Nightcrawler/Religious & Spiritual Discussion

thylacine · Post by **thylacine** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 1:32 pm

Yes, maybe she'll beat some sense into him!

I missed you guys!

Maelstrom · Post by **Maelstrom** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 7:08 am

Everyone:

I just wanted to let you know that I posted a "review" (of sorts) on Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ. I thought about putting it here, on the religious thread, but then decided to just tell you about it and make its own thread so it wouldn't be "swallowed up".

Go and take a look, and let me know your thoughts on the matter.

CurlyyHairGirl · Post by **CurlyyHairGirl** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 9:24 pm

i haven't see that yet, I want to but I dont have the money, that's how broke I am. My friend saw it and said that it brings out every emotion that you will ever feel, but for some reason I doubt that will happen with me. I'm the girl who goes to funerals and dosn't cry. I'm not saying I don't care but I am not the emotional type. But I still want to see that movie.

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 12:44 am

I figured this was a good place to post this nice little rant:

I F*CKING HATE HOMOPHOBES!!!!!!!
Okay, so I go to a private alternative highschool run by a pair of lesbians and we only have one semi-republican at the whole school. We get lots of students joining the school in the middle of the year for various reasons. the most recent addition to our school is this 8th or 9th grade black girl who joined and immediatly started ranting about how much she hates gays and is happy that Prez. Bush outlawed gay marriage. This girl is a hardcore Christian who isn't willing to shut up about her beliefs. In her first class, she wrote "Jesus Loves You" all over the tables. In Drama, a slang word for genitals came up in one of the plays and she spazzed out and refused to participate in the rest of the Drama class. The other day she walked up to my bi friend and said "Did you know there were....*looks around* lesbians at this school?"
She won't shut up about how awesome Jesus is and how evil gays are. I'm so ready to kill that girl....

Bamf Bunny · Post by **Bamf Bunny** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:11 am

Originally posted by Gaz
she hates gays and is happy that Prez. Bush outlawed gay marriage.

Where's she from, Days of Future Past? Bush hasn't outlawed same-sex marriage yet.

CurlyyHairGirl · Post by **CurlyyHairGirl** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:18 am

GO FOR IT *did I type that out loud?*, I can't stand it whan people are like that. Bush outlawed gay marriages? I should watch the news more. I think some of the coolest people are gay, I have 5 lesbian friends and people ask me if it freaks me out and I say,"No. Should it. And don't you think it is my buisness and not yours about what I think?" Gaz, I completely understand what you are saying. I have a friend who doesn't shut up about her religion, but I shouldn't be talking, I don't shut up about Nightcrawler. It really really bugs, though, when she told my Friend K that she was going to go to hell for some stupid reason, so I just told her who the hell did she think she was, passing judgement on other people, that's gods job not yours.

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:19 am

I don't pay attention to what Bush does but that's what she said, so I don't know. I don't care what he does becausse he's almost gone. That's jsut a quote from her....

Bamf Bunny · Post by **Bamf Bunny** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:49 am

Originally posted by CurlyyHairGirl
Bush outlawed gay marriages? I should watch the news more.

Bush has said that he supports amending the United States Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Some people think that the wording of the proposed amendment would also ban civil unions.

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Clinton in 1996, already defines marriage as being between a woman and a man for federal purposes, and says that states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. More than thirty states have either amended their state constitutions or passed legislation banning same-sex marriage.

Last year, the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples was a violation of the Massachusetts state constitution. They've ordered the state to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in May of 2004. Although some people are trying to amend the Massachusetts constitution, the earliest this can happen is 2006 - so there'll be quite a few marriages by then.

Additionally, state officials in New York, Oregon, New Mexico, and (on the largest scale) California have begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, even though some of these states have their own Defense of Marriage acts. Some people think that if there's a court battle, the state and even federal DOMAs will be overturned based on the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. That hasn't happened yet, though, and right now no one really knows whether these marriage will end up recognized or not.

Warbird · Post by **Warbird** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:39 am

Ok, first of all, why doesn't she go to a private school that agrees with her faith. There are a ton more religouse highschools than alternative ones.... I realize there may be other circumstances, but I don't think that they would usually make some one go somewhere that is so against what they belive in.

Second of all, I thought that we had a seperation of church and state... was I wrong? This is a moral and religiouse issue and I really don't think that the government has any right to step in. Why do they think it's ok to push for heterosexula marriages and condem Homosexual ones. If it's good for one group of people, why isn't it good for every one. Why can't we recognize these people's desire to be in a permanant relationship. If they want to stop the spread of STD's among heterosexuals by promoting families and Marraige, why don't they want to help promote this in the homosexual community. Are they less important? Does it not matter that there is an epidemic of diseases that are being spread becuase there is no chance that people can get married, and tend to be more sexually active with more partners because of it? If it's good for most Americans, why isn't it good for all Americans?

I hate this so much. It really really depresses me that something as minor as a persons sexuality can make such a difference in their rights, and over all quality of life. Last I heard, It wasn't a crime to love.

CurlyyHairGirl · Post by **CurlyyHairGirl** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 4:31 am

The way I see it is if it makes you happy, go for it, don't care what other people think, do what you believe is right. No one can say that you are wrong, and if they do ask them then what is right, ask them how it is right,ask them who was the first to say it right, and then give them all the reasons why you believe what you do. To me there is no right answer and no wronge answer. I don't care what other people think about same-sex marriages, I care what I think, people have their opinions and you do to and just because others say you are wrong, you truley never will be wrong, or right for that matter. AND if people say that it is abnormal, ask for the definition of normal. What is normal these days? The world has changed so much that I believ there is no such thing as normal or abnormal, just differences, because differences means that something is not the same but does not imply that it is wrong like the word weird of abnormal. So just tell her she has her opinions and you have yours, then walk away.

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 9:02 am

To Warbird, I have no clue why she doesn't attend a christian highschool, though even those are more accepting in this city than she is.

Here in Oregon, they checked the laws, which stated that anyone can marry as long as they are a male or female over the age of 17, which obviously does not state whether they have to date the opposite secks. So here in Oregon, a ton of people have been hanging out out side of the courthouse, waiting to get that slip of paper that says they are married. Good for them.

And Warbird? The separation of church and state thing? Private schools do not apply, obviously. If it applied to private schools, there wouldn't be any catholic or christian schools. Private schools have completely different laws than public ones.

And I would just tell her that she has her own opinions, but it is really hard to let someone insult you are your friend's beliefs to your face without saying anything. I'm just a born fighter anyway....

CurlyyHairGirl · Post by **CurlyyHairGirl** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 3:29 pm

I have family in Oregon....Yes, private schools have very different rule than public schools, I go to a public school but my best friend goes to a private school and they have to do alot more stuff and the teachers are more strict, but because it is a Catholic school, they have what my friend calls a church class that they are forced to go to every other day, they have a split schedual, and some of the students do even practice that religion, they just go there because the school has a better graduation rate than my school *but they have more drugs over there too*.

Warbird · Post by **Warbird** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 8:17 pm

My little rant on church and state was supposed to apply to the fact that I don't think that the government has any right to stop same sex marraiges. I didn't mean for it to sound like I was talking about the school. If that was the case then not private religouse schools could ever exist. They were supposed to be unrelated topics. I was unclear, my fault.

CurlyyHairGirl · Post by **CurlyyHairGirl** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 8:47 pm

No that is ok I was just saying something, and I don't know why.

Maelstrom · Post by **Maelstrom** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:09 pm

Marriage is such a loaded word. It's got legal, moral, religious, and cultural definitions, and they don't always coincide.

Marriage as a religious institution has historically only existed between heterosexuals. I can't think of one currently active religion that has ratified a marriage between a same sex couple, and this is probably because marriage was primarily made to create a family unit. Having children was the most important thing about a marriage when you needed children to support you in old age as well as to help run the farm.

Bush's problem is that he sees those Pauline letters about the "sins of sodomy" and has decided that he's got to make sure it this "sin" doesn't get spread or legitimized. In my opinion, he's got this whole thing bass-ackwards:

1) The more I think about it, the more I'm sure that "sodomy" refers to anal rape, not to homosexuality as a whole. By bashing so hard on homosexuality, these people are missing the point.

2) The US government has NO, read NO, place in the debate of whether a religion will allow marriage or not. It would make more sense (though be no less abhorrant) if Bush wanted to outlaw Same Sex Civil Unions than Same Sex Marriage as a whole.

3) I'd be more sympathetic to the "defense of marriage" if the rest of us heterosexuals treated it with any respect in the first place. We've got a 50% divorce rate in the country. People commonly get remarried not once, but four or five times. Cheating is rampant, abuse is rampant, and we're screaming about two men (or women) who love each other daring to make a lifelong committment?

Same sex marriage, as in a religious ceremony, is going to be very contentious because of the historical background. It has never been sanctified before by any of the major religions, and it's gonna be a very hard sell in the USA, at least. And it's something that the government has no say in whatsoever.

But there's one thing the government *does* have a place in, and that's the legal side of marriage. One of the big reasons why gay couple want to marry, besides the symbolism, is that they want the same legal and financial benefits for their partner as I enjoy with my husband.

For instance, if my husband dies, I get social security benefits. If he's injured and needs someone to take care of him, I make the decision before his family does. He's insured under my workplace insurance, and he's the primary beneficiary for my life insurance.

If I had a female parter, none of this would be possible. If she was badly injured, her sister from New Jersey, who she barely even remembers from childhood, would have more legal right to care for her than I. I wouldn't be able to cover her with my health insurance, and being a beneficiary on the life insurance would be iffy. So, in essence, I have the moral obligations to take care of my partner, but I have none of the legal aids to help me.

While the religious aspects of marriage can only be decided by that religion's elders, there is no reason to deny civil unions to same sex couples. They're useful on many levels to more than just gay couples. For example: let's assume I have a friend who was estranged from her family and would rather I took care of her if things went wrong. As it stands now, if she's badly injured in a car crash, and has left instructions with me that she'd rather die than live brain dead, but she hasn't written those instructions down, her family can swoop in, kick me out of the picture, and keep her alive indefinitely against her wishes. Or, if she was only mentally disabled, her family could grab her and stuff her in some convalescent home, even if I was willing and able to take care of her at home. You should be able to choose who will take care of you if something happens. A civil union will help plenty of people on this front.

CurlyyHairGirl · Post by **CurlyyHairGirl** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:21 pm

This brought up a question with me. My aunt and her husband never really got married, they just live together for a long time until they were recognized as a married couple to the state, that doesn't apply to homosexuals does it. Would they just call them room mates?

Maelstrom · Post by **Maelstrom** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:34 pm

Well, there is a "common law" partner thing. In California, if you've lived together for more than 7 years (I think), you're considered married in the eyes of the state, if not in the eyes of any higher power. Sadly, this only applies to heterosexuals. Same sex couples would just be considered room mates.

CurlyyHairGirl · Post by **CurlyyHairGirl** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:46 pm

I believe it is 7 years. WHOA, I jest noticed, yer a fellow Californian too, AWESOME. I always find it slightly odd when my aunt and uncle say "my husband" or "my wife" cause my mind has trouble with the common law thing some times, and because the never got married at a ceremony, it would have been nice, but it's their choice, and should be left that way.

Bamf Bunny · Post by **Bamf Bunny** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:35 am

Originally posted by Maelstrom
I can't think of one currently active religion that has ratified a marriage between a same sex couple

I can - Christianity. Same-sex marriage liturgies have survived from the Middle Ages. See Boswell's Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.

Warbird · Post by **Warbird** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:53 am

Now I might be wrong, but doesn't the common law status now only apply in the distrabution of assests in the case of a "devorce situation". It's becoming more and more common for there to be cross gender roomates that live together for many years and are not romanticly involved. I think it has nothing to do with the normal legal benifits of being married, that were very well stated by Mael. I'm not sure of that though. From what I understand, at least in PA, common law marraige is becoming a blue law.

CurlyyHairGirl · Post by **CurlyyHairGirl** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 2:21 am

Wow, I didn't know that. Thanks for filling me in on that Warbird:)

Lauren · Post by **Lauren** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 3:50 am

I just can't believe that the one guy from New York who was giving same-sex couples marriage licenses has been arrested for doing so. Apparently my state says it is illegal to get married to someone of the same gender.

Bush wants to protect the sanctity of marragie? Hello! Didn't Brittany Spears all ready break it with her little episode? Why is it that when people divorce 50 times it's ok, but God forbid that two people who love each other dearly and happen to be the same gender get married. That would just tear out the seams of Western Civilization; hurtling everyone in a spiral of anarchy and pure and utter chaos where everyone hates Nightcrawler!

Wolvertique · Post by **Wolvertique** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:03 pm

I can't think of one currently active religion that has ratified a marriage between a same sex couple,
--Unitarian Universalism. Paganism. Native American religion. Methodists. Just to name a few.

The government certainly has no business telling a church that it must recognize a marriage between anyone. Heck, the Catholic church doesn't recognize marriages between divorced Catholics. But the government has no business discriminating against same-sex couples when it gives out marriage licenses, either.

CurlyyHairGirl · Post by **CurlyyHairGirl** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 2:42 pm

It might be the fact that, technically, same-sex couples can't reproduce. Some churches won't let you marry in a church for that reason. For example, my uncle is infertile because he has sooooo many different kinds of cancer, so he and his wife had to adopt, but, the church wouldn't let them marry, they had to go somewhere else. Maybe that is a reason.

Bamf Bunny · Post by **Bamf Bunny** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 3:08 pm

The Christian churches' position of marriage has changed over time. The early church didn't have a marriage rite at all; marriages were entirely secular. After the Reformation, many Protestants considered marriage a civil matter as well.

But moving on to the present day - there are currently three countries that recognize same-sex marriage; Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands. And, yes, mainstream religious denominations have performed marriages there.