A wide range of topics were covered today, from racial incidents that have been reported around Maine to the prospect of gay marriage in the state. Ray wonders if the fight for gay marriage is really about equality, or if it's about one segment of society trying to force acceptance by the rest of society.
Also, Josh Shea of Independent Publishing Group of Windham came in to talk about municipal budgets and the trouble they're dealing with in these troubled times.
Ray addresses all in the audio post below, and invites your opinions in the comments section.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
To follow up on you claim of what constitutes marriage. The bible also states that marriage is for procreation.
So If a person knowingly marries someone who cannot procreate. Is that a real marriage under God's word?
I don't know Bruce. Is Barack Obama black?
He says he is, but his Mother was white. Since he does not meet every condition of being black, is he still black?
Ray, haven't you ever heard of the one-drop rule?
It was tongue-in-cheek Rigby, meaning let's go find an exception to every rule so we can invalidate every conclusion.
By the way, in Obama's home state, the race of the child is determined legally by the race of the Mother.
My response was in response to Bruce's statement about procreation.
Still have not seen a response to the idea of a legally recognized contract between any two people that conveys all rights, benefits and protections to the two who enter the contract.
This idea brings about true equality.
That, by the way, is the goal, right?
"I don't know Bruce. Is Barack Obama black"?
HUH !!
Interesting last week you throw Muslims into an unrelated conversation. Now you throw Barack in.
I guess i am too obtuse to get your anallogy. You are the one who keeps telling us what defines marriage in your terms (referring to the bible) as you do.
I though i was asking a valid question.
BTW What are Ray's conditions for being white or black? You must have it all figured outas with every other topic.
Ray we agree Marriage should not be a term used in any law books at all to define any contract between 2 adults, it should only be a biblical reference.
Of course here in the US of A one does not have to be an adult to get married do they?
As to exceptions. Every religious sect likes to pick and choose and interpret the bible for their purposes.
The first Christian group is still not allowed to use artificial contraception, but many sects do allow it niow. Al depends on how each reads "God's word" i guess
Ray, your proposal is fairer than what's being offered by most gay marriage opponents. In order to enact it, we'd have to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which expressly forbids some of the equalities that would be afforded under the contracts you describe.
It still smells a little like "your drinking fountain is just as good as ours," but it's further than a lot are willing to go.
The fact is, no matter how much you might think the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, it is -- and that's not going to change (nor should it, as you acknowledged in an earlier post). And once we accept that principal (marriage is ALSO a civil institution presided over by the goverment), it's not that big a leap to allow gay marriage. You're almost there.
You said on the show today that we can't redefine marriage. But of course we've redefined marriage many times over the centuries -- always, by the way, to be MORE inclusive.
You also asked on the show today what rights have been denied homosexuals that were comparable to the rights denied blacks. That's a good question, one that I think points to a reason many African Americans oppose gay marriage. They don't see their struggles as equivalent. Fair enough.
Here's one right that at one time was denied African Americans and is STILL denied homosexuals: Serving in the military. That's a big one, no? "Don't Ask-Don't Tell" is a very leaky band-aid over that particular wound.
I would still like to know where it's written that I have to accept anything, particularly a life style that I don't agree with? The more the radical gay rights activists try to force their choosen lifestyle down my throat the more I will oppose it.
Now, before some of you more "enlightened" readers immediately label me a "homophobe" let me say that during my lifetime I have had friends who were gay. They all, to a person, wished the radicals would shut up and go away. They all felt that the radicals did far more harm than good. They also all felt that legally recognized civil unions were just fine and I'm fine with that, as well.
But, I can only guess, that many in the gay community want to prove that they're just like everyone else, garner attention by any means necessary, and demand the right to marriage. But, like I said earlier, the more the radical elements in the gay community demand that I accept them, the more I will oppose them. Not because I hate them, but rather because I find it unacceptable for any group to self-classify themselves as "special."
I can also say this with all certainty. Since the radicals in the gay community seem to be emboldened by Obama's election and feel they can run wild, if any of these radicals try to pull a stunt in my church like they did in Michigan, I don't think we'll set on our hands in the pews. What they'll get is the "bum's rush" to the door! Gently, mind you, but they'll still be shown the door.
Post a Comment