VaporTrail Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 You motherfluckers may as well start filing for divorce! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Are you kidding? Mine dissolved years ago when the entire state of Vermont went gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Easy there fellas. That battle is far from over. Besides, it's not like gay marriage was made legal (or was it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Yeah, gay marriage is far from legal. But the appeals court did not address whether marriage was a fundamental right available to same-sex couples as well as heterosexuals, focusing instead specifically on Prop 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 All the ruling really said was that if you're going to give gays full marriage rights anyway you have to call it marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Is marriage a religious institution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Oh the irony... Such rich irony, I'm not sure if I can take anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Is marriage a religious institution? Yes and no. Government is secular so it recognizes marriage as a union between two individuals. People get married for religious reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 People don't get married for reasons too. I don't think religions can claim all of marriage as religious, and then say the government can't do anything to change it because of freedom of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 I didn't get married for religious reasons. It really comes down to whether or not you think homosexuals are normal and moral and capable of love just like everyone else, or you don't. If you believe the former, as I do, then there's no way you can justify treating them or their unions any differently under the law. And since more and more people see it that way every year, this will soon be a non-issue, and gays will have full marriage rights like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 As long as we have parents that make their kids do this... ...we'll always be behind in something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 I didn't get married for religious reasons. Many people do. People don't get married for reasons too. I don't think religions can claim all of marriage as religious, and then say the government can't do anything to change it because of freedom of religion. Neither do I. Marriage actually originated with the origin of civilizations, a stable arrangement to bind a woman to a man and to guarantee that a man's offspring were truly his biological heirs. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. The definition has always been man + woman. I don't know if that should change. I think homosexuals should be happy with a civil union, which allows them the same benefits of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 But it should be noted that gay marriage occurred in Rome. Not commonplace, but it did happen occasionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 As long as it didn't happen more than 6000 years ago... cuz... ya know.... that's when God made Earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Please cite where the it says in any of the holy books that the earth was made 6,000 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Got me. I just hear that a lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Some people have traced the timeline of Adam and Eve through Christ to be 4,000 years. Since that happened 2,000 years ago, and since God created Adam and Eve only "days" after creating the earth, they say the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old. The bible is not a math book and it makes no claim to be. Who knows what a "day" would be to God if he existed. It certainly would have little to do with the day we experience here on earth. Not to mention a day on Jupiter is different than a day on earth. a "day" is relative within the universe, and days don't even exist if you're not on a plant or moon. In absolute time, it will be absolutely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Oh I don't really care. I don't believe in most of what that really old book says anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 I think marriage was an institution meant to strenghten the family unit much as PE says. A family was very importamnt in an agrarian society. It also has historical religious roots primarily in the past because the church acted as the town hall/meeting place/hub of social networking. These days social media had made actuial meetingplaces for humans somewhat obsolete and the disintigration of the family even more. So marriage (in it's original purpose) is out of date. You may be glad of that or not. It's hard to argue morality with the divorce rate what it is and more and more kids dropping foal regardless of a father around or desire for a stronger family unit. Personally I don't care if gay people want to play house. To each his own. But if it were only aboput "rights" one could accept a partnership contract and maybe even a ceremony in a less strict church. But it seems like it's not just about rights. We still manufacture our morals. It used to be religion we used as a reason now it's political ideology. WSS WSS[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 PE, marriage has not always been "one man and one woman." The definition of marriage has changed throughout history, and dozens of times, and for all sorts of reasons. We've married for property, inheritance. We've arranged marriages. We've had polygamy. As for the idea that marriage is a religious institution, you're right to say that for some, yes, marriage is a religious ceremony. But that's mostly irrelevant to this discussion. We're not talking about what goes on in the churches. No one is suggesting that churches be forced to perform gay marriages, even though some will and already do. But that's their business. We're talking about what the state recognizes as marriage. And under state Constitutions, all citizens must be treated equally under the law. If you want to deny homosexuals civil marriage rights, you have to come up with an argument better than "because we've always done it this way." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 It wouldn't be the first time society has continued to do something or believe something only because its in the Bible and its always been that way only to realize how stupid it is once our scientific knowledge grows. Science FTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 PE, marriage has not always been "one man and one woman." The definition of marriage has changed throughout history, and dozens of times, and for all sorts of reasons. We've married for property, inheritance. We've arranged marriages. We've had polygamy. As for the idea that marriage is a religious institution, you're right to say that for some, yes, marriage is a religious ceremony. But that's mostly irrelevant to this discussion. We're not talking about what goes on in the churches. No one is suggesting that churches be forced to perform gay marriages, even though some will and already do. But that's their business. We're talking about what the state recognizes as marriage. And under state Constitutions, all citizens must be treated equally under the law. If you want to deny homosexuals civil marriage rights, you have to come up with an argument better than "because we've always done it this way." Marriage has always been a man and a woman, save for some exceptions in Rome. Polygamy still = man + woman. Arranged marriages = man + woman. I never once said it was done solely or originated for religious purposes. I even said it originated as a form of social stabilization. As far as treating citizens equally, well, they are. Just as you say, marriage is a contract, it has nothing to do with love or religion. A gay man can get married....to a woman, just like a straight man can. Just like a gay woman can get married....to a man, just like a straight woman can. There's your equal rights. Gay people want special rights. Should they get them? I don't know, but let's not pretend that people are being treated differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Marriage has always been a man and a woman, save for some exceptions in Rome. Polygamy still = man + woman. Arranged marriages = man + woman. I never once said it was done solely or originated for religious purposes. I even said it originated as a form of social stabilization. As far as treating citizens equally, well, they are. Just as you say, marriage is a contract, it has nothing to do with love or religion. A gay man can get married....to a woman, just like a straight man can. Just like a gay woman can get married....to a man, just like a straight woman can. There's your equal rights. Gay people want special rights. Should they get them? I don't know, but let's not pretend that people are being treated differently. That's utterly ridiculous. Gay people don't want "special" rights - they want what everyone else has. The want the ability to marry the person they love, and have that love recognized by the state as valid. And right now, clearly, they are being treated differently save for the 6, possibly 7 states that allow them to marry. And to suggest that the right they do have is to pretend to love someone of the opposite sex that they don't love is, well, a tad callous. It's also been the source of untold pain over the years, as gay men and women have been shoved into marriages that weren't right for them because that's all our society has deemed acceptable. And not only pain for them, but for their partners, who inevitably learn the truth. Enough. Why perpetuate that pain? What's the good reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes This is what the opponents of gay marriage are down to - tradition, and usually religious tradition. The argument doesn't hold that marriage has always been this way, and that it's never been redefined. The argument doesn't hold that marriage is for procreation. The argument doesn't hold that it will inevitably lead to polygamy, or in Santorum's view, "man on dog marriage." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 That's utterly ridiculous. Gay people don't want "special" rights - they want what everyone else has. The want the ability to marry the person they love, and have that love recognized by the state as valid. But wait, You said marriage was a contract and nothing more. If love is entered into the equation, then so can be religion. You can't have it both ways. (Love had little to do with marriage until mddle-age France) And right now, clearly, they are being treated differently save for the 6, possibly 7 states that allow them to marry. No, they're not. They can get married. So should children be allowed to marry because they want to? Should a man be able to marry a dog? Why don't we start letting men force unwilling women to get married to them. And to suggest that the right they do have is to pretend to love someone of the opposite sex that they don't love is, well, a tad callous. It's also been the source of untold pain over the years, as gay men and women have been shoved into marriages that weren't right for them because that's all our society has deemed acceptable. And not only pain for them, but for their partners, who inevitably learn the truth. I suggested nothing of the sort. I said they have the same rights as everyone else when it comes to marriage....they can do it. The rest is just arguing semantics. Or do you suggest people have to take love tests before they can get a marriage license? Why do you think conservatives are trying to amend the constitution to include their definition of marriage? Because they know that would guarantee that gay people will never be allowed to get married because the constitution also guarantees equal protection....not special protection. Enough. Why perpetuate that pain? What's the good reason? No one is guaranteed happiness. All they are guaranteed in the US is the pursuit of happiness. The government isn't responsible for making everyone happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 It wouldn't be the first time society has continued to do something or believe something only because its in the Bible and its always been that way only to realize how stupid it is once our scientific knowledge grows. Science FTW Not sure what you are talking about. Care to elaborate? Marriage was started way before the western religions of today were founded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 But wait, You said marriage was a contract and nothing more. If love is entered into the equation, then so can be religion. You can't have it both ways. (Love had little to do with marriage until mddle-age France) No, they're not. They can get married. So should children be allowed to marry because they want to? Should a man be able to marry a dog? Why don't we start letting men force unwilling women to get married to them. I suggested nothing of the sort. I said they have the same rights as everyone else when it comes to marriage....they can do it. The rest is just arguing semantics. Or do you suggest people have to take love tests before they can get a marriage license? Why do you think conservatives are trying to amend the constitution to include their definition of marriage? Because they know that would guarantee that gay people will never be allowed to get married because the constitution also guarantees equal protection....not special protection. No one is guaranteed happiness. All they are guaranteed in the US is the pursuit of happiness. The government isn't responsible for making everyone happy. I don't even know where to start with all of this, my man. Where did I say marriage was a "contract and nothing more"? I never said that. And "if love is entered into the equation, then so can be religion." ...Huh? And the rest was barely worthy of a response, and is just a lazy slippery slope argument, and not even a good one. As if we can't differentiate between two consenting adults who love each other and 5-year-olds. Or a dog. I mean, come on, man. Get in the game here. Those arguments are for nobody. This was a poor effort. Which is proof of what I said - the people against gay marriage really don't have many good arguments. It usually boils down to three points: "I disapprove of homosexuality and therefore homosexual marriage" and "it's better when children have a mother and a father" and "marriage has been in its current form for a long time, and changing the definition to include gays changes the definition of marriage." I don't find any of these arguments compelling, but there they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Not sure what you are talking about. Care to elaborate? Marriage was started way before the western religions of today were founded. How about slavery? Racism? Pre-suffrage America? No mixed couples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Answer me this, PE: What do you think is wrong with homosexuality, if anything? Do you think it's morally wrong to be a homosexual or to act on your homosexuality? Do you think homosexual love is less valid than heterosexual love? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 How about slavery? Racism? Pre-suffrage America? No mixed couples? Where does it say these practices are acceptable in the holy bible? Slavery: The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters. Racism: James 2:4 describes those who discriminate as “judges with evil thoughts.” Instead, we are to love our neighbors as ourselves (James 2:8). In the Old Testament, God divided humanity into two “racial” groups: Jews and Gentiles. God’s intent was for the Jews to be a kingdom of priests, ministering to the Gentile nations. Instead, for the most part, the Jews became proud of their status and despised the Gentiles. Jesus Christ put an end to this, destroying the dividing wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:14). All forms of racism, prejudice, and discrimination are affronts to the work of Christ on the cross. Women's rights: God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (NRSV, Genesis 2:27-28) When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man." (NIV, Genesis 5:1-2) Interracial marriage: The Old Testament Law commanded the Israelites not to engage in interracial marriage (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). However, the reason for this was not primarily racial in nature. Rather, it was religious. The reason God commanded against interracial marriage was that people of other races were idolaters and worshippers of false gods. The Israelites would be led astray from God if they intermarried with idol worshippers, pagans, or heathens. A similar principle is laid out in the New Testament, but at a much different level: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). Just as the Israelites (believers in the one true God) were commanded not to marry idolaters, so Christians (believers in the one true God) are commanded not to marry unbelievers. To answer this question specifically, no, the Bible does not say that interracial marriage is wrong. There is no place in the life of the Christian for favoritism based on race (James 2:1-10). When selecting a mate, a Christian should always first find out if the potential spouse is born again by faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:3-5). Faith in Christ, not skin color, is the biblical standard for choosing a spouse. Interracial marriage is not a matter of right or wrong, but of wisdom, discernment, and prayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.