No, what I'm saying is that values change over time. England was founded on the principles of various pagan groups like the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. But we rarely hear of danegeld any more, and although one man recently requested the courts to allow him his right to trial by combat, it's certainly a rarity.

In any society, and particularly in a democracy, values change. As the whims and mores of individuals shift over time it is reflected in society itself. In a democracy this occurs faster because the public have greater interaction with the lawmaking process, and so hold a greater influence.



I'd call it change rather than degradation. Perhaps the body politic is becoming more corpulent due to allowing gays to marry, but I think permitting women and various 'people of colour' to work and reach the top has made the nation fighting-fit enough to survive a few extra pounds.

More than one.



I know you don't get it, but my response was anything but uncontrolled. It was a quite deliberate and considered slap in the face to someone I felt needed it. I always choose my words to convey exactly what I want them to convey. Some people are so wrapped up in themselves that they need that once in a while.



Yes, but you and I are two different people with different backgrounds and different sensibilities. I would never feel the need to get your attention in such a manner because you always express yourself in an intelligent and reasonable manner and you always seem to at least acknowledge and respect other's points of view even if you don't agree with them. Not everyone does so and sometimes they need a good virtual slap.



Yeah, ok, I understand where you're coming from here but personally do not feel that any conversation, whether in person, on the the phone, or online, is meaningless as there are real people involved in that conversation. I always respect the other people in a conversation unless and until one of them demonstrates that they do not the same, as in the case we are discussing.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of the people with whom I interact here and elsewhere on the web would tell you that I am friendly and respectful. It's only those who aren't respectful of me that would say I have been otherwise toward them. Trust me, I am far more harsh toward this sort of patronizing, disrespectful person face to face than I ever am online.

Hey FS,

I know I'm late in responding but wanted to sit back with some popcorn before I contributed.

To the anti-gay group:

One argument I hear often is the break down of the term marriage. I don't see this necessarily an issue about an attack on 'marriage.' Word definitions (as CactoBlasta mentioned) relate to the definition of the populous during that era of time. Words and their definitions change and continue to change.

Gay - "In earlier and in literary usage, the word means "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy". From the 1890s, it had begun to carry a connotation of promiscuity, as in a "gay house" referring to a brothel. It began to be used in reference to homosexuality in particular from the early 20th century, from the 1920s at the latest." (Wikipedia)

The problem I see with those arguing that Marriage definition hasn't changed when it essentially has. It’s probably more that you don’t WANT to see it changed. Change is never easy especially when it has personal value.

This leads me to my next issue. What right do you (anti-gay group) have to impose your belief and/or personal values upon someone else?

The problem really isn't with the definition of the word but rather an internal legalistic mentality that because of your religious belief you feel justified to impose your definition and will upon others who do not adhere to your belief/moral system.

Do you really think that a silly definition or a law is going to or would prevent this behavior?

I want to also discuss the ‘moral’ issue that the anti-gay group have.

This again is an issue that receives its basis in religious backgrounds. I challenge many of you to sincerely consider your basis here. How can you impose your morals on someone who do not use the same book or religious belief as their moral compass as you do? Just because you believe this is right doesn’t mean that they should be forced to live by the same. What if it were reversed?

What if gays were trying to keep the definition of marriage between two consenting adults (no basis on opposite genders) rather then the current issue of the opposite?

Would you still be using the same argument then?

The reality whether you like it or not is that you are more concerned about imposing your views on someone else rather than seeing what is actually happening.

This has little to do with semantics of definition here. This is more of an issue of imposing your will upon someone else on the basis of your ‘moral’ compass.

JMO

  

You don't have to be "anti-gay" to not want the definition of marriage changed.  I have no problem with people doing whatever they do as long as it doesn't harm me or my family.  However, I strongly believe that marriage is sacred and the definition should not be changed.  Heck, why don't we change the legal term to "civil union" ?  Why not throw out the term "marriage" all together since it won't mean the same thing anymore?

Considering that I am not Christian, and have never been Christian, and don't believe in the Bible at all, I can tell you that you are simply stereotyping.  My view is not based on religion. My morals and ethics are very strong, but they have no roots in religion. 

So, are we saying that we shouldn't stand up for our morals? 

It's not semantics, it's changing a sacred term to mean something completely different.  Marriage is sacred to me.  So, why are my rights less important than somebody else's?

There is less than 10% of the population that is gay.  Why should we change a term that is sacred to so many so that less than 10% of the population will be happy?

I don't even think it's 10%. To test this theory out....you'd have to know 10 people out of every 100 that were gay.

I know lots of people especially being in the ministry and I'd venture a guess it's closer to 1% which is a figure also given out but growing daily. Before long I'd venture to say we'll be at 50% with anything and everything being about experimentation.

I look at this whole thing as a kidnap or coup. First they took our word "gay" and turned it into something that is anything but "gay" and then they went for the rainbow which was a Christian symbol given to Noah as a covenant that God will never again destroy the world by flood. Now they're marching on trying to redefine marriage.

And the world sleeps. Homosexuality will destroy the family which is the backbone of our society and we will fall.....just as Rome did.

Just look now at how screwed up we are now with divorce between hetersexuals. Now what about two men or two women with children in tow going thru divorces maybe going from man to woman in their search of themselves as we as a society applaud the freedom of their sexuality and choice. What is this going to do to our children but screw them all up?

How does this alter your rights in any way? You still have the right to hold marriage sacred, you still have the right to marry the person of your choice, so how are you losing any rights at all?

Oh, by the way, as for your early arguments about health insurance, that really doesn't make a lot of sense either. A company that already has openly gay working for it already has health insurance rates as set by the insurance company, so how exactly would that change is an already employed and insured gay were to get married?

This is the one thing I have yet to seen a proper explanation of too.

 

 

With all due respect, this is such a load of nonsense KFC!  Where and whey did Gay people 'took' the word Gay and made it their own?  How did they "take" the Rainbow which was a representative of God's gift to Noah?  Are you serious? And in what way does a gay marriage interfere with the divorce rate in America, or anywhere else, and how do they cause that?  Where does it harm your children?

I think you need to re-read the comments again, because most of what you said, have already been addressed previously.  These are the 'scare tactics' and things that are said that gets most people up in arms as to why these people shouldn't be allowed to live their lives the way they want to.

 

Interesting AD!  I think KFC, here's your explanation of the word "gay" being taken over, circumstance created the way this word has been used, not necessarilly that the Gays took it and made it their own!

Bingo!!!!!!!!!

None on mine either. 

yes, but you don't love your neighbor by helping them in their sin AD. What kind of love teaches it's ok to sin against God? You can still show love to someone by not accepting sinful behavior. It's not mutually exclusive. And what diff does it make if the rainbow is straight or curved? It's still a rainbow that some people feel can't be used anymore because there's a strong connection with the homosexual movement.



when I was a kid I was an avid reader. I read everything I could get my hands on. Many of the books (check yourself) of the 50's, and 60's anyhow used the word "gay" alot and it did not mean what it means today. Gay was such a common word for happy that children would be named Gay way back. Can you see that now?

My uncle was a homosexual. He died in the 80's. Not once did he ever call himself gay...because it wasn't common to do so. He, as well as others, called himself a homo or a homosexual.

Look, I'm not out to bash homosexuals or tell them what to do in their own homes. I could be very friendly with any homosexual and even invite him/her to dinner. I just don't want to legislate and force others to accept what has always been unacceptable...and for good reason. I really don't like what's going on in the public square regarding this issue including the indoctrination of our children that is acceptable behavior.



We've already dealt with this many times here on JU....why go to the Old Law? There were diff laws for diff reasons but this one is repeated in the NT as well. Why not check out the NT because you'd see the same admonition there as well? Having sex with the same sex is an abomination and is strictly forbidden by God both in the OT and the NT.



Homosexuality is a gay disease in that is where it started. Yes, many outside of the homosexuals contracted this later but it's roots and most of the cases are still by large in the homosexual community.

Aids did NOT have it's 'roots' in the gay community.  If you do a slight bit of research, you will see how wrong this impression is and just how ignorant you sound repeating it.  Here is one link to start with...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin

but isn't that what you're doing? I go by the whole counsel of God. You want to know what Jesus did say about the law? Really do you?

"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." Matt ll:13

How about John the Baptist?

"For the law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." John
1:17

So the old law is not applicable and the old diet and customs are not and have never been given to the church. Paul speaks alot about this especially thru the books of Romans and Galatians.



there is ONLY ONE true version of the bible and that is the original language it was written in. The original Gk and Hebrew are quite accurate and many of our later translations are very reliable. Yes, there are some that tinker with the words and I wouldn't give the light of day, but there are many over the years that have stayed true to the original languages.

There are always bound to be imitations out there confusing the public. No matter what it is.



and did you read what I said:



and I would venture to guess that most genuine Christians feel much the same way I do. It might be hard to understand but our disagreement or admonition or what have you is motivated by love not hate. We love you too much to leave you in your sin of homosexuality and it would be no different for us if we were talking about drinking or gambling.