Pantalaimon Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 if marriage is Sacred, outlaw divorce. that how it must be thought if u marry someone (same-sex or not) it should be until death split you up (that how its said? -.-) thats the only rule of marriage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 There ya go... You are permanently bonded, like in the olden days. And if you have an affair, to the bonfire wit ye! IDEA. Let's make a religious text the law of the land. But let's choose that religious text completely at random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digicide Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 'permanently bonded'-- that's like the definition of marriage. and how bout you just love your spouse and don't have affairs? ...olden days look pretty good to me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I wasnt saying it was bad... just saying what would make it a moot point. If you think Marriage is in danger, ban divorce (and adultery). Agreeing with you Stop hitting me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mifki Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I think that there is nothing wrong with marriage of {censored} and Dikes (pardon the lanquage) as long as i dont end up wlaking down the street one day with my kid and past a church seeing to ugly fat men kissing each other and as long as i dont see them on TV celebrating their love for each other. I read somehwere that most of the same sex marriages only last for about 3 months or so or even less. So let teh {censored} get married its only a piece of paper saying that they are "bonded in holy matrimony" anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullMetal Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I say YAY! I believe that they should be allowed to get married. I would like to remind those who are anti-{censored} marriage that other religions have unions/marriages and don't care what your sexual preference is. Now if you really sit and think about this "ban on {censored} marriage" it just comes up as the United States goverment saying that it holds Christian view higher than views other religions. This then becomes religious descrimination which I'm pretty sure is the complete opposite from what our Melting Pot of a country was built on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 What do Lesbians bring to a second date? A U-Haul. ;-p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henbjo Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I definitely approve of same-sex marriages. All scientific research upon homosexuality concludes with that this is (both male and female) most likely is a result of a variance in the masculinization of the brain. If certain hormone receptors in the brain are too numerous (women with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia) or too few (men with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome), a variance in the masculinization process can occur. Therefore, sexual preference is biologically defined already long before the person is born, just as, for instance, skin colour. So in my opinion, outlawing same-sex marriages is just as deiscriminating as banning a certain race from getting married. And what is the point of legal marriage if it have to follow the religious rules anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 So in my opinion, outlawing same-sex marriages is just as deiscriminating as banning a certain race from getting married. Someone finally gets the point and my unintentional bigoted and discriminatory comment. That just shows you the type of red neck Mr. Bush is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Henbjo, by that logic if a psychotic is geneticly pre-disposed to murder then that should be allowed too? Most people are selfish - there's probably a genetic reason for that too but it doesn't make it right. So where is the line between Church and Law begin and end? Should it be the court's decision to exercise your free will? What of the thousands, perhaps millions of people that do not believe in your God? Do they fall into the same category as the people with faith or do they have no say in this matter? Then again, do non believers of faith believe in marriage and why should they? Maybe someone can answer that. Well I guess the answer i should give (the Christian party line if you will) is: the church* IS the law, just because millions of people don't believe in God doesn't make any difference - because they are all wrong. Of course thats the sort of statement that doesn't go down well in our politically correct relativistic society so if you find it offensive you can of course feel free to ignore it. If a same sex couple wants to commit to each other then i can't stop that - if the nation decides they should have the same legal rights as any other married couple then i can't stop that either, but neither of these events has anything to do with marriage because the Being (or religions if you don't believe in the Being) that instituted it determined that it was only between a man and a woman. *I'm refering to the original pure biblical institution as laid out by the apostles which taught how people are supposed to live their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kernalzero Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I enjoyed the argument last night on The Daily Show with John Stewart on Comedy Central (June 6, 2006 with Cristian Amanpour of CNN (sp?)). His arguement about family was true including saying {censored} Cheney (ultra conservative) is for {censored} marriage because his daugther is a {censored} (so if you know {censored} people you're for them marrying?!?). download it and watch it. My brother is {censored} and I'm for whatever makes him happy in life, it's too short to be bothered about {censored} like this. Personally I think it's a big political ploy to distract the public from real issues Immigration reform is another politcal destractor, you didn't hear {censored} about either cause 6 months ago and now it gets louder and louder as November approaches. Politicians jump on the 'Hot topics' bandwagon to boost voter turnout from their bases by arguing for/against these topics. I'm not saying those things aren't issues that should be addressed but there are more important things to address. Rising fuel costs (while oil companies and CEO turn record profits), the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. The looming issues with Iran. Recent incidents in Mogadishu. North Korea. The fact that winters here in the US are shorter with less rainfall, and summers are getting hotter quicker (global warming which doesn't exists according to the federal government). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henbjo Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Henbjo, by that logic if a psychotic is geneticly pre-disposed to murder then that should be allowed too? Most people are selfish - there's probably a genetic reason for that too but it doesn't make it right. Well, you have to draw a line somewhere, and as long as the act doesn't affect anyone else in any significant way, it's discriminating to outlaw it. If a same sex couple wants to commit to each other then i can't stop that - if the nation decides they should have the same legal rights as any other married couple then i can't stop that either, but neither of these events has anything to do with marriage because the Being (or religions if you don't believe in the Being) that instituted it determined that it was only between a man and a woman. The term "marriage" nowadays merely describes a legally binding commitment between two persons who love each other, because it appears in both of the terms "legal marriage" and "religious marriage" (i.e. christian marriage). By your logic, it would all be OK if the legal marriage thing, where sexual preference doesn't have anything to say, changed name to something else than marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 No it will never be OK in my oppinion. But the point is that marriage is a religous institution made law. If you change the law such that it no longer conforms to the original religious institution then it's no longer the same thing - regardless of what terminology you use. That was my only point. I don't mind if it gets called marriage. So to my mind even if the law recognises same sex marriages - i do not. As an interesting side point, in the UK there is currently a debate over giving long term live-in lovers some of the same rights as married couples with regards to division of assets should they split up etc. From a practical standpoint this would seem like a fairly good idea, but from a Christian standpoint it can't be condoned because it encourages the idea of unmarried couples co-habitating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holden caulfield Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I think that there is nothing wrong with marriage of {censored} and Dikes (pardon the lanquage) as long as i dont end up wlaking down the street one day with my kid and past a church seeing to ugly fat men kissing each other and as long as i dont see them on TV celebrating their love for each other. I read somehwere that most of the same sex marriages only last for about 3 months or so or even less. So it would be OK if the two men kissing were good looking and not overweight? Here's a link for you, Kiko - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia more specifically, you may want to read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#In...ized_homophobia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 No it will never be OK in my oppinion. But the point is that marriage is a religous institution made law. If you change the law such that it no longer conforms to the original religious institution then it's no longer the same thing - regardless of what terminology you use. That was my only point. I don't mind if it gets called marriage. So to my mind even if the law recognises same sex marriages - i do not. As an interesting side point, in the UK there is currently a debate over giving long term live-in lovers some of the same rights as married couples with regards to division of assets should they split up etc. From a practical standpoint this would seem like a fairly good idea, but from a Christian standpoint it can't be condoned because it encourages the idea of unmarried couples co-habitating. What effect does a homosexual marriage under "HOMO-ism" have on you're religion? Show me where "marriage" is religion based! Please! There is evidence indicating that lifelong "partners" occured among our ancestors before the advent of "religion." This would definitely be the grounds for marriage. Religion, in general, was written entirely by man based on historical events. Christanity was written hundreds of years after Christ's death... taking that thought further, marriage was a concept already in existence to be included in religion. Besides, if you think any religion you practice is in it's original form... think again... (unless you made it up) So it would be OK if the two men kissing were good looking and not overweight? Here's a link for you, Kiko - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia more specifically, you may want to read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#In...ized_homophobia That's really what it comes down to... there are too many homophobics Which, IMO, is the most retarded thing to be afriad of ; a "{censored}" person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kday Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I say who the f*** cares. Why the hell do people worry and care about subjects that just really don't matter? We need to stop wasting time with this {censored}, and do something productive to better our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 What effect does a homosexual marriage under "HOMO-ism" have on you're religion? Show me where "marriage" is religion based! Please!The first ever documented marriage in history was between Adam and Eve as recorded in Genesis - there are no earlier records documenting any pairing between man & women. Likewise there are no other validated historical records to contradict the Genesis account (nor any other biblical account for that matter). There is evidence indicating that lifelong "partners" occured among our ancestors before the advent of "religion". This would definitely be the grounds for marriage.Maybe - can you source this 'evidence'? I believe it's more of a theory (part of evolution theory) Even if that was the case it's still not 'marriage' - which is either a formal legal or religious state of union - if you could point to any primary record of a formal marriage which predates the writing of Genesis then i may be more convinced by that statement. Religion, in general, was written entirely by man based on historical events.That's your oppinion - but you can't prove it anymore than i can prove the existance of God. Christanity was written hundreds of years after Christ's death... taking that thought further, marriage was a concept already in existence to be included in religion.Christianity - the following of the teachings of Jesus Christ - was not 'written' hundreds of years after his death. Jesus had followers - most famously the 12 diciples - during his lifetime. Marriage was a concept first created by God, which had been abused prior to Jesus' coming (polygamy etc was not part of God's original concept of marriage). Jesus taught how God had orginally intended marriage to be. Besides, if you think any religion you practice is in it's original form... think again... (unless you made it up)Christian teaching has historically always regarded same sex relationships as sinful. Only recently have certain factions sucomb to relativism. If you think my comments homophobic then you need to understand my belief, they are not said simply out of some fear/hatred but borne of a certainty of the teachings of Christ. This quote sums it up best: “Can we assume that God’s laws must be adapted to shifting human opinions and sinful practices, rather than to stand in the midst of human relativity as the permanent standard? Did not Christ, the Apostles and the early Christian church face a world with a laxity equal to, or even worse than that of our times, and yet proceed on the strict basis established in the New Testament?” - Professor R.R. Nicole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/sam...iage/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 A predictable result i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 Yea. It is as it was last year. Anyhoe... I guess this thread got high-jacked some time ago. I thought this was Same-sex marriage and politics not Same-sex marriage and religion. I'm glad that there are people out there that do not question there faith. Without faith, a belief of something, I don't think we would have evolved to be what we are today. I still have faith that one day we all can get along no matter that our color, race, and sexual orientation, or religion. Maybe not in another thousand years, but one day . cheers all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 The first ever documented marriage in history was between Adam and Eve as recorded in Genesis - there are no earlier records documenting any pairing between man & women. Likewise there are no other validated historical records to contradict the Genesis account (nor any other biblical account for that matter). ..... The first ever, huh? 1800's BCE , Moses authored that book... Moses was married to the daughter of Jethro. I'd say Moses predated that "historically validated" document. Maybe - can you source this 'evidence'? I believe it's more of a theory (part of evolution theory) Even if that was the case it's still not 'marriage' - which is either a formal legal or religious state of union - if you could point to any primary record of a formal marriage which predates the writing of Genesis then i may be more convinced by that statement. ..... Moses was married, if you want I can produce more. That's your oppinion - but you can't prove it anymore than i can prove the existance of God. It's not a matter of opinion... We KNOW the authors of the books are people... there is no question. In fact, the Church often refer to these authors; David, John, etc... the only controversy surrounding the authors is whether or not they had their own "political" agendas, or were directly influenced by God. Christianity - the following of the teachings of Jesus Christ - was not 'written' hundreds of years after his death. Jesus had followers - most famously the 12 diciples - during his lifetime. Marriage was a concept first created by God, which had been abused prior to Jesus' coming (polygamy etc was not part of God's original concept of marriage). Jesus taught how God had orginally intended marriage to be. .... this is belief, not science, and yes, the stories of the New Testament are known to have been written between 100-300 CE ... beyond the existence of the disciples and Jesus. And if you want to get technical, you could argue that it was passed around by word of mouth... but then I could come back and say no one has a perfect memory... it is extremely easy to prove that the original "Bible" which is merely a collection of books, have changed. Christian teaching has historically always regarded same sex relationships as sinful. Only recently have certain factions sucomb to relativism. No, the interpretations of the NEw/Old Testaments are the same... THERE ARE NO REFERENCES IN ANY OF THE PRIMARY BOOKS MENTIONING OF SAME SEX MARRIAGES... only succumbing to lust towards the same sex, and in case you're not familiar, the same damnation applies to heterosexuals failing to resist temptations. If you think my comments homophobic then you need to understand my belief, they are not said simply out of some fear/hatred but borne of a certainty of the teachings of Christ. This quote sums it up best: “Can we assume that God’s laws must be adapted to shifting human opinions and sinful practices, rather than to stand in the midst of human relativity as the permanent standard? Did not Christ, the Apostles and the early Christian church face a world with a laxity equal to, or even worse than that of our times, and yet proceed on the strict basis established in the New Testament?” - Professor R.R. Nicole I do understand you're belief, and I'm not asking you to compromise you're faith. Simply to respect the faith of others. You don't get mad when a scientist teaches your kid(s) that the earth is round and millions of years old or Darwinism. Many poeple are aware of the evidence that exists and are convinced, yet we live on the same earth peacefully. Why not let a homosexual believe God loves them too... who are you to challenge such a belief? You don't have the authority... Let them be judged before God upon inevitable death; "justice" served on a platter. Good quote... I have no intentions of conflicting with your beliefs, but religious imperialism is unwarranted and it's influence in this counrty's law is discriminatory. (note) Remember, not all religions are based on the Bible; but that's another battle to be had. We don't live in an ecclesia... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 It's the same thing with polygamy, except polygamous marriage is not only not outlawed in the bible, it's encouraged (unless you're purely new testament, in which case, the bible doesnt really say anything about homosexuality). Why exactly, from a religious standpoint, is polygamy banned? I know why I think it's banned... cause all the good men would end up with all the women, and everyone else would be left with masturbation and male on male action. As a follower of the male-on-male religion, I'm ALL for polygamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnniecarcinogen Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 There are legal and economic benefits that come with marriage: -- joint parenting; -- joint adoption; -- joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); -- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; -- joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; -- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; -- immigration and residency for partners from other countries; -- inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; -- joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; -- inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); -- benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; -- spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; -- veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; -- joint filing of customs claims when traveling; -- wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; -- bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; -- decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; -- crime victims' recovery benefits; -- loss of consortium tort benefits; -- domestic violence protection orders; -- judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; plus more. If anyone can marry anyone, I can see the institution of marriage being abused and ultimately futher degraded to meaninglessness. If two people are truely in love and have an untraditional relationship, I do not understand why they need a traditional ceremony to prove this love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Yes, marriage is obviously too easy to abuse. Let's get rid of it altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quixos Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 domino ... I thought this was Same-sex marriage and politics not Same-sex marriage and religion unfortunately, politics and religion are equivalents. think about it. this {censored} marriage thing isn't a secular issue in any way, shape, or form. even more unfortunately, ordinary people who wouldn't give this evolution in human dignity a moments thought, are being shanghied into a debate they neither have the intellectual or emotional depth, to understand. (emotional? might be sloppy, forgive me. yes, i'm elite, curse me. ) what it comes down to, is, this is a political/religious controversy designed by paid consultants to inflame party activism. p.s. i asked earlier in this thread, something about how modern Christians can indulge in some biblical prohibitions yet ignore others. i'd appreciate an answer, since we're chatting and all, and it "is" a religious discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts