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.

You can up here in IL! At grocery stores, even! They have hard liquor isles! Can you believe that!

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Once we realize that the Bible, and what the Bible calls things, has absolutely zero influence regarding what the law should call things we will be a better country.

You think it has zero influence, yet I can't buy 30 year old Scotch on Sundays.

As a True Libertarian I can tell you that's a sin and a result of those pesky theocrats seeking to stamp their way of life on the rest of us. It's the Christian Agenda!

I carried TBone around in Twin Liquors once, followed by the female staff who couldn't keep their hands off of him.

 kronk wrote:
Patton Oswalt said it best:

“If people that are against gay marriage just said, ‘I’m against gay marriage because thinking about two men having butt sex or two women having scissor sex kills my boner, dries up my vagina, I can’t have sex, it ruins my life. That’s why I’m against it', that would be a valid argument! We’d have to actually debate you on that!”

Didn't Phil Robertson say almost exactly that and get crucified for it as a bigot?

 cincydooley wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Patton Oswalt said it best:

“If people that are against gay marriage just said, ‘I’m against gay marriage because thinking about two men having butt sex or two women having scissor sex kills my boner, dries up my vagina, I can’t have sex, it ruins my life. That’s why I’m against it', that would be a valid argument! We’d have to actually debate you on that!”

Didn't Phil Robertson say almost exactly that and get crucified for it as a bigot?

No, he used the bible for his biggotry and compared homosexuality to bestiality.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong... Sin becomes fine,” he said. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Paraphrasing Corinthians he added: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If we called all religious unions between two consenting adults "Religious Unions" and left the word "Marriage" to everyone, I don't think we'd have any issue.

Of course then it comes into play that "Marriage" has been considered a religious sacrament, unofficially, since like, the 1100s, and officially, since the 1500s.

I know plenty of people want to ignore that historical significance because of their plain faced dismissal of religion as a whole....

 Frazzled wrote:
I carried TBone around in Twin Liquors once, followed by the female staff who couldn't keep their hands off of him.

Twin Liquors? I thought that was a lesbian bar?

Ok, So. to those saying we get rid of the word "Marriage" and leave it to the churches. Who thinks we actually have a decent chance doing it? What the anti-gay crowd wants isnt for them to not use the word marriage. They dont want them together PERIOD. They want gays to be shoved down into a corner and stoned. And they will fight no matter what.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I carried TBone around in Twin Liquors once, followed by the female staff who couldn't keep their hands off of him.

Twin Liquors? I thought that was a lesbian bar?

dude...

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If we called all religious unions between two consenting adults "Religious Unions" and left the word "Marriage" to everyone, I don't think we'd have any issue.

Of course then it comes into play that "Marriage" has been considered a religious sacrament, unofficially, since like, the 1100s, and officially, since the 1500s.

I know plenty of people want to ignore that historical significance because of their plain faced dismissal of religion as a whole....

And then people want to pretend "marriage" is somehow unique to christianity or religion despite being present in plenty of cultures that predate any of the currently existing religions...

 kronk wrote:
I certainly didn't crucify him, but he said a lot worse than that.

Did he?

“It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man’s anus

Then he quoted the bible.

Then he said this, which is left out of nearly every article on the subject:

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job,” Robertson told GQ. “We just love ‘em, give ‘em the good news about Jesus – whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ‘em out later.”

The whole "leave the word marriage for the churches" and don't use it for the gays also ignores one important thing: There are plenty of churches that are already performing same-sex unions.

So if gays can't get "married" and only churches can "marry" people, then what do you do with gay churches?

 cincydooley wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I certainly didn't crucify him, but he said a lot worse than that.

Did he?

I added his comments to my post, but here it is again.

He did use the bible for his biggotry and compared homosexuality to bestiality.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong... Sin becomes fine,” he said. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Paraphrasing Corinthians he added: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

 SilverMK2 wrote:

And then people want to pretend "marriage" is somehow unique to christianity or religion despite being present in plenty of cultures that predate any of the currently existing religions...

Well, I'm fine if we go back to the earliest recorded instance, where marriage was used to establish ownership.

Or we could establish that we can allow people to dissolve marriages without consequence if their partner is infertile.

Or we could start to allow Polygamy again, which was only deemed "inappropriate" due to prodding by the Catholic church.

Or we could start to encourage marriages within the family again in Western society.

I mean, unless we get to pick and choose with historical context and importance to ignore....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I certainly didn't crucify him, but he said a lot worse than that.

Did he?

I added his comments to my post, but here it is again.

He did use the bible for his biggotry and compared homosexuality to bestiality.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong... Sin becomes fine,” he said. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Paraphrasing Corinthians he added: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

He's simply referring to all sin being equal in the eyes of his god. Its pretty straightforward.

Had he said "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men, [or hell, even Bestiality]" the conversation would be incredibly different.

I realize people want to ignore the context of his comment. Which is our way, but context, as it so often is, is really important.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If we called all religious unions between two consenting adults "Religious Unions" and left the word "Marriage" to everyone, I don't think we'd have any issue.

Of course then it comes into play that "Marriage" has been considered a religious sacrament, unofficially, since like, the 1100s, and officially, since the 1500s.

I know plenty of people want to ignore that historical significance because of their plain faced dismissal of religion as a whole....

By whom?


Are you going to tell the rest of the class that because Christians have used the word marriage to conduct Christian marriage, they get to own the word?

My wife and I exchanged vows to one another, in front of our family and friends, in a marriage ceremony, without Christianity involved. We were married, we were not married under your God, we were married under our Love and I'll tear off the head of the man who calls that into question and fashion his skull into a fething chamber pot. Are you going to tell my friends who are druids that their marriage was without validity or my Hindu friend or my atheist friend that none of them matter, their ceremonies don't matter, their vows don't matter? Here we have the conceit at the heart of the matter, ladies and gentlemen, that certain elements believe they have sovereign claim to the very word 'marriage'.

You.Don't.

Tell you what mate, since this seems to be news to you, that's just your opinion, your interpretation of your holy book and the opinion of your chums, it isn't held by the rest of us and if you don't want to see a sudden resurgence in lion feeding as a participant sport for your particular species of deity-botherer, I'd suggest you take a re-read of what Christ taught about tolerance and sharing.

So, what you are saying is that marriage has changed over time and you are cool with that?

Just to make that clear...

Sooo... what is the bitter pill about gays being able to enter into marriage?

You missed the point of my comment, and by a lot.

I'm stating why people have a problem with the word "marriage."

But you know, that would involve really reading everything I wrote, because you clearly didn't.

 cincydooley wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I certainly didn't crucify him, but he said a lot worse than that.

Did he?

I added his comments to my post, but here it is again.

He did use the bible for his biggotry and compared homosexuality to bestiality.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong... Sin becomes fine,” he said. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Paraphrasing Corinthians he added: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

He's simply referring to all sin being equal in the eyes of his god. Its pretty straightforward.

Had he said "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men, [or hell, even Bestiality]" the conversation would be incredibly different.

I realize people want to ignore the context of his comment. Which is our way, but context, as it so often is, is really important.

No... he pretty much is using the slippery slope defense, with his bible.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I carried TBone around in Twin Liquors once, followed by the female staff who couldn't keep their hands off of him.

Twin Liquors? I thought that was a lesbian bar?

Badum tssh He's here all week ladies and gentlemen...

 cincydooley wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

And then people want to pretend "marriage" is somehow unique to christianity or religion despite being present in plenty of cultures that predate any of the currently existing religions...

Well, I'm fine if we go back to the earliest recorded instance, where marriage was used to establish ownership.

Or we could establish that we can allow people to dissolve marriages without consequence if their partner is infertile.

Or we could start to allow Polygamy again, which was only deemed "inappropriate" due to prodding by the Catholic church.

Or we could start to encourage marriages within the family again in Western society.

I mean, unless we get to pick and choose with historical context and importance to ignore....

Why just pick and choose from historical context when we could pick and choose the definition of marriage from the many options available to us in your sacred book...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, So. to those saying we get rid of the word "Marriage" and leave it to the churches. Who thinks we actually have a decent chance doing it? What the anti-gay crowd wants isnt for them to not use the word marriage. They dont want them together PERIOD. They want gays to be shoved down into a corner and stoned. And they will fight no matter what.

Well the cool thing about making it a religious ceremony, is that one find churches that are just fine with gay marriage.

 cincydooley wrote:
You missed the point of my comment, and by a lot.

I'm stating why people have a problem with the word "marriage."

But you know, that would involve really reading everything I wrote, because you clearly didn't.

By 'people', you mean 'my people'.

Sorry, they'll have to discover they share this nation and the rest of the face of the earth with people who have other ideas, and are now becoming the majority in decision making.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
So, what you are saying is that marriage has changed over time and you are cool with that?

Just to make that clear...

Sooo... what is the bitter pill about gays being able to enter into marriage?

I'll restate it, because I guess, based on Stompa's response, that I wasn't clear:

I think for many people, its simply the wording. As a judeo-christian nation, thats where the historical signficance of the word marriage comes into play.

I believe that if we changed ALL the verbiage under the law to say that, for legal protection, they were all called Civil Unions, then we wouldn't even have a problem. Then leave any "marriage" ceremonies to the individual parties, churches, cults, etc.

Anecdote: I have a pair of friends that are engaged, one of whom does not have insurance. We've encouraged them to go to the courthouse, get legally "married," and simply not tell anyone so she can benefit from those spousal privleges, and then have their pomp and circumstance ceremony later on.

I mean, we are concerned about the equal protection under the law aspect of this, right?

My marriage this November won't involve any church or religious officials by choice, but it will still be called a wedding and I dare anyone to say I'm not married because it wasn't in a church or ordained by a minister.

Why should gay people be denied the same privilege?

 cincydooley wrote:

I'm stating why people have a problem with the word "marriage."

No, you listed a bunch of things that "marriage" used to cover, happily ignoring that you are now claiming sole use of the term to cover an immutable status of union. Even though the term has been and still is used by uour own religion to cover a whole range of unions.

Not to mention how marriage is defined by other religions, states, laws, etc...

But you know, that would involve really reading everything I wrote, because you clearly didn't.

Don't blame reading comprehension for me not seeing something you didn't say...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Why just pick and choose from historical context when we could pick and choose the definition of marriage from the many options available to us in your sacred book...

[]

You really should read all of my comment(s) and not simply find key words to attack. Statements like "your sacred book" tell me you haven't, pretty clearly.

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, So. to those saying we get rid of the word "Marriage" and leave it to the churches. Who thinks we actually have a decent chance doing it? What the anti-gay crowd wants isnt for them to not use the word marriage. They dont want them together PERIOD. They want gays to be shoved down into a corner and stoned. And they will fight no matter what.

Well the cool thing about making it a religious ceremony, is that one find churches that are just fine with gay marriage.

Exactly, many churches have decided it's just fine.

But some, who have not, have decided they must exert control over the rest of the world and how it does business, instead of just attending to it's own damned business in it's own damned church.

And that's Theocracy and that's something many who founded this great nation sought to escape and see overcome.

 kronk wrote:
My marriage this November won't involve any church or religious officials by choice, but it will still be called a wedding and I dare anyone to say I'm not married because it wasn't in a church or ordained by a minister.

Why should gay people be denied the same privilege?

WO WO WO The Kronster's getting hitched? I can already hear the keaning wail of tens of thousand so da wimminz. How will Europe and Japan get their populations back to sustainable levels now?

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:
My marriage this November won't involve any church or religious officials by choice, but it will still be called a wedding and I dare anyone to say I'm not married because it wasn't in a church or ordained by a minister.

Why should gay people be denied the same privilege?

WO WO WO The Kronster's getting hitched? I can already hear the keaning wail of tens of thousand so da wimminz. How will Europe and Japan get their populations back to sustainable levels now?

It's a REALLY open marriage...

(not really)

@Silver & @MeanGreen

Here's my quote that stemed this whole tide:

Honestly?

Because of the word 'marriage' and its perceived significance to religion as word.

If we called all contractual unions between two consenting adults "Civil Unions" and left the word "Marriage" to churches, I don't think we'd have any issue.

You keep claiming "your" Stompa. Please, tell me where, in any of my comments, I've addressed this from the side of "religious righteousness."

You can't. Because i Havent.