Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

I'm signing, but with reservations.

Nov 14, 2003 5:47AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:I'm signing, but with reservations.
Nov 14, 2003 6:03AM PST

Hi, Dan.

I don't see why you need to call it "marriage." Why not have an exclusively civil union, which follows the parameters of the petition, and an entirely separate religious marriage? Then you can introduce "my partner," or "my wife."
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Because that's where they want to take it...
Nov 14, 2003 6:11AM PST

We had the same thing in Canada. First it was pension/survivor benefits (but marriage wouldn't be allowed). Then it was common law status for tax purposes (but marriage wouldn't be allowed). Once they had everything except marriage, then marriage was the target and the courts allowed it too. I'm not saying I'm against it. I'm just saying that it really is a slippery slope, the ultimate goal is marriage and anyone that says differently is misleading you.

- Collapse -
Re:Because that's where they want to take it...
Nov 14, 2003 6:28AM PST

You're right. It would be far more expeditious to just make the change now and get over it.

Dan

- Collapse -
(NT) Keith, ARE you against it?????
Nov 14, 2003 8:26AM PST

.

- Collapse -
No...
Nov 14, 2003 12:31PM PST

I just wanted the politicians to show a little backbone instead of hiding behind court decisions that were "forced" on them (and then they didn't appeal). I don't believe that the courts should make new law. From the first decision to extend benefits to same sex couples, I knew where it was heading but the politicians misled their constituents all along the way.

Speaking only as a member. The opinions expressed are my own.

- Collapse -
"I hereby pronounce you man and, uh....
Nov 14, 2003 3:22PM PST

...what did you say your partner was exactly?"

- Collapse -
Is the church that stubborn?
Nov 14, 2003 6:14PM PST

Couldn't the priest just say "I hereby pronounce you two married"? Or is the church too stubborn to do that?

- Collapse -
Re:Is the church that stubborn?
Nov 14, 2003 8:12PM PST

Civil law is one discussion, a church's statement of beliefs is another.

The members of a church or specific branch can work to change it's statement of faith if they wish to, but those outside that particular faith have no business trying to influence it.

The church can't control what the legal rulings are. Their members can express their beliefs as opinions just as you can you opposition, because they have the same right anyone else does to hold an opinion on any issue. What the elected representatives (and eventually judges) do about the opinions expressed is another question.

To dismiss someone faith as "too stubbord to do that" is IMO demeaning and ridiculing their faith.

roger

- Collapse -
I agree Roger. Also another reason for separation of church and state.
Nov 14, 2003 10:33PM PST

.
Churches are formed by people with common beliefs and goals that often or in contrast to what society will accept. They are a lot like a family home and are entitled to the rights, privacy and respect one would extend to a family. In unity they make, exercise and follow their laws and beliefs within their community. OTOH, I also realize that some churches and members go over the line in trying to impose their beliefs on the general public. It's always best to share beliefs and recruit by example.

However for outsiders to suggest that churches change their way of life to suit society is unacceptable.
.

- Collapse -
NT - I'm just talking civil marraiges
Nov 14, 2003 10:46PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Understood, Charlie referred to priest and churches being too stubborn
Nov 15, 2003 7:03AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re: Understood, Charlie referred to priest and churches being too stubborn
Nov 17, 2003 10:39PM PST

Hi, Roger.

Unfortunately, in this matter as in many others, many of the Churches (the Catholic Church chief among them) don't accept the separation of Church and State. They feel it perfectly appropriate to impose their own moral code by law on those who don't subscribe to it, not just on this issue, but on birth control and divorce as well, to say nothing of abortion. Despite paying lip service to "free will," they try to oppose its exercise at every opportunity. OTOH, I guess we should be grateful they can no longer kill those who don't subscribe to their value system.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Obligated to witness. Different from impose.
Nov 18, 2003 1:00AM PST

.
The 'church' would be a sad sack indeed if it did not speak out when it believes something is wrong or immoral.

I have wondered about this a lot lately and maybe you have the answer: What would society use as a yardstick for it's behavior or moral code if not religion/bible/God?
.

- Collapse -
Re:Obligated to witness. Different from impose.
Nov 18, 2003 3:34AM PST

Hi, Rosalie.

I agree. I'm religious (and Catholic) myself -- but that doesn't mean I feel the right to impose my own beliefs on others. As for what values if not religious, the values are pretty much the same in the vast majority of ethical systems. In a pluralistic society, the problem comes when religion (especially a particular religion) is cited as the basis of the values. There's actually pretty universal agreement on Commandments 4-10, and some version of the "golden rule;" the problem comes with Commandments 1-3.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Depending upon the version, I don't like alot of the prime numbered commandments.
Nov 18, 2003 3:51AM PST
- Collapse -
I'm just glad I have the Commandments as a guide (NT)
Nov 18, 2003 7:38AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Just curious
Nov 19, 2003 12:30AM PST

Which would you not follow if they were not written?

Dan

- Collapse -
That's interesting...
Nov 18, 2003 11:49PM PST

I can see problems with #1-3 on your link but 5/7 would indicate that you have problems with "Honor thy father and thy mother", "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not commit adultery" or "Thou shalt not steal" depending on which numbering system you use. It would be nice if "Honor thy father and thy mother" had a reciprocal "Honor thy children". Unconditional support for bad parents doesn't seem right.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Obligated to witness. Different from impose.
Nov 18, 2003 6:09AM PST

While not involved in any religious organization now, I can understand a few things.

Anyone that truly believes that their belief is the only way to escape an eternal damnation and that to save themselves also demands they try to save others, is not likely to be silent and not protest when they see society (in their opinion) going to hell in a handbasket.

Personally, I don't believe any religion has it all right, but I also don't believe that everything we see around us is a pure accident. I have doubts that any of them have even 75% right.

But I do understand people who believe trying to convince others of what they believe. It's just how far they go that is the question of right and wrong. I work with a man who is very sincere in his believes. He'll object to some language sometimes when used around him, but he does it calmly and politely still. He invites people to special events at his church regularly, but again he is polite not in your face about it. He regularly exhibits his faith in nonverbal and verbal means. But I've never heard him be rude, ugly, or condensing to anyone that didn't accept his belief. He can be persistant in a discussion, but if you walk away he doesn't follow you demanding you listen.

This is an example IMO of how believers should testify. I expect believers to campagne politically for candidates and laws that support not condemn their belief. That is their right. There'd be no point in believing something if you didn't object to things you thought were morally wrong.


roger

- Collapse -
above post continues
Nov 18, 2003 6:13AM PST

The people campagning to remove all religion from society certainly aren't shy about trying to achieve their goal, so why should religious groups be?

Granted, no one group should be allowed to ban or persecute others. But neither should a group, even the majority, be totally silenced or forbidden to strive to convince the rest they are right. It's just how you do it that is the sticking point.

roger

PS Dratted text limit, just when I get a good rant going, it wants to shut me up. Hey, that's what we're discussing ain't it? Wink

- Collapse -
Very good post, Roger. Thank you for making it. (NT)
Nov 18, 2003 6:27AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Good thoughts, thanks
Nov 18, 2003 10:51PM PST

Most ideas that are proposed because of religious beliefs should be encouraged by benefit of good example and not forced by strength of law.

Dan

- Collapse -
NT- Yep, God's kinda stubborn on that sorta thing.
Nov 15, 2003 6:06AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Following the Bible literally...
Nov 17, 2003 11:01PM PST

Do you follow the Bible literally, James? Do you really believe that Jesus walked on water and that Mary was a virgin at the time of His birth? Don't you think there are some things that we simply cannot apply to today's society? I think there is a message that can be followed in the Bible which is that every human being is worth the same and the fact that we should share the wealth among each other. Those are things that CAN be applied to today's society (unfortunately this administration has turned their back to those particular values, despite talking about God Bless America in every single speech. I wonder if God is stubborn in that case too?), but many, many parts of the Bible is simply not applicable to today's society. If I'm not too wrong (I could be) there is a passage in the Old Testament that talks about punishing women who are unfaithful to their men. I doubt that is something you'd agree with.

Oh, since you are well informed in these cases, I prefer to ask you; Where does it say that two people of the same sex cannot marry?

- Collapse -
It doesn't say...
Nov 17, 2003 11:14PM PST

that two people of the same sex cannot marry. It does say that God instituted marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. It does say that homosexual acts are serious sin, and are condemned by God. In the old testament, being caught in homosexual activity got you killed, so the question of marriage was moot. In the new testament, it simply prohibits this activity among Christians. Therefore, marriage is again a moot question.

- Collapse -
Also, Jonah mention in another post......Leviticus 20:13 ....
Nov 18, 2003 2:51AM PST

Some translations that I have read:

King James Version: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination".

English Standard: "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

New International Version: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable".

Living Bible: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin".

Revised Standard Version: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination".

New Living Translation: "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin".


Sodomy..... the story of Lot in Sodom is found in Genesis chapters 18-19.

- Collapse -
Also, Kiddpeat...
Nov 18, 2003 3:19AM PST

Also, Kiddpeat, Isaiah 7:14 says that a young girl shall conceive and bear a son.
The first reference to to a virgin birth was in Matthew, which wasn't written until long after Jesus had died. Some scholars think that he got that idea from relying on a faulty Greek translation which said the son was to born to a virgin. It would seem strage that no one had ever mentioned such a miraculous thing before.

- Collapse -
Not Following the Bible
Nov 18, 2003 7:57AM PST

Is disobedience.

Picking and choosing which parts to believe and which not to believe to try to make everybody feel better is partial disobedience, which is still total disobedience in God's eyes. Although composed of many books, the Bible is a "whole" for a reason, Charlie.

- Collapse -
Punishing women?
Nov 18, 2003 4:47PM PST

Are you saying that if I refuse to punish my wife in case she was unfaithful to me, I am disobedient to the Bible and should punish her?

- Collapse -
I'm saying that
Nov 19, 2003 2:43AM PST

Just as there is discipline and vengeance in the Bible, there is gentleness and forgiveness too. Too many people take one sentence from the Bible and forget that it has a context, a time, and an audience. Hence, the Bible as a "whole" is as important as the sentences within it.