Apples Blocks "Anti-Gay" Application on IPhone

[Jim Schue]

It hasn't been overplayed to many of us.

 

I'm talking historically, not individually.

[formerkywrestler]

From a religious point of view, yes. At least, IMO. As I've said before in other threads, I feel marriage is a religious institution. Matrimony, the way I see it, is a religious institution because it is believed a sacrament instituted by Christ. The words "by the power invested in me by the state of Kentucky" for example, would never be heard in a Catholic wedding because as the church views it, the power is given by God, not the government. Granted, licenses and government documents are needed for legal reasons.

I'll just skip this part.

 

 

Also, it's a common belief that heterosexual marriage is the best structure for protecting the legitimate interests of children. Marriage attaches mothers and fathers to their children, and attaches mothers and fathers to one another. As a result, Man/Woman marriage was and still is every society’s preferred context for sexual activity and child-rearing.

My parents divorced when I was four years old. Once the marriage was broken were my father and mother any less attached to me? Were my interests no longer protected? To me these beliefs seem antiquated.

 

I know I'm using myself as an example, but don't worry about offending me in your response. I'm just curious to know how others feel on the subject. I only used myself as it was the easiest and best example I had.

 

I've often seen where infertile heterosexuals surprisingly had children.

What's wrong with a civil union? Why does it have to be marriage?

 

I have no clue what the app is supposed to do to be honest.

Let's say John and Sally are both infertile and neither have the desire to have any children. Should John and Sally be allowed to marry if procreation is not the goal of their marriage?

[woodsrider]

A religious one. I spelled out why I have a problem with it.

 

I understand that you are against it for religious reasons. But how would it affect you personally if a gay couple were allowed to marry? Would your life change one bit? There are plenty of people that are against drinking because of religious reasons. Does it affect them for your or I to have a beer?

[formerkywrestler]

What effect does it have on your life if they have a civil union instead? What ill effect does it have on their life?

 

Then you either don't understand or choose to ignore that the vast majority that are against it view marriage as a religious union. It really has nothing to do with prejudice.

 

A religious one. I spelled out why I have a problem with it.

 

I've always found that using "marriage as a religious union" as a way to hide one's prejudices behind their religion. No one is saying that homosexuals need to be married in your church, just that the state (a non religious institution last time I checked) should recognize their marriages and afford the same benefits to them as any other marriage. But, if you truly believe that marriage is a religious institution, then why would you be ok with non Christian marriages? Isn't the marriage of two Islamic people outside the Christian religious institution? Or even further, should two atheists be allowed to marry because it will be outside any religious institution?

[TRENCHMASTER]

Christians are not the only Amerians who disagree with homosexuality...Jewish, Islamic and other religions to include atheists. Homosexuality is not a large people group, homosexuals and their advocates may make up a bigger group.

 

I don't think the battle here is Christians against homosexuality as much as it is this group wants what marriage in America has always been - man and woman. What two consenting adults in their privacy of their own home or in public for that matter is their business, but to redefine what americans have called marriage should be a matter of the voice of the people. Don't know what that is right now, some states have said yes, soem have said no.

[Run To State]

A serious question. Whether it's germane to the thread topic, I don't know.

 

Who should be permitted to adopt children?

 

A. Heterosexual couples who can procreate.

2. Heterosexual couples who are not able to procreate.

D. Homosexual couples.

 

All of the above?

All the above. I don't have a problem with same sex couples raising a child, so long as they're good and loving parents.

[Run To State]

I understand that you are against it for religious reasons. But how would it affect you personally if a gay couple were allowed to marry? Would your life change one bit? There are plenty of people that are against drinking because of religious reasons. Does it affect them for your or I to have a beer?

Other than religious reasons it wouldn't affect me personally one bit. BUT, it wouldn't affect my life one bit if we allowed people to marry their pets either once you put religious beliefs aside.

[Run To State]

I've always found that using "marriage as a religious union" as a way to hide one's prejudices behind their religion. No one is saying that homosexuals need to be married in your church, just that the state (a non religious institution last time I checked) should recognize their marriages and afford the same benefits to them as any other marriage. But, if you truly believe that marriage is a religious institution, then why would you be ok with non Christian marriages? Isn't the marriage of two Islamic people outside the Christian religious institution? Or even further, should two atheists be allowed to marry because it will be outside any religious institution?

Islamic marriage is a religious union, just not my religion.

If I have no problem with a civil union and think they should have the same rights, I think you can see there is no prejudice here.

Christianity isn't the only religion. Atheists? Since they don't believe in God, it's not important to me so to me it's like a civil union that the government considers a marriage. I view it differently.

[formerkywrestler]

Islamic marriage is a religious union, just not my religion.

If I have no problem with a civil union and think they should have the same rights, I think you can see there is no prejudice here.

Christianity isn't the only religion. Atheists? Since they don't believe in God, it's not important to me so to me it's like a civil union that the government considers a marriage. I view it differently.

I go to the Church of Dog Love...so my marriage to my dog would be a religious union then?

 

To me the prejudice exists when advocating that the state allow one group to do something, but disallow another. Which is what you seem to be saying.

 

So what's the problem with a homosexual marriage? Couldn't it be "like a civil union that the government considers a marriage"?

 

Atheists are currently allowed to marry, and in no way is that a religious union...if you are ok with that, there seems to be a gaping hole in the logic here. I personally don't believe that marriage should be a religiously determined matter. But if we are making it such, I fail to see why religious people would be ok with atheists being allowed to marry.

[woodsrider]

Islamic marriage is a religious union, just not my religion.

If I have no problem with a civil union and think they should have the same rights, I think you can see there is no prejudice here.

Christianity isn't the only religion. Atheists? Since they don't believe in God, it's not important to me so to me it's like a civil union that the government considers a marriage. I view it differently.

 

So if they were gay atheists it would be ok?

[Run To State]

I go to the Church of Dog Love...so my marriage to my dog would be a religious union then?

 

To me the prejudice exists when advocating that the state allow one group to do something, but disallow another. Which is what you seem to be saying.

 

So what's the problem with a homosexual marriage? Couldn't it be "like a civil union that the government considers a marriage"?

 

Atheists are currently allowed to marry, and in no way is that a religious union...if you are ok with that, there seems to be a gaping hole in the logic here. I personally don't believe that marriage should be a religiously determined matter. But if we are making it such, I fail to see why religious people would be ok with atheists being allowed to marry.

Ok , lets not get silly. The dog/religious union is beyond silly. :lol:

 

No, it's not what I'm saying, I'm fine with a civil union but I view marriage as a religious union before God. The state can let gays have all the perks that married people have, I don't care.

 

No, it can't, it goes against what religions believe marriage to be. Between a man and a woman. What's wrong with a civil union?

 

The church doesn't really view it the same. In my religion a JOTP marriage doesn't carry the same weight, and since the government allows a man and a woman to marry there is no other way for me to view it. As I told you, atheists marrying is no more than a civil union to me. Not at all the same a a religious marriage IMO.

[Run To State]

So if they were gay atheists it would be ok?

:lol:

[formerkywrestler]

Ok , lets not get silly. The dog/religious union is beyond silly. :lol:

 

No, it's not what I'm saying, I'm fine with a civil union but I view marriage as a religious union before God. The state can let gays have all the perks that married people have, I don't care.

 

No, it can't, it goes against what religions believe marriage to be. Between a man and a woman. What's wrong with a civil union?

 

The church doesn't really view it the same. In my religion a JOTP marriage doesn't carry the same weight, and since the government allows a man and a woman to marry there is no other way for me to view it. As I told you, atheists marrying is no more than a civil union to me. Not at all the same a a religious marriage IMO.

Ok, I think I get a better understanding now.

 

One last point to clarify, in your mind atheists can't get married because it's not "a religious union before God". Is that correct?

 

I want to say that it's hard for me to word the last part where it doesn't sound like an indictment on your beliefs. I hope it doesn't come off like that. I'm honestly just curious.

[formerkywrestler]

Ok , lets not get silly. The dog/religious union is beyond silly. :lol:

I thought you might think it was silly. But this could prove otherwise.

[mexitucky]

Christians are not the only Amerians who disagree with homosexuality...Jewish, Islamic and other religions to include atheists. Homosexuality is not a large people group, homosexuals and their advocates may make up a bigger group.

 

I don't think the battle here is Christians against homosexuality as much as it is this group wants what marriage in America has always been - man and woman. What two consenting adults in their privacy of their own home or in public for that matter is their business, but to redefine what americans have called marriage should be a matter of the voice of the people. Don't know what that is right now, some states have said yes, soem have said no.

 

It should be what is reflected in our Constitution. The "voice of our people" permitted slavery for the first 90 years of our country's existence. It prevented women from voting. The "voice of the people" can be a dangerous things when they make up the majority. The majority does not always follow the true nature of the Constituion.