|
Post by Nivro™ on Jul 2, 2015 23:52:38 GMT -5
I think you skipped that line. I never said you were, I say you may or may not be doing it intentionally. Which means it could be just the way you phrased it. The point was grouping all Christians in the same group as a few and calling them "bigots" is just an ignorant statement as calling any other racial, religious or sexual oriented person by their stereotypical groupings. Once again, I didn't call all Christians bigots, I called the people who are making bigoted systems and hiding behind their religion bigots. Because they are bigots. Go through every post I've made in this thread. Hell, go through every post I've ever made here in any thread and I guarantee you will not find one post with me saying that all Christians are anything. I'm Christian myself. Well I'm somewhere between Christian and Buddhist anyway. I dont think you understand what Im saying. I know things can get lost in text. Im not saying YOU (personally) are saying it, Im saying that its being said in generalized statement in other forms (social media, magazines, talk shows etc)
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jul 3, 2015 0:41:56 GMT -5
Once again, I didn't call all Christians bigots, I called the people who are making bigoted systems and hiding behind their religion bigots. Because they are bigots. Go through every post I've made in this thread. Hell, go through every post I've ever made here in any thread and I guarantee you will not find one post with me saying that all Christians are anything. I'm Christian myself. Well I'm somewhere between Christian and Buddhist anyway. I dont think you understand what Im saying. I know things can get lost in text. Im not saying YOU (personally) are saying it, Im saying that its being said in generalized statement in other forms (social media, magazines, talk shows etc) Ahhh gotcha. Sorry dude I took it as a personal attack. You're probably right there, I honestly wouldn't know. This is the only form of social media I use. I'm not even sure this would count as social media though. As far as the "mainstream" media goes... I stay as far away from that as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Jul 3, 2015 13:01:08 GMT -5
I recently lost a few friends on FB due to some comments I made about gay "marriage". It is insane that gays want equal rights but they are so quick to bad mouth religion. If you oppose gay "marriage" you are labeled a homophobic person or a religious nut.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 1, 2024 17:29:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 9:33:50 GMT -5
I recently lost a few friends on FB due to some comments I made about gay "marriage". It is insane that gays want equal rights but they are so quick to bad mouth religion. If you oppose gay "marriage" you are labeled a homophobic person or a religious nut. If the churches weren't so openly opposed to it, I doubt anyone of these people you are referring to would bash them.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jul 4, 2015 11:30:28 GMT -5
I recently lost a few friends on FB due to some comments I made about gay "marriage". It is insane that gays want equal rights but they are so quick to bad mouth religion. If you oppose gay "marriage" you are labeled a homophobic person or a religious nut. Meh, not exactly the first resort for me. I would just point out that you have no rational reason for opposition.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jul 4, 2015 11:39:50 GMT -5
I recently lost a few friends on FB due to some comments I made about gay "marriage". It is insane that gays want equal rights but they are so quick to bad mouth religion. If you oppose gay "marriage" you are labeled a homophobic person or a religious nut. It sounds like you are against gay marriage. Why? Because the Christian bible says being gay is a sin? What about divorce? Are you this against that as well? Oral sex? Men with long hair? Because the bible says that none of those things are okay. The problem is that those who oppose gay rights for religious reasons want to cherry pick what outrages God and by extension, themselves. The bible says (and I'm paraphrasing here of course) that taking a shot in the mouth is "the most detestable thing a person can do." Hmm. I don't know about you but to me "most detestable" sounds like they view that as being much worse than homosexuality. Yet I've never once heard of anyone protesting oral sex. I realy don't think this is about religion for most people. They just don't like gays or at the very least find them icky. This is bigotry, you can hide behind your book all you want but it doesn't change a thing. However all of this is moot because the concept of marriages predates Christianity so I don't think you guys should have a say in how it is our is not defined anyway.
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Jul 4, 2015 21:23:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Jul 5, 2015 10:15:43 GMT -5
I recently lost a few friends on FB due to some comments I made about gay "marriage". It is insane that gays want equal rights but they are so quick to bad mouth religion. If you oppose gay "marriage" you are labeled a homophobic person or a religious nut. It sounds like you are against gay marriage. Why? Because the Christian bible says being gay is a sin? What about divorce? Are you this against that as well? Oral sex? Men with long hair? Because the bible says that none of those things are okay. The problem is that those who oppose gay rights for religious reasons want to cherry pick what outrages God and by extension, themselves. The bible says (and I'm paraphrasing here of course) that taking a shot in the mouth is "the most detestable thing a person can do." Hmm. I don't know about you but to me "most detestable" sounds like they view that as being much worse than homosexuality. Yet I've never once heard of anyone protesting oral sex. I realy don't think this is about religion for most people. They just don't like gays or at the very least find them icky. This is bigotry, you can hide behind your book all you want but it doesn't change a thing. However all of this is moot because the concept of marriages predates Christianity so I don't think you guys should have a say in how it is our is not defined anyway. Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. To think otherwise is just you fooling yourself. It's like if a man were to say he is a babys mother. It just is not right, no matter how much you want to believe it. I wont continue because it wont lead anywhere on these forums. I do see where you are coming from, I doubt you'll see where im coming from. I just know we'll never agree. It just makes me laugh so much when I see gays crying about equal rights but then they are so quick to make a religious person feel like they don't matter. Belittling another human being while crying that they are equal.
|
|
scottydub
Main Eventer
Madness
Joined on: Oct 3, 2012 15:43:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by scottydub on Jul 5, 2015 10:37:41 GMT -5
It sounds like you are against gay marriage. Why? Because the Christian bible says being gay is a sin? What about divorce? Are you this against that as well? Oral sex? Men with long hair? Because the bible says that none of those things are okay. The problem is that those who oppose gay rights for religious reasons want to cherry pick what outrages God and by extension, themselves. The bible says (and I'm paraphrasing here of course) that taking a shot in the mouth is "the most detestable thing a person can do." Hmm. I don't know about you but to me "most detestable" sounds like they view that as being much worse than homosexuality. Yet I've never once heard of anyone protesting oral sex. I realy don't think this is about religion for most people. They just don't like gays or at the very least find them icky. This is bigotry, you can hide behind your book all you want but it doesn't change a thing. However all of this is moot because the concept of marriages predates Christianity so I don't think you guys should have a say in how it is our is not defined anyway. Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. To think otherwise is just you fooling yourself. It's like if a man were to say he is a babys mother. It just is not right, no matter how much you want to believe it. I wont continue because it wont lead anywhere on these forums. I do see where you are coming from, I doubt you'll see where im coming from. I just know we'll never agree. It just makes me laugh so much when I see gays crying about equal rights but then they are so quick to make a religious person feel like they don't matter. Belittling another human being while crying that they are equal. Valid point in my opinion. It's pretty closed minded and lacking in compassion to cry for justice, to fight for freedom and the right to express oneself, and then turn around and tell the person next to you they're wrong for what they believe...whether you are gay or Christian. We are pretty good at hurting one another, and it seems to be often done out of fear and selfishness, regardless of which side of the coin you fall upon. It takes a lot of courage and character to be able to articulate your convictions without attacking those whom disagree with you, but that HAS to happen if we're going to move forward on this thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 1, 2024 17:29:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2015 13:00:57 GMT -5
I recently lost a few friends on FB due to some comments I made about gay "marriage". It is insane that gays want equal rights but they are so quick to bad mouth religion. If you oppose gay "marriage" you are labeled a homophobic person or a religious nut. Meh, not exactly the first resort for me. I would just point out that you have no rational reason for opposition. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why do we have to redefine marriage? Why can't we create a civil institution that does the same thing? Marriage started off as an arrangement between families. It was designed so those families could team up and consolidate their power. Later, religion co-opted marriage, making it a "sacred" institution. This, of course, meant that you needed to pay off your local holy man in order to make your marriage "legal". Later, the state got into the game. Now you had to pay off your local politician as well as your local holy man in order to get married. I believe it was at this point that our society jumped the shark. Why would the government need to issue a liscence before someone could go through a religious ceremony? Aren't we supposed to have separation of church and state? That said, throughout its history, marriage has always been between men and women. Bringing religion into the debate is a red herring IMO. Religion has nothing to do with it. It has always been the state that was hesitant to issue homosexual couples a marriage liscence. The question is why. Why would the state be hesitant to issue marriage liscences to homosexual couples? This makes no sense. The answer can't be religion because we have separation between church and state. The answer is that the definition of marriage doesn't allow for marriage between members of the same sex. Since its inception marriage has always been between men and women. So what do we do to rectify the situation? Do we change the definition of marriage or does the state create a new institution affording the same benefits of marriage to homosexual couples? I would have been happy either way. If the marriage traditionalists were the bigger people and "allowed" homosexuals to "marry" then I think that would be great. If the homosexuals were the bigger people and accepted civil unions then I think that would have been great too. Either scenario would have brought us closer together as a society. That's not what happened though. The homosexuals sued the government and forced the Feds to change the definition of marriage. To answer your question, having the government get out of the marriage business altogether and just issue liscences for civil unions would have been better. A rational argument against changing the definition of marriage is that doing so is more divisive then the alternative resolution I suggested.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jul 5, 2015 13:46:54 GMT -5
It sounds like you are against gay marriage. Why? Because the Christian bible says being gay is a sin? What about divorce? Are you this against that as well? Oral sex? Men with long hair? Because the bible says that none of those things are okay. The problem is that those who oppose gay rights for religious reasons want to cherry pick what outrages God and by extension, themselves. The bible says (and I'm paraphrasing here of course) that taking a shot in the mouth is "the most detestable thing a person can do." Hmm. I don't know about you but to me "most detestable" sounds like they view that as being much worse than homosexuality. Yet I've never once heard of anyone protesting oral sex. I realy don't think this is about religion for most people. They just don't like gays or at the very least find them icky. This is bigotry, you can hide behind your book all you want but it doesn't change a thing. However all of this is moot because the concept of marriages predates Christianity so I don't think you guys should have a say in how it is our is not defined anyway. Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. To think otherwise is just you fooling yourself. It's like if a man were to say he is a babys mother. It just is not right, no matter how much you want to believe it. I wont continue because it wont lead anywhere on these forums. I do see where you are coming from, I doubt you'll see where im coming from. I just know we'll never agree. It just makes me laugh so much when I see gays crying about equal rights but then they are so quick to make a religious person feel like they don't matter. Belittling another human being while crying that they are equal. Yes that is what marriage originally was but why can't that change? Why is that such a terrible thing? I really don't see why this is such an issue for some people. The original purpose of marriage was s property exchange between two families. One family would trade their property, such as land or livestock for another family's property, THEIR DAUGHTER. Changing away from that was fine, but this isn't? Why? What you and kayfabe don't seem to understand is that denying gays the right to marry is denying them their equal rights. It is sending the message that they are not as good as heterosexuals in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately for you we have this little document called the Constitution that says you cannot do that. I'm sure you'll recall the Constitution, it's that document you people love to cherry pick from, not to be confused with the bible. You anti gay crusaders are not victims. You're being belittled and told that you are wrong because you are discriminating a minority group. Guess what, you are wrong for doing that. That's why that keeps happening. Discrimination is not a right.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jul 5, 2015 13:55:57 GMT -5
Meh, not exactly the first resort for me. I would just point out that you have no rational reason for opposition. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why do we have to redefine marriage? Why can't we create a civil institution that does the same thing? Marriage started off as an arrangement between families. It was designed so those families could team up and consolidate their power. Later, religion co-opted marriage, making it a "sacred" institution. This, of course, meant that you needed to pay off your local holy man in order to make your marriage "legal". Later, the state got into the game. Now you had to pay off your local politician as well as your local holy man in order to get married. I believe it was at this point that our society jumped the shark. Why would the government need to issue a liscence before someone could go through a religious ceremony? Aren't we supposed to have separation of church and state? That said, throughout its history, marriage has always been between men and women. Bringing religion into the debate is a red herring IMO. Religion has nothing to do with it. It has always been the state that was hesitant to issue homosexual couples a marriage liscence. The question is why. Why would the state be hesitant to issue marriage liscences to homosexual couples? This makes no sense. The answer can't be religion because we have separation between church and state. The answer is that the definition of marriage doesn't allow for marriage between members of the same sex. Since its inception marriage has always been between men and women. So what do we do to rectify the situation? Do we change the definition of marriage or does the state create a new institution affording the same benefits of marriage to homosexual couples? I would have been happy either way. If the marriage traditionalists were the bigger people and "allowed" homosexuals to "marry" then I think that would be great. If the homosexuals were the bigger people and accepted civil unions then I think that would have been great too. Either scenario would have brought us closer together as a society. That's not what happened though. The homosexuals sued the government and forced the Feds to change the definition of marriage. To answer your question, having the government get out of the marriage business altogether and just issue liscences for civil unions would have been better. A rational argument against changing the definition of marriage is that doing so is more divisive then the alternative resolution I suggested. Once again you are taking out of both sides of your mouth. You describe the evolution of marriage going from an arrangement of property and power to what it had become today as a good thing, but then say that redefining it by allowing gay marriage is a bad thing. But going from what it originally was to what it is now is also a redefinition. Why should homosexuals be the "bigger" people and just accept not having equal rights? Would you ask that of any other group of people? Would you ask women to just accept not having a say in whom they marry? Because that's the kind of bullcrap you marriage traditionalists should be for, if you weren't hypocrites.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jul 5, 2015 13:58:47 GMT -5
Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. To think otherwise is just you fooling yourself. It's like if a man were to say he is a babys mother. It just is not right, no matter how much you want to believe it. I wont continue because it wont lead anywhere on these forums. I do see where you are coming from, I doubt you'll see where im coming from. I just know we'll never agree. It just makes me laugh so much when I see gays crying about equal rights but then they are so quick to make a religious person feel like they don't matter. Belittling another human being while crying that they are equal. Valid point in my opinion. It's pretty closed minded and lacking in compassion to cry for justice, to fight for freedom and the right to express oneself, and then turn around and tell the person next to you they're wrong for what they believe...whether you are gay or Christian. We are pretty good at hurting one another, and it seems to be often done out of fear and selfishness, regardless of which side of the coin you fall upon. It takes a lot of courage and character to be able to articulate your convictions without attacking those whom disagree with you, but that HAS to happen if we're going to move forward on this thing. The people who are being told that they are wrong are the people who are discriminating a minority group and denying them their equal rights. That is wrong. Why is that so ing hard for so many of you to understand?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 1, 2024 17:29:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2015 14:13:29 GMT -5
Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. To think otherwise is just you fooling yourself. It's like if a man were to say he is a babys mother. It just is not right, no matter how much you want to believe it. I wont continue because it wont lead anywhere on these forums. I do see where you are coming from, I doubt you'll see where im coming from. I just know we'll never agree. It just makes me laugh so much when I see gays crying about equal rights but then they are so quick to make a religious person feel like they don't matter. Belittling another human being while crying that they are equal. Yes that is what marriage originally was but why can't that change? Why is that such a terrible thing? I really don't see why this is such an issue for some people. The original purpose of marriage was s property exchange between two families. One family would trade their property, such as land or livestock for another family's property, THEIR DAUGHTER. Changing away from that was fine, but this isn't? Why? What you and kayfabe don't seem to understand is that denying gays the right to marry is denying them their equal rights. It is sending the message that they are not as good as heterosexuals in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately for you we have this little document called the Constitution that says you cannot do that. I'm sure you'll recall the Constitution, it's that document you people love to cherry pick from, not to be confused with the bible. You anti gay crusaders are not victims. You're being belittled and told that you are wrong because you are discriminating a minority group. Guess what, you are wrong for doing that. That's why that keeps happening. Discrimination is not a right. It isn't fair of you to tag me in your response as I've made it clear that I support gay marriage. When you direct your comments toward me I'd appreciate it if you referenced something I actually said. Otherwise you're misrepresenting my opinion. You also need to clarify your position when you reference the denial of rights. Are you talking about the church or the state? Either way you're wrong. Any homosexual man has had the right to marry any woman he wants. Any homosexual woman has had the right to marry any man she wants. That right has always been equal. So this isn't really about "equal" rights. It's about creating a new right. The right for people of the same sex to marry. That's something people have never had the right to do. Being against redefining marriage doesn't make someone anti-gay. Suggesting otherwise is inflammatory, slanderous, divisive and intolerant. Be a STAR. Show tolerance and respect. I think there's room with this issue for civil discourse. Both sides need to be more open minded. Especially the mud slingers. Like, why can't homosexuals and heterosexuals alike just get civil unions from the state? Why can't we just make those "religious types" happy and let them keep marriage? Why is it so important for homosexuals to take that away from them? Especially when it's something they feel so passionate about? I mean, there are religions out there that allow same sex marriages so in my mind society's beef is really with the government. What I don't get is why you tagged me. Why didn't you tag Bill Clinton? He signed DOMA into law. Why didn't you tag Obama? He made it clear he was against gay marriage when he was trying to woo the black vote. IMO those two are the real problems because they're the ones refusing to create this new right people like me are arguing for.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 1, 2024 17:29:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2015 14:27:02 GMT -5
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why do we have to redefine marriage? Why can't we create a civil institution that does the same thing? Marriage started off as an arrangement between families. It was designed so those families could team up and consolidate their power. Later, religion co-opted marriage, making it a "sacred" institution. This, of course, meant that you needed to pay off your local holy man in order to make your marriage "legal". Later, the state got into the game. Now you had to pay off your local politician as well as your local holy man in order to get married. I believe it was at this point that our society jumped the shark. Why would the government need to issue a liscence before someone could go through a religious ceremony? Aren't we supposed to have separation of church and state? That said, throughout its history, marriage has always been between men and women. Bringing religion into the debate is a red herring IMO. Religion has nothing to do with it. It has always been the state that was hesitant to issue homosexual couples a marriage liscence. The question is why. Why would the state be hesitant to issue marriage liscences to homosexual couples? This makes no sense. The answer can't be religion because we have separation between church and state. The answer is that the definition of marriage doesn't allow for marriage between members of the same sex. Since its inception marriage has always been between men and women. So what do we do to rectify the situation? Do we change the definition of marriage or does the state create a new institution affording the same benefits of marriage to homosexual couples? I would have been happy either way. If the marriage traditionalists were the bigger people and "allowed" homosexuals to "marry" then I think that would be great. If the homosexuals were the bigger people and accepted civil unions then I think that would have been great too. Either scenario would have brought us closer together as a society. That's not what happened though. The homosexuals sued the government and forced the Feds to change the definition of marriage. To answer your question, having the government get out of the marriage business altogether and just issue liscences for civil unions would have been better. A rational argument against changing the definition of marriage is that doing so is more divisive then the alternative resolution I suggested. Once again you are taking out of both sides of your mouth. You describe the evolution of marriage going from an arrangement of property and power to what it had become today as a good thing, but then say that redefining it by allowing gay marriage is a bad thing. But going from what it originally was to what it is now is also a redefinition. Why should homosexuals be the "bigger" people and just accept not having equal rights? Would you ask that of any other group of people? Would you ask women to just accept not having a say in whom they marry? Because that's the kind of bullcrap you marriage traditionalists should be for, if you weren't hypocrites. Again, just because I explain something doesn't mean I support it. I'm just keeping it real so people don't fool themselves. No, I don't think religion and then the state co-opting marriage is a "good" thing. I think something like marriage should be between consenting adults. It shouldn't be up to an overbearing authority to tell me who I can and can not marry. I should be able to enter into that arrangement with whomever I like. After I do so the government then enforces that contract. But they shouldn't restrict who I enter into that contract with. I also didn't say homosexuals "should" be the bigger people. I said it would be great if they were. I'm not sure if you're deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote or what, but you should probably try to read and comprehend before responding or at least ask a clarifying question. I don't know what else to say because your post isn't really responding to me. It's responding to what you think I said or what you want others to believe I said. I support gay marriage. I just wish the debate came to a more amicable conclusion. I'm mature enough to have empathy toward the losing side. I really don't see what's so wrong with that. If you want to keep talking about the topic with me I suggest you respond to what I wrote. If you're only taking part in the conversation so that you can express these hostile feelings you have towards others then I suggest you leave me out of it. I'm not really into hate-filled conversations.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Jul 5, 2015 14:29:23 GMT -5
Meh, not exactly the first resort for me. I would just point out that you have no rational reason for opposition. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why do we have to redefine marriage? Why can't we create a civil institution that does the same thing? Marriage started off as an arrangement between families. It was designed so those families could team up and consolidate their power. Later, religion co-opted marriage, making it a "sacred" institution. This, of course, meant that you needed to pay off your local holy man in order to make your marriage "legal". Later, the state got into the game. Now you had to pay off your local politician as well as your local holy man in order to get married. I believe it was at this point that our society jumped the shark. Why would the government need to issue a liscence before someone could go through a religious ceremony? Aren't we supposed to have separation of church and state? That said, throughout its history, marriage has always been between men and women. Bringing religion into the debate is a red herring IMO. Religion has nothing to do with it. It has always been the state that was hesitant to issue homosexual couples a marriage liscence. The question is why. Why would the state be hesitant to issue marriage liscences to homosexual couples? This makes no sense. The answer can't be religion because we have separation between church and state. The answer is that the definition of marriage doesn't allow for marriage between members of the same sex. Since its inception marriage has always been between men and women. So what do we do to rectify the situation? Do we change the definition of marriage or does the state create a new institution affording the same benefits of marriage to homosexual couples? I would have been happy either way. If the marriage traditionalists were the bigger people and "allowed" homosexuals to "marry" then I think that would be great. If the homosexuals were the bigger people and accepted civil unions then I think that would have been great too. Either scenario would have brought us closer together as a society. That's not what happened though. The homosexuals sued the government and forced the Feds to change the definition of marriage. To answer your question, having the government get out of the marriage business altogether and just issue liscences for civil unions would have been better. A rational argument against changing the definition of marriage is that doing so is more divisive then the alternative resolution I suggested. Marriage is the sacred bond between a man, a woman, their government, and their holy man.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Jul 7, 2015 0:41:43 GMT -5
Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. To think otherwise is just you fooling yourself. It's like if a man were to say he is a babys mother. It just is not right, no matter how much you want to believe it. I wont continue because it wont lead anywhere on these forums. I do see where you are coming from, I doubt you'll see where im coming from. I just know we'll never agree. It just makes me laugh so much when I see gays crying about equal rights but then they are so quick to make a religious person feel like they don't matter. Belittling another human being while crying that they are equal. Yes that is what marriage originally was but why can't that change? Why is that such a terrible thing? I really don't see why this is such an issue for some people. The original purpose of marriage was s property exchange between two families. One family would trade their property, such as land or livestock for another family's property, THEIR DAUGHTER. Changing away from that was fine, but this isn't? Why? What you and kayfabe don't seem to understand is that denying gays the right to marry is denying them their equal rights. It is sending the message that they are not as good as heterosexuals in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately for you we have this little document called the Constitution that says you cannot do that. I'm sure you'll recall the Constitution, it's that document you people love to cherry pick from, not to be confused with the bible. You anti gay crusaders are not victims. You're being belittled and told that you are wrong because you are discriminating a minority group. Guess what, you are wrong for doing that. That's why that keeps happening. Discrimination is not a right. I would love to put my thoughts to print here but I like these forums and do not want to be banned. I know that If I were to tell you how I see the whole gay and gay marriage topics, someone would take issue or offense and I dont want to be banned or warning barred. I'll just conclude with this.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jul 9, 2015 19:06:15 GMT -5
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why do we have to redefine marriage? Oh, so we can just ignore the gay couples from Ancient Rome, Ancient China, the various countries in which polygamy is still practiced, plus ignoring all the legally married gay couples in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, most recently Ireland, etc. Why can't we create a civil institution that does the same thing? I believe we tried "separate but equal" in the past, it was ruled unconstitutional in Brown vs Board of Education in 1954. Later, religion co-opted marriage, making it a "sacred" institution. This, of course, meant that you needed to pay off your local holy man in order to make your marriage "legal". So it wasn't a religious institution to begin with, thus people don't have to go to a church to get married. Why would the government need to issue a license before someone could go through a religious ceremony? Aren't we supposed to have separation of church and state? Because churches can to this day refuse to marry a couple? My fiancee and I are an interracial couple getting married in September. Had this been 30-40 years ago, us getting married was probably still a taboo. What would happen if we couldn't find a church that would marry us? Just shrug our shoulders? Better yet, what if we aren't religious and don't want to get married in a church? Marriage originated as a societal construct, thus the church doesn't own the concept no matter how much its members claim. You're absolutely right about separation of church and state, which is what will still protect churches even after the gay marriage ruling. Yet you still seem concerned that churches will be forced to perform the ceremonies. Bringing religion into the debate is a red herring IMO. Religion has nothing to do with it. Look no further than some of the most staunch opponents of marriage equality: "I don't think a lot of pastors and Christian schools are going to have a choice. They either are going to follow God, their conscience, and what they truly believe is what the Scripture teaches them or they will follow civil law," - Gov Mike Huckabee, Presidential candidate "Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that." - Gov Bobby Jindal, Presidential candidate "Any of you who have members of your family in the lifestyle, we have a member of our family that is [lesbian]. This is not funny. It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay.” - Former Rep Michelle Bachmann, directed at her sister. So loving isn't it? "On Friday, the Supreme Court made it easier for people to go to Hell," "They now have some accountability before God because they have made it easier for people to reject the truth of the Scripture about eternal salvation. This is a serious and a sobering thing and the majority on the Supreme Court is going to need to answer for this one day." - Bryan Fischer of American Family Radio Not about religion my ass. Three of the people above are/were in public office, meaning their job is to write policy and laws. Don't be surprised if most of the GOP primary candidates hold similar views. It has always been the state that was hesitant to issue homosexual couples a marriage liscence. The question is why. Why would the state be hesitant to issue marriage liscences to homosexual couples? This makes no sense. Because society has evolved and becomes more accepting over time. Those who write laws are elected by their constituents, if they do things that the people may not like, they could lose their seat in congress, senate, etc. The answer can't be religion because we have separation between church and state. But you're claiming that marriage is religion's "toy" and that the state shouldn't have any part of it. Which again, what about the couples who aren't religious and want to get married? The answer is that the definition of marriage doesn't allow for marriage between members of the same sex. The "it's always been this way" argument is kind of stale and doesn't hold much weight anymore, much less inside the Supreme Court. Voting didn't allow for women at one point, why did we have to change it? Do we change the definition of marriage or does the state create a new institution affording the same benefits of marriage to homosexual couples? I have no problem with the first one, since as I mentioned earlier I may have not been able to get married today had it not been for redefining marriage. The opponents of gay marriage have not yet demonstrated what harm this will cause. I would have been happy either way. Then what exactly is the problem? On one hand you've claimed to support same sex marriage, but then argue against it, using the same arguments that gay marriage opponents have made. If the marriage traditionalists were the bigger people and "allowed" homosexuals to "marry" then I think that would be great. If the homosexuals were the bigger people and accepted civil unions then I think that would have been great too. Really? They're just supposed to accept separate but equal, an unconstitutional concept? That easy? Either scenario would have brought us closer together as a society. That's not what happened though. The homosexuals sued the government and forced the Feds to change the definition of marriage. Nobody was "forced" to do anything. Your definition of marriage doesn't have to be the same as mine. The Supreme Court ruled that states' gay marriage bans were unconstitutional under the 14th amendment of the constitution. That's their job, to interpret the laws and determine whether or not they're constitutional. Just like how the Confederate states were "forced" to free their slaves, just like how states were "forced" to de-segregate, just like how states were "forced" to grant interracial marriages, just like how states were "forced" to allow women to vote. To answer your question, having the government get out of the marriage business altogether and just issue liscences for civil unions would have been better. A rational argument against changing the definition of marriage is that doing so is more divisive then the alternative resolution I suggested. Getting government out of marriage is a different story all together. It is not divisive to grant someone the same right to happiness that you have.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jul 9, 2015 19:21:25 GMT -5
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why do we have to redefine marriage? Oh, so we can just ignore the gay couples from Ancient Rome, Ancient China, the various countries in which polygamy is still practiced, plus ignoring all the legally married gay couples in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, most recently Ireland, etc. Why can't we create a civil institution that does the same thing? I believe we tried "separate but equal" in the past, it was ruled unconstitutional in Brown vs Board of Education in 1954. Later, religion co-opted marriage, making it a "sacred" institution. This, of course, meant that you needed to pay off your local holy man in order to make your marriage "legal". So it wasn't a religious institution to begin with, thus people don't have to go to a church to get married. Why would the government need to issue a license before someone could go through a religious ceremony? Aren't we supposed to have separation of church and state? Because churches can to this day refuse to marry a couple? My fiancee and I are an interracial couple getting married in September. Had this been 30-40 years ago, us getting married was probably still a taboo. What would happen if we couldn't find a church that would marry us? Just shrug our shoulders? Better yet, what if we aren't religious and don't want to get married in a church? Marriage originated as a societal construct, thus the church doesn't own the concept no matter how much its members claim. You're absolutely right about separation of church and state, which is what will still protect churches even after the gay marriage ruling. Yet you still seem concerned that churches will be forced to perform the ceremonies. Bringing religion into the debate is a red herring IMO. Religion has nothing to do with it. Look no further than some of the most staunch opponents of marriage equality: "I don't think a lot of pastors and Christian schools are going to have a choice. They either are going to follow God, their conscience, and what they truly believe is what the Scripture teaches them or they will follow civil law," - Gov Mike Huckabee, Presidential candidate "Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that." - Gov Bobby Jindal, Presidential candidate "Any of you who have members of your family in the lifestyle, we have a member of our family that is [lesbian]. This is not funny. It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay.” - Former Rep Michelle Bachmann, directed at her sister. So loving isn't it? "On Friday, the Supreme Court made it easier for people to go to Hell," "They now have some accountability before God because they have made it easier for people to reject the truth of the Scripture about eternal salvation. This is a serious and a sobering thing and the majority on the Supreme Court is going to need to answer for this one day." - Bryan Fischer of American Family Radio Not about religion my ass. Three of the people above are/were in public office, meaning their job is to write policy and laws. Don't be surprised if most of the GOP primary candidates hold similar views. It has always been the state that was hesitant to issue homosexual couples a marriage liscence. The question is why. Why would the state be hesitant to issue marriage liscences to homosexual couples? This makes no sense. Because society has evolved and becomes more accepting over time. Those who write laws are elected by their constituents, if they do things that the people may not like, they could lose their seat in congress, senate, etc. The answer can't be religion because we have separation between church and state. But you're claiming that marriage is religion's "toy" and that the state shouldn't have any part of it. Which again, what about the couples who aren't religious and want to get married? The answer is that the definition of marriage doesn't allow for marriage between members of the same sex. The "it's always been this way" argument is kind of stale and doesn't hold much weight anymore, much less inside the Supreme Court. Voting didn't allow for women at one point, why did we have to change it? Do we change the definition of marriage or does the state create a new institution affording the same benefits of marriage to homosexual couples? I have no problem with the first one, since as I mentioned earlier I may have not been able to get married today had it not been for redefining marriage. The opponents of gay marriage have not yet demonstrated what harm this will cause. I would have been happy either way. Then what exactly is the problem? On one hand you've claimed to support same sex marriage, but then argue against it, using the same arguments that gay marriage opponents have made. If the marriage traditionalists were the bigger people and "allowed" homosexuals to "marry" then I think that would be great. If the homosexuals were the bigger people and accepted civil unions then I think that would have been great too. Really? They're just supposed to accept separate but equal, an unconstitutional concept? That easy? Either scenario would have brought us closer together as a society. That's not what happened though. The homosexuals sued the government and forced the Feds to change the definition of marriage. Nobody was "forced" to do anything. Your definition of marriage doesn't have to be the same as mine. The Supreme Court ruled that states' gay marriage bans were unconstitutional under the 14th amendment of the constitution. That's their job, to interpret the laws and determine whether or not they're constitutional. Just like how the Confederate states were "forced" to free their slaves, just like how states were "forced" to de-segregate, just like how states were "forced" to grant interracial marriages, just like how states were "forced" to allow women to vote. To answer your question, having the government get out of the marriage business altogether and just issue liscences for civil unions would have been better. A rational argument against changing the definition of marriage is that doing so is more divisive then the alternative resolution I suggested. Getting government out of marriage is a different story all together. It is not divisive to grant someone the same right to happiness that you have. Trust me, you are heading into a vortex. You saw what happened when he and I got into it. It started or respectful. I actually enjoyed our debates. But as they went on... well I'm not entirety sure what happened. I can't tell if he's trolling or if he really believes his hate speech. But when the lies and misinformation start flowing it doesn't stop. In fact, it just keeps getting worse and worse. It's not worth it.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jul 9, 2015 19:25:11 GMT -5
Oh, so we can just ignore the gay couples from Ancient Rome, Ancient China, the various countries in which polygamy is still practiced, plus ignoring all the legally married gay couples in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, most recently Ireland, etc. I believe we tried "separate but equal" in the past, it was ruled unconstitutional in Brown vs Board of Education in 1954. So it wasn't a religious institution to begin with, thus people don't have to go to a church to get married. Because churches can to this day refuse to marry a couple? My fiancee and I are an interracial couple getting married in September. Had this been 30-40 years ago, us getting married was probably still a taboo. What would happen if we couldn't find a church that would marry us? Just shrug our shoulders? Better yet, what if we aren't religious and don't want to get married in a church? Marriage originated as a societal construct, thus the church doesn't own the concept no matter how much its members claim. You're absolutely right about separation of church and state, which is what will still protect churches even after the gay marriage ruling. Yet you still seem concerned that churches will be forced to perform the ceremonies. Look no further than some of the most staunch opponents of marriage equality: "I don't think a lot of pastors and Christian schools are going to have a choice. They either are going to follow God, their conscience, and what they truly believe is what the Scripture teaches them or they will follow civil law," - Gov Mike Huckabee, Presidential candidate "Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that." - Gov Bobby Jindal, Presidential candidate "Any of you who have members of your family in the lifestyle, we have a member of our family that is [lesbian]. This is not funny. It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay.” - Former Rep Michelle Bachmann, directed at her sister. So loving isn't it? "On Friday, the Supreme Court made it easier for people to go to Hell," "They now have some accountability before God because they have made it easier for people to reject the truth of the Scripture about eternal salvation. This is a serious and a sobering thing and the majority on the Supreme Court is going to need to answer for this one day." - Bryan Fischer of American Family Radio Not about religion my ass. Three of the people above are/were in public office, meaning their job is to write policy and laws. Don't be surprised if most of the GOP primary candidates hold similar views. Because society has evolved and becomes more accepting over time. Those who write laws are elected by their constituents, if they do things that the people may not like, they could lose their seat in congress, senate, etc. But you're claiming that marriage is religion's "toy" and that the state shouldn't have any part of it. Which again, what about the couples who aren't religious and want to get married? The "it's always been this way" argument is kind of stale and doesn't hold much weight anymore, much less inside the Supreme Court. Voting didn't allow for women at one point, why did we have to change it? I have no problem with the first one, since as I mentioned earlier I may have not been able to get married today had it not been for redefining marriage. The opponents of gay marriage have not yet demonstrated what harm this will cause. Then what exactly is the problem? On one hand you've claimed to support same sex marriage, but then argue against it, using the same arguments that gay marriage opponents have made. Really? They're just supposed to accept separate but equal, an unconstitutional concept? That easy? Nobody was "forced" to do anything. Your definition of marriage doesn't have to be the same as mine. The Supreme Court ruled that states' gay marriage bans were unconstitutional under the 14th amendment of the constitution. That's their job, to interpret the laws and determine whether or not they're constitutional. Just like how the Confederate states were "forced" to free their slaves, just like how states were "forced" to de-segregate, just like how states were "forced" to grant interracial marriages, just like how states were "forced" to allow women to vote. Getting government out of marriage is a different story all together. It is not divisive to grant someone the same right to happiness that you have. Trust me, you are heading into a vortex. You saw what happened when he and I got into it. It started or respectful. I actually enjoyed our debates. But as they went on... well I'm not entirety sure what happened. I can't tell if he's trolling or if he really believes his hate speech. But when the lies and misinformation start flowing it doesn't stop. In fact, it just keeps getting worse and worse. It's not worth it. So far it's been civil between he and I. Don't worry about it, if it gets inflammatory I can handle it. No need to stir things up.
|
|