Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteMarriage is LOVE between two PEOPLE regardless of their sex or race. Period.
Why not three people?
If you are going to create or change the definition, why not have it possible to marry several people as long as it makes them happy?
And there IS a religious precident.
I see your point.
I do agree there are SOME "regulations" (for lack of a better word) that need to be adhered to regarding marriage. ie. relatives can't marry, must be between 2 people, must be X age, blah blah blah.
My arguement is PEOPLE are PEOPLE and we should all deserve and GET the same treatment, rights, benefits, and respect.
Ron 10
QuoteAnd now that version is considered by many to be the only telling of the book. Thus, it changed the bible and the way people follow the religion.
It did not change the Bible. It might have changed the religion, but that is one reason why I think religion is BS.
Those who think that the King James is THE Bible are fools.
QuoteNo, I am not saying that. I am saying it happens, it has happened, and it will happen again.
It does not make it right, in fact it just puts the religion even farther from the source and the word.
QuoteWhat right am I stepping on?
The persons right to not recognize a marriage that is against their religion. But you are ok with goose stepping all over some rights.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 10
QuoteAnd there is a precedent of our government recognizing civil unions as marriage.
Yep and they have said it is between a MAN AND A WOMAN.
You lose
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
QuoteQuoteAnd there is a precedent of our government recognizing civil unions as marriage.
Yep and they have said it is between a MAN AND A WOMAN.
WHY!?!?!? Because a book supposedly says so!? If the Bible can be translated so many times, and can be made to fit into whatever beliefs this religion has, or whtever that religion wants it to say, then how do we even know what it really says? WE DON'T.
God wants us to be HAPPY!! Why is THAT so damn difficult to understand?? I am not religious. I consider myself agnostic. I have my own beliefs and thoughts. But the overall thing is GOD WANTS US TO BE HAPPY.
I do not believe in Hell. We live in Hell here on Earth. I can't imagine what it must be like to love someone else with allo f your heart and want to be with them and spend your life loving them, and not be recognized for it, while the couple who live next door and want the same exact thing for themselves are recognized, celebrated, and encouraged for it. Oh wait, yes, I can imagine it. That must be HELL.
**Ron, that was not a direct reply to YOU**
Ron 10
QuoteI see your point.
Only partly
It is evidenced right here:
QuoteI do agree there are SOME "regulations" (for lack of a better word) that need to be adhered to regarding marriage. ie. relatives can't marry, must be between 2 people, must be X age, blah blah blah.
My arguement is PEOPLE are PEOPLE and we should all deserve and GET the same treatment, rights, benefits, and respect.
Why a person marry their sibling? Or Mother? I can find religious quotes why, but ignoring that, why can't Oedipus marry his Mom? They are both people.
Why can't 13 year olds marry? They used to all the time.
If two people ( and I still say why not more?) want to marry and they both want to, why should it matter if they are siblings, parents, or young?
See, if you want to change the definintion to fit your goals, someone will want to change it to fit THEIRS...And what right would you have to deny them happiness and their definition?
So if you want to allow men to marry men, and claim its for their rights...then you have to allow siblings to marry and children to marry their parents, and anyone to mary anyone reguardles of age, and my favorite many people to marry many other people.
Otherwise you are denying others the rights you claim to be fighting for.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
billvon 2,998
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>What if he wants it to be legal? And there is a vote on it...Which way
>would you vote?
If he wants to marry a rock? That's like asking how you would vote if he wanted to make it legal to wear a silly hat. You don't need a law to allow something, you only need a law to prohibit something.
But if the vote was on "should a rock be accorded all the rights of someone who is normally married to someone else" I would vote no, if that's your question. I know, though, that you are not trying to say that a gay marriage is like marrying a rock.
>By allowing them to be married you are in fact forcing those who do
> not recognize that union to recognize it...you ARE wanting to force
> your views on others. Not that that is bad, but at least be honest
> about it.
No one is 'allowed' to get married. People marry each other; no one married them. The government's only role should be to recognize the legal union of two people. I am against refusing to recognize people's unions based on religion, sex or color.
So in that respect, yes. I am trying to force the government not to discriminate on the basis of sex. I am not trying to force anyone else to accept anything. YOU don't have to accept gay marriages, or interracial marriages, or a 'marriage' between a rock and a person. You can consider some or all of those completely invalid if you like. Fine with me.
>would you vote?
If he wants to marry a rock? That's like asking how you would vote if he wanted to make it legal to wear a silly hat. You don't need a law to allow something, you only need a law to prohibit something.
But if the vote was on "should a rock be accorded all the rights of someone who is normally married to someone else" I would vote no, if that's your question. I know, though, that you are not trying to say that a gay marriage is like marrying a rock.
>By allowing them to be married you are in fact forcing those who do
> not recognize that union to recognize it...you ARE wanting to force
> your views on others. Not that that is bad, but at least be honest
> about it.
No one is 'allowed' to get married. People marry each other; no one married them. The government's only role should be to recognize the legal union of two people. I am against refusing to recognize people's unions based on religion, sex or color.
So in that respect, yes. I am trying to force the government not to discriminate on the basis of sex. I am not trying to force anyone else to accept anything. YOU don't have to accept gay marriages, or interracial marriages, or a 'marriage' between a rock and a person. You can consider some or all of those completely invalid if you like. Fine with me.
Ron 10
QuoteWHY!?!?!? Because a book supposedly says so!? If the Bible can be translated so many times, and can be made to fit into whatever beliefs this religion has, or whtever that religion wants it to say, then how do we even know what it really says? WE DON'T.
Fair enough ignore the bible, but don't claim to pay attention to it but ignore the parts you don't like. (not directed at you)
QuoteGod wants us to be HAPPY!! Why is THAT so damn difficult to understand??
Do you have proof of that? If you got it from the bible, then why pay attention to that part and ignore the part about killing homosexuals?
Simple fact is if you REALLY believe in equal rights and allowing same sex folsk to marry. then you must ALSO support brothers and sisters to get married, Children must be allowed to marry their parents, People must be allowed to have as many spouses as they want, Adults must be allowed to marry children....Hell, people should be allowed to marry gold fish...
For if your only reason is to make people happy, Michael Jackson will only be happy if allowed to marry Bubbles the chimp...what right do you have to prevent him from being happy?
See the slippery slope? You say "well not kids, or animals. And people need to be a certain age, and marrying a relative is just wrong".
But what makes YOUR definition the right one and not theirs?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Point taken.
Ron 10
QuoteIf he wants to marry a rock?
No if he wanted to be legally wed to bubbles the chimp.
QuoteYou don't need a law to allow something, you only need a law to prohibit something
Right now same sex marriages are illegal. You want to change that...Therfore you want to make them legal. Same thing, don't try and play word games.
QuoteI would vote no, if that's your question. I know, though, that you are not trying to say that a gay marriage is like marrying a rock
No, I would say "What right do you have to not allow someone to be happy, what harm would it do you to allow people to marry animals?"
QuoteNo one is 'allowed' to get married
Again word games...Then by that token no one is NOT allowed to be married and there is not reason to debate anything.
QuoteThe government's only role should be to recognize the legal union of two people.
And they do...As long as it fits the LEGAL definition.
QuoteI am against refusing to recognize people's unions based on religion, sex or color.
How about multiple wives, or marrying a sibling? Why should THAT be illegal, but not this?
QuoteSo in that respect, yes. I am trying to force the government not to discriminate on the basis of sex. I am not trying to force anyone else to accept anything. YOU don't have to accept gay marriages, or interracial marriages, or a 'marriage' between a rock and a person. You can consider some or all of those completely invalid if you like. Fine with me.
If you force the Government to allow it, then you force all of us to accept it.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
[replyBut what makes YOUR definition the right one and not theirs?
I never said it was right... or wrong. My very first sentance in the very first post says, "I'm sure I will be flamed for my thoughts, but so what." Ah-hem... MY THOUGHTS.
I agree it is a very slippery slope. You can't give one group one set of rules and another group another set. That was my original argument. But, seeing what you, and others, have said about MJ marrying Bubbles or a man marrying his mother, or whatever, makes me wonder how that would ever work.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
But, for the record, if it ever comes up in a vote, I will be voting yes, it should be allowed. If one of my gay friends asked for my support, they already have it.
This thread has been highly entertaining and informative. I've learned things and have been able to see how people react to a question. Thanks everyone for that - even those that feel totally opposite of how I do.
QuoteWhy should I have to legally support gay marriages? Why does the minority have to push their views of right and wrong on me? They can do what they want with there lives. I don't care how someone else is living as long as it doesn't impose on me. I also don't have to support something that I think is just wrong.
Ugh, you don't have to lift a finger and it won't effect you at all if fags get married. Tell me, your income is going to diminish or disappear over it? Unless you happen to live in San Francisco or Provincetown MA, the only likely thing to happen to you is that you'll maybe experience some delay in getting a wedding planner and a florist for YOUR wedding.
Now, what about drug users? There a lot of people who are on Medicaid who are drug abusers and we're footing their bills. Their bad lifestyle DOES have an effect on us--we're helping pay for it!
Or seniors getting Viagra/Levitra/Cialis on Medicaid? Do we need to be paying for old horny men to get a boner? I could use some of that Medicare money to help pay my bills, thank you.
____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.
billvon 2,998
>No, I would say "What right do you have to not allow someone to be
>happy, what harm would it do you to allow people to marry animals?"
There is no harm in marrying an animal. It's absurd, but if someone wants to claim that, so what? There IS a lot of harm to our legal system in recognizing an animal as a person. So I would vote against any law that gives animals the same rights as people.
>And they do...As long as it fits the LEGAL definition.
And as long as they do not discriminate based on sex, religion or color, then I'm fine with that. They do currently discriminate. So the law should be changed.
>How about multiple wives, or marrying a sibling? Why should THAT
>be illegal, but not this?
Siblings - I have no problems with that, and it is legal in many places.
Multiple wives/husbands - I have no problem with a Mormon having X wives. Again, the only role the government should have is setting up a legal relationship between two people. They can be any two people, including two people in a polygamous relationship.
>If you force the Government to allow it, then you force all of us to
>accept it.
The law allows you to eat your own poo; does that mean you are forced to accept it? I think you are confusing what is legal and what you must accept.
>happy, what harm would it do you to allow people to marry animals?"
There is no harm in marrying an animal. It's absurd, but if someone wants to claim that, so what? There IS a lot of harm to our legal system in recognizing an animal as a person. So I would vote against any law that gives animals the same rights as people.
>And they do...As long as it fits the LEGAL definition.
And as long as they do not discriminate based on sex, religion or color, then I'm fine with that. They do currently discriminate. So the law should be changed.
>How about multiple wives, or marrying a sibling? Why should THAT
>be illegal, but not this?
Siblings - I have no problems with that, and it is legal in many places.
Multiple wives/husbands - I have no problem with a Mormon having X wives. Again, the only role the government should have is setting up a legal relationship between two people. They can be any two people, including two people in a polygamous relationship.
>If you force the Government to allow it, then you force all of us to
>accept it.
The law allows you to eat your own poo; does that mean you are forced to accept it? I think you are confusing what is legal and what you must accept.
QuoteIn every one of those religions being gay is known as a sin. It would disrespect those religions if it were forced by law for them to get married in for example a church.
QuoteWell here I go. I know many of you are not into religion and I am not trying to shove anythin down anyone's throat. This is just in the way of explanation. No, most churches, especially the Catholic Church do not think being gay is a sin. The sin part comes in when it is acted out in a sexual way. The same as we believe it is a sin to have premarital sex between a man and a woman. We (Catholics) believe that sex within a marriage is a Holy act intended for procreation. That is the whole thinking behind not allowing artificial birth control. If the possibility of procreation is not there then the sex act is not complete. Also procreation is not possible between two people of the same gender. Thus the stand that we don't agree that marriage between gays is ok. We are called to reach out to gays (not for their throat) just as we are called to reach out to others that have a potential impediment to their salvation.
As for Christians trying to push their beliefs on others, I am afraid there are some that do. But those are the only stories you hear of. Mainly because you are not aware of the many that are all around you that simply have a kind word or a kind act but let that speak for them. A great saint (name escapes me) once said - "Go out and evangelize and sometimes use words."
Just imagine that you deeply believe that we have an eternal aspect to our being and that when we die we will either live in everlasting torment or everlasting bliss. How hard would it be to not impose yourself on your friends or even just aquaintences that behave in a way that makes you wonder if they will have the torment forever? Remember, I am not pushing I am just trying to explain a viewpoint.
Oops I left some extra of the quote in that I was replying to.
Being a recouperating Catholic... it was was somewhat laughable to be told that the rythm method (pulling out early) also fell into this category.
So, what if I change my mind half-way through the act and decide not to finish... or the phone rings? I'm going to spend some extra time in Purgatory for that?
____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.
pajarito 0
QuoteThe Bible is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin. Therfore no amount of anything will allow a practicing homosexual to be a "Christian". Its just not possible.
Not true. Homosexuality is a sin just like any other. Even the Apostle Paul continued to struggle with his own.
“For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish”
Romans 7:19
I dare say he was still a Christian. The question comes with whether trust & repentance are involved.
And there is a precedent of our government recognizing civil unions as marriage.
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites