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.

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.

Generally that's followed by a citation

Citation?

Nevermind, Im going to bed.

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.

40kFSU wrote:
Dogma, weak.

I'm glad that you will ignore what is said in lieu of what you want to hear, it makes my job easy.

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.

I like this assumption that marriage somehow crosses cultural bounds.

40kFSU wrote:But it has lost 32 elections in a row. Either the polls are wrong, or the votes are miscounted.

Or people that answer surveys don't necessarily vote.

Shock, awe.

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.

Care to cite one of these many studies?

I'm genuinely interested.

Why worry about it when tramps like Kim Kardashian are busy getting married to a guy they meet a week ago, and getting divorced ten days later?

The institution is already fethed, gays have nothing to do with it.

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.

And really, back in the good old days, marriage was just another business deal. Doesn't really sound so sacred to me.

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.

40kFSU wrote:
Alarmingrik- Fine, go play in your own sandbox. They are demanding to play in mine.

Implying your sandbox covers all marriages?

Krelinus- You are right. Words mean things. Marriage means a union between a man and a woman. Dont change it.

It used to be a union between a man and a woman entered into for life. Catholics seem to be the only ones still sticking to that. Things change.

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.

Considering religion was/is just a way of keeping the populous under control, why shouldn't anybody marry who they like regardless of sex.

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.

lokioldfart- Sure, sure.

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.

Of course they are, did you even read my post?

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?