Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:22 pm
Thank you for doing this.
Sent from my KFJWA using Tapatalk
Sent from my KFJWA using Tapatalk
A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://vikingsmessageboard.com/
Good job Valhalla! Wish I had thought of it...Valhalla wrote:To answer a need for spillover off-topic posts in the Vikings Talk forum, take it or leave it, thought I'd at least create the thread.
Be Nice!
If the argument is that marriage is a religious institution then it should be completely ripped out of government and replaced with non-religious civil unions. Religion and government shouldn’t mix.Here is an interesting article, I'm not sure if Marriage Redefinition is about Civil Rights. And then, as so many point out, one would almost need to let in Polygamous/Multiple Spouses Marriages.
Many states actually still had laws banning interracial marriage until 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Should I assume you think states should be able to ban interracial marriage if they choose as well? If so I feel like we’re so far away from each other’s side that it would be quite difficult to find common ground.States have long regulated Marriages through laws such as above. That's why I think this should be left as a responsibility of the State.
Why would you need to look at that? Those bans aren’t a matter of restricting rights as much as protecting the unborn. The offspring from such unions can have serious health problems. Very different situations.Then too, one might need to start looking at the famous sorts of laws banning marriages between cousins; yet, this is very different from State to State.
This is pretty much where I fall. “Marriage” means something different depending on the religion (or lack thereof) of the person you ask and trying to narrowly define it under one specific religion’s term is preposterous and unfair. Mormons believe different than Baptists who believe something different than an atheist, etc, etc. The government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating love and relationships.If not the fact that perhaps the Government should not be involved in Marriage at all, it is mainly to raise fees through licenses and to give some people say tax breaks.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. The reason you’re worried about marriage isn’t because it has any inpact on you … but because you’re worried one day you might go to a hospital and it’ll say “Parent 1 and parent 2” rather than “mother and father” in some pamphlet? That seems shallow and pointless.That all said, other people getting married how they want in general does not effect individual citizens, does not really affect me. However, if we start monkeying with the definition of family as has occurred in Scotland in some maternity literature and start calling mother and father, parent 1 and parent 2, redefining so much, this I don't care to see happen.
That’s exactly my point … freedom OF religion means that no single religious faith should be imposed on people. If Christians think that marriage should be between “one man and one woman” fine … but there’s no reason to impose that on people other than their Christian religious belief which should not be ingrained into the government.I believe what the Constitution says "freedom OF religion", not "freedom FROM religion". Anyway, good luck if someone thinks the Government will get out of the Marriage Business. If the government does administer it, it should be done at the state or local level.
I’m not following you here. Can you elaborate?That may be so except "group" marriages along with polyamourous (multiple husbands)/polygamy (multiple wives) certainly does not have to be because of religion.
Fair enough, though we’re both agreeing that states shouldn’t be able to pass unconstitutional laws, it sounds like. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court just ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional; specifically the section where states didn’t have to recognize same sex marriages from other states.If a State passes a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the Supreme Court should strike it down. So yes, States should regulate their own laws.
The Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS) has also upheld Slavery in the past. The SCOTUS found that Slaves had no rights. So because the Supreme Court said this, we are to take it that they are correct??
Actually, it was a redefining of marriage considering it was against the law and they had to change (aka redefine) the law afterwards.Mixed Marriages was not the redefinition of Marriage, was still one man and one woman.
Let's look at U.S. law, since Mr. Peters is referring to marriage in this country. In the last 100 years marriage has changed immensely in the U.S., including the legalization of divorce as well as the use of birth control for married couples. We have even changed the gender roles by making women no longer the legal property of their husbands. In the 1800s certain states began to give married women the ability to own property in their own names until all American women were granted that right in 1900. Throughout the 20th century women gained more and more rights, such as being allowed to have credit in their own names, say no to sex with their husbands, and keep their last names if they wished. It wasn't until 1933 that women were granted citizenship separate from their husbands.
We had essentially already made marriage genderless through the elimination of certain rights and responsibilities for husbands versus for wives, but then a new movement started in 1973 as states began passing laws redefining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Since these, there have been yet more laws about this institution that didn't exist before, and I consider them to be against my cultural views that marriage is the union between two consenting adults, a definition that fits most of the iterations of marriage the U.S. has seen. State laws (and the now-invalid 1996 Defense of Marriage Act) that assign further restrictions based on sex don't fit my interpretation of what marriage in the U.S. looks like for my parents' and my generations.
I’m pretty positive that it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that inbreeding INCREASES the likelihood of problems. Not ensures it;
I'm not positive if that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. A whole string of people are listed as who were married and were first cousins including Albert Einstein.
If it is so sure and positive the offspring of such unions can have "serious health effects", then per the map shown, a lot of the population of the United States, Florida, California, New York and other states allow the marriages of 1st cousins.
Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected.[7] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
• Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
• Increased genetic disorders
• Fluctuating facial asymmetry
• Lower birth rate
• Higher infant mortality
• Slower growth rate
• Smaller adult size
• Loss of immune system function
Well … the bible isn’t exactly known for its historic accuracy … however, if that’s the book we’re going to use to make the rules …I'm sure since the United States was born, 99% of all marriages have been between 1 man and 1 woman. Even going back to the Bible, it was the Kings who mainly had multiple-wives if this situation existed.
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."
So we’ve jumped from mother and father in some remote hospital pamphlet to bogus information being taught in schools? I can’t think of anybody, LGBT or not, that wants to go that way.The redefinition of the family and marriage is nonetheless of import per percentages of the population or percentages of marriages. Most sources will say the LGBT community is only 2% or less of the population. Not sure if we need to start eliminating "mother" and "father" being used in schools for 2% of the population. This is where that could go.
Then which religion gets to decide the definition of marriage? Are you insisting on some kind of religious "majority rule"? It is not only freedom of religion, but also freedom from state sanctioning of any religion. If religions are allowed to dictate how the government defines marriage, where does that influence end?Valhalla wrote: I believe what the Constitution says "freedom OF religion", not "freedom FROM religion".
As long as laws continue to use the social construct of marriage, it needs to be defined in order to equitably apply the laws. And marriages are actually administered on the local level - where do you go to get a marriage license?Valhalla wrote: Anyway, good luck if someone thinks the Government will get out of the Marriage Business.
If the government does administer it, it should be done at the state or local level.
And yet, conservatives used the Bible to oppose interracial marriage, twisting it to fit their own view of what constituted a Biblically sound marriage.Valhalla wrote: Mixed Marriages was not the redefinition of Marriage, was still one man and one woman.
Please see above. Additionally, there was the Old Testament law that required a brother to marry his widowed sister-in-law, regardless of his own marital state. Polygamy occurred without regard for social station.Valhalla wrote: Even going back to the Bible, it was the Kings who mainly had multiple-wives if this situation existed.
So? Is there a breakdown in the family dynamic by referring to parents as parents, instead of defining them based on their gender? Or is this merely a point where society needs to reassess the roles it has traditionally given to each parent? With so many households where women are the primary earners and fathers have assumed more child-rearing duties, there is already a need to re-evaluate the staus quo.Valhalla wrote: The redefinition of the family and marriage is nonetheless of import per percentages of the population or percentages of marriages. Most sources will say the LGBT community is only 2% or less of the population. Not sure if we need to start eliminating "mother" and "father" being used in schools for 2% of the population. This is where that could go.
You didn't feel the need to actually respond to the points anymore so I'm not really going to respond to this. Suffice to say I fall on the side of more rights and not less. If you think denying a group of people the right to get married falls on the same side as abolishing slavery we are quite far off.Valhalla wrote:One can read the first Amendment and total Constitution on this website:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
I'm hardly going to support Slavery because the Supreme Court of the US did not strike it down. If that's the way some people think, I think there is a large difference in what we believe.
Both BGM and Cliff did a great job with this discussion. They said it way better than I ever could have.Valhalla wrote:Good post BGM. Civil Discussion is always a plus.
You take on the religion of the officials that you elect because they are the ones that make the laws. The only way to change is it to elect officials that are proponents of same sex marriage. If you live in a state where the majority has a particular set of beliefs the you are going to have to live under those set of beliefs. Fair or unfair that's how a democracy works, majority rules. This is not just with same sex marriage but abortion gun laws and many other issues as wellBGM wrote: Then which religion gets to decide the definition of marriage? Are you insisting on some kind of religious "majority rule"? It is not only freedom of religion, but also freedom from state sanctioning of any religion. If religions are allowed to dictate how the government defines marriage, where does that influence end?
Biblically we're no longer under the rule of the old testament, we now fall under the new testament. Although the Bible does not specifically say it's between a man and a woman , which I would have to go through it to confirm that, it does consider homosexuality to be sexual immorality.BGM wrote:
And yet, conservatives used the Bible to oppose interracial marriage, twisting it to fit their own view of what constituted a Biblically sound marriage.
Not anywhere, not even once, does the Bible specifically state that the only blessed marriage is between one man and one woman.
17 Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.
18 For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook will pass from the Law until all things are accomplished.
I agree with you that there are those that manipulate the bible to fit their own personal beliefs but I also believe it is not my place to judge; I can only answer for my sins and no one elsesCliff wrote:The bible is “pick and choose” morality. I bet I can find at least 5 things from the New Testament that the average Christian doesn’t follow. The homosexuality stuff conveniently aligns with some people’s current views and so they cling to that.
For example, wasn't the Ten Commandments in the old testament ... but yet that is ok to cling to from the Old Testament ... why?
Even in your example of the New Testament supposedly being the rule now ... that is up for debate depending on which part you read;
This article is pretty long, but it addresses the allegations you have leveled. I happen to believe the Bible is not "pick and choose" morality and I believe an open-minded, honest reading of the Bible (as a whole) would reconcile many perceived conflicts. I don't expect everyone to accept what is in the Bible, nor do I expect them to convert to Christianity. I'd prefer not to discuss religion on a football board, but I find it difficult to see some of my core beliefs maligned without a solid basis for doing so.Cliff wrote:The bible is “pick and choose” morality. I bet I can find at least 5 things from the New Testament that the average Christian doesn’t follow. The homosexuality stuff conveniently aligns with some people’s current views and so they cling to that.
That article doesn’t really deny that people are picking and choosing what out of the Old Testament they want. He simply says that the bible, in a roundabout way, says that it’s ok to do so. Even though in other parts it says you shouldn’t. But that gets back to one of the core problem with the bible; since it contradicts itself so much you can align what it says with whatever your personal morals are.Just Me wrote: This article is pretty long, but it addresses the allegations you have leveled. I happen to believe the Bible is not "pick and choose" morality and I believe an open-minded, honest reading of the Bible (as a whole) would reconcile many perceived conflicts. I don't expect everyone to accept what is in the Bible, nor do I expect them to convert to Christianity.
This section of the board is particularly for off topic conversation …I'd prefer not to discuss religion on a football board, but I find it difficult to see some of my core beliefs maligned without a solid basis for doing so.
I’m not necessarily talking about “back sliding” and doing one of the “big 10” sins or something. They are things that nobody follows *any* of the time because they’re nonsense. The old testament is full of those kinds of things.I can find far more than 5 things from the New Testament that I haven't followed 100% of the time. How does that diminish the Bible or make it "pick and choose" morality.
Again, the problem is there are different “tenets” depending on which sect of Christian you ask. One group has decided that the bible means one thing while someone else decides it means something else. Why? Because they used their own morality as a guide and the bible to supplement what they already thought. That's why even though they are reading the same book, what one group says will send you to hell isn’t even a blip on another group’s radar.Followers of the Bible may choose the 'salad bar' of righteousness, but that doesn't mean their actions are correct...or without consequences. It simply means the followers are failing to live up to the tenets of their faith.