|
 TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Me too. I would like to take the opportunity here to point out that marriage has not always meant exclusively a union between a man and a woman. In the past, and for some cultures in the present, it has also included a union between a man and several women or a woman and several men. It has always been flexible in that way, and should continue to be so. Given this flexibility, it is not beyond the realm of reason that its definition could be expanded to include same-sex unions, and even if it were, semantics are not a good reason for prohibiting equal rights.
mar?riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
The third definition is what I agree with. If these deviants want to get a certificate that declares them civilly joined ,that is fine. Using a holy sacrament to normalize their deviance is hardly acceptable.
Lets say that your religion was mushroom eating. You believed in the "All is one" type of world-view. You make ceremonies where people who share these peaceful beleifs can come together (Even gay couples!). Then, people who do not share your belief, who go against it even, are using your sacrament, how wouldja feel?
Edited by TheOneYouKnow (03/02/04 02:43 PM)
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 22 days
|
|
The fact is, if homosexuals are allowed to marry, it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriages. It's not going to change what your marriage means to you. The claim that it will doesn't exactly have any kind of basis.
The claim that this will cause a drain on healthcare is completely illogical. First of all, homosexual marriage isn't going to change the amount of sex gay men are having or how they're going to do it. The ones getting married aren't the ones fucking in backalley bath houses. As for the ones who are, that's their decision, and if you don't like it, you don't have to do it.
Arguing "Marriage between two men? What next, marriage between adults and children?" makes as much sense as saying "Legalize pot?! What next, legalized murder?"
Those opposed to gay marriage are grasping at straws. The more court victories for it, the more gay material in the media, the more gay people become accepted as equal members of society, the more I get to see the bigoted dinosaurs squirm and whine, and I find that very funny to watch.
GabbaDJ, there is nothing that is "just plain wrong". Nothing can be wrong without a reason. It's a free country. If you don't like the way gays are beginning to be treated around here, maybe Egypt would be more appropriate for you:
http://uk.gay.com/article/news/world/2493
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
 silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
TheOneYouKnow said:
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
How many times must I say it? JUST BECAUSE THE AGE IS ARBITRARY DOES NOT MAKE THE CONCEPT ARBITRARY!!! Now, if you want to compare apples to apples instead of oranges, I'll agree that we also should put the same arbitrary age limit on gay marriage. That's not a reason, however, to arbitrarily ban all gay marriages. And if the majority of Americans are against the equal protection clause of the constitution, then too bad. It's in the Constitution.
I wonder which document is more open to interpretation, the constitution, or the Bible?
If marriage is a religious sacrament, and civil unions aren't, then why isn't a civil union enough?
The religious part of marriage is for the churches to deal with, not the government. It's the government's place to recognize marriages which have been carried out by a church.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
The third definition is what I agree with. If these deviants want to get a certificate that declares them civilly joined ,that is fine. Using a holy sacrament to normalize their deviance is hardly acceptable.
It is up to the churches to decide whether or not they will perform religious weddings for gay couples. Government should not interfere with that at all. It is the government's place to grant the same legal rights to those couples as to straight couples that have undergone the same ritual.
Quote:
Lets say that your religion was mushroom eating. You believed in the "All is one" type of world-view. You make ceremonies where people who share these peaceful beleifs can come together (Even gay couples!). Then, people who do not share your belief, who go against it even, are using your sacrament, how wouldja feel?
I would feel that it's not my place to judge.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
It is up to the churches to decide whether or not they will perform religious weddings for gay couples. Government should not interfere with that at all. It is the government's place to grant the same legal rights to those couples as to straight couples that have undergone the same ritual.
you can get married at the court house. I'd be in favor of abolishing marriage as a legla institution, instead make it strictly religious. When any couple wants to join themselves legally, they can attain a civil union certificate at the court house, and save marriage for religion, how would that be?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
I would actually be totally ok with that, as long as it applied equally to gay and straight couples.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
I would actually be totally ok with that, as long as it applied equally to gay and straight couples.
Then it's settled, call Bush and tell him we've made our decision :-)
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
|
you can get married at the court house. I'd be in favor
of abolishing marriage as a legla institution, instead make
it strictly religious. When any couple wants to join themselves
legally, they can attain a civil union certificate at the court
house, and save marriage for religion, how would that be?
the system pretty much already works that way.
except, instead of a 'civil union certificate', currently, you get
a marriage license.
right now, you are not considered married by the united states
unless you have a marriage license.
the religious service is irrelevant in the state's eyes.
there is a legal marriage and a religious marriage, but
the only one that is really relevant to this discussion is
the legal one.
it seems to me that your only hangup is the fact that it
is called a 'marriage'. you've conceded that you don't
mind gay unions as long as they are called unions and
not marriages which really brings us back to the root of
this whole discussion...
religious and sexual bias
illustrated most clearly by your constant use of the term
'deviant' to describe what could easily be your uncle, aunt,
brother or sister. but maybe that's why this is so hard for
you to stomach; is your only exposure to homosexuality
through a fundamentalist church or your KKK newsletter?
what's the diff if it's called a union or a marriage? to you,
it appears from your posts, that it's because a 'marriage'
is some holy religious institution that couldn't bare to recognize
homosexuals.
but why then do some churches allow it, even welcome it, while
others stand on the side of the great freeway passing them by
stomping their feet and waving their arms. which church is right
and which church is wrong?
really, it doesn't matter, because neither of those churches
should have any say regarding what is obviously an issue of
equal protection under the law for all citizens.
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
|
 Re: Gay Marriage  [Re: afoaf]
#2402956 - 03/04/04 01:55 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
afoaf said:
it seems to me that your only hangup is the fact that it
is called a 'marriage'. you've conceded that you don't
mind gay unions as long as they are called unions and
not marriages which really brings us back to the root of
this whole discussion...
I don't have a "hang up" about it. The institution of marriage in this country, by and large, is a religious sacrament involving a man and a woman. I don't want this traditional role assaulted by homosexuals, and I think that is the main problem with the churches as well. If we allow gay couples and straight couples to be joined in a civil union that is the same for both, and allow those couples whose churches they attend to get married according to their religions tenants, we won't be forcing the religious crew (who "claim" marriage) to accept what they see as sodomites. Thus, gay/straight couples would have equal rights in the eyes of the law, and marriage would be for whomever the church deemed proper to marry.
Quote:
illustrated most clearly by your constant use of the term
'deviant' to describe what could easily be your uncle, aunt,
brother or sister. but maybe that's why this is so hard for
you to stomach; is your only exposure to homosexuality
through a fundamentalist church or your KKK newsletter?
You seem to be the one putting words into others mouths based on your stereotypes. I'm not religious at all, which would certaintly exclude me from any Christian activity, including being a member of any churches or the KKK. If you read my reply above, and still think that I'm intentionally being bias towards gays, you are a mo-roon.
Quote:
what's the diff if it's called a union or a marriage? to you,
it appears from your posts, that it's because a 'marriage'
is some holy religious institution that couldn't bare to recognize
homosexuals.
I'm not going to make the government tell a religion that their sacrament has to include people that they don't want it to. Rename stuff, it's pretty simple, equal rights, and marriage is still for a man and a woman, tho man/man (or woman/woman) can all be given the same "rights "under the law as a legally joined couple.
Quote:
but why then do some churches allow it, even welcome it, while
others stand on the side of the great freeway passing them by
stomping their feet and waving their arms. which church is right
and which church is wrong?
I'm not a member of any church, and I haven't had the representatives of each of those churches write me a detailed analyses of their reasons, so I can't really speak on it. If the suggestion I postulated was followed, homo's and hetero's could be joined legally as couples, and if your church recognized your relationship and wanted t omarry you, they could. Marriage, as in the sacrament performed in churches, would have no more legal bearing. Anyone could be married as long as a church would carry it out, because it would mean as much, legally, as a First Communion or a barmitzvah.
Quote:
really, it doesn't matter, because neither of those churches
should have any say regarding what is obviously an issue of
equal protection under the law for all citizens.
No, see, it's a matter of the government not telling churches how their sacraments are to be used. Nonetheless, I'm sure that I've proven I'm not some raving "homophobe"(My 2nd least favorite word of newspeak) Xtian fundamentalist, and I do want to seek a compromise where everyone's rights are served, unlike you, who just wants to see those you dislike (the Xtian right) having this shit forced down their throats.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
|
you clearly have no grasp on the situation.
the government isn't telling ANY church who
they can and cannot marry.
no church has to marry gays, though some
churches do...so which church's rights are
we supposed to be 'protecting'? the one with
the same prejudices and fears that you have
or the one that seems to be able to grasp that
love and devotion know no gender.
for someone who claims to be a-religious you
sure are selfless in your crusage to preserve
religion's 'traditional role [from being] assaulted
by homosexuals.'
for a second there, I almost believed that you
really cared about the churches traditions and
not blind hatred for people who don't have the
same world-view as yourself.
legal marriage, the issue at hand, and religious
marriage have little in common except in name.
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale 
Red Vein Kratom 
North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies 
Buy Kratom Extract
Edit 
Reply 
silversoul7
1 2 all )
Ferris
Madtowntripper
Redstorm
gluke bastid
daussaulit
makaveli8x8