I'd really respect them if they just went for it and advocated for polyigamy, slavery and other traditional marriage elements. And stoning for adultery.
And banning sex outside of marriage and unmarried couples living together.
Yeah right...
Or failing that if also wanted to make it harder to get married (say requiring 3 months counseling before getting married) and harder to get divorced (say requiring 3 months counseling before you can divorce) then at least there'd be some consistency.
I mean seeing how important marriage is... shouldn't these stalwart guardians of morality be doing something about the real problems that hurting the institution?
I once read an article written by gay men that argued that polygamy is the next step.
But he also said is gays got married divorce rates would sky rocket because gy men re used to being alone.
But no, Polygamy is a different ball game. It relegates women to nothing more then breeding machines that live to serve the husband. IF the man gets bored sexually, then he just gets another wife.
I'd argue quite easily that polygamy encourage an unequal participation in social interactions, and might also provoke self devaluation.
I'd also mention that the examples of societies where polygamy is implanted are also good examples of societies where men have literally no practical responsibilities, yet all the authority.
I would respect gay marriage advocates more if they were able to make a coherent argument without the ridiculous accusations, exagerations, and insults.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would respect gay marriage advocates more if they were able to make a coherent argument without the ridiculous accusations, exagerations, and insults.
40kFSU wrote:I would respect gay marriage advocates more if they were able to make a coherent argument without the ridiculous accusations, exagerations, and insults.
I think KK makes perfect sense. If those so hell bent on stopping Gay marriage spent just as much effort into fixing what's really wrong with marriage then, they'd have a leg to stand on when they say "we're saving marriage, hurr!!!1!". Allowing Gay and Lesbian couples to marry will have no ill effect the concept on the institute of marriage. Not like getting married/divorced 8 times for example.
alarmingrick wrote:I think KK makes perfect sense. If those so hell bent on stopping Gay marriage spent just as much effort into fixing what's really wrong with marriage then, they'd have a leg to stand on when they say "we're saving marriage, hurr!!!1!". Allowing Gay and Lesbian couples to marry will have no ill effect the concept on the institute of marriage. Not like getting married/divorced 8 times for example.
That's pretty much what I was going for.
There's lots of things wrong wtih families in America, but all this self righteous energy is going into keeping an unpopular minority group from being allowed to marry rather than, say, addressing real problems.
Cause that would be y'know, hard and stuff.
Sort of like bitching about wearing fur but not saying a word about leather or eating meat.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I once read an article written by gay men that argued that polygamy is the next step.
But he also said is gays got married divorce rates would sky rocket because gy men re used to being alone.
But no, Polygamy is a different ball game. It relegates women to nothing more then breeding machines that live to serve the husband. IF the man gets bored sexually, then he just gets another wife.
You are assuming that polygamy in this day and age would only be one man and plural wives; rather than one woman and plural husbands or plural husbands and wives. You know since we are talking about same sex marriage why not 6 husbands? or 4 husbands and 2 wives where the husbands are also married to each other...open thine horizons.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I once read an article written by gay men that argued that polygamy is the next step.
But he also said is gays got married divorce rates would sky rocket because gy men re used to being alone.
But no, Polygamy is a different ball game. It relegates women to nothing more then breeding machines that live to serve the husband. IF the man gets bored sexually, then he just gets another wife.
You are assuming that polygamy in this day and age would only be one man and plural wives; rather than one woman and plural husbands or plural husbands and wives. You know since we are talking about same sex marriage why not 6 husbands? or 4 husbands and 2 wives where the husbands are also married to each other...open thine horizons.
Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?
40kFSU wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?
Yeah, religious and personal views could never be related to hate or Nazism.
So that's a "no, if you don't agree with me you are a hate filled racist sexist bigoted homophobe". Kinda hard for me to take these conversations seriously.
40kFSU wrote:So that's a "no, if you don't agree with me you are a hate filled racist sexist bigoted homophobe". Kinda hard for me to take these conversations seriously.
Lets try this; you give me your religious or personal reasons not based in hate and I will deconstruct them.
40kFSU wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?
That's all fine and dandy, except when you try and impose those perfectly legitimate religious and personal views on those who do not share them.
40kFSU wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?
That's all fine and dandy, except when you try and impose those perfectly legitimate religious and personal views on those who do not share them.
40kFSU wrote:So that's a "no, if you don't agree with me you are a hate filled racist sexist bigoted homophobe". Kinda hard for me to take these conversations seriously.
Not what was said, though that you defaulted to it is telling.
Interesting point rubiksnoob, but I ask you this: who is imposing their views? The people who are suddenly trying to change a thousand year old institution or the people trying to protect it?
AustonT I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Ordained by God. Simple as that. I don't think either of us can deconstruct the others views, so let's agree to disagree.
You know, going back and forth with you folks is almost as much fun as painting GW's overpriced little men.
40kFSU wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?
Yes. But it somehow escape some people that labeling a view as 'religious' or 'personal' doesn't exempt them from having to justify it rationally or factually.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I once read an article written by gay men that argued that polygamy is the next step.
But he also said is gays got married divorce rates would sky rocket because gy men re used to being alone.
But no, Polygamy is a different ball game. It relegates women to nothing more then breeding machines that live to serve the husband. IF the man gets bored sexually, then he just gets another wife.
You are assuming that polygamy in this day and age would only be one man and plural wives; rather than one woman and plural husbands or plural husbands and wives. You know since we are talking about same sex marriage why not 6 husbands? or 4 husbands and 2 wives where the husbands are also married to each other...open thine horizons.
Polygamy itself means multiple wifes. You are thinking of polyandry. Which itself would be rare because it would put men in a subordinate positions.
One of the few places it exists is in small indian villages where brothers share a wife.
40kFSU wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?
There are a great many things that go on everyday which violate mainstream religious teachings from usary, to extramarital sex, to gambling, to drinking etc...
Yet all of them are to some extent or another legal in the US since they're generally regarded as things that do not harm others and might be discouraged but should not be outlawed. (to say nothing of the extreme examples of stoning adulterers or wearing mixed fibers)
I rarely hear religious leaders talk much about these popular but sinful activities. But for some odd reason once an unpopular stigmatized minority start violating religious teachings a whole lot of energy is mobilized to stop them.
I hear very few folks saying we should go back to the days of Sodomy Laws (fun fact! sodomy is still illegal in Trinidad and many parts of the Caribbean!) so obviously there's no serious effort to prevent people from having gay sex.
But somehow legitimizing same sex relationships, offering a legal and social framework to committed couples, that's a threat to civilization.
It's an inconsistent position that's getting harder to maintain.
Ok, if you don't hear religious leaders talking about the moral decay of society, you aren't listening.
Why would anyone want to pass laws forbidding gay sex? That's not anyone's business but the two consenting adults. The issue is when a thousand year old institution which has been the foundation for every society ever is trying to be changed. What's wrong with same sex civil unions? All the rights of marriage. Just a different name. If its really about rights there it is. If its about something else.......
The position may be more comPlicated than a bumper sticker Phrase but that doesn't make it inconsistent.
Simply, factually, the institution of marriage has changed a long time ago. The State is simply trying to adjust the Law in consequence. Marriage is a social construct, it can be changed by an social institution with enough power to effectively do it. It was once the Church, and now it's the State.
40kFSU wrote:
AustonT I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Ordained by God. Simple as that. I don't think either of us can deconstruct the others views, so let's agree to disagree
Don't bother showing up if you aren't going to play.
Is your view supported specifically by your religion or did you just wake up and decide God ordained that marriage was between one woman and one man.
Also are you an American?
Kovnik: I half way agree with you. But I think the state is pushing something the people don't agree with. I know all about the pols which show a majority of Americans supporting gay marriage. But it has lost 32 elections in a row. Either the polls are wrong, or the votes are miscounted. And what do you mean its changed?
AustonT: I am new on the OTF, I usually stick to the P&M stuff. So I may not be up to speed on how its done. I dont see myself getting insulted, but I don't want to insult you and arguing religion and who is right/wrong is a good ay to do that. But I don't see the point in arguing religion with internet guy. As far as your other 2 questions Both and Yes.
40kFSU wrote:Ok, if you don't hear religious leaders talking about the moral decay of society, you aren't listening.
Why would anyone want to pass laws forbidding gay sex? That's not anyone's business but the two consenting adults. The issue is when a thousand year old institution which has been the foundation for every society ever is trying to be changed. What's wrong with same sex civil unions? All the rights of marriage. Just a different name. If its really about rights there it is. If its about something else.......
The position may be more comPlicated than a bumper sticker Phrase but that doesn't make it inconsistent.
you mean this great institute of marriage that allows:
http://www.oddee.com/item_97042.aspx The woman who married the Eiffel Tower
The man who married himself
The Swedish woman who has been married to the Berlin Wall for over 30 years
The Japanese man who married a character from Nintendo DS video game
The woman who is about to get married to a fairground ride
The woman who married her dead ex boyfriend
The man who married a pillow
The woman who married a snake
and that's not even mentioning britney, and all the other fun celebrity marriages. All of these mockeries are fine and recognized marriages, but oh no, cant let 2 women or 2 men call their relationship a marriage. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry could only improve the image of marriage.
40kFSU wrote:Kovnik: I half way agree with you. But I think the state is pushing something the people don't agree with. I know all about the pols which show a majority of Americans supporting gay marriage. But it has lost 32 elections in a row. Either the polls are wrong, or the votes are miscounted. And what do you mean its changed?
AustonT: I am new on the OTF, I usually stick to the P&M stuff. So I may not be up to speed on how its done. I dont see myself getting insulted, but I don't want to insult you and arguing religion and who is right/wrong is a good ay to do that. But I don't see the point in arguing religion with internet guy. As far as your other 2 questions Both and Yes.
You guys just don't get it do you? The LGBT community isn't asking to play in your sandbox. They'd like their own to play in.
The last time I checked, they weren't asking God to bless it, but the state. It's not God who says they can't visit their SO in the
hospital.
40kFSU wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?
Here's my rule about these sorts of things.
If someone is being a hateful, discriminatory nutter, then they are a hateful, discriminatory nutter. That's how I tell that hateful, discriminatory nutters are hateful, discriminatory nutters.
40kFSU wrote:Ok, if you don't hear religious leaders talking about the moral decay of society, you aren't listening.
Why would anyone want to pass laws forbidding gay sex? That's not anyone's business but the two consenting adults. The issue is when a thousand year old institution which has been the foundation for every society ever is trying to be changed. What's wrong with same sex civil unions? All the rights of marriage. Just a different name. If its really about rights there it is. If its about something else.......
The position may be more comPlicated than a bumper sticker Phrase but that doesn't make it inconsistent.
Wait, what? That is just a blatant lie. You be trolling?
Anyways, as soon as marriage was recognized by the government, it should have been a non-issue.
You mean like how 11% of the US population can control the other 89% because of the senate and the 60 vote minimum required to be filibuster proof? Also, unlike gay marriage, polygamy doesn't raise happy, healthy children to adulthood, there are MANY studies on this, so the two are not equal and never will be.
Exalted Pariah wrote:You mean like how 11% of the US population can control the other 89% because of the senate and the 60 vote minimum required to be filibuster proof? Also, unlike gay marriage, polygamy doesn't raise happy, healthy children to adulthood, there are MANY studies on this, so the two are not equal and never will be.
40kFSU wrote:The issue is when a thousand year old institution which has been the foundation for every society ever is trying to be changed. What's wrong with same sex civil unions? All the rights of marriage. Just a different name.
1st Marriage (as understood by most Westerners) has more or less always been a european and middle-eastern based thing. 2nd Marriage may have been based in religion (than again it may not have, this I am not 100% on) but it has been a domain of the state for far, far longer (why do you think it was so easy for King Henry to found his own church just so he could have access to a quick and easy divorce?) 3rd You seem to quite underestimate just how important a name is, we give them to our children, we fight for them and we bury our dead under them, that's probably why they want marriage and not a civil union.
Exalted Pariah wrote:Also, unlike gay marriage, polygamy doesn't raise happy, healthy children to adulthood, there are MANY studies on this, so the two are not equal and never will be.
There are a number of tribes in, for example, the Amazon, where children are raised by multiple mothers and fathers. Granted they don't live in a high technology society, but that is not to say that humans can't get along perfectly well with an "unorthodox" family unit.
Polygamy practised in western countires tend to be associated with cults and other unsavoury groups, or with men who have multiple wives who aren't aware of each other and are therefor absent for long periods of time. Its more than possible that the reason that children born of these relationships are less healthy is simply their social, rather than family, environment.
This thread needs more pictures of nearly naked men, that will keep the homophobes away (or will it?).
40kFSU wrote:Why would anyone want to pass laws forbidding gay sex? That's not anyone's business but the two consenting adults.
Don't know, but homosexuality used to be illegal and many arguments to prevent decriminalisation were similar to those being made against gay marriage, ie, that it's in scripture and it's god's word. Simply saying something is 'the word of god' is not a valid argument. The bible says a lot of things, but most christians ignore the bits that don't suit them. While christians can make a fuss about what their particular churches want, marriage is regulated by the state and arguments for laws at that level should be based in well evidenced arguments, not merely demands that everyone abide by the arbitrary religious rules of some people.
The issue is when a thousand year old institution which has been the foundation for every society ever is trying to be changed.
Are the marriages of other faiths equal to christian marriage? Marriage is regulated by the state, not by any one religion. And people were getting married before christianity came along. You don't get the monopoly on the institution of marriage even if you do make false claims about its history.
hotsauceman1 wrote:But no, Polygamy is a different ball game. It relegates women to nothing more then breeding machines that live to serve the husband. IF the man gets bored sexually, then he just gets another wife.
It also allows a bunch of women to share a wealthy husband who has the means to support all their children, and not have to marry some poor loser. Pretty awesome for the women.
Plus some women like the idea of sharing multiple partners, to each their own. If they want to be treated like breeding machines then by all means let them do it, they can walk away at anytime (aka divorce). What's the problem?
sirlynchmob- Really? Do you actually believe everything on the internet?
Alarmingrik- Fine, go play in your own sandbox. They are demanding to play in mine.
Deadwinter- Grow up and get a clue before calling me a liar.
Dogma- Sorry, you still arent getting any better with the one liners.
Krelinus- You are right. Words mean things. Marriage means a union between a man and a woman. Dont change it.
Howard a Treesong- If your only argument is some anti Christian statement I got nothing for you. It amazes me how much people who know nothing of Christianity claim to know. Also how people just "know" most Christians ignore the majority of the bible.
Harry- My sandbox doesn't cover all. Just ones between man and woman. And I am pretty sure the Catholics aren't the only ones still marrying folks.
You guys have got a serious "me" problem when it comes to Christianity. Let's go find out what Islam says about gay marriage. I'm sure there is plenty of liberal thinking on the subject. What are some of the other open minded religions that reject traditional marriage? I'm sure the list is long.
40kFSU wrote:Harry- My sandbox doesn't cover all. Just ones between man and woman. And I am pretty sure the Catholics aren't the only ones still marrying folks.
Sure, and they want a sandbox where marriage can also be between a man and a man or a woman and another woman. It doesn't have to be the same one as yours, unless your sandbox includes all government sanctioned marriages.
You guys have got a serious "me" problem when it comes to Christianity. Let's go find out what Islam says about gay marriage. I'm sure there is plenty of liberal thinking on the subject. What are some of the other open minded religions that reject traditional marriage? I'm sure the list is long.
I'm pretty sure Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, won't say anything on gay marriage. It will definitely condemn the act of sodomy though.
And the reason that Christianity is being looked at the most is because it is the most vocal on the subject.
40kFSU wrote:Ok, if you don't hear religious leaders talking about the moral decay of society, you aren't listening.
That's not anyone's business but the two consenting adults.
Same goes for who they choose to marry. Gay people who want to get married are not imposing their views on you. They are not telling you how to live your life at all. You telling them they cannot marry each other, on the other hand, is you imposing your views on them. You are dictating how they should live their lives. If you do not believe in same-sex marriage, then do not marry a member of the same sex. But do not forbid others from doing just because you believe that it is wrong. Plenty of people think it is wrong and immoral to drink, but you don't see anyone trying to push through legislation to ban alcohol. Look how well it worked last time. The marriage issue is going to go the same way.
Harry- Your mistake is assuming marriage is sanctioned by government, therefor just another government policy. It isnt and that is why passions are so high on this. You probably dont hear about Islamic opinions on gays because they are brutally oppressed. Do some research. They are treated worse than women.
rubiksnoob- If it were that simple it wouldnt be a problem. Like I said, this cant be solved with a bumper sticker opinion.
40kFSU wrote:Harry- Your mistake is assuming marriage is sanctioned by government, therefor just another government policy. It isnt and that is why passions are so high on this.
But it is sanctioned by the government. I wouldn't say it's just another piece of government policy, but it is the government that decides what constitutes a valid marriage. It is not, and most certainly shouldn't be, religion.
You probably dont hear about Islamic opinions on gays because they are brutally oppressed. Do some research. They are treated worse than women.
I don't even see why religion should be a factor in the making of new legislation. You don't have be married in a church or in front of a priest of any sort. You don't need a a religion's blessing on your marriage. All you need is a certificate saying you want to engage in a permanent relationship with this person.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:That's pretty much what I was going for.
You... kinda failed. Your post's wording made it seem as if you were attacking the proponents of gay marriage, not the antagonists.
40kFSU wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate [removed godwin's law]
No.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Private_Joker wrote:I don't even see why religion should be a factor in the making of new legislation. You don't have be married in a church or in front of a priest of any sort. You don't need a a religion's blessing on your marriage. All you need is a certificate saying you want engage in a permanent relationship with this person.
It's involved because of fearmongering, amongst those who would claim that "omg gayz wuld mek da cehrsh do da merreez fer dem!".
Nevermind that there are plenty of churches that would be glad to marry homosexual couples, thus making the religious argument nonsense... I mean you wouldn't go to a Synagogue to have a Muslim marriage would you?
Howard a Treesong- If your only argument is some anti Christian statement I got nothing for you. It amazes me how much people who know nothing of Christianity claim to know. Also how people just "know" most Christians ignore the majority of the bible.
I didn't say most christians ignore the majority of the bible, I said that many christians ignore bits of it. Which is true, because most christians do not take every word literally as fact and do not attempt to live by every silly rule there in. Most of Leviticus is ignored for a start, well apart from the oft mentioned bit about homosexuality, people often remember that one part among many other rules. The bible has quite a few things to say about marriage, rape and punishment etc, which are also not followed. Otherwise we would be marrying off rape victims, testing virginity and stoning women to death.
How can you honestly sum up my post as 'your only argument is some anti christian statement' - I made a valid points. That marriage is, and should be, defined by the state, not by a religion there, in this case christianity. I also said that if you are to prevent a group of people gaining equality you should construct an argument based in fact and evidence and not merely a desire to continue to abide by religious scripture. Saying "I believe it as ordained by god" is not an argument for legislation. You can live your own life how you like and believe what you want, but when it comes to determining the rights of others in society you have to come up with something more robust, reasoned and fair.
Sanctioned by government, yes. Not ordained or conceived by government. That is the difference. Governments have risen and fallen. Marriage has been consistent exactly because there has been a common foundation, religion. All religions recognize man and woman. All societies have as well. That is the controversy. The redefining of an institution to satisfy some modern issue which may change, as times change.
As for the second response, I guess I misunderstood your post to imply other religions are ok with it or don't care since they are silent. Or if not silent we dont hear anything. My bad.
Howard- There is a difference in the bible between the historical contextual parts and the teaching of Jesus and God. As for the rest, see above. I mean, really, c'mon man!
40kFSU wrote:Sanctioned by government, yes. Not ordained or conceived by government. That is the difference.
I'm pretty sure no single religion can claim this either. Unless we're counting caveman shamans? But even so, why would you care what the government says? If the government introduces legislation that allows gay marriage, religious can (and inevitably will) simply say "Well it's not marriage in the eyes of God."
Governments have risen and fallen.
So have religions.
Marriage has been consistent exactly because there has been a common foundation, religion.
All religions recognize man and woman. All societies have as well. That is the controversy. The redefining of an institution to satisfy some modern issue which may change, as times change.
No it hasn't, how come polygamy isn't kosher in today's society? Hell, how come incest is now a bad thing? The Pharohs and plenty of other ancient civilisations seemed okay with it. Between a man and woman may be a common theme, but it isn't any less subject change than the other aspects.
THe reason that marriage has survived (and in many ways, it hasn't really survived all that much if you define survival based off of how much it has changed, because it has changed drastically from how it was two thousand years ago) is the same reason that beds have survived. It fulfills a specific human need, in this case, the human need for long-term intimate companionship. It has nothing to do with religion.
Mellssia- The roles of the husband and wife may have changed but not the fundamental principle of man and woman and KIDS. I just reread your post. C'mon man!! Nothing to do with religion? C'mon now! You cant really think that.
rubiksnoob- This thread is why it isn't simple. Re read and you will see all the opinions. Some heart felt and well thought out, some moronic. You cant legislate morality. From the right or left.
40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- The roles of the husband and wife may have changed but not the fundamental principle of man and woman and KIDS. I just reread your post. C'mon man!! Nothing to do with religion? C'mon now! You cant really think that.
rubiksnoob- This thread is why it isn't simple. Re read and you will see all the opinions. Some heart felt and well thought out, some moronic. You cant legislate morality. From the right or left.
There is no reason why men shouldn't be allowed to marry men or women marry women...
It doesn't hurt anyone.
It doesn't cause problems in a society.
It doesn't even break your vaunted '1000 year institution' any more than it has already been broken for the past 500 or so years.
This is the reason most people decry the opposition of gay marriage as homophobic.
There isn't a reason not to do it.
40kFSU wrote:Sanctioned by government, yes. Not ordained or conceived by government. That is the difference. Governments have risen and fallen. Marriage has been consistent exactly because there has been a common foundation, religion. All religions recognize man and woman. All societies have as well. That is the controversy. The redefining of an institution to satisfy some modern issue which may change, as times change.
As for the second response, I guess I misunderstood your post to imply other religions are ok with it or don't care since they are silent. Or if not silent we dont hear anything. My bad.
Howard- There is a difference in the bible between the historical contextual parts and the teaching of Jesus and God. As for the rest, see above. I mean, really, c'mon man!
It doesn't matter how the idea came about, right now, today, our government licenses marriages. and apparently can decide who can and cannot get married. The government performs the marriage ceremony, The government owns marriage. no religion needed. And since the government runs marriage, they can not say yes to one person and no to another. thats discrimination. so it is only a matter of time before logic and justice triumph, and marriage equality will arrive.
It has nothing to do with redefining words, it has everything to do with religious nutters trying to strictly define the word to discriminate against others. societies and words evolve all the time, try to keep up. If you find your position on a subject is the same position as bigots and homophobes, then you should really stop and wonder why you have that position unless ....
and all those things I listed were recognized marriages, go google them and find out yourself.
alarmingrick wrote:I think KK makes perfect sense. If those so hell bent on stopping Gay marriage spent just as much effort into fixing what's really wrong with marriage then, they'd have a leg to stand on when they say "we're saving marriage, hurr!!!1!". Allowing Gay and Lesbian couples to marry will have no ill effect the concept on the institute of marriage. Not like getting married/divorced 8 times for example.
I picked that up, which is funny, because I hardly ever pick up on posts in the OT.
Marriage hasn't stayed the same. It hasn't always been between one man and one woman; that's just ignorance. Mostly it's between a man and woman as that's the most common breeding arrangement, but that's not exclusively it. Any we certainly don't require fertility tests before allowing a man and woman to be married.
Many cultures and societies have recognized same-sex couples, including (off the top of my head) the early Christian church and some Native American tribes. Many others recognized marriages involving more than two partners.
Before the Christians took over, the Irish legal system (Brehon Law) had NINE different degrees of marriage. Each established the basic terms, rights, and obligations of the people involved and their clans.
First Degree was marriage between a man and woman of equal property and social rank. It took nearly two milennia before most Christian marriage allowed a woman to be recognized as equal. Lower degrees went through different less-equal partnerships, through a wife stolen from another clan in battle, through a second junior wife taken while still married to the first, all the way down to ninth, which was marriage of idiots. A male and female in the community who were mentally incompetent (insane or developmentally disabled), but whom the community needed to recognize as married so any children would be part of the clan structure and it would be clear who was responsible.
------------
The whole idea that marriage has never changed until today is pure ignorance and cultural chauvanism.
It also comes across as dishonest and disingenuous when it's not leveled at all the OTHER aspects of modern US marriage which have changed- like easy divorces, drive-through wedding chapels, and celebrity publicity marriages which last a week. Those things all trivialize and threaten the stability and sancitity of marriage a great deal more allowing two gay people to get married.
A goup of people wants the ability to enter into permanent commitments to one another out of love, and form legally recognized married partnerships, and cultural "conservatives" oppose that? How does that make any sense?
40kFSU wrote:Sanctioned by government, yes. Not ordained or conceived by government. That is the difference. Governments have risen and fallen. Marriage has been consistent exactly because there has been a common foundation, religion. All religions recognize man and woman. All societies have as well. That is the controversy. The redefining of an institution to satisfy some modern issue which may change, as times change.
As for the second response, I guess I misunderstood your post to imply other religions are ok with it or don't care since they are silent. Or if not silent we dont hear anything. My bad.
Howard- There is a difference in the bible between the historical contextual parts and the teaching of Jesus and God. As for the rest, see above. I mean, really, c'mon man!
I think you need to look a little more closely at the different purposes marriage has served across the centuries and the different practices and customs that it has enabled, and also how much it has changed and adapted. As someone pointed out, the Pharaohs married the siblings, as have other cultures, we don't do this any more. In the US, interracial marriage was only fully legalised in 1967. We also have changed a lot of the functions of marriage, women don't typically come with dowries and the balance of rights within marriage have changed with the times. It used to be the case the women were effectively the property of men, now they are equal in marriage. Why? Because marriage changed with society.
It's silly to dismiss same sex marriage as satisfying 'some modern issue which may change, as times change'. There have always been gay people and they've been prominently seeking equality for decades, are you suggesting that we don't grant them equality on the basis that society may swing back towards greater intolerance towards them? What else should we row back on? Interracial marriage?
40kFSU wrote:So that's a "no, if you don't agree with me you are a hate filled racist sexist bigoted homophobe". Kinda hard for me to take these conversations seriously.
That's the way things are with them.
I find it an issue impossible to debate with liberals crying insults at me. I find it an unimportant issues, economic and financial security should be going through Politicans' mind not some bill which will only satisfy a small percentage of the population, which will take ages to debate and pass through. In the end, I find it not worth the time and energy to bother even to mention the idea.
40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- The roles of the husband and wife may have changed but not the fundamental principle of man and woman and KIDS.
Yes it has. For some religions, for some cultures, it was a man and many women and kids. For others, it was a woman and many men, and kids. For others, it's simply a union between two people, no kids necessary. For some it is merely a temporary institution, for others, it is a permanent institution (transcending death). Hell, some cultures even had mother and son marry! For our modern culture, kids aren't required at all. Or would you say anyone who is sterile can't marry? The elderly? War veterans rendered unable to breed?
I'll give you one of the US court system's answers to your post:
Furthermore, an interest in promoting procreation within marriage cannot provide a legitimate reason to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition. The ability to procreate cannot and has never been a precondition to marriage. [...] “what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples ... [s]urely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry” [...] “While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or unassisted), it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage.” [...] The federal government has never considered withdrawing its recognition of marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate. [...] Even if this could be considered a legitimate interest, denying federal recognition of and withholding federal benefits from legally married same-sex couples does nothing to encourage or discourage opposite-sex couples from having children within marriage.
Oh, that's right by the way-- homosexuals can in fact have children together, either through adoption or through science, turning a male stem cell in to a male egg, or a female stem cell in to a female sperm, although the male will still need a surrogate mother.
40kFSU wrote:I just reread your post. C'mon man!! Nothing to do with religion? C'mon now! You cant really think that.
Yes, I can.
It fulfills a human need that exists irregardless of religion. Religions might try to clamp down on this need, and try to claim it as if it belonged solely to that religion, but that doesn't make it true.
I'm pretty sure the church was against divorce until they realised royals who had married former allies then turned enemies needed to get rid of spouses, and decapitating them was off the table. The church makes "god's" words work in anyway they want it to.
Sirlynchmob- yes there are people who get married by a judge or something. So what? And if you want to bow down and assume the government is all things and there is nothing greater or more moral than a politician, go right ahead. And oh the insult of being called a nutter by Internet guy. I am so in my place now.
Purple food- we are attacked as homophobic because proponents refuse to acknowledge our moral reasons. They result to name calling because that's all they got.
40kFSU wrote:Purplefood- we are attacked as homophobic because proponents refuse to acknowledge our moral reasons. They result to name calling because that's all they got.
What moral reasons?
I'd argue it's immoral not to give homosexuals the right to marry.
40kFSU wrote:Sirlynchmob- yes there are people who get married by a judge or something. So what? And if you want to bow down and assume the government is all things and there is nothing greater or more moral than a politician, go right ahead. And oh the insult of being called a nutter by Internet guy. I am so in my place now.
Purple food- we are attacked as homophobic because proponents refuse to acknowledge our moral reasons. They result to name calling because that's all they got.
ya ya way to strawman my argument and not actually read what I wrote.
40kFSU wrote:Sirlynchmob- yes there are people who get married by a judge or something. So what?
We're talking about marriage in the eyes of the law, not of any one particular church. The legal status which grants us rights like sharing each other's insurance, or visiting each other in the hospital if gravely sick or injured. There is no moral reason to deny access to this legal status to gay married couples.
But what the hell is marriage anyway? Two people that are emotionally (and possibly financially, or legally) tied together? That's about as vague as it gets. Love has nothing to do with it, and neither does financially supporting your spouse, or having children. Surely there are exceptions to everything that makes Marriage what we think it is.
So why do people crave marriage so much? It's just a formality... Like christmas cards, and wearing black at funerals. It's just a way to prove to other people that they feel some sort of commitment to their partner. I understand that there are certain financial benefits to marriage, but that's a problem with the system, not marriage. If there wasn't so much pressure to get married, as opposed to being in a domestic partnership, for example, I doubt as many people would be getting married (and divorced).
I might be biased. My mother doesn't believe in marriage, and has been a faithful partner to my father for 18 years, without ever contemplating marriage. Plus, I'm young Marriage isn't even on the horizon for me yet.
40kFSU wrote:Purple food- we are attacked as homophobic because proponents refuse to acknowledge our moral reasons. They result to name calling because that's all they got.
What are the moral reasons to oppose gay marriage? Beyond saying "it's in the bible" and "it's ordained by god", make a coherent and logical argument. For example, I would be against marrying children because they are not old enough to make an informed decision and there is risk for harm to the child. I can't imagine the harm or risks surrounding gay marriage though, but the floor is open to you.
Ok, I am now talking in circles. I know governments saction marriage. Obviously. The fact all governments have done so speaks to my point of a religious foundation. Protecting that foundation is the point. I'm going to take my daughter to the park. Everyone enjoy the rest of your day I have, sorta, enjoyed the conversation.
And Mellssia, impressive research but going through courts instead of the people is also a great source of the problem.
40kFSU wrote:And Mellssia, impressive research but going through courts instead of the people is also a great source of the problem.
Why?
Just because the majority wants to oppress a minority is not a reason in and of itself to say the majority is in the right. Or perhaps you think that colored peoples were wrong to use court battles to remove segregation and anti-miscegenation laws? After all, the majority was quite content to leave those laws in place, oppressing anyone who wasn't white just as the DoMA oppresses anyone who isn't straight.
rockerbikie wrote:You can't honestly compare those two.
You can't honestly say that there is no comparison. You're just saying that reflexively because you don't want to compare yourself with racists even though you're doing the exact same thing that racists were doing.
rockerbikie wrote:You can't honestly compare those two.
You can't honestly say that there is no comparison. You're just saying that reflexively because you don't want to compare yourself with racists even though you're doing the exact same thing that racists were doing.
No. Just no. I doubt there is a gay version of Apartheid anywhere in the world. People with different colours of skin can't hide it thus descriminating is stupid. Being Gay, Lesbian or Bi is harder to proove.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
You can't honestly compare those two. It is ridiculous.
Mellssia- first off Dakota should put a disclaimer. OTF is like crack. Looks, get a grip. Gays are not oppressed as blacks were. Gays have all the rights anyone else has, as they should. Civil unions confer all the rights of marriage. I think if proponents recognized our objections as legitimate instead of falling back on the usual leftist line "hate" we may be closer to a happy resolution. Ok now I'm really gone. Stupid iPhone.
rockerbikie wrote:You can't honestly compare those two.
You can't honestly say that there is no comparison. You're just saying that reflexively because you don't want to compare yourself with racists even though you're doing the exact same thing that racists were doing.
No. Just no. I doubt there is a gay version of Apartheid anywhere in the world. People with different colours of skin can't hide it thus descriminating is stupid. Being Gay, Lesbian or Bi is harder to proove.
Being gay and living somewhere like Uganda isn't a lot of fun though.
purplefood wrote:So the only reason they are different is because it's harder to hide skin colour than sexuality?
That is absurd...
You did not understand the pun "Gay version of Apartheid". Hiding it can be a big difference. Blacks couldn't hide being black, many of them were forced into slavery. I don't think I have ever heard of a gay slave cast.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:Being gay and living somewhere like Uganda isn't a lot of fun though.
That is true. They are extreme over there, I think I would even be classed as "Gay" over there for wearing Military style boots. Some of their claims of homosexuality is just stupid.
40kFSU wrote:Gays are not oppressed as blacks were. Gays have all the rights anyone else has, as they should. Civil unions confer all the rights of marriage.
They have all the rights other people have, apart from the right to get married, and you've only just repealed DADT after all. The oppression of gay people and black people is different, just because you think they are not as discriminated against as much as black people doesn't mean that comparisons with civil rights are not valid or that nothing should be done about it. At least being black wasn't a crime in itself, but homosexuality was only decriminalised in the UK less than 50 years ago and similar laws in the US were being repealed into the 2000s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote:
40kFSU wrote:So that's a "no, if you don't agree with me you are a hate filled racist sexist bigoted homophobe". Kinda hard for me to take these conversations seriously.
That's the way things are with them.
I find it an issue impossible to debate with liberals crying insults at me. I find it an unimportant issues, economic and financial security should be going through Politicans' mind not some bill which will only satisfy a small percentage of the population, which will take ages to debate and pass through. In the end, I find it not worth the time and energy to bother even to mention the idea.
You could turn it around the other way. Why do some people feel the need to argue over an 'unimportant' issue that affects 'a small percentage of the population'? They don't need to spend ages debating it and preventing it being passed, they could just agree, award equality and get on with other matters. Granting equal rights to minorities should not take a back seat just because the economy is going through difficult times. And people opposing these rights should accept the blame for them wasting time, not those proposing them.
40kFSU wrote:Gays are not oppressed as blacks were.
That's false. Both are minority groups hated by bigots. Both have suffered oppression as brutal as being murdered in the street for what they are, as pervasive as being denied employment or fired for being what they are, as authoritarian as having their marriage rights denied or restricted.
40kFSU wrote: Gays have all the rights anyone else has, as they should. Civil unions confer all the rights of marriage.
Do you watch the news at all? This statement is so ignorant as to be frightening.
1. Civil unions don't always provide all the same rights.
2. Not all states allow civil unions. In fact, some of them have actually changed their state constitutions to FORBID any form of civil union, due to the prejudices of bigots. North Carolina just did so, what, a week ago?
40kFSU wrote: I think if proponents recognized our objections as legitimate instead of falling back on the usual leftist line "hate"
You're welcome to offer a legitimate objection. I haven't seen one yet.
40kFSU wrote:Gays are not oppressed as blacks were. Gays have all the rights anyone else has, as they should. Civil unions confer all the rights of marriage.
They have all the rights other people have, apart from the right to get married, and you've only just repealed DADT after all. The oppression of gay people and black people is different, just because you think they are not as discriminated against as much as black people doesn't mean that comparisons with civil rights are not valid or that nothing should be done about it. At least being black wasn't a crime in itself, but homosexuality was only decriminalised in the UK less than 50 years ago and similar laws in the US were being repealed into the 2000s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote:
40kFSU wrote:So that's a "no, if you don't agree with me you are a hate filled racist sexist bigoted homophobe". Kinda hard for me to take these conversations seriously.
That's the way things are with them.
I find it an issue impossible to debate with liberals crying insults at me. I find it an unimportant issues, economic and financial security should be going through Politicans' mind not some bill which will only satisfy a small percentage of the population, which will take ages to debate and pass through. In the end, I find it not worth the time and energy to bother even to mention the idea.
You could turn it around the other way. Why do some people feel the need to argue over an 'unimportant' issue that affects 'a small percentage of the population'? They don't need to spend ages debating it and preventing it being passed, they could just agree, award equality and get on with other matters. Granting equal rights to minorities should not take a back seat just because the economy is going through difficult times. And people opposing these rights should accept the blame for them wasting time, not those proposing them.
Look, it should stop. It's a stalemate, a cold war. No side has cleary won yet. It would be wise to move on something more important than dwelling on something. In these hard times, we need Countries like America to stand united but Liberalists can't wait until a state of Nation growth. Everything has to be now and they will have no compromise on the matter. We should stand united as one, issues like this are splitting the nation at the moment. We need a more stable economic, not a small affecting social law. Even us, thinking about the idea is a waste of time when we could be implementing better ideas to get the Economy back into gears. What's the point of having Gay Marriage if everyone is starving?
There is absolutely no reason we can't have justice in marriage rights, except that bigots object to it and waste our time and money with court battles and bigoted legislation. And opportunistic politicians take advantage of the bigotry to court votes.
People made the same arguments you're making about equal rights for blacks, and about laws forbidding interracial marriage.
There is absolutely no reason we can't have justice in marriage rights, except that bigots object to it and waste our time and money with court battles and bigoted legislation. And opportunistic politicians take advantage of the bigotry to court votes.
People made the same arguments you're making about equal rights for blacks, and about laws forbidding interracial marriage.
I find it quite ironic that you call anyone that apposes Gay Marriage to be bigoted. I don't hate the LGB community, I just think the law is extremely unneeded and debating it is a huge waste to tax payers money in my opinion. Here's the question: Why would I want the tax I payed to spent on a lengthy debate which nothing worthwhile comes out on it for my end or my friends.
One of my friends in fact got raped by lesbians, the Police would not take her case seriously because she is a Nationalists Socialist. No investigation was ever done. Is this fair? I know not all Lesbians do this. Is this equal justice or is that just the Legal System just sliding over it's backside trying to be Politcally correct.
40kFSU wrote:
Dogma- Sorry, you still arent getting any better with the one liners.
I admit they weren't my best, but this entire argument has become so hackneyed its often difficult to put one's best foot forward.
rockerbikie wrote:
One of my friends in fact got raped by lesbians, the Police would not take her case seriously because she is a Nationalists Socialist. No investigation was ever done. Is this fair?
Sure, she had the option of not being a Nazi.
rockerbikie wrote: In these hard times, we need Countries like America to stand united but Liberalists can't wait until a state of Nation growth.
I like this. Liberals that are part of a nation should wait for national growth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
40kFSU wrote: Marriage has been consistent exactly because there has been a common foundation, religion.
rockerbikie wrote:I doubt there is a gay version of Apartheid anywhere in the world.
Any Muslim country, and much of the population of South Africa, simply kills homosexuals outright.
This is worse than apartheid. It's effectively genocide.
40kFSU wrote:Gays are not oppressed as blacks were.
In many countries, gay men are killed on sight, and lesbians are raped to "cure" them. Kinda like lynching of black men. Huh, I guess gays ARE oppressed! Even in the US, the hate spewed at homosexuals by the lawmakers of the various states is equivalent to the racist hate spewed by those who supported segregation.
40kFSU wrote:Gays have all the rights anyone else has, as they should. Civil unions confer all the rights of marriage.
Just like separate schools confer all of the same education to blacks as they did to whites!
40kFSU wrote:I think if proponents recognized our objections
Your objections ARE based off of hate. Thus, I recognize them as they hate messages they are.
dogma wrote:I'm still trying to figure out what the objections are.
I think Monster Rain pretty much covers it.
Of course, there's also those that pull from the bible, but that's actually rather worse considering that the bible has been changed over time for political reasons to attack homosexuals, witches, etc.
OH NOOOOOOOOO!!!! Dogma found the chart!! Everyone is gonna see!! Christianity is finished!!! Quick!! Lock the thread! Lock the thread!
Wait, wait, be cool, man. Stay cool, breathe. Ok.
Dogma, my friend, the bible is a historical document as well as a holy book. It talks about things that occurred in that time. Being the open minded person you are, I suggest you read the passages in the bible. You may better understand. In the meantime, you may want to try researching beyond whatever little brain anti christian bigot website you got that from.
Mellssia- What are you talking about? Do you have any idea what year it is? Have you walked down the street? Are you actually going to tell me gays are treated as blacks before civil rights? And again, my objections have nothing to do with hate. If thats all you see, its a sign of your own narrow minded thinking and squarely a you problem.
rockerbikie wrote:
One of my friends in fact got raped by lesbians, the Police would not take her case seriously because she is a Nationalists Socialist. No investigation was ever done.
I'm sure that before taking her report the first thing the cops asked was "are you now or have you ever been a National Socialist?" and then refused to do their duty based on her political affiliation.
dogma wrote:
This graphic is missing Woman+Woman from Ruth 1:14 where Ruth binds herself to Naomi in the eyes of god using the exact same language as the marriage between Adam and Eve...and the same vows that modern Christians use today...from a homosexual binding.
40kFSU wrote:
Dogma, my friend, the bible is a historical document as well as a holy book. It talks about things that occurred in that time. Being the open minded person you are, I suggest you read the passages in the bible. You may better understand. In the meantime, you may want to try researching beyond whatever little brain anti christian bigot website you got that from.
This is funny, because I'm a PK and I've been in and around the Church since I was born. I'm not even really hostile to Christianity, I've read the Bible numerous times, and own several versions of it. I've even gone on those favorites trips of heathen atheists, mission trips.
Outside that, I'm wondering how a document, featuring holy men, can talk about the marriages of said holy men without disrupting your claim that marriage is a constant. Also, why would Lord Eddard send Lannister men?
40kFSU wrote:
And again, my objections have nothing to do with hate.
40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- What are you talking about?
Let's see...
I might be talking about this. Or the fact that Saudi Arabia punishes homosexuality by death penalty. Iran punishes homosexuality by forced gender change or execution. Sudan, Yemen, Mauritania, Nigeria, Gambia, Somalia have similar laws.
And of course, there's always the list of counties that criminalize homosexuality, without using the death penalty Allow me to post the list: Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Comoros, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Burma, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, the Palestinian National Authority, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Trinidad, and Tobago.
Afghanistan had it criminalized until 2001, but homosexuals are still persecuted in that country without the use of the legal system. Same with India, who abolished its anti-gay penal code in 2009. Brazil has a large amount of homophobic violence even though it doesn't officially imprison homosexuals, as evidenced by the fact that there have been well over 3000 hate-motivated murders of homosexuals in the last thirty years there. When violent hate crimes ARE directed at homosexuals, they tend to be extremely brutal even compared to other forms of hate crime. Multiple stab wounds, mutilation, strangulation, and other forms of torture are frequently used. And homosexuals suffer a disproportionately large percent of hate crimes, especially violent ones, even in western countries (in Canada, about 10% of hate crimes are against homosexuals who make up an estimated 3-5% of the population, and more than half of them are classified as violent, compared to a third of the total of hate crimes).
Shall I go on, or are you going to stop living in denial? You don't know what the feth you're talking about.
40kFSU wrote:And again, my objections have nothing to do with hate.
What is PK? When I highlightwith the mouse it says powerclaw. If you say you are not hostile to Christianity and have done all those things, fine. Who am I to say you haven't? Im not spending another 4 pages repeating myself. My opinions and reasons are clearly spelled out above. If you do not wish to respect my opinion, so be it.
Oh for pete's sake Mellssia, I thought we were talking about gay marriage in the US. You are telling me the 3rd world is filled with ignorant knuckleheads? Well nice reporting scoop.
As I said to Dogma, I am quite direct about my opinions and beliefs. I refer you to the above 4 pages. If you think my faith is based in hate, thats not something I will be able to talk you out of. As far as proving it, I can't. You will just have to take my word for it.
40kFSU wrote:Oh for pete's sake Mellssia, I thought we were talking about gay marriage in the US.
I thought we were talking about you living in denial of the fact that homosexuals ARE oppressed.
Also, the original versions of the bible did not condemn homosexuality, but if you want to base your opinions off of the translations of a retranslated mistranslation that was translated with political and financial purposes in mind which itself was retranslated from a previous mistranslation, I guess I won't stop you.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Blessed by God. If someone of the same sex wants to have a civil union, fine. If they then want to tell people they are married, who cares. Words mean things. If you and the PK cant understand that, I got nothing more for you.
40kFSU wrote:OH NOOOOOOOOO!!!! Dogma found the chart!! Everyone is gonna see!! Christianity is finished!!! Quick!! Lock the thread! Lock the thread!
Wait, wait, be cool, man. Stay cool, breathe. Ok.
Dogma, my friend, the bible is a historical document as well as a holy book. It talks about things that occurred in that time. Being the open minded person you are, I suggest you read the passages in the bible. You may better understand. In the meantime, you may want to try researching beyond whatever little brain anti christian bigot website you got that from.
Mellssia- What are you talking about? Do you have any idea what year it is? Have you walked down the street? Are you actually going to tell me gays are treated as blacks before civil rights? And again, my objections have nothing to do with hate. If thats all you see, its a sign of your own narrow minded thinking and squarely a you problem.
You're a lunatic, you know that? You only choose to 'believe' in the parts of the bible that support your dark age prejudices, while disregarding everything else. Essentially, you'd fit in quite well at the Westboro Baptist Church.
People like you are the reason gay teenagers have the highest suicide rate of all demographics.
40kFSU wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Blessed by God. If someone of the same sex wants to have a civil union, fine. If they then want to tell people they are married, who cares. Words mean things. If you and the PK cant understand that, I got nothing more for you.
Except in the modern day marriage doesn't have to be blessed by the Gman as their are numerous secular marriages...
40kFSU wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Prove it.
40kFSU wrote:Blessed by God.
There are numerous churches who believe that god blesses marriages between members of the same sex. The bible has an example of this, in fact, as mentioned by AustinT.
40kFSU wrote:Words mean things.
Can you tell me what arsenokoite means without looking it up on the internet?
40kFSU wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Blessed by God. If someone of the same sex wants to have a civil union, fine. If they then want to tell people they are married, who cares. Words mean things. If you and the PK cant understand that, I got nothing more for you.
Yeah, totally, the guy with the degree in philosophy and political science (who also speaks 5 languages) isn't at all a stickler about the meaning of words.
So you admit defeat? I'm glad you have seen the light, that Jesus commanded of us but two things-- to love God with all our heart and all our mind and all our soul, and to love our neighbor as ourselves; to be a neighbor to every one, much as the Good Samaritan was.
Or are you backing off because you do not want to question your beleifs?
Mellssia- Look pal, I enjoy a good debate. Especially with, I am assuming, lefties like yall. But Im not going to get into some school yard "you hate this" "no I dont" "yes you do" back and forth nonsense. Thank you for for the testimonial.
40kFSU wrote:My opinions and reasons are clearly spelled out above.
As clear as a brick.
Had to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- Look pal, I enjoy a good debate. Especially with, I am assuming, lefties like yall. But Im not going to get into some school yard "you hate this" "no I dont" "yes you do" back and forth nonsense. Thank you for for the testimonial.
Look Mel, that's so cute he thinks I'm a leftie. They're so awkward at this age.
40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- Look pal, I enjoy a good debate.
Not as much as I do.
40kFSU wrote:Especially with, I am assuming, lefties like yall.
I'm a moderate right wing person (not an extremist laissez faire capitalista, mind you, but I do believe a properly regulated free market is the best thing for the economy that we humans have). Calling me a "lefty" is amusing ,but false. Or perhaps you were defining "lefty" as "someone who values the freedoms of others"? In which case, would that make you an authoritarian who values tyranny or somesuch? And wouldn't that make Jesus a lefty (in both ways)?
40kFSU wrote:But Im not going to get into some school yard "you hate this" "no I dont" "yes you do" back and forth nonsense.
So you're backing off because you refuse to question your beliefs? Hell I don't even know what they are at this point, I just have to guess based off of the loose, general statements you've made-- you haven't actually said anything concrete.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I once read an article written by gay men that argued that polygamy is the next step.
But he also said is gays got married divorce rates would sky rocket because gy men re used to being alone.
But no, Polygamy is a different ball game. It relegates women to nothing more then breeding machines that live to serve the husband. IF the man gets bored sexually, then he just gets another wife.
You are assuming that polygamy in this day and age would only be one man and plural wives; rather than one woman and plural husbands or plural husbands and wives. You know since we are talking about same sex marriage why not 6 husbands? or 4 husbands and 2 wives where the husbands are also married to each other...open thine horizons.
Mellssia we aren't debating we are arguing. We are spending more time going back and forth than talking about the issue. I have stated my opinion and why. You have told me my beliefs are based in hate and reject them. Then you say I haven't stated my beliefs. We are stuck because you refuse to accept someones moral beliefs as legitimate. Which is a you problem. I look forward to debating you on another thread in the future.
I kinda dont buy the right wing thing, but if you say so, who am I to disagree.
40kFSU wrote:AustonT- Wasnt talking about you sweet heart
Don't call me sweetheart unless you intend to marry me.
DoctorZombie wrote:
AustonT wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:I once read an article written by gay men that argued that polygamy is the next step.
But he also said is gays got married divorce rates would sky rocket because gy men re used to being alone.
But no, Polygamy is a different ball game. It relegates women to nothing more then breeding machines that live to serve the husband. IF the man gets bored sexually, then he just gets another wife.
You are assuming that polygamy in this day and age would only be one man and plural wives; rather than one woman and plural husbands or plural husbands and wives. You know since we are talking about same sex marriage why not 6 husbands? or 4 husbands and 2 wives where the husbands are also married to each other...open thine horizons.
40kFSU wrote:Lonelictor WTF are you talking about? Grow up man.
What a great comeback. You couldn't think of anything to counter what I said, so you chose to just insult me. Your irrational and homophobic have no place in the 21st century, sweetheart. You'd have done great in the Dark Ages though.
Came here to see what interesting people would crawl out of the woodwork.
Did not leave disappointed.
I truly can't fathom why people still have problems against gay marriage. It just baffles the mind.
I understand people are entitled to their opinions and all that free speech jazz Americans get so rattled about, but opponents of gay marriage have unhealthy opinions that harm others.
But you know, that's just,like, my opinion man.
I believe Melissia has voiced exactly how I feel, and why I feel it.
40kFSU wrote:Lonelictor- Really? I insulted you, huh. How old are you anyway? Is that it? Im sorry if I hurt your feelings kid.
Don't worry, you didn't hurt my feelings. I've been in so many pointless arguments with nutters on the Internet that they don't really matter to me anymore. As Sayid said in Lost, "I feel nothing." And then he killed some people for no reason. Great writing there.
What I was doing was point out that you couldn't counter any of my points. Evidently I hit a nerve when I pointed out that you only choose to 'believe' the parts of the Bible that reinforce your discriminatory beliefs. So, instead of trying to counter my point (like a normal person in a normal debate would) you got angry and insulted me. And now you're calling me 'kid'. If I had to guess who you were, I'd say you were a 14 year old punk indoctrinated in some crazy ass beliefs by redneck parents. I don't know you, so I can't say for sure, but that's what I'd guess.
40kFSU wrote:LoneLictor- Have a nice day, I hope Santa is good to you this year.
You don't even know how to argue with people. That's such a basic skill; how could you not have it? That's like never learning how to tie a knot or ride a bike.
40kFSU wrote:Mellssia we aren't debating we are arguing.
I'm debating.
40kFSU wrote:I have stated my opinion and why.
when?
40kFSU wrote:You have told me my beliefs are based in hate and reject them.
If they're based on the modern bible, which was translated, mistranslated retranslated, mistranslated, and then retranslated again for good measure? Yes. Want to know something amusing? The sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality. It was a lack of hospitality shown to the he guests-- the angels. This was a rather common theme amongst religions at the time, and Christianity was no different (take another look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan). Later translations continued the trend, even to the point where modern translations often have misstatements like saying that the women also felt homosexual desire towards the angels-- even though the angels were stated to be men in earlier paragraphs.
The first time people really began to use "Sodomy" or "the sin of Sodom" to refer to homosexuality was later on during the reign of Emperor Justinian, whom argued for the change to attack his political rivals. Same with many other things, such as the definitions of "Eunouchos" and "arsenokoites"-- what are these people that are labeled such? Originally, "eunouchos" referred to those who watch the wives when the husband was away (wives, plural), and they could only be trusted if they wee not interested in women to begin with, but it was also used as a slang term for homosexual, as "eunouchos" were associated with male femininity and other such things that were (and to some extent, still are) associated with gay men. Meanwhile "arsenokoites" was a word coined by Paul, and was used less than 100 times in the one thousand years since he created the word. We have no clue what it means, but given the contexts of its uses at the time, it definitely did not refer to homosexuality (one such use, if "arsenokoites" was translated to homosexuality, would result in a sentence of "many men even commit the sin of homosexuality with their wives"). For a long time, people thought it meant masturbation, in fact, as arsen is singular. At the time of Paul's writing, it probably meant prostitution in temples; to refer to homosexuality, Paul would probably have used "androkoites" or something similar*.
But later translations changed the meanings of these words, referring only to those who have been castrated for Eunouchos and to homosexuals (somehow also including women, even though arsenokoites itself only refers to men) for Arsenokoites. And so modern translations have silly things like "those who are born eunuchs".
*(And if we took "koites" to always mean sex, then "enotokoites" would be a ratherconfusing word involving someone having sex with their ears, rather than saying "they have big ears"... if you want to translate it literally, arsenokoites could just as easily mean couch potato The few uses found of the word could also refer to incest, rape of slaves, or simply rape in general, but it is mostly agreed that it refers to temple prostitution.)
Are you having fun yet? Although I worry now if I've left you behind. Hopefully the debate isn't too detailed for you
I think we should just find the gay rights thread that hits all the talking points and sticky it with the important parts bolded. These always go the same route, the same arguments are made against gay rights, the same rebuttals even. No matter how well you use facts some people just wont budge because they refuse facts for beliefs, or some people will not be subjected to someone else's religion due to facts or difference in culture. Why be so pushy, keep your religion to yourselves. And before someone says it, gays and lesbians are not forcing you to do anything except leave them alone. If they are pushing anything it is oppression off of them.
Here is a blog that I find interesting and it speaks directly to people opposing gay rights. I am sure some people will not even bother reading it as they refuse to acknowledge opposing views, but for the rest of you interested there you go.
40kFSU wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Blessed by God. If someone of the same sex wants to have a civil union, fine. If they then want to tell people they are married, who cares. Words mean things. If you and the PK cant understand that, I got nothing more for you.
Can you offer scientific, objective facts, or at the very least a rationale as to explain why Marriage, over all other institutions like Adoption, Tutel/curatel, or even Schooling, should be seen as sacred and elevated in the eyes of God? If you can't, your words are useless to carry any meaning, since that meaning is irrational or intuitive, and at that point we might as well remain beasts...
biccat wrote:Wait, you're asking for scientific, objective facts why something should be sacred in the eyes of God?
Really? Really?
I didn't see the word "should", it was kind* of you to add it though.
*Disingenuous and pathetic.
It's easy to miss stuff in these threads. I'm usually so beside myself with amusement that I miss a post here and there.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
40kFSU wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Blessed by God. If someone of the same sex wants to have a civil union, fine. If they then want to tell people they are married, who cares. Words mean things. If you and the PK cant understand that, I got nothing more for you.
Can you offer scientific, objective facts, or at the very least a rationale as to explain why Marriage, over all other institutions like Adoption, Tutel/curatel, or even Schooling, should be seen as sacred and elevated in the eyes of God? If you can't, your words are useless to carry any meaning, since that meaning is irrational or intuitive, and at that point we might as well remain beasts...
Having been to one gay wedding (which was pretty awesome and lots of fun and reflected the couple really well - also complete lack of satanic summonings, sacrafices of small children, etc), I think gay people should be able to get wed knowing hat they have the same rights as any straight couple should expet to have. Indeed the people conducting the ceromony and the owners of the venue said as much on several occasions.
Or a rationale. But yes. If someone say 'God's got a big boner for marriage', I'll ask where he got that info, or what makes him say that. If he can't offer acceptable proof, or an acceptable rationale which holds up against the known facts, then I'll simply reply that it's nothing more than his opinion, and a pretty silly one at that. The question remains : why Marriage and not Adoption? Have you any clue how freaking important the institution of Adoption has been under Roman Law and for the ancients? One act of ritualized adoption could save an entire ethnic group from death.
At this point 40kFSU, I assume your beliefs are "This book I read that 'God' wrote says this stuff is bad and immoral, so I say it is bad and immoral."
So when people come to you, tell you that your beliefs are bad and immoral and then show you evidence that the book you believe in so much has homosexual marriage in it, you back off and get very defensive. You refuse to continue the argument any further.
You really, at the point, have no leg to stand on.
PS: Also, I did call you a liar way back on page 2. Because what you said was a blatant lie.
Hello! I apologize for my absence. I have a family and a job. Must be nice to hang out all day. Of course Im sure everyone I am talking to is a multiple degree holding CEO. Ok, obviously all of the tolerant deep thinkers on Dakka are too scared of someone's faith to do anything besides do what they accuse me of doing. So, lets look at it like this.
You have Group A who hold a belief which is pretty old and based on their religion. Group B comes along and says they want to participate, but change some of the rules. Group A says sorry, cant change the rules, but we will set up something for you. The government steps in and forces the rules change regardless of Group A's wishes and against their beliefs.
Isnt Group B infringing on the rights of Group A?
Isnt Group B's rejection, off hand, of another groups beliefs bigoted?
Isnt Group B's automatic assumption and attack on Group A's morals bigoted?
rockerbikie wrote:You can't honestly compare those two. It is ridiculous.
The point being made is not Gay Rights = Black Rights.
It is the fact that objections used against gay marriage are the same as the objections that were against interracial marriage. (God Says No; It's Immoral.)
40kFSU wrote:Hello! I apologize for my absence. I have a family and a job. Must be nice to hang out all day. Of course Im sure everyone I am talking to is a multiple degree holding CEO.
That's cute. Clearly by stating such facts your argument becomes that much stronger. Its comical really, because it sounds like you have the opposite, needing to state it on an anonymous forum.
The rest of your argument is inherently flawed because the 'rules' of group A are based of poor understanding and selective reading in the first place. This has been shown multiple times in this thread, yet you continue to ignore it, for some unknown reason. You have yet to even acknowledge it.
And besides, what 'rights' do you speak of that are being infringed upon? The ability for gays to be wed under the same laws and tradition as heterosexual couples does not change the way in which straight couples may continue to be wed and live. This is not a zero-sum scenario where you have to sacrifice something in order for gays to be married.
40kFSU wrote:Hello! I apologize for my absence. I have a family and a job. Must be nice to hang out all day. Of course Im sure everyone I am talking to is a multiple degree holding CEO. Ok, obviously all of the tolerant deep thinkers on Dakka are too scared of someone's faith to do anything besides do what they accuse me of doing.
It's a Saturday, most of us probably have the weekend off. But nice try at bring people's education and employment into it, as if that had anything to do with it anyway.
And in further response, Group A didn't invent the belief nor do they hold a monopoly on it. It's not a belief, it's a very real aspect of culture/society that people wish to share, the belief aspect seems to be that some religious people think have sole rights to control it. Marriage was around before Christianity and Islam, no religion should be gifted the control over who in wider society has access to it. People of any faith or non-faith can get married, so why do you keep trying to hijack it as a sole concern of Christianity? Not even all christianity, there are lots of christians who support gay marriage.
No, Blacksails I have read all the so called research on this thread. I have even looked up a few cited verses. You are assuming all the stuff posted is accurate and in context. It isnt
But Im doing this wrong. How about someone tell me why we should change marriage. You guys want to change it, tell me why.
Automatically Appended Next Post: lord_blackfang- Please. If you havent seen all my posts. Get a new monitor. I am secure and dont need to convince or brow beat people over the internet all day long to feel smart.
Ok, obviously the OTF isnt for me. I cant argue all day long and if you guys think 4 pages of responses isn't a legitimate amount of discussion. Wow.
I am shocked at the knee jerk bigotry and hatred for religion here.
I see, once again, you avoid actually arguing the points I raised.
Could it be that you are, as I have said, afraid of challenging your viewoints?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
40kFSU wrote:How about someone tell me why we should change marriage
To give equal rights to consenting adults who are just like everyone else with the sole exception that they happen to be sexually attracted to the same gender (or both genders). Preventing gay marriage isn't going to stop them from being gay, and allowing it will not harm the validity of anyone else's marriage or destroy the sanctity of marriage (certainly any more than we already have, hello there elvis priest giving drive by weddings to drunk hillbillies who happen to be cousins and will divorce two months after the marriage because one of them had sex with their other cousin and got knocked up by it).
You know, just like giving equal rights to consenting adults who just so happen to be of different races.
What points would that be? Mistranslations and a lack of hospitality? You keep talking about all this but it doesnt move the ball. You keep saying my opinions make me a hate filled moron. How do you expect any kind of a discussion?
On my viewpoints, I have arrived at mine as you have arrived at yours. Thought and research and conscience. I don't twist off and attack people character if I disagree. As you do.
Ok, cool. If Civil Unions confer those rights without changing marriage, why not?
40kFSU wrote:No, Blacksails I have read all the so called research on this thread. I have even looked up a few cited verses. You are assuming all the stuff posted is accurate and in context. It isnt
But Im doing this wrong. How about someone tell me why we should change marriage. You guys want to change it, tell me why.
Automatically Appended Next Post: lord_blackfang- Please. If you havent seen all my posts. Get a new monitor. I am secure and dont need to convince or brow beat people over the internet all day long to feel smart.
Ok, obviously the OTF isnt for me. I cant argue all day long and if you guys think 4 pages of responses isn't a legitimate amount of discussion. Wow.
I am shocked at the knee jerk bigotry and hatred for religion here.
It doesn't need to change at all. 2 people get married. the end. Those two now have all the same government granted rights as any other 2 people who get married.
The real question is why you think you can tell other people who are not of your faith, and could care less about what your book says, that they can't enjoy the same government ran program as someone else.
40kFSU wrote:Blacksails, I dont hate gays, never said I do. Grow up.
Sirlynchmob its not a government program.
It is now, no matter what your religion or lack their of, the first thing you need to do is go to the court house and get a license. IE government approval.
40kFSU wrote:You keep saying my opinions make me a hate filled moron.
No, I did not. Stop lying to try to make yourself feel better.
40kFSU wrote:How do you expect any kind of a discussion?
I calmly and politely raised several etymological and theological points in an attempt to put up a fair debate, but I never made any assumption that you would be willing to discuss anything.
40kFSU wrote:Ok, cool. If Civil Unions confer those rights without changing marriage, why not?
The Supreme Court of the United States has long since ruled that separate but equal in law is not equal in practice.
40kFSU wrote:You have Group A who hold a belief which is pretty old and based on their religion. Group B comes along and says they want to participate, but change some of the rules. Group A says sorry, cant change the rules, but we will set up something for you. The government steps in and forces the rules change regardless of Group A's wishes and against their beliefs.
Isnt Group B infringing on the rights of Group A? question 1)
Isnt Group B's rejection, off hand, of another groups beliefs bigoted? question 2)
Isnt Group B's automatic assumption and attack on Group A's morals bigoted? question 3)
I await your answers little brains.
1) No, because you have no right to define Marriage based on traditionnal value.
2) Possibly, depends what way the rejection is done
3) Again, possibly, depending on how reprehensible are the values and norms used to reject the belief.
40kFSU wrote:I politely direct your attention to the posts on the previous pages. You know, the ones you say I havent read.
You mean all the posts that have nothing stating anyone hated religion or what it stood for?
You mean all the posts that have pointed out why your point of view is based on false assumptions and unnecessarily hurts and segregates gays?
When you drop lines like this:
40kFSU wrote:I am shocked at the knee jerk bigotry and hatred for religion here.
It insults everyone, essentially calling all of us bigots and hate religion, which is untrue. Hence why I returned the favour to you, to demonstrate how childish and pointless it was for to state the above line.
Mellssia, buddy, page 4, half way down. You said all my beliefs are based on hate. Now that is hardly the worst of the little brain attacks, but there it is. And it counts.
I invite you to read my posts again if you think I havent said anything concrete.
You are right, SCOTUS said separate but equal is not equal. That was regarding separate rules for citizens which set up 2 of everything. Because separate is not functionally equal. The Civil Unions are not the same thing. The are effectively marriage under a different name.
Fair enough Kovnik, if thats what you think thats what you think.
40kFSU wrote:Mellssia, buddy, page 4, half way down.
Do try to pay attention. I even put it in bold for your benefit.
40kFSU wrote:You keep saying my opinions make me a hate filled moron.
I never called you a moron . Do not lie to yourself and try to think that I did.
40kFSU wrote:You are right, SCOTUS said separate but equal is not equal. That was regarding separate rules for citizens which set up 2 of everything. Because separate is not functionally equal. The Civil Unions are not the same thing. The are effectively marriage under a different name.
IE, separate.
But not equal.
And since I am arguing for equality, and you have yet to give a valid reason why they should not be equal... well, I suppose that means you have no leg to stand on.
Mellssia, you write very well, I assume you are an educated person. You know you have been calling me a moron without using the word. But its cool, when one steps into the arena of ideas one should be ready. I dont take it personally.
Ok, you say its not equal. Ok, cool. Is there a way to make them equal? If on the top of a certificate the write civil union instead of marriage is it really different or separate?
40kFSU wrote:a belief which is pretty old and based on their religion.
No, marriage predates Christianity. The bible doesn't say "Hey guys, got this great idea, why don't we make a man and woman sign a contract type thing that means they'll stay together. We'll call it barrage? carriage? marriage! Marriage."
40kFSU wrote:Mellssia, you write very well, I assume you are an educated person. You know you have been calling me a moron without using the word. But its cool, when one steps into the arena of ideas one should be ready. I dont take it personally.
40kFSU wrote:Mellssia, you write very well, I assume you are an educated person. You know you have been calling me a moron without using the word.
No, I haven't called you stupid. I have called you a liar; or more accurately, a deceitful person who attempts to bring up a debate while having no intention of debating.
If you had a well-grounded objections to homosexual marriage, you would have given it by now. Obviosuly it is not a religious argument, as you have dodged the points I raised about your religious views. Obviously it is not a legal argument, as you dodged the points I raised about the legal status. Obviously it's not a moral view, as you dodged that subject as well.
You seem to be afraid to defend your viewpoints-- perhaps you realize that they will not hold up under scrutiny?
40kFSU wrote:
Sirlynchmob its not a government program.
it sure is, can you get married without a license? Nope
Can you get married without religion? Yep.
There you have it. Its a matter between two people and their government. It doesn't matter a bit what your bible says on the subject. If you don't like it, don't do it. If your god says don't do it, then its up to you not to do it. Passing laws to restrict other peoples freedom is discrimination.
sirlynchmob wrote:
It is a matter between two people and their government. It doesn't matter a bit what your bible says on the subject. If you don't like it, don't do it. If your God says don't do it, then its up to you not to do it. Passing laws to restrict other peoples freedom is discrimination.
The grammar Nazi in me slightly modified your post. This summarizes the entire gay marriage debate to be both constitutionally and morally correct. also known as: +1
40kFSU wrote:dael- You are right, which is why I dont think modern politics should redefine it.
Politics has consistently redefined marriage as it suited it, otherwise there would be no such thing as divorce. Marriage like morality is a fluid idea which has to redefine itself as society changes. How many of the married posters on here received a dowry? or consider their wife property?
40kFSU wrote:Ok, we were talking about the court and civil unions
We were also talking about your religious views and why the religious basis for your homophobic views is not from the original text of the bible, and thus is not the word of god, it is the words of those who want to use the bible for political and financial reasons. But you evaded that with a limp-wristed hand-wave.
But given that marriage IS a federally institution, it must be applied equally; the federal government cannot discriminate based off of religious bias. After all, many religious institutions would gladly marry homosexuals. What you are suggesting is that the beliefs of these churches should be held to be unequal in the eyes of the law to those of your church.
40kFSU wrote:dael- You are right, which is why I dont think modern politics should redefine it.
Politics has consistently redefined marriage as it suited it, otherwise there would be no such thing as divorce. Marriage like morality is a fluid idea which has to redefine itself as society changes. How many of the married posters on here received a dowry?
Man I wish! Her parents should have had to pay me to put up with this much crazy...I kid...mostly.
Mellssia- Ok, if you cant continue on with the unions vs. marriage line we are done. Im have no need to defend my religion against someone who premise I fundamentally disagree with and is silly.
40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- Ok, if you cant continue on with the unions vs. marriage line
Please read my posts before responding.
I quote, for your benefit:
Melissia wrote:But given that marriage IS a federally institution, it must be applied equally; the federal government cannot discriminate based off of religious bias. After all, many religious institutions would gladly marry homosexuals. What you are suggesting is that the beliefs of these churches should be held to be unequal in the eyes of the law to those of your church.
This is very specifically discussing the marriage vs civil union issue.
40kFSU wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that opposition to gay marriage may be based on legitimate religious or personal views that have nothing to do with hate or nazi's?
Has it occured to anyone that you have no right to force your religion on anyone? Doesn't the US Constitution (that piece of paper you Americans are always going on about ) guarantee freedom of worship?
So you are free to worship your god and the guy over there is free to worship a picture of a cat riding a tortoise.
So all the homosexual community need to do is get homosexuality and same sex marriage recognised as a religion. Once they hit that bullseye the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
A Town Called Malus wrote:So all the homosexual community need to do is get homosexuality and same sex marriage recognised as a religion. Once they hit that bullseye the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
There are already numerous churches taht support gay marriage and are willing to marry homosexual couples.
A Town Called Malus wrote:So all the homosexual community need to do is get homosexuality and same sex marriage recognised as a religion. Once they hit that bullseye the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
Hopefully that will work for file sharing with Kopimism.
A Town Called Malus wrote:So all the homosexual community need to do is get homosexuality and same sex marriage recognised as a religion. Once they hit that bullseye the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
There are already numerous churches taht support gay marriage and are willing to marry homosexual couples.
I know that but I was just saying that if homosexuality were to be recognised as its own religion (instead of trying to make it acceptable to other religions) and make marriage a central part of that religion then Constitutionally speaking the government and every state in the union would be forced to recognise same sex couples who got married.
It would be either that or go against one of the main parts of the guidelines the whole country is based on.
40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- Really, so a federal institution. Not a religious institution. I guess DOMA it is.
Malus- Welcome sir.
I have other obligations for the rest of the night. Everyone enjoy your weekend.
DOMA is already unconstitutional, its already been challenged, its days are numbered. Glad you finally accept it as a federal program and not a religious one.
40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- Ok, if you cant continue on with the unions vs. marriage line we are done. Im have no need to defend my religion against someone who premise I fundamentally disagree with and is silly.
You can can your civil union argument. It is not equal, it is not even comparable. Marriage is not protected by religion so you have no need to defend a legal, and civil institution by attempting to use your religion as a shield. It's like saying God told you to kill someone as a defense at a murder trial. It's insane and it doesn't work. Aside from that you haven't bothered to even demonstrate what if any part of your religion defends only heterosexual and monogamous marriage.
now.org paraphrased wrote:
According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government alone. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status only for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. The United States Constitution requires legal equality for all.
It's about impact. It took me like 15 seconds to take in Dogma's poster thingy. 30 more to confirm it's accuracy. It took me 4 minutes to watch your movie...plus it didn't have immediate impact I knew going in it was a movie I could avoid.
Good either way...just not better.
40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- Really, so a federal institution. Not a religious institution. I guess DOMA it is.
The defense of marriage act is unconstitutional, and has been thrown out in the courts. The decision has been appealed several times now, and is upheld.
From a civil standpoint, there is no rational basis for the defense of marriage act.
40kFSU wrote:sirlynchmob- sarcasm. Good night sir.
Anyone else getting tired of him telling us "see ya!, got to go" and then coming back?
FFS stay gone when you say "bye", or don't keep telling us bye! And make some valid
points when you do show back up.
To become a Notary Public, I took a test and paid about 90 bucks for a stamp. In the State of Florida I can charge up to 10 dollars to marry people.
Would I? Most Likely not since it's more of a pain than anything else.
To recap: Some 20 year old, that took a test and paid 90 bucks to the Govt can make you and your GF Man and Wife for 10 bucks. If anything, I would think there would be more outrage over that destroying the sanctity of Marriage then who can marry who.
Iur_tae_mont wrote:Just wanted to throw this out there for fun.
At age 20, I became a Notary Public
To become a Notary Public, I took a test and paid about 90 bucks for a stamp. In the State of Florida I can charge up to 10 dollars to marry people.
To recap: Some 20 year old, that took a test and paid 90 bucks to the Govt can make you and your GF Man and Wife for 10 bucks. If anything, I would think there would be more outrage over that destroying the sanctity of Marriage then who can marry who.
If you happened to be a Gay/Lesbian Notary, you betcha!
Iur_tae_mont wrote:To recap: Some 20 year old, that took a test and paid 90 bucks to the Govt can make you and your GF Man and Wife for 10 bucks. If anything, I would think there would be more outrage over that destroying the sanctity of Marriage then who can marry who.
If you happened to be a Gay/Lesbian Notary, you betcha!
I can just hear the screams now. "THE GAYS ARE COMING, THE GAYS ARE COMING!"
Iur_tae_mont wrote:Just wanted to throw this out there for fun.
At age 20, I became a Notary Public
To become a Notary Public, I took a test and paid about 90 bucks for a stamp. In the State of Florida I can charge up to 10 dollars to marry people.
To recap: Some 20 year old, that took a test and paid 90 bucks to the Govt can make you and your GF Man and Wife for 10 bucks. If anything, I would think there would be more outrage over that destroying the sanctity of Marriage then who can marry who.
If you happened to be a Gay/Lesbian Notary, you betcha!
Might be a problem then. Once upon a time, I was waiting for the right girl, Now I'll settle for anyone that can stand to be around me long enough to watch a movie.
"The board of the N.A.A.C.P. voted to endorse same-sex marriage on Saturday, putting the weight of the country’s most prominent civil rights group behind a cause that has long divided some quarters of the black community. "
"The board of the N.A.A.C.P. voted to endorse same-sex marriage on Saturday, putting the weight of the country’s most prominent civil rights group behind a cause that has long divided some quarters of the black community. "
Will I ever get married? Probably not, I've never met Mr right.
Would I like the oppiton to get married? Yes, I'd like that fundrmental right.
Those that say no are being homophobic (to say it is not is just slilly and I have experiance with them scumbags).
Why should the likes of me (I tred an even finer line that the gays and lesbans) offend them and their small minds.
What would happen if we were to be married? Would the sky burn and the seas boil? Would birds fly backwards and and fish swamp the land? Would the world end?
Me thinks not.
So where is the harm, as far as I can see there is none, be sides we the LGBT (please don't forget the T) are just going to wait untill we have had enough and the second War of Stonewall happens
Ribon Fox wrote: What would happen if we were to be married? Would the sky burn and the seas boil? Would birds fly backwards and and fish swamp the land? Would the world end? Me thinks not.
So where is the harm, as far as I can see there is none, be sides we the LGBT (please don't forget the T) are just going to wait untill we have had enough and the second War of Stonewall happens
According to Princess Clara from Drawn Together, gay marriage will make the Nazis come back riding dinosaurs
I still say it wouldn't. Besides think of all the money it would make for the tax office Money trumps a mythical monster in the sky watching every thing you do
When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers. (The next most common negative images? : “judgmental,” “hypocritical,” and “too involved in politics.”)
Heh. Shh, don't let Biccat see this, he'll go on a crusade about "antichristians" or some nonsense.
But I think this is most pertinent...
We are tired of fighting, tired of vain efforts to advance the Kingdom through politics and power, tired of drawing lines in the sand, tired of being known for what we are against, not what we are for.
And this is probably why I rarely call myself a "Christian", even though it might be an accurate statement (What with me being a baptized Texan who finds herself regularly studying theology and the bible on her own free time).
If I had to describe myself I'd say I'm more of a Christ-follower than a Christian. Christianity's churches are associating themselves with hate, fighting, war, violence, politics, and other such non-sense too much...
Interesting read and a quick one so will not be much TLDR. It is a bit more on the OP's topic.
Good stuff.
Personally though, even if the Christian Church wasn't so adamant and politically active I would still disagree with their beliefs to the extent that I cannot consider their religion to be appealing at all.
For my two cents I say why fight for something that costs $30 bucks to get into and thousands to get out of?
That aside, love, no Love is the rarest commodity on earth, more valuable than gold, platinum, or power even. If two people fall in love who am I to say they cannot enjoy the same protections that my ex-wife and I enjoyed? Marriage is now a more civil than religious ceremony in the eyes of Western culture. I am going to propose this: Married in front of a judge, magistrate, or justice of the peace? It's a civil union (be it one of each, or two of the same). The license gets filed at the courthouse, done. Get married at Church by a preacher? It's a marriage (be it one of each, or two of the same). License filed at the courthouse, the State calls it a civil union, both get equal protection under the law.
The Diocese I am in is going to start blessing homosexual marriages. So far this has caused hardly a murmur (other than the shouting match I got in with a Baptist on the subject). As this is a conservative church in a conservative diocese - Progress!
I think what everyone NEEDS to do is take a breath, and then a look. I am a Catholic, we worship God, who is also Christ. In the new Testament, Christ freed us from the old laws, meaning most of what was the insanity of Leviticus.
Do i think marriage between people of the same gender, inanimate objects, or animals should be called "Civil - Union", yeah, i think so but when it comes to decisions like that on an intensely personal level, should be that persons business and or problem, i have no involvement in their lives, so therefore no weight on what they'd like to do. If they were my direct family, sure, maybe i would have some effect but they're not, same deal with abortion, i'm not a woman, nor do i know these women, but if it were my daughter, i would weigh in for one way or the other.
So, people can just leave me, my faith, my money, and my family out of their decisions as well, just let me go and live my life!
Telling supporters of gay marriage to calm down and then comparing homosexuality to bestiality is like saying "calm down, you FETHING BASTARDS", IE, it's inherently contradictory.
I would first like to say I am completely for gay marriage, if it were up to me I'd legalize it across the country. However, it really bothers me when people complain and rage against people whose opinions differ from theirs. I'm referring to posts in this thread. Just because you're offended by someone's opinion doesn't mean it's the wrong opinion, or that they're bad people. It's just a differing opinion.
I am back from taking care of my 12 adopted kids, the 14 dogs I saved, and 9 of my own children.* I barely have time for this topic.
But now that I have gotten away from them for a few minutes, I see this topic has gotten entertaining, as 40kFSU just continues to close his eyes and say "NAHNAHNAHNAH!"
Dreadwinter wrote:I am back from taking care of my 12 adopted kids, the 14 dogs I saved, and 9 of my own children.* I barely have time for this topic.
But now that I have gotten away from them for a few minutes, I see this topic has gotten entertaining, as 40kFSU just continues to close his eyes and say "NAHNAHNAHNAH!"
40kFSU wrote:
Dogma- Sorry, you still arent getting any better with the one liners.
I admit they weren't my best, but this entire argument has become so hackneyed its often difficult to put one's best foot forward.
rockerbikie wrote:
One of my friends in fact got raped by lesbians, the Police would not take her case seriously because she is a Nationalists Socialist. No investigation was ever done. Is this fair?
Sure, she had the option of not being a Nazi.
rockerbikie wrote: In these hard times, we need Countries like America to stand united but Liberalists can't wait until a state of Nation growth.
I like this. Liberals that are part of a nation should wait for national growth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
40kFSU wrote: Marriage has been consistent exactly because there has been a common foundation, religion.
So, using your logic, it is ok to rape nazis. Nice view. Kinda bias though.
Melissia wrote:Telling supporters of gay marriage to calm down and then comparing homosexuality to bestiality is like saying "calm down, you FETHING BASTARDS", IE, it's inherently contradictory.
That explains why it never has the desired effect when I gently remind the childrens that my yard has hazards and is not a good place to play on.
Melissia wrote:Telling supporters of gay marriage to calm down and then comparing homosexuality to bestiality is like saying "calm down, you FETHING BASTARDS", IE, it's inherently contradictory.
That explains why it never has the desired effect when I gently remind the childrens that my yard has hazards and is not a good place to play on.
It would also help if you were not letting the Weiner Legions out of your house while saying it.....
Melissia wrote:Telling supporters of gay marriage to calm down and then comparing homosexuality to bestiality is like saying "calm down, you FETHING BASTARDS", IE, it's inherently contradictory.
That explains why it never has the desired effect when I gently remind the childrens that my yard has hazards and is not a good place to play on.
It would also help if you were not letting the Weiner Legions out of your house while saying it.....
It not the old wienie you can see that is the danger. Its the young wiener quietly sneaking up behind you that is the NOM!NOM!NOM! OH GOD SO MUCH BLOOD!
Frazzled wrote:It not the old wienie you can see that is the danger. Its the young wiener quietly sneaking up behind you that is the NOM!NOM!NOM! OH GOD SO MUCH BLOOD!
apparently the biggest danger is someone with a weiner trying to marry another person with a weiner.
But seriously ...i dunno why this issue matters at all. The simplest solution is to make all unions between partners civil unions. If you wish to get married (which lets face it is a religious rite) you can take it up with a priest, rabbi, reverend, imam ect. Therefore all peoples are equal under civil law whilst keeping the use of marriage palatable to those religious people, who want to take issue with gay marriage. Problem solved. Bullockist....solving stupid problems since 2012.
starhawks wrote:I would first like to say I am completely for gay marriage, if it were up to me I'd legalize it across the country. However, it really bothers me when people complain and rage against people whose opinions differ from theirs. I'm referring to posts in this thread. Just because you're offended by someone's opinion doesn't mean it's the wrong opinion, or that they're bad people. It's just a differing opinion.
If your opinions are racists, then you are a racist.
If your opinions are sexist, then you are a sexist.
If you opinions are bigoted, then you are a bigot.
Sirlynchmob you are very aptly named. Remember that peoples opinions are not black and white and vary from person to person. Getting anal about stuff leads very quickly to thinking your right about things which in the end leads to being a bigot (even if you think your opinions are "right")
Bullockist wrote:Sirlynchmob you are very aptly named. Remember that peoples opinions are not black and white and vary from person to person. Getting anal about stuff leads very quickly to thinking your right about things which in the end leads to being a bigot (even if you think your opinions are "right")
I'm glad you agree, that their are right and wrong opinions.
Frazzled wrote:It not the old wienie you can see that is the danger. Its the young wiener quietly sneaking up behind you that is the NOM!NOM!NOM! OH GOD SO MUCH BLOOD!
apparently the biggest danger is someone with a weiner trying to marry another person with a weiner.
But seriously ...i dunno why this issue matters at all. The simplest solution is to make all unions between partners civil unions. If you wish to get married (which lets face it is a religious rite) you can take it up with a priest, rabbi, reverend, imam ect. Therefore all peoples are equal under civil law whilst keeping the use of marriage palatable to those religious people, who want to take issue with gay marriage. Problem solved. Bullockist....solving stupid problems since 2012.
I did not have a religious wedding (shock horror I know ) but why can't I be 'married' just because I don't have an imaginary friend? What exactly makes that the sole property of the religious?]
SilverMK2 wrote:I did not have a religious wedding (shock horror I know ) but why can't I be 'married' just because I don't have an imaginary friend? What exactly makes that the sole property of the religious?]
Do you also wonder why you can't take communion or have a bar mitzvah?
Personally, I'd respect gay marriage proponents a lot more if they would advocate for polygamy.
SilverMK2 wrote:I did not have a religious wedding (shock horror I know ) but why can't I be 'married' just because I don't have an imaginary friend? What exactly makes that the sole property of the religious?]
Do you also wonder why you can't take communion or have a bar mitzvah?
Personally, I'd respect gay marriage proponents a lot more if they would advocate for polygamy.
The term marriage is not reserved for those who follow the Bible, be it old or new testament. Hindus can also get married and there is nothing in their holy texts (which pre-date the Bible) which forbids marriage between a homosexual couple.
I say by all means allow polygamy so long as the man/woman is fully capable of supporting their husbands/wives emotionally, financially and physically.
SilverMK2 wrote:I did not have a religious wedding (shock horror I know ) but why can't I be 'married' just because I don't have an imaginary friend? What exactly makes that the sole property of the religious?]
Do you also wonder why you can't take communion or have a bar mitzvah?
Personally, I'd respect gay marriage proponents a lot more if they would advocate for polygamy.
if you want to marry more than one wife, go for it. others have already done so. but no one is currently trying to change constitutions to specifically ban the the states recognition of them, that's the difference here.
why can't have a bar mitzvah if you'd like, Its just a big part when you turn 13.
If everyone starts having a big bar mitvah party when their kids turn 13 do you think they jews would push for laws to ban the practice? I doubt it.
A communion is just a feast, you could call thanksgiving, or christmas dinners communions if you'd like. or any dinner party really.
hotsauceman1 wrote:First thing we need when we get a time machine is to go back int time. Get Jesus, and bring him here to tell everyone how we have gotten his teaching.
Then we get a gak load of water bottles and have a huge partay!!
sirlynchmob wrote:if you want to marry more than one wife, go for it. others have already done so. but no one is currently trying to change constitutions to specifically ban the the states recognition of them, that's the difference here.
Likely because there hasn't been any push to make polygamy legal in those states.
Also, polygamy is at least a misdemeanor throughout the US. And a felony in many.
Let me know when they criminalize gay marriage and we can have a discussion.
sirlynchmob wrote:if you want to marry more than one wife, go for it. others have already done so. but no one is currently trying to change constitutions to specifically ban the the states recognition of them, that's the difference here.
Likely because there hasn't been any push to make polygamy legal in those states.
Also, polygamy is at least a misdemeanor throughout the US. And a felony in many.
Let me know when they criminalize gay marriage and we can have a discussion.
you can marry a wife, so you're one up on the gays and 1/2 way to a polygamous marriage. Let me know when a man married to another man gets elected to the senate. These are two different issues. the gays just want marriage equality, so they can marry the person they love.
but the polygamy/polyandry issue is interesting in itself, you think it should be part of the gay rights movement, yet I would think it would be the christians pushing for it. It is supported by the bible after all.
but here you go:
Tom Green is an American polygamist. This month, he will appeal his conviction in Utah for that offense to the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could redefine the limits of marriage, privacy and religious freedom.
sirlynchmob wrote:the gays just want marriage equality, so they can marry the person they love.
So do polygamists.
sirlynchmob wrote:but the polygamy/polyandry issue is interesting in itself, you think it should be part of the gay rights movement
If it's wrong to limit marriage to a man-woman couple, why isn't it equally wrong to limit marriage to 2 people? Consistency of the argument requires supporting polygamy.
sirlynchmob wrote:Tom Green is an American polygamist. This month, he will appeal his conviction in Utah for that offense to the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could redefine the limits of marriage, privacy and religious freedom.
And cert. will probably be denied.
Nobody is advocating for polygamy because it's not popular. That's all.
sirlynchmob wrote:the gays just want marriage equality, so they can marry the person they love.
So do polygamists.
sirlynchmob wrote:but the polygamy/polyandry issue is interesting in itself, you think it should be part of the gay rights movement
If it's wrong to limit marriage to a man-woman couple, why isn't it equally wrong to limit marriage to 2 people? Consistency of the argument requires supporting polygamy.
sirlynchmob wrote:Tom Green is an American polygamist. This month, he will appeal his conviction in Utah for that offense to the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could redefine the limits of marriage, privacy and religious freedom.
And cert. will probably be denied.
Nobody is advocating for polygamy because it's not popular. That's all.
nice hatchet job on my post, and again they are two different issues. That is all.
starhawks wrote:I would first like to say I am completely for gay marriage, if it were up to me I'd legalize it across the country. However, it really bothers me when people complain and rage against people whose opinions differ from theirs. I'm referring to posts in this thread. Just because you're offended by someone's opinion doesn't mean it's the wrong opinion, or that they're bad people. It's just a differing opinion.
If your opinions are racists, then you are a racist.
If your opinions are sexist, then you are a sexist.
If you opinions are bigoted, then you are a bigot.
There are right and wrong opinions.
Right, but they are opinions, and those opposing gay marriage are completely entitled to their opinion. Even though I personally disagree, I don't have the right to say they're wrong. It would be hypocritical.
starhawks wrote:I would first like to say I am completely for gay marriage, if it were up to me I'd legalize it across the country. However, it really bothers me when people complain and rage against people whose opinions differ from theirs. I'm referring to posts in this thread. Just because you're offended by someone's opinion doesn't mean it's the wrong opinion, or that they're bad people. It's just a differing opinion.
If your opinions are racists, then you are a racist.
If your opinions are sexist, then you are a sexist.
If you opinions are bigoted, then you are a bigot.
There are right and wrong opinions.
Right, but they are opinions, and those opposing gay marriage are completely entitled to their opinion. Even though I personally disagree, I don't have the right to say they're wrong. It would be hypocritical.
and if they state an opinion that is known to be wrong, you should point it out to them. Or is it hypocritical to point out to people who think the earth is flat, that its really not?
If it was just their opinion that's one thing, but those people who think gay marriage is wrong, are acting on their wrong opinions and discriminating against other americans. Just because they think its wrong should not lead to a bigoted campaign against a minority group in america, and taking it to the point where they are modifying constitutions just to discriminate against them. Its wrong, its horribly wrong. No two consenting adults should have to ask permission to get married, and the government should have no power to say no to anyone for any reason.
Its really no different from when that same religion said interracial marriages are wrong. they were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
My litmus test is "does it hurt anyone"
who does two same sex couples marrying hurt? no one.
Who does it hurt when they are forbidden to marry by constitution? anyone who is kicked out of a hospital room when their partner is dying. being denied the 1,049 other benefits the government grants married couples.
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm "The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them. "
just think about it a minute and ask yourself.
"when I go/went to get married, what if the government told me no, that I couldn't marry this person" is that ok with you? Do you really think the government should have this power? If you think its wrong if its done to you then its wrong for any american.
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I would like to see gay marriage legalized? Take, for example, if someone was opposed to gay marriage because it conflicts with their religion. I have no right whatsoever to say their belief is wrong, and they're bad people for it. It's just not right. That being said, I DO feel the goverment has no right to say some people have rights while others don't based on sexual preference, and people who feel otherwise should just have to live with it.
starhawks wrote:Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I would like to see gay marriage legalized? Take, for example, if someone was opposed to gay marriage because it conflicts with their religion. I have no right whatsoever to say their belief is wrong, and they're bad people for it. It's just not right. That being said, I DO feel the goverment has no right to say some people have rights while others don't based on sexual preference, and people who feel otherwise should just have to live with it.
Sure you do, if someone voices an opinion on something, you are free to state your opinion on it. And if they have a opinion that is wrong, you should tell them they are wrong. And time permitting you should start pulling up all the facts you need to demonstrate them to be wrong.
starhawks wrote:Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I would like to see gay marriage legalized? Take, for example, if someone was opposed to gay marriage because it conflicts with their religion. I have no right whatsoever to say their belief is wrong, and they're bad people for it. It's just not right. That being said, I DO feel the goverment has no right to say some people have rights while others don't based on sexual preference, and people who feel otherwise should just have to live with it.
Sure you do, if someone voices an opinion on something, you are free to state your opinion on it. And if they have a opinion that is wrong, you should tell them they are wrong. And time permitting you should start pulling up all the facts you need to demonstrate them to be wrong.
This. An opinion which you are using in this kind of way (denying people rights) should be based on facts and evidence and be open to change if the facts and evidence change.
The opinion of gay marriage being wrong is completely different to the opinion of "X is the prettiest woman in the world" unless we lived in a society where the prettiest person got tax breaks and more legal rights than an just average looking person.
starhawks wrote:Well I guess we have....different opinions on opinions.
So would you say that someone who holds the opinion that all jews must be killed for the sake of Allah is right, because it's an opinion and cannot be wrong?
starhawks wrote:Well I guess we have....different opinions on opinions.
So would you say that someone who holds the opinion that all jews must be killed for the sake of Allah is right, because it's an opinion and cannot be wrong?
If it's truly their opinion, sure, they can knock themselves out. Lucky for the free world not enough people have that opinion for it to come to fruition. I personally don't think it's right, but I don't have the right to say they can't have that opinion. That's all I'm saying.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion however stupid it may be. But an opinion religious or not is not protected from ridicule. Also when someone's opinion on something prevents others from doing it despite it not being harmful to anyone this is not right and should be accepted.
Would you think it was fair if Muslims and Jews wanted to ban bacon because their religion prevents them from eating it?
Also marriage was around way before Christianity and Christianity does not have a monopoly on it.
starhawks wrote:If it's truly their opinion, sure, they can knock themselves out. Lucky for the free world not enough people have that opinion for it to come to fruition.
Here's my opinion. I endorse gay marriage, and I am against anyone who thinks gay marriage should remain illegal, because..well I don't like their opinion.
And stoning for adultery.
