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.

 Peregrine wrote:

You still haven't done anything to explain how these lawsuits have any hope of success.

Faith

.

.

hehehe

I am not clear how all this relates to gay marriage however if you wish to debate the pros and cons of religion please do so without vituperation as the forum rules require.

As it stands there is no real argument against SSM, other than "..it's ickkie.." and "..'couse my invisible friend in the sky said so..".

Also spair a thought for those of us trans-gendered-ness. We get so much more crap than we should, but we put up with it. Some day I would love to get married, in a awesome wedding dress, all glamed up to eleven. Asumming I find the right guy.

Nice and hearting to know that most of Dakka is for it. Now who want to pop the question to me

 Ribon Fox wrote:
As it stands there is no real argument against SSM, other than "..it's ickkie.." and "..'couse my invisible friend in the sky said so..".

Also spair a thought for those of us trans-gendered-ness. We get so much more crap than we should, but we put up with it. Some day I would love to get married, in a awesome wedding dress, all glamed up to eleven. Asumming I find the right guy.

Nice and hearting to know that most of Dakka is for it. Now who want to pop the question to me

Aww... I spend ten minutes reading the eye-rolling, hair-tearing, foaming at the mouth, hate-filled trainwreck of a "debate" between the two posters above you, then you come in with that honest and unarmoured perspective.

People are good.

feeder wrote:

 Ribon Fox wrote:
As it stands there is no real argument against SSM, other than "..it's ickkie.." and "..'couse my invisible friend in the sky said so..".

Also spair a thought for those of us trans-gendered-ness. We get so much more crap than we should, but we put up with it. Some day I would love to get married, in a awesome wedding dress, all glamed up to eleven. Asumming I find the right guy.

Nice and hearting to know that most of Dakka is for it. Now who want to pop the question to me

Aww... I spend ten minutes reading the eye-rolling, hair-tearing, foaming at the mouth, hate-filled trainwreck of a "debate" between the two posters above you, then you come in with that honest and unarmoured perspective.

People are good.

Seconded , it's ickie or it scares me is what the arguments against SSM seem to be(first time I saw SSM here I thought the argument had shifted to S&M - I need more sleep).

To those that just say call it a diffrent name, thats not the answer.

Words and names have power. How many times have we played a game and the rules lawers have used the wordings of the rules to their advantage and not as intended, the same goes for SSM, a CP is not the same as a SSM.

It is in a way degrading those that want to show the world their comitment as second class and not as good as the real thing, which it is.

We all long for a place to belong, for some other soul to ride this rollercoaster we call life with so why should a bunch of folk stuck with dark age mentality stop the rest of us enlightened souls from doing what is right for the rest of humaity.

Me as you guess am all for it, why should we be deprived of the universal misery that is marrige, universal suffage should be enjoyed by all

I don't have an issue with SSM (that's same sex marriage...not sado-sexual - masochism..... ) Having worked with enough gay men and women in ym brief time so far on this here rock, I cannot fathom why many don't like the idea, as it has no effect on them whatsoever.

My sky fairy being more right than your sky fairy seems to be the crux of it. I cant see it being an issue for our childrens age, its only taken 1 generation from it to go from illegal to be homosexual, to George Takei "Takei Friendly" T-shirts being sold on Amazon

Someone asked me what would you do if your kids were gay, I said I don't know, mainly as I don't have any, but I would very much like to believe I would stand by them and be all for it.

There is far too many things going on in the human world to be bothered about what you are attracted too, who you love and what bit of paper says you love each other more.

I know a few LGBT folks and one or two of the last group (trans) you would have no idea whatsoever that they are not in fact some of the hottest women ever seen by man...and the laugh we get when they quite easily get drinks bought for them in the rock club we frequent by straight men is quite fun.

So its all down to what you expect\perceive and want from life, do it for love, not for political\religious reasons

OOhhhh MMyyyy!

 Ribon Fox wrote:
To those that just say call it a diffrent name, thats not the answer.

Words and names have power. How many times have we played a game and the rules lawers have used the wordings of the rules to their advantage and not as intended, the same goes for SSM, a CP is not the same as a SSM.

It is in a way degrading those that want to show the world their comitment as second class and not as good as the real thing, which it is.

We all long for a place to belong, for some other soul to ride this rollercoaster we call life with so why should a bunch of folk stuck with dark age mentality stop the rest of us enlightened souls from doing what is right for the rest of humaity.

Me as you guess am all for it, why should we be deprived of the universal misery that is marrige, universal suffage should be enjoyed by all

I am also in favor of SSM, but as I had argued earlier in the thread, one possible solution is the old parenting tactic of "if you can't share it, then NO ONE can have it". To me, yeah, it'd piss off the super religious who want to piss on everyone's parade, but it would make everyone completely equal in the eyes of the law, and... while legally it's called one thing, it leaves it up to those who are married to call it a marriage, or a civil partnership, civil union, etc.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ribon Fox wrote:
To those that just say call it a diffrent name, thats not the answer.

Words and names have power. How many times have we played a game and the rules lawers have used the wordings of the rules to their advantage and not as intended, the same goes for SSM, a CP is not the same as a SSM.

It is in a way degrading those that want to show the world their comitment as second class and not as good as the real thing, which it is.

We all long for a place to belong, for some other soul to ride this rollercoaster we call life with so why should a bunch of folk stuck with dark age mentality stop the rest of us enlightened souls from doing what is right for the rest of humaity.

Me as you guess am all for it, why should we be deprived of the universal misery that is marrige, universal suffage should be enjoyed by all

I am also in favor of SSM, but as I had argued earlier in the thread, one possible solution is the old parenting tactic of "if you can't share it, then NO ONE can have it". To me, yeah, it'd piss off the super religious who want to piss on everyone's parade, but it would make everyone completely equal in the eyes of the law, and... while legally it's called one thing, it leaves it up to those who are married to call it a marriage, or a civil partnership, civil union, etc.

Ooor you could not do something so bloody stupid to spite those who want equal rights and just call it what it is... marriage.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Ooor you could not do something so bloody stupid to spite those who want equal rights and just call it what it is... marriage.

An action like that wouldn't be to spite those who actually want equal rights, but rather it'd spite the people who are vehemently against it.

As I said, I am pro-Same Sex Marriage, and think that the uber-religious don't really have a leg to stand on in this argument.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Ooor you could not do something so bloody stupid to spite those who want equal rights and just call it what it is... marriage.

An action like that wouldn't be to spite those who actually want equal rights, but rather it'd spite the people who are vehemently against it.

As I said, I am pro-Same Sex Marriage, and think that the uber-religious don't really have a leg to stand on in this argument.

Equal rights would be allowing people to marry. Because words have meaning and power outside of a strict definition.

By saying "ok, no one can marry now!" is throwing the baby out with the bath water and really just a slap in the face for equal rights and ultimately a win for those against non-traditional marriage.

People against ssm: "We don't want THOSE types getting married"

Gov: *bans all mention of marriage*

People againts ssm: "Yay! We stopped those sorts getting married but we have the true faith so we will go right on calling it marraige and refusing to give it to THOSE people just lile we were!"

Everyone else: "erm... wtf government? Why can't anyone be married now because of a few people who claim they don't like the idea of people with the same gender loving each other getting married throw a strop?"

 focusedfire wrote:
By this reply, it almost seems as if you feel that the "religious" have crossed some boundary.

Is this how you feel? Do you feel that they have exceeded what should be allotted to them and that they need to be heeled in? To be shown the error in their thinking?
Just trying to understand your tone here.

The religious get to live their lives as they please, same as everyone else. But the second they start to try and use their morality to tell other people how to live their lives, they get told no, same as everyone else.

Really, you trying to suck me into a "true scottsman" argument? Its things like this that can make any attempt at a discussion with you an unpleasant chore.

Nope, not a 'no true scotsman' argument. Just a simple fething acceptance of reality that there has never been a purely religious marriage, that had no legal meaning re children, inheritance etc. Never happened. So claiming that marriage is religious is a very silly fiction.

Not about owning a word, It is about the concept of marriage having become more than just a business contract. Marriage by definition is an intimate relationship. Now, intimacy is something shared between two people who have become very close The federal government has no business inserting itself a couples intimate life.

Gibberish. The relationship between a parent and a child is intensely close and personal, and yet government is involved because of course it is, because child welfare is an essential duty of the state, as is childcare and so on.

Similarly, it is an essential part of government to determine inheritance and define where household assets and private assets begin and end (because determining property rights are a key part of government). And so, yeah, obviously government is going to be involved in marriage, just as they always have been.

This is a basic thing that can't be argued.

Now to answer your example of a church not recognizing a marriage.
The churches have done just that in the past, Not married by our standards then you are not legally married. And it would stick.

Really? You want to start listing all the instances in which a couple married by a government authorised agent had that marriage refused by one or more churches, and government then backed down on that marriage? I mean, I'll take one example. Because god-damn you just claimed some crazy nonsense.

States not recognizing another states version of getting married is still quite common. And it is not just over same sex marriage.

Sigh. Yes, states will differ on marriage. But the idea that a religious organisation is given review of that is nonsense.

Honestly, I feel the entire system is inefficient, cumbersome and in need of an overhaul, because the concept of marriage has become this romantic religious ritual that usually occurs or is pictured occurring in a place of worship. The government doesn't need to be regulating romance, it needs to be helping set forth the expected financial and childcare duties.
Where the government is concerned, it should be handing out domestic union contracts where the couple agree to who does what and where the money goes. As a contract, both parties can ask to come back on a regular basis to renegotiate needed changes.

These re-negotiations would go a long way towards stopping divorces that are traumatizing to both the kids and the couple..

I don't think there's much practicality in your suggestion, to be honest. The idea of couples sitting down to negotiate domestic union contracts, and then returning to the negotiating table every so often after that sounds like something from a really bad 60s sci-fi novel, back when it seemed like a certain portion of sci-fi forgot that people acted like people, not as weird robot things that would act however your utopia needed them to.

I mean, I agree that aid to married couples in helping them life as a single household is essential, but you can do that simply by subsidizing or mandating couples counseling before marriage. That's what happens here in Oz, and because my wife and I got a Catholic marriage then a Catholic counseling service was used, and it was a really positive and useful experience. Other churches have their own services, and there's non-denominational services as well as that.

Here is a "Big" reason to think it is different different. Nowhere in the bible/torah did it say to go out and gather slaves, but it clearly stated that "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination".

Which is Leviticus, and you should be familiar with the biblical argument that means Leviticus is no longer law. If you aren't, you really need to go and read Apostles, go read about Peter right now.

Anyhow, in terms of clobber verses about slavery, there's plenty.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you."
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom."

You see, to those that have never read the bible, they think that it is this big book of don'ts because of all of the crappy tv evangelists. Honestly, there are very few things strictly proscribed in the bible. The Ten Commandments, cleanliness violations, don't eat the apple and who not to have sex with are pretty much it. The old and new testament are books much more about "doing" the right thing than they are about the "don't do this".

This is why many Judeo-Christians and also Muslims are dead set against the idea, this is one of the few specific no-no's.

Actually, the exact same reason that Christianity is not a list of rules is why that particular verse can't be accepted at face value. Go and read the Apostles. Read about Peter's vision, understand that while his vision was literally just about food, afterwards he reacted by inviting a Roman in to his home. Because the line "You must stop calling unclean what God has made clean" is an extraordinary powerful, great line.

And Peter got it. He understood that it meant he doesn't get to chase some false purity anymore, he doesn't get to moralise and place himself above others. When he awoke from his vision he welcome Cornelius, the gentile, the roman, in to his home.

But of course, Peter is a Saint so he understood the truth of things in a way that others don't. Most of the people who followed were just regular folk, and they missed the point rather terribly. Those regular folk figured that story just meant that now they were allowed to eat bacon and shrimp, but to carry on shunning people. Even when it meant they were calling unclean those people that God had made clean.

It's a shame that all Christians can't be as great as Peter.

Really, the smart move is to just let go of a word whose definition and imagery has become so intermingled with the religious ritual that takes place in a house of worship.

Giving in to bigots is never the smart move. Especially when the bigots are losing. Then it is both the dumb move, and the pissweak move.

That is the kicker. If these rites were "supposed" to be the sole province of the secular government then the various religions and their clergy would never have been granted this right in the first place.

Government and religion have historically been highly intermingled. It was once very important for the Pope to give his approval to the crowning of a new king, and a very big deal when he withheld that blessing. To argue that any monarch today, let alone a democratically head of state, should require the approval of the Pope would be flying rodent gak.

Marriage is no different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 focusedfire wrote:
By the government being in favour of gay "marriage" it would open the religions(private organizations) to federal and various states anti-discrimination laws. Churchs or Pastors could be fined under laws like Houston's new anti-discrimination ordinsnce for refusing to marry openly gay couples.

Actually, the right of churches to refuse to marry inter-racial couples has been upheld by the courts, so fear that those churches would be forced to marry gay people is misplaced.

And that's how it should be. It's bigoted to refuse to marry inter-racial or gay couples, but that's the right of the church if it wants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So much talk about how mean religions are in the "without talking about religion" thread...

We couldn't figure out a way to make this about gun rights, so we settled on religion.

this article was on a friends FB page... and is only SLIGHTLY off topic for this topic:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/31/marriage-only-for-christians/


It would seem that homosexuals aren't the only ones still being discriminated against.

Without reading the article I could 100% agree that Christian marriages are reserved for Christians (or those marrying them).
But thats the specific practice of a Christian service.

The great Wiener Dog Welcomes all however. Our is a simple service. The Bride and Groom exchange tasty treats, drink from the same (water) bowl, and together bark at the nearest treed squirrel for 15 seconds, joined by all the members of the wedding. Congrats, you're hitched! Where's the booze?

Note: Blue hair is really hard to maintain. The dye fades in a few days even with good dyes.

 Frazzled wrote:
Without reading the article I could 100% agree that Christian marriages are reserved for Christians (or those marrying them).

Not always; I guarantee that sometimes you get two non-christians going through a christian marriage.

 Frazzled wrote:
Without reading the article I could 100% agree that Christian marriages are reserved for Christians (or those marrying them).

Then it would help you to read the article.

Then you would find that a non-religious couple wanted a non-religious marriage from a court appointed non-religious authority in a non-religious setting. And then were denied the wedding for being non-religious.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Without reading the article I could 100% agree that Christian marriages are reserved for Christians (or those marrying them).

Then it would help you to read the article.

Then you would find that a non-religious couple wanted a non-religious marriage from a court appointed non-religious authority in a non-religious setting. And then were denied the wedding for being non-religious.

I did. He should not have offered them a Christian service at the church. He should, however have offered them a wedding service under the rules put down by his office, or nearest tavern.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Without reading the article I could 100% agree that Christian marriages are reserved for Christians (or those marrying them).

Then it would help you to read the article.

Then you would find that a non-religious couple wanted a non-religious marriage from a court appointed non-religious authority in a non-religious setting. And then were denied the wedding for being non-religious.

I did. He should not have offered them a Christian service at the church. He should, however have offered them a wedding service under the rules put down by his office, or nearest tavern.

The problem being, he imposed his own religious qualifications to what is a civil posting... They went in and asked specifically for a civil service, not a religious one.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Without reading the article I could 100% agree that Christian marriages are reserved for Christians (or those marrying them).

Not always; I guarantee that sometimes you get two non-christians going through a christian marriage.

Agreed I should have said "should."

Misunderstood then.

We need more tavern weddings though.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Without reading the article I could 100% agree that Christian marriages are reserved for Christians (or those marrying them).

Then it would help you to read the article.

Then you would find that a non-religious couple wanted a non-religious marriage from a court appointed non-religious authority in a non-religious setting. And then were denied the wedding for being non-religious.

I did. He should not have offered them a Christian service at the church. He should, however have offered them a wedding service under the rules put down by his office, or nearest tavern.

The problem being, he imposed his own religious qualifications to what is a civil posting... They went in and asked specifically for a civil service, not a religious one.

Exactly. see post above. he should have performed his function via his office using the function of his office, at his office, or the closest bar with good whiskey.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Misunderstood then.

We need more tavern weddings though.

Mine was at a church strategically located within five minutes of the Sacred temple of barbeque were the real service was held - the eating of the Sacred Cow, Sacred Pig, and wating of the Sacred Cake. MMMMM!

 d-usa wrote:
Misunderstood then.

We need more tavern weddings though.

If the bridesmaids wear tavern wench costumes, I'm all for it, might actually make the ceremony interesting.

Hell, just combine Oktoberfest and marriage into Briderfest. Sounds good, who else is for it?

 Ribon Fox wrote:
As it stands there is no real argument against SSM, other than "..it's ickkie.." and "..'couse my invisible friend in the sky said so..".

Also spair a thought for those of us trans-gendered-ness. We get so much more crap than we should, but we put up with it. Some day I would love to get married, in a awesome wedding dress, all glamed up to eleven. Asumming I find the right guy.

Nice and hearting to know that most of Dakka is for it. Now who want to pop the question to me

It is impossible to date around here, most people see trans people as a fetish type thing but not a person they would want to spend their life with. Kind of sucks really.

I think marriage is sort of silly itself, kind of dumb to limit who can and can't get married by sexual orientation. Makes no sense.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
this article was on a friends FB page... and is only SLIGHTLY off topic for this topic:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/31/marriage-only-for-christians/


It would seem that homosexuals aren't the only ones still being discriminated against.

Funny how something like 'marriage is a religious thing only' can be invented in just the few years, purely as a means of sidestepping the complete fail of an argument religious groups put up to try and stop gay marriage, and before long its encouraging donkey-caves to do obnoxious things to random members of the public.

Someone should write a book on the phenomenon. Is "Obnoxious Beliefs That Were Invented For No Good Reason and Do Nothing But Give Justification to donkey-caves to Annoy Decent People" too long for a title?

 sebster wrote:


Someone should write a book on the phenomenon. Is "Obnoxious Beliefs That Were Invented For No Good Reason and Do Nothing But Give Justification to donkey-caves to Annoy Decent People" too long for a title?

Someone did and decided your suggested working title was too long. They settled on "The Bible" as it is much easier to say.

Bullockist wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Someone should write a book on the phenomenon. Is "Obnoxious Beliefs That Were Invented For No Good Reason and Do Nothing But Give Justification to donkey-caves to Annoy Decent People" too long for a title?

Someone did and decided your suggested working title was too long. They settled on "The Bible" as it is much easier to say.

Depending on who you are, the more proper title is "the Holy Bible"

Bullockist wrote:
Someone did and decided your suggested working title was too long. They settled on "The Bible" as it is much easier to say.

I really should have seen that coming. I could say that was a bit of a cheap shot, but really it's my fault for setting that up.

 sebster wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
Someone did and decided your suggested working title was too long. They settled on "The Bible" as it is much easier to say.

I really should have seen that coming. I could say that was a bit of a cheap shot, but really it's my fault for setting that up.

Would it be less cheap to say it's called "The Kuran" ??

I was originally going to go for Torah (since that's what the other 2 sprung from) in my cheap shot , but decided I really didn't want to open the anti-Semite can of worms.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Would it be less cheap to say it's called "The Kuran" ??

I think picking any text other than Mein Kampf would be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bullockist wrote:
I was originally going to go for Torah (since that's what the other 2 sprung from) in my cheap shot , but decided I really didn't want to open the anti-Semite can of worms.

Yeah, the joke worked better kept simple, I think.