Undermining the institution of marriage?

[olger]

We are at the breaking point when we care only for what is civil and nothing for what is moral.

Dear G4. Could you tell me what set you free in this area? Thanks for being honest.

gcw

[Parade Orange]

We are best friends. He is very old fashioned. He doesnt covet(that I know of) the Gay Things we both used too.

The problem is that thru all his work amd being a good christian man. He still hasnt met the Same JESUS I have met.

We both need your prayers.

And the church has been nasty to him. Non christians in my world have largly been nicer. The christians have been nasty to me also. He sees all this and has been a great discourager. I dont have the strength to defend them over and over again. Not anymore anyways.

We dont think about gay marriage much. We know whats inside of it. We know many gay couples.

[Parade Orange]

being set free would require a miracle !!!

A miracle of seeing your own brokeness

Seeing JESUS trading His rightousness for your own soiledness

A miracle of actually being born again!

A miracle of bonding with straight christian men.

A miracle of a transparent bonding.

A miracle of seeing each other face to face at the foot of the cross. All brokeness and faulse way confessed and repented of by all parties involved.

Jesus at the center. A real genuine high regard for your christian brothers encouraged and taught breathlessly and brazenly.

What would it look like to actually confess your faults and bringing guilt and shame and self loathing and Distorted and Faulse Images of God to the Light for all your trusted Brethren to see?

What would it look like for men to take off that fake venner of hostility or/and stoicness and reveal a real scared naked boy - cleaving to JESUS.

What would look like if men sought fellowship with other men. Can men look into each others eyes and affirm thier masculine souls in each other?

Can they both admit fragility and wickedness in front of each other to The Father called Healer.

wow - It looks like a hefty order!

A real church!

[Parade Orange]

I am celibate. Not magically turned hetersexualty.

I dont covet a broken hetersexualty that I see inside churches and the world.

If God makes me straight! I wont get married. So what Good is it?

If God makes me straight the only good thing I see would be to relate to men like you straight dudes do.

How do straight guys relate to each other anyways?

remember dont use the word 'feeling' or 'touching'.

and O yes! do u guys have transparent accountability and fellowship. And do u pray together? I have yet to be at a True prayer meeting that the 'guys' actually attend.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

What would it look like to actually confess your faults and bringing guilt and shame and self loathing and Distorted and Faulse Images of God to the Light for all your trusted Brethren to see?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

It is very scary. And you don't know who to trust. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> But you do find some out there who are trustworthy and not judgmental. There're some here. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

G4J, I hope you don't mind the hug: []http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/Rudywoofs/hug2.gif[/]

[Gregory Matthews]

Ed, I do not know the source of your citation. Therefore I do not know how authorative it is.

I will be the first to say that the source I quoted is not the most authorative source that exists. But, it was what was available to me.

I suspected that you would come back as you did. So, I visited a book store today. I checked the defination of "civil rights" in Black's Law Dictionary. I suspect that you will agree with me that Black's is the authorative standard in the field of law in the United States. It is used in the U.S. court system to determine the meaning of words and terms in legal documents and rulings of the court.

Black's began its defination as you have. It included more Ammendments to the Constitution than you have included. But, it clearly began with the U.S. Constitution. But, it did not stop with the U.S. Constitution, and its Ammendments. It went on to expand beyond that to the areas that I have included in my defination.

Ed, at this point in time, I have supported my defination with the most authorative source that anyone could give for U.S. law.

Sorry.

[Parade Orange]

I felt the Hug from here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thankyousign.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/luxhello.gif" alt="" />

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

But if you mention something like adultery and serial monogamy then it can hit a little too close to home...and actually offend some of those in the audience (or in the pulpit?)

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Well, you are simply mistaken. Not only have I mentioned both adultery and serial monogamy--along with de facto child abandonment and other unpopular things--on a regular basis, and have never made homosexuality the subject of a dialogue.

The man recently made conference president here has preached on the divorce rate among church members several times in my hearing.

IF it does make the newspapers, it's generally ridiculed-oh, in almost exactly the same terms you're condemning people who oppose gay marriage.

You know, hateful, judgmental, hypocritical, pharisaical--and of course, naive, uneducated, and provincial.

It doesn't have much traction any more. It's not only false, it's overused.

[there buster]

Doesn't make any difference, Gregory.

It doesn't rise to the level of a legal problem. It's a problem of basic logic. The position is logically untenable and contradictory.

Any term that has an unlimited number of definitions has no definition, and is meaningless.

Either "civil right" has a limited number of meanings, or it means anything anyone wants it to, and thus nothing.

No matter how many times we reiterate that 1+1=3, reality does not alter.

Or maybe you're just postmodern. In which case, hey man, it's OK. YOu've got your truth, I've got mine.

[olger]

http://www.itiswritten.com/tvprogram/episode/set-free

IT IS WRITTEN Television Series

all the best,

olger

[Morning Glory]

Thanks for posting this link. I found the script very informative and encouraging.

[Gregory Matthews]

Ed:

Like I said earlier, I have engaged in this conversation because I felt that we could have a civil conversation. I felt that there was an issue here that was important. I live in a State that is expected to have three different issues to be voted upon this November that pertain to homosexual marrilage and civil rights. Big money is going into this that comes from both sides. TV advertisments are being viewed now (months away from the November election).

The pollesters are at work. The statistics are suggesting that homosexual marriage will be turned down, and that a civil union measure will pass, possibly? They are telling us that if the civil union measure passes it is likely to be due to the aspect of civil rights. I happen to believe that if this happens this campaign could serve as a model of the way that furure campaigns are conducted in other States.

On that basis I felt that you and I could engage in a civil conversation that would be helpful to people to understand the issues. I have been disappointed in this discussion. First, I have sensed that a number of people reading our discussion have been unable to seperate the idea of the need to address civil rights issues from the idea of homosexual marriage. I have been clear in stating my belief that there are such issues that need to be addressed. I have been clear in stating that such can not be used to determine a positon on homosexual marriage. While I have felt it unfair to me to make an association with a posiiton on homosexual marriage, I have attempted to understand it. This issue is so emotionally loaded that it can become extremely hard for people to actually hear what is being said by the other person. That failure to understand may be in part due to my failure to communicate clearly. Thererfore, while I am disappointed, I am willing to let it go.

As I now read your post, I feel that this discussion has reached a point where is is not going to be helpful to people to continue it.

Re: "Or maybe you're just postmodern. In which case, hey man, it's OK. You've got your truth, I've got mine."

The above comes across to me as sarcastic, and of the slander that Bravus mentioned. You have attributed a position to me that I do not think you believe that I have. You may (?) have scored a debating point, but it now lowers this discussion to a level where it is no longer helpful.

Re: "Doesn't make any difference, Gregory."

You who have focused on the legal aspects of the term "civil rights." You have done this in insisting that such be defined in relation to the U.S. Constitution and its Ammendments. I could show you that you are wrong, and I had more on this than I have posted. But, you have told me that it really does not matter. Essentially you do not care what the law says. You will contiue to say that it is not a civil rights issue. O.K. by taking that position, this discussion can not be helpful to those who are considering the claims currently being made that it is such. You have dismissed a legal reality, on the basis of you defination, which is skewed and wrong.

There is a third reason that this discussion is not likely to be helpful. There is a group of people who are convinced that there are certain civil rights issues involved in this issue that can be addressed by making some changes in the law, without permitting homosexual marriage. They may advocate such changes in the law, and believe that they are protecting marriage by doing so. Your denials that such changes are needed appear to not be based upon fact and experience. I wonder how much experience you have had in seeing what happens when homosexuals attempt to do as you have stated.

In any case, I am sorry that this discussion has now gone down a road that I feel is not likely to help people to reflect upon the issues and to make some decisions.

Please understand that I do value the contibutions that I believe you are making in other areas. I hope that you continue to do so.

But, in this area the subject is so emotionally loaded that it appears to be unhelpful to continue it. I, personally do not want to continue when I am now personally being slandered.

[Gregory Matthews]

About 10 days ago I was talking to a man about the issues in the upcoming November election. He made the statement that he did not believe that the Bible approved of homosexual marriage. They he went on to say that he was clearly going to vote yes on the civil union proposal, and under some circumstances he could vote yes for homosexual marriages.

I had felt that this thread could have been helpful to people in discussing that issue between Ed and I. But, it is clear that CA is not ready for such a discussion, in my opinion.

To be clear: The issue of how one's Biblical understand should affect one's vote in a civil election.

[there buster]

You almost totally misread my last post.

And you demonstrate you don't know the meaning of the word slander, either.

The gay community wants to discuss everything in terms of civil rights, because they hope to gain an advantage from that.

But this is an attempt at legal alchemy, to spin straw into gold.

Just to give one example, your inheritance example.

Inheritance is determined either by blood relationship or a will. As a matter of common law, marriage is considered blood relationship for the two partners. So the surviving spouse normally inherits, unless there is a will which states otherwise.

Now, a person contesting a will is not-- nor could they-- make a civil rights claim, for the simple reason that no one has an absolute right to inherit.

Suppose the one who made the will--the testator-- left all his money to his nephew because he had only daughters and no sons. Sounds like gender discrimination. But as long as the will is otherwise properly drawn up, the daughters have no case based on civil rights.

I don't deny they might find a liberal judge somewhere--probably the 9th circuit-- who would make just such a ruling. But lawless judges just make the law meaningless.

I have to add here, that Christians of all political persuasions have a lot at stake when judges ignore "original intent." Because that's a dangerous mindset when applied to the Bible.

In courtrooms where the law is applied, not manufactured, the daughters would have to make their claim for inheritance on grounds of undue influence, or for some other reason thaat the will is invalid. The old man's property is his to dispose of.

Yes, I'm sure you can find someone somewhere to call anything and every thing civil rights. But I have given you repeated examples of why that cannot be the case. You have never explained how a plaintiff would go about making a valid claim of civil rights in the types of cases you give as examples.

You simply declare them to be civil rights. But law proceeds on a case-by-case basis, specifically. So, a denial of employment in one case might be a simple tort, whereas in another it might be a civil rights case. Blanket declarations like yours are good for headlines, but don't cut much in court.

Your earlier response was that "I call them civil rights cases, you don't." That sounds like a postmodern response. I'm sorry you find it insulting, but it is in no way slanderous. Being postmodern in philosophy is not a moral failing, nor is it an indication of lack of intelligence. It's simply a worldview.

I was recently categorized as "libertarian." That happens not to be true. But it was by no means an invidious charge, neither did I respond as if it was.

Gregory, you're an interesting man. I have gained much from you. But you are not precise in your categories. Under the circumstances, I hasten to add that's not a character failing. It's just an observation.

[Gregory Matthews]

So that we understand what I referenced:

You said: "Or maybe you're just postmodern. In which case, hey man, it's OK. YOu've got your truth, I've got mine."

I apply your word "postmodern: to where you said: "YOu've got the truth, I've got mine."

I read that as a personal statement about my position, which is false. It is on that basis that I say that as sorry as I am that this discussion cannot continue, it has clearly reached the place where it is unlikely to do anyone good.

But, Ed, I do mean it when I say that I hope you continue to post here in CA. I think you are doing well in some other areas, even if not in this conversation.

That I will suggest to you is slander.

[Gregory Matthews]

By the way, Ed, I do know the difference between slander, libel, and defamation of character.

I did not accurately use the term slander in the above posts, according to thier strict legal defination. I used it in its more common meaning.

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"Or maybe you're just postmodern. In which case, hey man, it's OK. YOu've got your truth, I've got mine."

. . . .

I read that as a personal statement about my position, which is false.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Again, precision. The word "maybe" indicates that it is a possibility, not certainty or declaration. I indicated the possibility that you hold a postmodern worldview, not a certainty.

But beyond that, slander needs to be in some way invidious or demeaning. "Postmodern" is the prevailing worldview among people under 40. My own SIL2B is postmodern. Many consider it a sign of sophistication.

slander: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another.

My statement qualifies on neither condition.

1)The word "maybe" clearly stops short of declaring anything for certain.

2)"Postmodern" is not a term calculated to damage your reputation. Many distinguished and celebrated figures today are proudly postmodern.

[Bravus]

(guess we could also get into discussion of whether 'you've got your truth and I've got mine' constitutes a description of postmodernism, and if so of which branch, but I think this whole horse has been beaten to subatomic particles)

(I wondered whether moving the term to 'human rights' rather than 'civil rights' might be helpful, since even rights not enshrined in law can be argued to exist. It makes the term less precise and more open to interpretation, and it loses the supportive association with the civil rights movements around race, but maybe it might get us beyond definitional matters to the weightier matters of justice)

[there buster]

No, "human rights" won't solve anything, because that just means the rights that accrue to one for being human. It might be interesting, since the left essentially denies that unborn babies and helpless adults are human, thus making them subject to extermination.

AS I said earlier, in addition to child bearing and rearing. . ..

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Marriage also serves as the acceptable place for sexual expression. For example, if a marriage is not consummated, it can be annulled.

That, in the end, is what the gay marriage debate is all about. Whether or not society will place its stamp of approval on "gay consummation." All of the other issues have legal remedies already, if people choose to avail themsleves of those remedies. And if they were truly the central concern, we would see all sorts of living trusts and durable powers of attorney and other innovative legal arrangements. We're not, because it's not about that.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Tom Wetmore]

OK, in this game of dueling definitions please allow one who can at least legitimately claim to have some degree of expertise in the law weigh in with what may arguably by the authoritatively defining definition from the legal encyclopedia, Corpus Juris Secundum. One must recognize that this is merely the opening few sentences defining the scope of the 850 or so pages of the general topic entitled "Civil Rights" contained in this legal encyclopedia. One cannot fairly do justice to the concept of civil rights by abiding within the narrow confines of an overly simplistic dictionary definition.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

A civil right is a right that is accorded to every member of a distinct community or nation, or one which pertains to a person by virtue of his or her citizenship in a state or community, or a right which the law gives to a person. Civil rights include the rights of property, marriage, protection by the laws, freedom of contracts, trial by jury, and so forth.

A civil right is defined as a legally enforceable claim of one person against another. Thus, civil rights are those rights that the law will enforce.

The term has also been defined to mean enforceable claims structured in legislation requiring involvement by governmental units, or economic rights functioning as legally enforceable claims which are structured in legislation, and in this sense civil rights are distinguished from civil liberties.

In its broadest sense the term "civil rights" includes those rights which are the outgrowth of civilization, the existence and exercise of which necessarily follow from the rights that repose in the subjects of a country exercising self-government. In a more specific sense, the term is employed to denote or signify the rights, privileges, or immunities which are guaranteed or accorded protection under various provisions of federal and state constitutions and civil rights statutes.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

All right now, carry on! <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/23_30_104.gif" alt="" />

Tom

[there buster]

Thanks, Tom.

So tell me, if my father excludes me from his will, do I claim a violation of my civil rights, or do I pursue it in probate?

If my wife and I divorce, and she refuses to live up to her custody agreement, do I claim a violation of my civil rights, or do I go to family court?

[Jeannieb43]

C'mon now, Ed!

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I do see your point. But in my experience, one sues for violation of one's civil rights when there's no other applicable remedy available. Or when all other remedies have been exhausted. Or perhaps in addition to the other applicable remedies.

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

But in my experience, one sues for violation of one's civil rights when there's no other applicable remedy available. Or when all other remedies have been exhausted. Or perhaps in addition to the other applicable remedies.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Let me see if I understand you.

If I don't get the results I want from probate or family court, I can claim a violation of my civil rights?

It's just sort of a different form of appeal?

The whole civil rights issue is like "classical music." On the one hand it refers to a whole reportoire of music. On the other it refers to a specific type and time period within the larger category.

So, baroque is "classical music" in that it's not pop or jazz. But it's not classical music in terms of the time and type.

[Parade Orange]

yawn

[Tom Wetmore]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Gay4JESUS said:

yawn

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/smilie_bett.gif" alt="" />