talk shows (I'M TALKING TO YOU, MARK LEVIN!!!!!!!!!!) intolerable to listen to.  I wish Mark Davis would get a national show again - he had one for awhile, but he is now purely local here in Dallas Fort Worth , except for when he occasionally guest hosts for Limbaugh.

Frankly, even though I agree with Rush on a number of issues, Mark Davis is 10 times the talk show host he is.

I'm still not sure how I feel.  Based on how the fourteenth amendment applies to the tenth, it seems to me it could go either way.  I mean, school systems are also run by the state, but the Equal Protection clause was used to end segregation in it.  In a technical sense, it could be argued defining marriage as between a man and a woman doesn't treat anyone differently than anyone else - after all, gay men CAN marry women.  But, in a more generalized sense, it could be argued differently.  I dunno.  It's a difficult legal matter, from my reading. 

But, constitutional law often is. 

The prop 8 supporters are now b-tching that the judge is gay and in a relationship so he should not have been allowed to rule on the matter because he might have a bias.

I wonder if they'd  "mind" if a christian judge had ruled against overturning the ban since he might have a certain bias too...

I wonder if they have a problem with straight judges making decisions on heterosexual issues? Im guessing no, they do not.    :lookingup:   How about a single judge making decisions about marriage or a divorcee?

I don't think that is a truly valid comparison.

Why?

Sorry, but you need to ask Mark Davis how many laws or rulings the Supreme Court has struck down citing the 10th Amendment.  The 10th Amendment is incredibly vague, is usually just interpreted as restating principles of Federalism already inherent in the structure of the Constitution, and has never had a serious role in Constitutional law.

The 14th Amendment does apply here.  If the right to marry is a fundamental right, then states cannot abridge it.  And there is a wealth of authority that the right to marry is a fundamental right.

The legal issue is this: does the right to marry only guarantee a citizen the right to enter into a marriage contract with a person of the opposite sex?  Or is that an irrational and arbitrary distinction, like the former requirement that the right to marry only guaranteed the right to marry someone of the same race? 

I think it's obvious the above question is more a philosophical one than one that has a clear cut legal answer.  I could see it going either way.  However, I would bet that the decision will be overturned by the 9th circuit court of appeals, and if not by them then by the Supreme Court.  That marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman has always been part of the definition of marriage.  Of course states are free to change that definition through legislation, but it doesn't appear to me to be the job of the courts to do so.   

Your last comment really sums up the debate overall.  What does marriage actually mean?  I think a big part of the problem is that in order to legally recognize gay marriage, you have to not only radically change the definition of the world's oldest cultural institution, you also are setting the legal precedent that gender is irrelevent and interchangeable at the most basic level.

I'm all for equal treatment of the genders - equal pay for equal work, equal access and advancement regardless of gender, etc. - but equality does NOT mean sameness!  To say that a marriage between a man and a man is the SAME THING as marriage between a woman and a man is to say that a man and a woman ARE the same thing.  They are NOT.  God made us different - and if you don't believe in God, then just say natural selection or evolution or Great Cthulhu or whatever force shaped our natural world - MADE US DIFFERENT.  That difference cannot and should not be legislated away!  Equality, yes.  Sameness, NO!

Having homosexual marriage protected by the 14th Amendment could open all sorts of doors and windows to rampant abuse.  If homosexuality is a natural, inborn behavior, and the law recognizes it and enshrines it as such, how long before pedophiles demand similar recognition and sanction?  What next?  5' 2" guys suing to play in the NBA?  Pimply, overweight teenage boys suing to become "Hooters" girls?

Why can't we recognize that some differences exist for a reason, and that social conventions honoring those differences are not necessarily a bad thing!

Comparing homosexuality and pedophilia is, to put it bluntly, asinine. A pedophile rapes children. Two people who love each other is much different from a pedophile. Its very easy to change the definition of marriage... its between two consenting adults.. problem solved. A gay or lesbian couple just want what you, me and every other heterosexual person has.

I value your friendship indy and I mean no disrespect when I say this... God needs to be kept out of it. The bible says a lot of things and people cherry pick what they are going to follow. That is BS. If someone is going to make laws based solely on what the bible says we should all have slaves. Times are changing, like it or not, gays and lesbians are a large segment of the population and they do not deserve to be treated like second class citizens because a book says its immoral. Gays aren't hurting anyone. Them getting married isn't going to hurt your marriage or mine.

If people really want to protect the sanctity of marriage they should outlaw divorce.  My daughter should have every right that my boys have. Because she may love someone that some members of society thinks is wrong is irrelevant. She isnt hurting anyone but I tell ya what. I cant count the number of times I have seen tears in her eyes because of hateful, so called Christians, saying horrible things about her. Now, im done with this topic. Its too close and I obviously cant keep my feelings in check.

I hope I haven't p**sed anyone off, especially you indy

As to the state's rights issue, well, what if a state's populace decided to outlaw interracial marriage? Would that be OK? I'm sure plenty of god ol' boys in alabama, louisana, mississippi, etc would love to vote on that bill.

No, it would not be because federal equal rights laws trump the rights of people in states to impose their bigotry on others.

We pay taxes on the theory that the government uses the money to serve the public and uphold their rights. If gays pay taxes they should have the same rights as others, period.

And no oennnn's "forcing" the homophobes to "accept" gay marriage. If they don't like living in a country where people can be different than them and not be persecuted, slighted, demeaned or otherwise abused for it, they can get the xxxx out of america.

You make some good points as to why recognizing good marriage might be just, or good social policy.  I'm not taking sides on the issue, I'm just explaining why, as a matter of Constitutional law, the issue is not so clear cut.

The judge's argument is that marriage is a fundamental right.  To establish something as a fundamental right in terms of constitutional law it must have been a right that has long been recognized in the common law, particularly at the time of the adoption of the constitution.  At that time no right for two people of the same sex to marry was recognized; that marriage was between a man and a woman was part of the definition of marriage.  (It is important to note that racial similarity was never part of the definition of marriage, which is why laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional).  That's why this judge may have trouble pinning his decision on the idea that the ban on gay marriages is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and I think he may well be overturned. 

Private consensual sexual activity is a recognized fundamental right since Lawrence v. Texas, and a state can't prevent same sex couples from cohabiting or having sex.  Lawrence specifically does not apply to state recognition of gay marriage, but there is a possibility that the SC could use similar reasoning to invalidate California's law.  I am betting that they would not take such a step at this time, instead leaving it to the States to decide, but with the Court moving leftward it could happen. 

As far as I was aware, there is majority of support for Gay Marriage rather than against it in America.  May be wrong of course, but I know that most people I've talked to here seem to be for it [though it doesn't change the fact that gay marriage doesn't legally exist here... yet...] 

In any case, I'm glad Prop 8 was overturned.  Marriage has just as much a cultural value to western society as a religious one, and as such I think that it should be legal for any person to marry a person of their choice, as long as everyone consents!


 :thumbup:

Incidentally, I don't see homosexual marriage will start cases like your last example, as there is nobody on the planet who wants to see Pimply overweight teenage boys be hooters girls...    :teddyr:

The horror...

Actually, one young man filed such a lawsuit last year, I believe.  Idiot.

3mn - you know I have loads of respect for you.  I may address some of your thoughts via PM, I don't want to drag you back into this thread against your will.


Judge Dread - I notice that nearly all your posts in this thread are confrontational to the point of rudeness.  You also seem especially eager to throw down the term "homophobe" about anyone who feels legally sanctioning gay marriage is a bad idea. Let me address something with you, to clear the air, as it were.  First of all, I am not afraid of gays.  Fear is the basic definition of "phobia".  I have worked with homosexuals, and my oldest, dearest friend is gay.  He is a frequent guest in my home and he knows that he has my love and respect; if either of us is in any kind of trouble, we can call on each other in a heartbeat. 
   I think what you find so distasteful about me is the fact that first of all, I hold to a definition of marriage that, while it has been honored by every culture in the history of the world, does not agree with yours.  My opinion does not make me a bad person.  Neither does yours make you a bad person.  Secondly, as I have never tried to hide from anyone here, I am a Christian, and I believe that the New Testament passages on sexual sin matter just as much as any of the rest of it.  I AM NO FRED PHELPS.  His hateful rantings are far more offensive to God, in my opinion, than the garden variety sexual sin that plagues so much of humanity.  But I do believe that homosexuality is A sin.  That's all.  Not some horrible sin above all others.  It's just one of many human behaviors that God finds distasteful, and would rather we avoided.
  That being said, my religious views on homosexuality are irrelevant to this debate.  The question is, should the LAW hold homosexual relationships to be the absolute equivalent of the oldest, most established social convention in the whole world, when much of human history argues against it?  I think something that ancient and time-honored should be weighed very, very carefully before being overturned.  And I definitely think that a decision so important, that will affect so many human lives and societal convention, should NEVER be decided by the whim, or even by the educated opinion, of ONE man.  That is the most anti-democratic thing imaginable.  California is one of the most liberal states in the union, but when Prop 8 was put up for a vote, a sizable majority of California's citizens accepted it.  One man should not be able to undo that.

California is also the state that recalled GRAY DAVIS and put ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER in the governor's office.  Let's not kid ourselves about the fickle nature of any constituency.  You're also talking about a voter majority...

The homosexual/pedophile thing... eh, you know better than to make such comparison.   So what?  You have the charity to accept a gay friend.  Your own prejudice informs your opinion, my friend. 

When I was working at my store a guy came in and brought up a newspaper with a cover story on Prop 8 getting overturned. He pointed to the happy people in the big photo there and said, "In the Bible they would have put those people to death."

There was nothing I could say to him really. It just confirmed a couple of things I had suspected for a long time.

1) The endgame of all of this homophobia is a Holocaust on American soil. All hatred boils down to an attempt at extermination. I had to pay attention in my history classes to pass and this is what seemed to be the recurring thing that would happen again and again. First they take away a group of people's rights, then they move them apart from everyone else, then they exterminate them. The way to break this cycle is to change the way you think. Think outside of your community, your preconceptions, the bubble you live in, or your religion so that we can all have the same rights.

2) This all comes from religion. The argument always comes from the Bible. Funny how these so-called Christians quote the Bible to deny gay people rights, but ignore the teachings of Christ about tolerance and acceptance - the point of calling yourself a "Christ-ian." Because of the origin of this hatred in religion it should immediately be dismissed because of the separation of church and state in the making of policy in this country.

People say that it will somehow effect marriage if gay people get married. That doesn't work as a concept as marriage is just a concept and cannot be held in your hands. It is an intangible idea that is either a holy joining or just a legal institution depending on your perspective. When my father was married to my mother when she was alive as a child it seemed like a pretty bad thing as they fought like screaming demons. Then he eventually got married to my stepmom and they never seemed that angry and it seemed like a good thing. It is what you make it between yourself and the person you care about.

Hopefully, gay people will be allowed to get married, if not in church then in a court of law. That's all that needs to be done really for tax and financial responsibility purposes. The government should not dictate who can get married and who can't since that would make it far too big. The government should just be there to keep things running and not try to save all of our souls - whether we like it or not.

Well, I assume you were talking about me, judge death, and all I can say is that I do regard anyone opposing gay marriage as a homophobe. I just can't see them any other way.

 There is not one single reason to oppose gay marriage other than homophobia, whether it;s open or latent. People have challenged and challenged the anti- gay marriage bunch to show one single factual reason why gay marriage should be illegal, so show one single iota of evidence that gay marriage will do one iota of harm to anyone anywhere and they simply say It's bad!" and "It'll hurt everyone!" without one scintilla of empirical data to back it up.

They call their anti gay marriage laws "defense of marriage act" yet show no proof that gay marriage is in any way whatsoever an "attack" on marriage that requires a "defense".

They run commercials picturing gay marriage as a dark storm on the horizon and have people whimpering and sniveling "I'M SCARED!!! because of it.

 Over and over people have demanded the slightest proof that gay marriage harms anyone, outside of religious views which are not legal grounds for discrimination, and all we get is "It's bad! We don't have to explain how!"

 Since the anti gay marriage crowd can't provide one single scintilla of a reason for their anti gay marriage stance I can only presume it's based solely on religious objections or homophobia.

 If that offends, tough.

We have an election coming up, and in the midst of campaigning a member of conservative group 'Family First' weighed in on the issue of gay marriage by proclaiming that legalising Gay marriage will legalise child abuse.

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/family-first-candidate-wendy-francis-stands-by-gay--slur-on-twitter-20100809-11s5c.html?autostart=1
 (http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/family-first-candidate-wendy-francis-stands-by-gay--slur-on-twitter-20100809-11s5c.html?autostart=1)

Interesting article, but I heard her talking on the radio and she kept saying it was a 'social experiment' and her ignorance annoyed the hell out of me.  Her main argument deviated to the usual about a family being a mother, father and child/children rather than two fathers/mothers, and that legitimising gay marriage was dangerous for children and will lead to child abuse. 

Pfft!  I think the evidence would point more towards being in a happy, loving home will be better for a child than specifically a male/female partnership.  Forget about single/divorced parents! Imagine the terror they must inflict!  This candidate is just a hypocrite, who shoots people down for small-minded reasons.   :hatred:

I'm undecided on the issue, actually, but as devil's advocate I can think of a nonhomophobic reason to oppose gay marriage.

The argument goes like this: certain legal benefits accrue to marriage in order to encourage people to form stable unions for rearing children.  Heterosexual unions are far more likely to engage in child-rearing duties than homosexual marriages (though some heterosexual unions are childless and some homosexual couples raise children).  If gay marriages are recognized, society will spend resources in the form of benefits to homosexual couples without gaining the same social benefits they get from recognizing heterosexual marriages. 

The only difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual marriage is the reproductive potential; but that is a key difference that can't be whitewashed.

Of course, this argument suggests that we could reorganize the legal structure by tying benefits to the presence of children in the household rather than to marital status per se.  The problem with that is we don't want to extend the same benefits to people who irresponsibly have children outside of a committed relationship, so we still need some legal status to recognize, and marriage has been around for thousands of years.

The fact is, I'm not 100% sure in principle that the state should be in the business of recognizing heterosexual marriages, as marriage is mostly a religious institution.  As a practical matter marriage is so widespread that it is useful to recognize it to streamline many common legal transactions (for purposes of inheritance, for example).   

It does seem to me that the alternative of marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions which accomplish most of the same thing for homosexuals is inoffensive, even though it smacks uncomfortably  of "separate but equal" treatment.       

I have often wondered why this is not presented more often as the solution, and why anyone would find it unacceptable.

Obviously many churches are not willing to accept and perform homosexual marriages.  Marriage IS largely a religious institution.   If homosexual unions are allowed by law, I'm not seeing how the whole 'separate but equal' comes into it at all: any church proceedings to do with marriage are a purely religious matter and as such not subject to civil law.  Marriages (regardless of creed) are also registered as unions in civil law separate from the 'church' proceedings.  In terms of law, all unions would be equal.  Unions also sanctioned by a church (as a 'marriage') would simply have just that: church sanction.    Big deal.  If it matters that much to be 'recognised' by/in a church one can seek one that will: certainly enough do.  Seems a non-issue to me.  Unless the point is to make all churches 'give in'.   :question:


Certainly all the legal benefits of marriage should and would/will apply.  I have toyed with the thought that IF this comes about, what about siblings, relatives (cousins, grandparents) or even friends who combine families under one roof (largely due to single-parenthood) in order to raise their children together in an effort to provide stability and cut costs?  Shouldn't they enjoy the same benefits?  That would only be fair.
 

Fair point. As a counter I politely offer the fact that there are many abandoned and neglected children in the world who could be adopted by a gay couple if homophobic groups didn't struggle to make such adoptions illegal by claiming gays molest children as a justification to ban gay adoption and/or preventing gay marriage.

It was about 52% for, 48% against - with around 2.5% of the total vote invalidated/blank.  That small of a majority could be swayed in a second vote a few years down the line with proper support/voter mobilization.  That means, I would guess, that it's basically dead even or as close to it as you're likely to come.

For what that is worth, in either direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada)

Same sex marriage seemed to go through with little opposition here in Canada.

Speaking of the public's vote and respecting it, it seems than ehren a tiny majority votes for something republican want, like banning gay marriage, their attitude is "THE PUBLIC HAS SPOKEN! THAT'S THE END OF IT! WE WON , YOU LOST!"

When a majority of Americans vote for Helathcare reform by electing president Obama, the republican response is "THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOESN'T WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! OBSTRUCT! FILIBUSTERER!  RISE UP AND REVOLT! GRAB YOUR GUNS! STOP HEALTHCARE REFORM! REPEAL HEALTHCARE REFORM!>

Is it any wonder I hate them so much?

At the time the bill passed, public opinion was running almost 60/40 against it.

At the time Obama was elected the voters were in favor of it.

Also, I tend to be suspicious of some of those polls.

"Do you favor government takeover of the healthcare system, healthcare rationing, death panels and pulling the plug on grandma?"

Furthermore, the bill that the public was against was the one the republicans let get thru, after basically everything was removed that might have done some good.

Not a knock on you Indy, but I find it fascinating that 6 out of 10 people voting for something in the USA is considered to be bordering on a landslide.  It really shows you how evenly divided most issues are here.

JD - I aplogize for getting your name wrong.  I notice that your political opinions seem to be very colored by emotion.  "You hate them so much" because they opposed a socialized medicine bill that was deeply flawed?  Think about the logic here.  If the other side wins an election, are you saying that the opposition must automatically cease to oppose altogether and adopt the other party's way of thinking?  Did you do that when Bush was in office?  Did you support tax cuts, the war on terror, social security privatization?  I bet not!

There is rampant hypocrisy and posturing on both sides of the American political spectrum.  That is the nature of the sideshow that is called democracy.  But good people can have radically opposed ideas as to what is good for the country and remain good people.  You and I differ radically on this issue, but I don't hate you.  Rein in the political bigotry a bit.

One other thing . . . and I will ask this question of Pennywise, who brought it up.  You claim that Christ taught 'acceptance and tolerance."  Where is that exactly?  Can you show me one instance of Jesus of Nazareth tolerating unrepentant sin?  He offered love to everyone he met, but he also called on them to turn their backs on wickedness.  Even the famous woman taken in the act of adultery - after saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he waited till her accusers left and then told her to "Go and sin no more."  People attribute many ideas and quotes to Christ that there is no historical support for.  Not trying to hijack or redirect this thread, just commenting here.

I am obviously in a minority here.  I still think changing the fundamental nature of the oldest social contract in the world is a bad idea, especially when it is done by one man against the will of the people.  I have been properly (or improperly) chastised for having this opinion.  Best wishes to all, and unless someone addresses a specific question or comment to me, I'm pretty much done here.


Seen any good movies lately?

It is reasonable to construe from Christ's teaching "acceptance and tolerance".  Jesus understood human nature well enough to warn his apostles: "I send you as sheep among wolves" and don't forget his wisdom to all: "Judge not, that ye be not judged" 

That last quote is frequently taken out of context . . . it certainly doesn't mean that we are to never exercise any moral judgement of any sort.  After all, he also said we should be "As shrewd as serpents and as innocent as lambs!"


But, if the greatest commandment of all is love - that we love God first and foremost, and our neighbor as ourselves - is tolerance loving?

If someone I love is addicted to drugs, should I tolerate their drug abuse?
If my family member is wrestling with depression, should I merely tolerate their depression?
Or should I do all that I can to help them overcome that which oppresses and hurts them?

Tolerance is all too often a watchword for moral indifference.

Matt 10:16: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

But later, by verse 33-37: "...whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.  
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Though I admit that passage is famously controversial and almost out of character for Jesus.

You know full well the tolerance of which I speak.  I know the full warning, including "...wise as serpents, innocent as lambs."  This addition does not change the import of His message, or the point I made. 

It is also important to consider the "context" of Jesus' time on Earth.  Jesus expostulated that faith demands total acquiescence to the Word. He also anticipated that resistance to conversion would be severe.  The idea of the "sword" was one biblical justification for the Crusades, but I think most Christian denominations would now reject that rationale. 

It's a pretty strained interpretation for anyone to think that Christ ever meant His followers to take up the sword in anything but self defense!  But then again, Christians are pretty famous for straining Biblical truth.  As far as I am concerned, sticking as close as possible to the most plain and obvious meaning of the words is the best way to go.

This has been a most interesting thread, even if it has wandered a bit from the original topic.

Which words, exactly? Unless you read aramaic you're reading a trasnlation, and translations usually get "flavored" by the personal experiences and judgements of the translators.

Then you'd need to know what version of the bible to follow. A lot was left out of it by the council of nicea because it didn't fit their idea of what the bible should be and say, or it didn't fit constantine's desires.

Then of course there's the king james version of the bible, or some other version....

And even that is debatable; self defense seems the least of it.  I believe the "sword" Jesus spoke of was the conflict that would occur, the imposition of authority, the tearing apart of families, the suffering and persecution that his followers did indeed experience, all in the name of faith. 

If Christ is not a peaceful leader (as I was taught in Sunday school as a kid) then all of Christianity unravels. If you can't trust Jesus' words to help bring peace and tolerance then I guess I should become the atheist I've been thinking about becoming for a while. It was Jesus' teachings that helped me not be an angry guy my whole life and I try not to do bad stuff to others because of that.

If it turns out that this was all a lie then it just unraveled the Bible. If the son of God's words of peace were hypocritical or false then the most major character in the Bible just was negated. Therefore the Bible would have to be a lie and therefore you have to let gay people get married. If he's not the son of God then there can't be a God to have told people that he has problems with gay people.

Also if we followed everything the Bible said word for word there would still be slavery, child murder, murder in the street like in the Middle East over any minor infraction, and above all NO DEMOCRACY. Democracy was created by the pagan ancient Greeks and the Bible puts so many restrictions on freedom that it's pretty much anti-American and anti-human. We would all be living under a hideously corrupt theocracy where a hierarchy of religious leaders could claim they could do anything because they are holy men (men being the operative word as there aren't many women saints in that book versus all of the men that most of the books are named after). It would be a Hell on Earth courtesy of God and his unquestioned book.

I try to remember what Jesus taught and that is all pretty liberal stuff (free health care for poor people - he musta been a Commie!) It's important to remember that stuff these days, but as I get older I just see the Bible becoming a terrible obstruction to any kind of progress. Gay marriage is the least of our problems, but was made into a big deal by conservatives to distract people. Remember the two wars we're going to lose?

I think you nailed it, AllHallows.  Now - for your comments, Judge - The New Testament was originally written in Greek, not Aramaic.  Odds are Jesus spoke both pretty fluently, as most of his disciples were bilingual.  Please don't buy into the "Da Vinci Code" myth about the Council of Nicea arbitrarily choosing which books would or would not be in the New Testament.  They did no such thing - we have most of their minutes on record.  They were charged with creating a creed all Christians could agree to, deciding whether Arius of Alexandria was a heretic or not, and producing 50 copies of the New Testament for the Emperor Constantine, who did not even attend the Council except to welcome its members.  So they wrote the Nicene Creed, which nearly all Christian churches still agree to, produced 50 copies (of which two, the Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, still survive), and, after intense debate, decided that Arius was indeed teaching heresy.
   A generation later, the Council of Hippo created the first "official" list of the New Testament canon, but all they did was recognize the books that had been universally accepted by the church for over 250 years!  Four of the very short books - Jude, II and III John, and II Peter - were not as widely known and had to be debated.  Three other books - I Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, and something called the Didache - were declared to be profitable for devotion but not Scripture, since they were not written or linked with  the Apostles of Christ.
   The books that are commonly said to have been "kicked out" of the New Testament were actually never a part of it.  The Gnostic gospels and epistles were all written from about 150 to 400 AD, long after the Apostles were dead.  They are historically inaccurate, doctrinally screwy, and in every other way inferior to the material that actually made the canon, aside from the fact that they are forgeries with the names of long-dead apostles tacked onto them in an attempt to win acceptance.
  As far as the various versions and translations, if you take the time to read them you will find that most of them say pretty much the same thing.  We have over 6,000 Greek manuscripts to work from, so it's easy to go to the original sources, or at least pretty darn close.  As a matter of fact, textual critics say that the New Testament has been passed down with a textual purity of 99.8%.  And of the handful of questionable passages that remain, not a one affects a major doctrine of the faith.

  Pennywise, I never said Christ was not a peaceful leader.  Let your faith rest in peace.  What I am saying is that He loved people - enough to sacrifice Himself to save them from the sin that enslaves them.  Tolerating sin is not love, but preaching hate against its victims is not love either.  Christ calls us to walk a line between those poles.

  Again, the Bible has a natural flow of interpretation.  The laws that most people get so heated up about were created for Israel 3,000 years ago and were never meant to apply anywhere else.  The Greeks did have a form of rough democracy, but they also had slavery and pedophilia and lots of other things we won't tolerate today.  Several authors have argued quite successfully that it is Christianity that took the best aspects of Roman and Greek philosophy, gave them a guiding morality, and created Western Civilization as we know it today.


For both of you, I recommend James Kennedy's WHAT IF JESUS HAD NEVER BEEN BORN and Dinesh D'souza's WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY?  They answer several of your questions and comments far better than I could.  Lee Strobel's THE CASE FOR FAITH is also exceedingly excellent.

Well, I have typed too long, and I have to go to work!

I'm sorry, but that's just name calling.

If someone opposed illegal immigration does that make them anti-immigrant?  If someone opposes affirmative action does that automatically make this racist?  If someone thinks Israel is in the wrong about certain military actions they've taken does that mean they're anti-Semite?

I mean, never mind that many people who oppose gay marriage have no problems with civil unions which give gay couples who want them all the legal benefits of marriage (which is, supposedly, what they're after to begin with.) 

And for that matter, what about the GAY people who oppose gay marriage?  (And yes, they do exist, although probably not in great number.)

http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/ (http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/)
http://www.staycatholic.com/what_homosexuals_want.htm (http://www.staycatholic.com/what_homosexuals_want.htm)
http://www.disboards.com/archive/index.php/t-1145126.html (http://www.disboards.com/archive/index.php/t-1145126.html)

And THEY homophobic?  Or are you gonna say that they're not "real" gays?

Well, there are blacks who think segregation was OK and would reinstate it if they could, so I guess we can break out the "whites only" signs grandpa had to put away a long time ago, huh?

As to comparing gays marriage to illegal immigration, no dice. Illegal immigration causes harm to america in lowered wages for american workers and in an influx of mexican drug gang activity here. GAY MARRIAGE HARMS NO ONE AND NOT ONE SINGLE IOTA OF EVIDENCE THAT GAY MARRIAGE CAUSES HARM OF ANY KIND HAS EVER BEEN PROVIDED BY ANYONE.

Lastly, in america people are guaranteed rights even if the majority doesn't like them. That's the difference between american and other countries, especially in it's founding principles: The majority does not have the right to crush an unpopular minority.

If calling people homophobic because they oppose gay rights without offering any valid cause that can be interpreted as anything but homophobia is "name calling" then I'm a name caller because I call such people homophobes, or when I'm pressed for time, bigots.