Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

You really are massively conceited aren't you?

40kFSU wrote:Fair enough Kovnik, if thats what you think thats what you think.

You know that that's an admission of loss, in a debate, right?

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

Yeah...I have a hard time believing it too

dael- You are right, which is why I dont think modern politics should redefine it.

Howard- Im just saying I am a big boy and not made of glass. I am not taking personally all the back and forth.

Kovnik- No, its an admission you have an opinion not based on "Christians and 40kFSU suck and are hate mongers".

Mellssia- Im sorry, I thought we were close to a real conversation. Calling me a liar is worse or deceitful is worse.

Srilynchmob- Ok dude. If you thing marriage is like foodstamps or welfare or the park service, Ok. Im not sure what to say about that.

40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- Im sorry, I thought we were close to a real conversation. Calling me a liar is worse or deceitful is worse.

I WAS giving you real conversation.

But you have yet to reciprocate.

Ok, we were talking about the court and civil unions. You were telling me why a union is different from a marriage even if all rights are the same.

Then you went off on me again.

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.

<General warning: if you can't discuss things politely in here, I will remove you from the OT forum. This is the only warning you'll get.>

dæl wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

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.

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.

sirlynchmob- sarcasm. Good night sir.

A Town Called Malus wrote: Doesn't the US Constitution (that piece of paper you Americans are always going on about ) guarantee freedom of worship?

Bingo.

40kFSU wrote:sirlynchmob- sarcasm. Good night sir.

dogma wrote:

Hey dogma, I think this might make your point better

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.