Two words for my fellow Americans...

[Jarno Mikkola]

JC

Jesus Christ, as an Imp, I have to ask from you cmorgan; Who is the one?... The one that's, as self destructive as I am? Or is it that s/he is just waiting for the others other shoe to drop? Now, answer honestly! Even if you don't know. Or don't answer, or leave cryptic message.

 

Self destructive; as in, having fun is more fun, and so keeping it. Than trying to not having it to seek the other kind of fun to have it all, if possible.

 

And by the way, Microsoft Windows Vista is more like Macrohard Wormdoors, the Virus infected system, a target area.

-Proud owner.

[BevH]

ummmm.... are we sure this is really Noobermeet "all topics"? I thought it was more game oriented -

 

but I see Gibbs in here, and icelus started the conversation innocently enough (I don't think anyone expected this deep a conversation, but hey, why not, I guess).

If you look at the forum subheading, you'll see why I made that statement. That's the way Cam set it up.

 

For further discussion on this I think we should take it to the appropriate forum.

[icelus]

This argument probably isn't going to change much until one of two things changes:

 

1) The Church stops clinging to the literal translation of a 2000+ year old story book. The arguments against gay marriage by the Church aren't much different than the ones used to support slavery or preventing interracial marriage. Bigotry is bigotry. Racism and homophobia are the same thing, just against different groups of people.

2) The US and other nations stop using the term "marriage" to legally recognize the commitment between two people. This is unlikely to change, however, as marriage is used as much in secular terms as it is in religious ones.

 

As an aside--in regard to the argument about a small percentage of people overturning the vote of the majority... we're not talking about zoning laws. We're talking about civil rights. If that argument was used in the '50s and '60s, we'd still have segregation. The definition of democracy is "majority rule with minority rights". Note the last word of that sentence very carefully.

[KIrving]

Homosexual couples cannot procreate. Marriage is a commitment between two people, not based simply on mutual fulfillment but also on potential child-bearing and child-rearing. The couple is also taking responsibility for the nurturing and training of their offspring. This has been forgotten in these turbulent times. They use their common resources toward this end, thus releasing the government from additional burdens. Cohabiting couples lack the commitment, homosexual couples the ability to procreate. There are other choices for them apart from redefining marriage to fit their desires. To require those opposed to those lifestyles to not only tolerate them but to accept them as equals is not a tolerable option.

My husband and I, actively, choose not to procreate. Does this then make our marriage invalid? Our marriage was overseen by a civil celebrant at the registry office and not in a church. (Nice old building though and we both wore our best jeans. )

We lived together for 5 years before deciding to get married and did not at any stage feel that our commitment to each other was in any way lacking. We married partly for the romance of it and primarily for the extra legal protection it afforded to our spouse in the event of death. De facto partnerships have quite a lot of legal rights in Australia but it is still not as encompassing or strong as marriage.

IMO, Homosexual couples should have the right to a legal marriage.

 

Should the Church-at-Large compromise on its moral and ethical standards, it will cease to be relevant.

It is the refusal to adapt to the world we live in today that is causing the Church to become irrelevant. (The only reason I actually know anyone that goes to Church (in this case Anglican) is because my husband's father is a priest.)

 

 

 

 

edit2: Unix vs Windows? I'd rather debate "OS2 vs The World - Why IBM OS2 Ruled and Everyone Else Stank of Elderberries"!

Heh.

(Okay, now I can't help but wonder what elderberries smell like)

 

 

This argument probably isn't going to change much until one of two things changes:

 

1) The Church stops clinging to the literal translation of a 2000+ year old story book. The arguments against gay marriage by the Church aren't much different than the ones used to support slavery or preventing interracial marriage. Bigotry is bigotry. Racism and homophobia are the same thing, just against different groups of people.

2) The US and other nations stop using the term "marriage" to legally recognize the commitment between two people. This is unlikely to change, however, as marriage is used as much in secular terms as it is in religious ones.

 

As an aside--in regard to the argument about a small percentage of people overturning the vote of the majority... we're not talking about zoning laws. We're talking about civil rights. If that argument was used in the '50s and '60s, we'd still have segregation. The definition of democracy is "majority rule with minority rights". Note the last word of that sentence very carefully.

Yes I agree with all of that. However I think that it would be easier to have many current marriage laws become more inclusive rather then wiping the slate clean and redefining or abolishing the state of legally defined commitments altogether. It's something of a legal web.

[bgf]

As long as the discussion here remains civil, the thread will not be locked. Noobermeet is a forum for open discussion on whatever topic you wish.

 

As you wish. I only want to point out the futility of arguments over (initially) politics and (now) religion. Countless online fora serve as examples. If this was about FR politics and religions then it'd be a different story.

[Sorrow]

I wonder if anyone ever discusses FR politics.

 

Hmm...

So, what you people think about post-Azoun Cormyr?

[Jarno Mikkola]

This argument probably isn't going to change much until one of two things changes:

1) The Church stops clinging to the literal translation of a 2000+ year old story book.

It's more like 1800 year old book, after all the Bible was compiled in the 2nd or 3rd century, and the earliest surviving edition is from the turn of the 8th century.

 

Bigotry is bigotry. Racism and homophobia are the same thing, just against different groups of people.

Speaking like a true racist, after all the people are just animals. But is racism bad? No, not all, or we wouldn't be here writing to each others via electricity... but be a big ball of dying tissue on every surface over the whole world, and the tallest of us would probably be about 2 millimeters tall.

 

2) The US and other nations stop using the term "marriage" to legally recognize the commitment between two people. This is unlikely to change, however, as marriage is used as much in secular terms as it is in religious ones.

Well, just like I said when referring to what grogerson should have said, but your words might sound better...

[LadeJarl]

I wonder if anyone ever discusses FR politics.

http://forum.candlekeep.com/

[Sir_Carnifex]

Should the Church-at-Large compromise on its moral and ethical standards, it will cease to be relevant.

It is the refusal to adapt to the world we live in today that is causing the Church to become irrelevant. (The only reason I actually know anyone that goes to Church (in this case Anglican) is because my husband's father is a priest.)

 

Well, really, if the Church, as you put it, has "to adapt to the world we live in today", then it would not be a real Church. Since God never changes, then His Church can never change its teachings, or it's not His Church.

 

If the Church had to change to meet the new "needs" of society, then that would make society more powerful than God and religion pointless. We would be here to serve government first and God as an afterthought. So it's obvious that a changing Church is not a possibility.

 

I could name a good deal of other arguments in this thread that are very poorly done (and could be easily picked apart) but I'm not really interested in getting in a long debate that, as pointed out before, will go nowhere.

 

Basically, I'm just posting here to let Grogerson know he's not alone in his sanity.

[Domi]

Of course the gods change. They come and go and evolve with the human societies that invented them. In fact every believer has his or her own version of a god or gods. Just like BioWare's NPCs. The gods do not exist in the vacuum in the absence of the humans, they are a tool to convey contemporary principles.

[Icendoan]

How would you explain that to a creationist?

 

Icen

[Domi]

I wouldn't. I'd rather mod!

[EiriktheScald]

I'm not surprised this topic has opened a flurry of posts. The fact is, marriage and abortion are current social issues in America which have polarized this nation. Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

 

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

 

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

 

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

 

I personally think that letting states determine it would be a mistake and lead to more problems. What happens if the couple moves to a state that did not legalize it? I would support civil unions on a federal level, however. In doing so, it would give them this set of basic rights without offending those holding the other viewpoint. Let's face it, marriage does have a long-standing traditional definition as being between a man and a woman. It makes no sense to address the grievances of one group, while in turn cause grievance to another.

[icelus]

It makes no sense to address the grievances of one group, while in turn cause grievance to another.

 

I'm sorry, but this sounds just like the principle of "separate but equal."

[grogerson]

It makes no sense to address the grievances of one group, while in turn cause grievance to another.

 

I'm sorry, but this sounds just like the principle of "separate but equal."

Not quite. Race (civil rights) is not the same as sexual preference (personal desires). And Coretta Scott King (MLK's daughter) has made this very clear.