Fanny Cradock wrote: » Can you provide me with a statement that every single person agrees with?
Sonics2k wrote: » "You need oxygen to live."
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Good point. But.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading
Fanny Cradock wrote: » That may well be. But it does not address the point of my post. If some people out there want to imbue a certain word with a certain meaning then that is just fine. But it shouldn't come as a shock people who don't agree with this other meaning object. I'd be making the same point if we talked about any other word.
Sonics2k wrote: » There's also "You can't commit suicide by holding your breath", "It's humanly impossible to swim across the Pacific ocean without resting."
Sonics2k wrote: » Bann is right in her statements. It's off when someone says "As a Christian..." because it's a nonsense statement. You can't claim everything comes down to Christian opinion, because not all of Christianity agrees on everything, including homosexuality. The accurate statement would be more along the lines "In my opinion or understanding, homosexuality is just fine/wrong in Christianity."
Sonics2k wrote: » Bann is right in her statements. It's off when someone says "As a Christian..." because it's a nonsense statement. You can't claim everything comes down to Christian opinion, because not all of Christianity agrees on everything, including homosexuality.
marienbad wrote: » words evolve and change their meaning all the time fanny -it is no big deal. A classic example is the word ''gay''. What do you think it means to most people now ?
PDN wrote: » So, I'll ask you the question that others won't answer: When people say, "As an X, I believe ..." Then you think they are claiming that every X agrees on everything. Are you really wanting to go there?
PDN wrote: » As for atheists, don't get me started! In this Forum we've had atheists give many different definitions. Apparently, you can believe in spirits and 'life-forces' but still be an atheist if you don't believe in the Christian God!
Sonics2k wrote: » Do you wish to argue more semantics, or will you just accept that not all Christians think and believe the same way?
IT-Guy wrote: » However, given the forum we're in and the fact that most objections to gay marriage here have their roots in religious teaching, I believe that arguing the semantics of marriage is just a masked attempt by homophobes at distancing themselves from the LGBT community.
IT-Guy wrote: » In general I would have no problem with a semantics-based objection even if I do find it a waste of time as the meaning of words evolves as a society does. Change is the only constant in the universe and all that However, given the forum we're in and the fact that most objections to gay marriage here have their roots in religious teaching, I believe that arguing the semantics of marriage is just a masked attempt by homophobes at distancing themselves from the LGBT community. I don't get the objection to broadening the term 'marriage' to include same-sex couples or any form of consenting adult relationship for that matter, anything else is seeking to create an unnecessary arbitrary distinction between groups of married people.
PDN wrote: » The thread is about homosexuality and Christianity. And in the first page there is a post which, without mentioning marriage at all, says "Let's remember the Bible in this discussion". It then goes on to draw a distinction between homosexual acts and homosexuality as an orientation, which would rather indicate that marriage is not being referred to, wouldn't it?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Your thought that "any form of consenting adult relationship" is a marriage needs a little more work. Because such a bizarre definition means that every relationship I've ever been in is apparently a marriage. But this aside, I shudder at the implication that anyone who dares think differently to you, even if it's over the definition of a word or an institution, is a secret homophobe with some underhanded agenda against the LGBT community. By using such emotive trigger-words you are shutting down any chance of reasoned conversation with people who might otherwise be supportive of gay unions/ marriage. You have accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you on this matter - apparently every single one of them - of something you have no evidence for. And why? Because they differ with you! If you are worried about such people becoming distanced from the LGBT community then I suggest you aren't helping. In fact, you have gone about it arseways, IT Guy. No pun intended.
PDN wrote: » This is truly bizarre. I've never claimed otherwise. It was another poster who ia making an issue out of this.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Is that a reference to me? I didn't start this whole semantics shin-dig, nor did I start making an issue about the precise meaning of words until a MOD lead the way. Oh, PDN I humbly submit I just followed where you lead - granted arguing the points with you every step of the way. I have already stated I have no investment in the word marriage and that I do understand that people do have an investment in it. Personally I don't care what they call any legislation as long as it contains the exact same rights and responsibilities as extended to heterosexuals under current marriage legislation. I do admit I think having two identical bits of legislation would be silly, wasteful of resources and a bureaucratic bit of hair-splitting worthy of Kafka. All I did was respond to people - not just you, other posters as well- who are trying to impose a definitive Christian meaning on the word 'marriage' that as there appears to be no such thing as a definitive Christian perspective on this topic it's hard to understand how there could be a definitive Christian definition of the word 'marriage'. T'would appear I ruffled a few feathers with this simple observation. My Bad.
PDN wrote: » Will you answer the question that no-one else will? When people say, "As an X, I believe ..." Then you think they are claiming that every X agrees on everything. Are you really wanting to go there?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Really depends what 'X' is. If X = Megalomaniac can't see all the other Megalomaniac's agreeing.
PDN wrote: » I see. Just if the X stands for Christians. Hmm, between you and IT-guy , the haloes of those who claim to be the most tolerant are slipping very rapidly.
Penn wrote: » philologos wrote: » I think children should be given to the best parents. End of. But surely that is what happens, no? If a child is put up for adoption, suitable couples are evaluated and the couple deemed to be the best choice to raise that child gets to adopt it. Same-sex couples have to go through the exact same process as hetero couples. They are put through the same evaluations, examinations and tests. So if a same-sex couple is given the chance the adopt a child, it's because they were deemed to be the best parents. And the fact they are a same-sex couple would obviously have been taken into account. So any same-sex couple who adopt a child were the best parents in that instance. Claims that hetero couples are better suited to adopt than same-sex couples instantly go out the window because it's not that simple. Each set of potential parents, whether they're same-sex or hetero, have to be judged on their own merits. If a hetero couple get a child ahead of a same-sex couple, it's because they were deemed to potentially be the best parents. If a same sex couple get a child ahead of a hetero couple, it's because they were deemed to potentially be the best parents. And as for the redefinition of marriage, is that more important than equality? Is redefining a word, even though it wouldn't affect anyone in any real tangible way negatively, more important than equality?
philologos wrote: » I think children should be given to the best parents. End of.
philologos wrote: » The redefinition of marriage isn't about equality it is about changing the meaning of the word. It's about changing marriage to be something completely different.
NuMarvel wrote: » Based on that one post, it's possible that the poster only objects to homosexual acts, and has no objection to civil marriage rights being extended to same sex couples. It's highly improbable, but it is certainly possible. However, grrgprgua's later posts make it clear that that is not the case: here and here. Snappy Smurf agrees here. Philogos also states this belief here. There may be other posts, but I thought examples from the first 5 pages would be enough to show that there have been Christians in this thread that stated they believe that civil marriage should not be extended to same sex couples because of the Bible's teachings. Snappy, Philogos, and grrgprgua: If you feel I have misunderstood or misrepresented their comments, I am happy to be corrected. In case you're wondering, this is the post that kicked off this particular conversation. All that said, I'm at a loss to understand why I needed to provide these examples. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that some Christians wish to deny same sex civil marriage rights because of the Bible's teachings. Even if nobody had previously made that assertion in this thread, it was still right to ask my question, as it relates to homosexuality in a Christian context, and this is the only thread on the Christian forum in which that topic can be discussed.
philologos wrote: » I'm confused as to what you've managed to fish out of my post to be honest with you. Some clarification would be very welcome. There are two discussions going on here: 1) Whether or not homosexual acts are ethical 2) Whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalised. I think civil partnership and marriage should be separate because they are fundamentally different in terms of the family structure they can offer. Mother, father child is different than mother mother child or father father child. Children who are raised with their biological parents fare best, and children are affected differently by both mothers and fathers. This makes me question whether or not a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father. See back earlier in this thread for cited studies.
Bannasidhe wrote: » What cannot be denied is the some Christians have acted in a way that is the antithesis of the conventional meaning of 'love' while still using the word as justification for their actions. A bizarre Jesus Loves Me so I hate Fags philosophy.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Were either you or qrrgprgua to state 'as a Christian I believe the word marriage should apply only to opposite genders' - many other Christians would disagree. For example Anders Wejryd, Archbishop of Uppsala.
Penn wrote: » No, it's about redefining the word for the purposes of equality, to afford homosexuals the same right to marriage that other people have, outside of religious restrictions. And it's barely even a redefinition, certainly not one which would change the word into something completely different. Firstly, words can have more than one meaning. The existing meaning can remain, then add in a new definition for same sex marriages. Existing marriages... will not change. It will have no effect on existing or future male/female marriages. This "redefinition" does not cause any measurable negative effect to anyones marriage, it is solely to afford the same right to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. How is that a bad thing? I've asked and I've asked, yet no one seems to be able to answer it. Why is "redefining a word" (something which happens regularly) being held up as being more important than the equality redefining the word would give?
Bannasidhe wrote: » So do you think a Husband + Wife no children marriage is different and shouldn't be termed a marriage?
philologos wrote: » It is a redefinition. I have no issue with people formalising their relationships, and I'm not objecting to civil partnership. However, when people start to say that a union between a man and a woman and two of the same gender are exactly the same, that's when I'm in disagreement. Why? Because that's a lie, and it isn't true. The former can provide a child with a mother and a father. The latter can't.
