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.

40kFSU wrote:

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!

I couldn't understand what "omg gayz wuld mek da cehrsh do da merreez fer dem!" meant but it made me laugh

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.

40kFSU wrote:

rubiksnoob- If it were that simple it wouldnt be a problem. Like I said, this cant be solved with a bumper sticker opinion.

Well please, explain why it isn't that simple.

Harry- Shamans? Yes! This is my point, sanctioned by religion, faith in something bigger than us.

And I dont think polygamy is a religion. But doesnt that support my argument? Marriage is one man and one woman only?

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.

[edit: hit enter too soon, moment]

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.

To paraphrase the J.C. himself, "Be Excellent to Each Other".

feeder wrote:

To paraphrase the J.C. himself, "Be Excellent to Each Other".

You can't honestly compare those two. It is ridiculous.

A majority of people wants to keep down a minority of people...
That sounds fairly similar to me...
Though it's not identical obviously...

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. It is ridiculous.

Why?