Log in

View Full Version : Poll: Are u PRO Gay Marriage? Yes or No!



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

Trem
06-27-2011, 06:39 PM
You demonstrate far more bigotry than anyone else in the thread. No one here has resorted to any name-calling except the people on your side. People try to explain why they have an issue with it and you resort to trash-talk. None of us advocated denying any rights to gays or called gays any names so where do you get off calling them bigots? Calling someone names when you disagree with them is a sign of a lack of intelligence.

Description isn't name calling. There is only "yes, i think gays should have exactly the same rights as the rest of us" and "bigot", you have made your position quite clear.

eagle2
06-27-2011, 06:41 PM
It just seems that if a gay union is given all the same rights and benefits as a traditional marriage, why is it so important to call it a "marriage" if a certain piece of the population have a problem with it?

Because that certain piece of the population doesn't have the right to right to impose their views on others. If you're offended by something so trivial, that's too bad. You're not being harmed by same-sex couples referring to themselves as "married".

eagle2
06-27-2011, 06:55 PM
The point is once you start eating away at something there is no end to it. If gays get their way here, it will only be a matter of time before polygamists and cousins will come forward. Just out of curiosity, is homosexuality between relatives actually considered incest. Once concessions start being made, it becomes tough to stop other concessions from being demanded.

Polygamy is practiced in a number of Muslim countries. Why hasn't polygamy led to gay marriage anywhere?

Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 06:56 PM
Polygamy is practiced in a number of Muslim countries. Why hasn't polygamy led to gay marriage anywhere?

Exactly. The two are not interchangeable in the minds of anyone except those struggling to come up with reasons against gay marriage.

Trem
06-27-2011, 07:00 PM
Gay marriage has been legal for years in plenty of places, they aren't fucking goats or first cousins in any of them. Not that it's gonna stop the bigots to continue putting forward the same idiotic arguments until they are dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing.

eagle2
06-27-2011, 07:05 PM
bem,

Should we ban marriage between a man and a woman since it led to gay marriage?

sananeko
06-27-2011, 07:16 PM
bem,

Should we ban marriage between a man and a woman since it led to gay marriage?
You beat me to it.. I'm watching while making pretzels..

bem401
06-27-2011, 07:20 PM
bem,

Should we ban marriage between a man and a woman since it led to gay marriage?

Now your just showing what a moron you are and it hasn't led to universal gay marriage yet.

I guess we are just destined to all have different opinions.

That's it for me tonite. I'm off to listen to Levin Show. Check him out:

http://www.marklevinshow.com

He isn't called "The Great One" for no reason at all.

KS_Stevia
06-27-2011, 07:31 PM
Isn't it legal for first cousins to marry in most states?

"Marriage" belongs to the english language, not a church.

MarvelGirl
06-27-2011, 07:35 PM
In the USA, if you go down to a courthouse, can't you get married there? Or is that refereed to as a Civil Union?

If a Government body will perform a marriage, then they should do so to all couples who are consenting adults. Regardless of orientation.

It's still called a marriage. You don't need to be even slightly religious to be married in the US. But some fucking morons refuse to accept that. (That's not directed at you 4ever, but I've had a non religious, legal marriage in the US for over 10 years and according to some of the people on this thread, I'm not married because their god wasn't invited to the ceremony. That's a bunch of horseshit.)

Marriage is a legal concept, it only has anything to do with religion if the couple wants it to.

4everresolutions
06-27-2011, 07:44 PM
It's still called a marriage. You don't need to be even slightly religious to be married in the US. But some fucking morons refuse to accept that. (That's not directed at you 4ever, but I've had a non religious, legal marriage in the US for over 10 years and according to some of the people on this thread, I'm not married because their god wasn't invited to the ceremony. That's a bunch of horseshit.)

Marriage is a legal concept, it only has anything to do with religion if the couple wants it to.

Thanks for answering my question.

I though people could get married in the US without going to the church, but the things being said in this thread had me thinking the laws were different; that you HAD to get married in a church to be legally married. Which is silly.

I agree with you 100%.

lestat1
06-27-2011, 07:55 PM
Point #1
From the all-hallowed Wikipedia: "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, sexuality or gender."

If you're intolerant of bem's views, you are by definition, a bigot. And vice versa. It's why the PC crowd never gained my support. If you want to preach tolerance, you'd better walk the walk. I don't know anyone who isn't a bigot, at least to a certain extent.


Point #2
I'm a man who has had sex and has no interest in devoting my life to God. May I be a nun? Psst...this question is a trap - think about it carefully! :)

Mr Hyde
06-27-2011, 08:11 PM
Point #1
From the all-hallowed Wikipedia: "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, sexuality or gender."

If you're intolerant of bem's views, you are by definition, a bigot. And vice versa. It's why the PC crowd never gained my support. If you want to preach tolerance, you'd better walk the walk. I don't know anyone who isn't a bigot, at least to a certain extent.

I (mostly) support gay marriage, but the amount of vitriol displayed at bem and others in the name of political correctness makes me a little sick, to be honest. He even said he supports gay unions, with all the legal rights of traditional marriage, but because he doesn't want it to be called "marriage," he's a bigot.

And as I said earlier, all the "tolerant" people in this thread, the ones who are so eager to be tolerant of gays...aren't they great? They're tolerant!

Unless you're a Christian. Or, apparently, a Muslim. Or straight. God help you if you're a straight Catholic. Wait....God is a bad word among the tolerant.

Sorry about that.

Kellydancer
06-27-2011, 08:13 PM
Yeah! Man, most people can't even handle the stress of one wedding... lol I could understand having two to celebrate in 2 different religious fashions if it's an interfaith wedding... but this is just odd. I wonder why they don't just do one... Do you know if they also have receptions? Or maybe one is considered the actual wedding and one is more of a celebration type thing?

I think it has to do with the country only accepts civil marriage and the church only accepts church weddings. Seems way too much for me too. I'm trying to Google this but getting several hits. Here's something from Wikipedia:

In 1792, with the French Revolution, religious marriage ceremonies in France were made secondary to civil marriage. Religious ceremonies could still be performed, but only for couples who had already been married in a civil ceremony. Napoleon later spread this custom throughout most of Europe. In present-day France only civil marriage has legal validity. A religious ceremony may be performed after the civil union, but has no legal effect.

Kellydancer
06-27-2011, 08:28 PM
Point #1
From the all-hallowed Wikipedia: "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, sexuality or gender."

If you're intolerant of bem's views, you are by definition, a bigot. And vice versa. It's why the PC crowd never gained my support. If you want to preach tolerance, you'd better walk the walk. I don't know anyone who isn't a bigot, at least to a certain extent.


Point #2
I'm a man who has had sex and has no interest in devoting my life to God. May I be a nun? Psst...this question is a trap - think about it carefully! :)

Yes. I think once someone disrespects someone else's view and calls them names like a bigot that makes them a bigot. I've been called a bigot because I do not support out of wedlock pregnancies, but those people are also bigots for not respecting my views too. Same thing with gay marriage. While I support gay marriage, I realize not everyone does due to life and it's fine to agree to disagree. The problem with the pc police is they are just as bad as anyone else when it comes to views.

Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 08:35 PM
I think it has to do with the country only accepts civil marriage and the church only accepts church weddings. Seems way too much for me too. I'm trying to Google this but getting several hits. Here's something from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage

In 1792, with the French Revolution, religious marriage ceremonies in France were made secondary to civil marriage. Religious ceremonies could still be performed, but only for couples who had already been married in a civil ceremony. Napoleon later spread this custom throughout most of Europe. In present-day France only civil marriage has legal validity. A religious ceremony may be performed after the civil union, but has no legal effect.

So it's like the exact opposite of here. Here, if you get civilly married it may not be recognized by the church. But there, if you get church married, it isn't recognized by the state. So weird!


And for anybody else, I never called bem a bigot - I was simply pointing out that his reasoning for not wanting to call gay unions marriages was deeply flawed. He has yet to actually support his position on calling them something besides "marriages" with anything remotely logical. And for the record, giving them "all" the same rights but demanding it be called something besides marriage is taking away a right - the right to refer to their union as the same thing as everybody else. Why? In bem's logic, only because the church uses the word marriage. The word and institution doesn't belong to them, so why should they forbid anyone they disagree with from using it? If he can come up with a reason for calling it something besides marriage that actually makes a clear point, I'm all for it. But he was just talking in circles, contradicting himself, comparing gay marriage to things that have nothing to do with it, and ignoring most of my factual points about the history of marriage and religion's involvement. Yes, I am intolerant of horrible logic.

Kellydancer
06-27-2011, 08:46 PM
So it's like the exact opposite of here. Here, if you get civilly married it may not be recognized by the church. But there, if you get church married, it isn't recognized by the state. So weird!


And for anybody else, I never called bem a bigot - I was simply pointing out that his reasoning for not wanting to call gay unions marriages was deeply flawed. He has yet to actually support his position on calling them something besides "marriages" with anything remotely logical. And for the record, giving them "all" the same rights but demanding it be called something besides marriage is taking away a right - the right to refer to their union as the same thing as everybody else. Why? In bem's logic, only because the church uses the word marriage. The word and institution doesn't belong to them, so why should they forbid anyone they disagree with from using it? If he can come up with a reason for calling it something besides marriage that actually makes a clear point, I'm all for it. But he was just talking in circles, contradicting himself, comparing gay marriage to things that have nothing to do with it, and ignoring most of my factual points about the history of marriage and religion's involvement. Yes, I am intolerant of horrible logic.

Isn't it weird that these other countries only accept civil marriages as real? I think it has to do with these countries moving towards a secular society. Here, I think the reason it's often the opposite is we never had an official religion so never a move to secularism if that makes sense. Just a theory. I remember the priest mentioned why they don't acknowledge civil marriages and I believe it has something to do with not thinking it's sanctioned by God. I don't agree but for me personally I want the church wedding. Incidentally most of my cousins have no religion and were all married at city hall. They are married legally as much as my brother and sister in law who were married in church.

I didn't think you were calling Bem a bigot, but some were. I don't agree with him either because to me a marriage is a marriage. I don't get why it has to be called something else to be honest, that part I don't get.

lestat1
06-27-2011, 08:47 PM
I think it has to do with the country only accepts civil marriage and the church only accepts church weddings. Seems way too much for me too. I'm trying to Google this but getting several hits. Here's something from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage

In 1792, with the French Revolution, religious marriage ceremonies in France were made secondary to civil marriage. Religious ceremonies could still be performed, but only for couples who had already been married in a civil ceremony. Napoleon later spread this custom throughout most of Europe. In present-day France only civil marriage has legal validity. A religious ceremony may be performed after the civil union, but has no legal effect.

That is awesome; it's exactly the solution I favor. My opinion of Napoleon just rose even higher!

Mr Hyde
06-27-2011, 09:03 PM
I'd like to make my final post in this thread and say that I have been inspired, and I am going to go find a gay guy and propose.

MarvelGirl
06-27-2011, 09:06 PM
Personally rejecting someone's religion and insisting that the government not base the laws we all have to live with on the magic book of some random religion is not hating religious people.

Religious teachings means less to me than the opinion of the Trix rabbit or Fat Albert. If that offends them, then they need some professional help understanding that not everyone shares their faith. Suggesting that we tailor laws to suit their religion is the exact same thing as suggesting that we tailor laws to avoid offending unicorns or angering wood sprites.

There is a reason why church and state are supposed to be separate in the US. I have to live by the laws of this country but I sure as fuck do not have to live by the laws of somebody's religion just because my lack of faith makes their butt itch.

eagle2
06-27-2011, 09:10 PM
Point #1
From the all-hallowed Wikipedia: "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, sexuality or gender."

If you're intolerant of bem's views, you are by definition, a bigot. And vice versa. It's why the PC crowd never gained my support. If you want to preach tolerance, you'd better walk the walk. I don't know anyone who isn't a bigot, at least to a certain extent.


Nobody is being intolerant of bem's views. The issue is that bem wants to impose his views on others. If bem believes it's wrong for same-sex couples to marry, then he's entitled to his belief, and he is entitled to not marry someone of the same sex. The issue people here have with bem is that he wants to prevent others from being able to do so. I do not want people being told that they can't do something just because the Catholic Church opposes it. I'm also tired of hearing these illogical arguments that allowing same-sex marriage is going to somehow lead to polygamy or incest. One has nothing to do with the other.

lilykane
06-27-2011, 09:28 PM
Nobody is being intolerant of bem's views.
Hmm, I feel I must refute this.

...There is only "yes, i think gays should have exactly the same rights as the rest of us" and "bigot", you have made your position quite clear.
There are other examples but I'm feeling lazy. Anyway, bem only objects to the word 'marriage,' which is in fact way more supportive than many. I fear that the vitriol in this thread may cause people against gay marriage to feel vindicated.


I'm all for legalizing gay marriage, but people need to realize intolerance of intolerance does not equal tolerance, and mainly just pisses both sides off. All this 'selective tolerance' BS is getting annoying.

UrbanOzz
06-27-2011, 09:57 PM
gay people rape too.....gay people murder other people too...
lets stop putting gay people on a pedestal just because they are a sexual minority.
Except the few really well done gay porn movies... being gay is not that glamorous.


it's about as glamorous as being straight


this thread is blowing me away. I had no idea how many people were so negative towards same-sex marriage. Up here in Canada it's just normal. Nobody thinks twice about it and everyone is happy for everyone.

we don't have people hiding behind their religions hating on gay people getting married against eachother.

this whole thing is ridiculous. a gay couple is no different than a straight couple. They love eachother to death and would do anything for eachother and want to live and love eachother to the fullest...and to some that means getting married.

A lot of people have lifelong dreams to get married and raise kids....if they find a partner they can do that with, they shouldn't be barred from it simply because it's a member of the same sex, this is no different than the Civil Rights movement in the 1950's.

some people need to check themselves and realize they aren't better than others

Krill_
06-28-2011, 02:02 AM
Every time I hear a politician or political activist making an argument for constitutional establishment of marriage between a man and a woman, I sorta expect a footnote on our past successes with institutionalized discrimination. How is this even presented as a legitimate position?

sammii
06-28-2011, 02:38 AM
I used to be forced to go to a Mormon church every fucking Sunday, and those fucking pricks were allowed to discriminate against gays and black people, yet they supported polygamy.

Back on topic; yes, I think gays should be allowed to be married and adopt. The holier-than-thou people can live their life how they want, but it's not fair to dictate how other people live. Jesus was an amazing philosopher, but he was also just a person. Don't take what he says too seriously.


of course its not fine. its horrible and disgusting, but that has nothing to do with gay marriage.

You my dear( Edit: not targeted at anyone in particular) are alive and reading this because you had a mommy and a daddy.

Not 2 daddys!

and

Not 2 mommies!



Living as a gay couple is un-natural and rewarding unnatural behavior is a bad idea.



Also...

gay marriage has nothing to do with interracial man and woman marriage.

If you allow things like this to become legal, u have to start allowing other things to become legal.. hey , now lets make legal every stupid thing we want...

As horrible as it might look and sound like, society needs boundaries and strict rules, otherwise world as we know it will slowly become a total chaos.





whats next to be legalized? marrying minors and fucking animals? some people do it, lets not discriminate their sexual preferences and make it legal.. right?

see the point?
OMG DUN U C GUIZ, IF WE LET GAY PPL GET MARRYD, PPL R GOIN 2 START MARRYNG ANIMLS N CHLDRN N DER WILL B NO LAWS N IT WILL B TTL CHAOS.

bem401
06-28-2011, 03:23 AM
Polygamy is practiced in a number of Muslim countries. Why hasn't polygamy led to gay marriage anywhere?

Uhhhh, maybe because in Muslim countries they kill gay people? All you do is say ridiculous things or engage in name-calling.

What has whether or not polygamy leads to gay marriage got to do with anything we're talking about? No one is blaming it for that and no one is advocating for polygamy.

Also, despite the fact that it has majority support on this forum, gay marriage has never garnered the support of a majority of the people anytime it has been put to a referendum. Does that make the majority of people bigots just because they don't subordinate what they believe to what you want?

Interesting article:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44494&823

Aurora_Sunset
06-28-2011, 07:05 AM
This whole thing about adding polygamy to the debate is ridiculous. It needs to end. They have nothing to do with each other. Unless you can finally answer the question about why using the word "marriage" would cause polygamy to rise up - but giving gays all the rights of marriage but using a different word would not cause polygamy to rise up for rights, then stop talking about it. All you keep doing is avoiding the facts of the history of marriage and religion's involvement with it, and bringing up different questions to debate to distract from the fact that you're not actually providing logical answers to anything.

eagle2
06-28-2011, 07:10 AM
Uhhhh, maybe because in Muslim countries they kill gay people? All you do is say ridiculous things or engage in name-calling.

What has whether or not polygamy leads to gay marriage got to do with anything we're talking about? No one is blaming it for that and no one is advocating for polygamy.


No, all you do is say ridiculous things or engage in name-calling. You say gay marriage will lead to polygamy and incest. If that's the case, why has polygamy led to gay marriage? Also, how did polygamy come about in other countries when they don't have gay marriage? All you're doing is making ridiculous, baseless claims in opposition to gay marriage. BTW, marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. There were ancient societies that had same sex marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions



Also, despite the fact that it has majority support on this forum, gay marriage has never garnered the support of a majority of the people anytime it has been put to a referendum. Does that make the majority of people bigots just because they don't subordinate what they believe to what you want?

The people who spend millions of dollars to fight against gay marriage and come up with ridiculous lies, like gay marriage will lead to polygamy and humans marrying animals, are liars and bigots. I'm sure a lot of people who have voted against gay people are gullible people who believe this nonsense. There are large numbers of gullible Christians that can be convinced to believe anything, no matter how ridiculous. That is why the Republicans are still able to be a major party.

Aurora_Sunset
06-28-2011, 07:11 AM
And I skimmed that article - I can't take anything seriously that talks about "changing the definition of marriage." That's what you keep arguing is happening - and you say you want marriage to stay the same as it's been "for time immemorial." But marriage's first definition was not "one man, one woman" and the definition had to be changed many times for that to become our norm. So why were those changes in the definition ok but changing it again to include homosexuals is not? Just because that's what you're used to based on the time period you were born in? Marriage has never been a static definition, and trying to keep it the same "as way back when" would entail going back to something that is not the traditional way we think of marriage today.

Aurora_Sunset
06-28-2011, 07:15 AM
BTW, marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. There were ancient societies that had same sex marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions


Yeah, he already ignored that one. I have at least 10 posts that cover the facts of the history of marriage, same-sex marriage specifically, and religion's involvement with marriage. He ignores every one of them and keeps repeating himself with the same exact arguments I just destroyed. Then it turned into accusing me of trying to be antagonistic - because, hey, it's not like he was paying attention to all the factual reasons that I opposed his "logic." Once he got sick of that, that's when he moved on to starting different debates that have nothing to do with gay marriage... if he actually provides a coherent argument that doesn't ignore all the facts I've already presented and doesn't just try to lead us away from the subject at hand with a different debate, someone let me know, please...

bem401
06-28-2011, 07:22 AM
No, all you do is say ridiculous things or engage in name-calling. You say gay marriage will lead to polygamy and incest. If that's the case, why has polygamy led to gay marriage? Also, how did polygamy come about in other countries when they don't have gay marriage? All you're doing is making ridiculous, baseless claims in opposition to gay marriage. BTW, marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. There were ancient societies that had same sex marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions




The people who spend millions of dollars to fight against gay marriage and come up with ridiculous lies, like gay marriage will lead to polygamy and humans marrying animals, are liars and bigots. I'm sure a lot of people who have voted against gay people are gullible people who believe this nonsense. There are large numbers of gullible Christians that can be convinced to believe anything, no matter how ridiculous. That is why the Republicans are still able to be a major party.

your wikipedia link was to same-sax unions, not marriages (though there was passing reference to them in the link).

I never said polygamy led to gay marriage. If you want to spend the rest of your life with another guy, be my guest, that's your business. It just doesn't fit the traditional definition of marriage, the one cultivated in this country, and the one recognized by the majority of the population, which by the way opposes it. Take the equal rights and benefits, leave the definition intact, and go on with your life. Why is it necessary to do something that upsets a certain segment of the population? Talk about having a need to impose your views on others!

And you can't guarantee that approving this won't be seen as a green light by other segments looking to further redefine what constitutes marriage.

bem401
06-28-2011, 07:32 AM
Yeah, he already ignored that one. I have at least 10 posts that cover the facts of the history of marriage, same-sex marriage specifically, and religion's involvement with marriage. He ignores every one of them and keeps repeating himself with the same exact arguments I just destroyed. Then it turned into accusing me of trying to be antagonistic - because, hey, it's not like he was paying attention to all the factual reasons that I opposed his "logic." Once he got sick of that, that's when he moved on to starting different debates that have nothing to do with gay marriage... if he actually provides a coherent argument that doesn't ignore all the facts I've already presented and doesn't just try to lead us away from the subject at hand with a different debate, someone let me know, please...

You posted your opinion, nothing more. Marriage is defined a certain way in society right now. Chipping away at that definition now only opens the door to more chipping away later until it loses its meaning entirely.

Aurora_Sunset
06-28-2011, 07:41 AM
To summarize:

-Marriage does not have a "traditional" definition.
-Marriage was not invented by the church; they do not own the word and definition; therefore, they have no rights to it that need be respected.
-You still have not provided any sort of reasoning as why using the word "marriage" would lead to an uprising in polygamy but giving all the same rights but a different word would not lead to this same uprising for rights.
-Everything else about who does or does not approve of/is ok with gay marriage is irrelevant to the argument about why we should use a different term.
-The only real argument provided for using a different word is that the word would be disrespectful to the church.... aaaand, see point one for that argument being illogical.

You have no real case for your argument about wording, which is why you keep ignoring the most important point and trying to make this into different debates about polygamy and what portion of the population does or does not agree with gay marriage.

Your stance: don't use the word "marriage"
Your argument: it disrespects the church by using the same word as a sacrament

Argument has been refuted numerous times that you keep ignoring. Everything else is irrelevant. You are going to keep ignoring the facts of the term and its history and its ownership. If you would like to make a real argument that is actually logical and doesn't just repeat yourself and ignore the 20 posts I made saying the exact same thing to refute your exact same argument, I'm all ears for a logical reason that it should be called something besides marriage. Other than that, I'm done here. There's no sense arguing with someone who ignores facts and tries to lead the debate in unrelated directions.

Aurora_Sunset
06-28-2011, 07:45 AM
You posted your opinion, nothing more. Marriage is defined a certain way in society right now. Chipping away at that definition now only opens the door to more chipping away later until it loses its meaning entirely.

No, I have stated the fact that the word was not invented by the church and does not belong to them. I have stated the fact that marriage has not been the same "since time immemorial." Those are not opinions - they are facts. The FACT is that marriage has had many different meanings and forms and definitions. Like I said, you only want it to stay the same because you are used to the way it is defined now. Like I said, why is this definition so important to you, but you are apparently ok that history has changed the meaning numerous times to become what you consider "traditional" marriage now?

bem401
06-28-2011, 08:00 AM
Don't tell me it doesn't have a 'traditional" definition. For over 200 yrs since the founding of this country, there was no such thing as same-sex marriages. They were not allowed. And as I said above, chipping away at it in this manner will only lead to more chipping away later. If you can say " it doesn't matter if its two men or two women instead of one of each getting married", what's to stop someone from asking "if i can be with a man or a woman why can't I be with both if we are all in agreement"? And how would you and your lobby respond to that question after you took a bite out of the commonly accepted definition of the thing.

Maybe I'm just adopting a "nip it in the bud" policy towards things of this nature and we are just destined to disagree. That being said, I'm more than happy to let it be put to a vote by the population. It will not carry the vote the way it has here. In fact, it has been voted down by the people every time it has been presented, so I'm hardly out of the mainstream in my view.

Aurora_Sunset
06-28-2011, 08:06 AM
I just graduated with a BA in religious studies and at one point took a course specifically about "Religion and Sex in America." Not only did I spend 4 years learning the details about the history of religion but 4 months of that 4 years were specifically dedicated to learning about the history of marriage and its relation and changes in regards to religion, and even specifically in THIS COUNTRY. No, we don't know the very first marriage that ever took place but there is plenty of evidence out there that the church did not invent it and it was around in many forms for a long time before their existence, and has even changed course in the history of THIS COUNTRY. I'm not going to dig out all my old books and write you one of my 20 page research papers with references just to prove that the church didn't invent marriage and that marriage has held different definitions, even IN THIS COUNTRY at different points in time. I know they didn't invent it and I know it has had many definitions, even throughout THIS OWN COUNTRY’S history. Just because same-sex marriage was not a part of that doesn’t mean that marriage has held a “traditional” definition since the country’s founding – it hasn’t. And again, I’m ignoring the slippery-slope argument about polygamy because it’s a scare-tactic argument that has no real footing. They are not the same thing at all, and you STILL have not explained by using the term would cause polygamy but giving all the rights but a different term wouldn't cause polygamy to want all the rights but a different term themselves... – the whole thing about your majority view - also not the point of the argument. I’ve already said to stop trying to use them to distract from the real issue. You think marriage has a “traditional” definition – specifically in this country. It doesn’t.

I may not have specific references for you from all that I’ve read over the years, but I know that I write based on facts that I have read – not based on assumptions, like you clearly are just because you never heard anything else. If you would like to know the history of marriage and religion, go to the library. It’s not my fault you didn’t research the thing you’ve been arguing about with someone who did spend time researching it.

Trem
06-28-2011, 08:13 AM
I'm more than happy to let it be put to a vote by the population. It will not carry the vote the way it has here. In fact, it has been voted down by the people every time it has been presented, so I'm hardly out of the mainstream in my view.

It's basically just old people holding back gay marriage at this point, that is why polling slowly moves towards accepting it as they die off and why it is only a matter of time before it is legal everywhere.

bem401
06-28-2011, 08:24 AM
I just graduated with a BA in religious studies and at one point took a course specifically about "Religion and Sex in America." Not only did I spend 4 years learning the details about the history of religion but 4 months of that 4 years were specifically dedicated to learning about the history of marriage and its relation and changes in regards to religion, and even specifically in THIS COUNTRY. No, we don't know the very first marriage that ever took place but there is plenty of evidence out there that the church did not invent it and it was around in many forms for a long time before their existence, and has even changed course in the history of THIS COUNTRY. I'm not going to dig out all my old books and write you one of my 20 page research papers with references just to prove that the church didn't invent marriage and that marriage has held different definitions, even IN THIS COUNTRY at different points in time. I know they didn't invent it and I know it has had many definitions, even throughout THIS OWN COUNTRY’S history. Just because same-sex marriage was not a part of that doesn’t mean that marriage has held a “traditional” definition since the country’s founding – it hasn’t. And again, I’m ignoring the slippery-slope argument about polygamy because it’s a scare-tactic argument that has no real footing. They are not the same thing at all, and you STILL have not explained by using the term would cause polygamy but giving all the rights but a different term wouldn't cause polygamy to want all the rights but a different term themselves... – I’ve already said to stop trying to use it to distract from the real issue. You think marriage has a “traditional” definition – specifically in this country. It doesn’t.

I may not have specific references for you from all that I’ve read over the years, but I know that I write based on facts that I have read – not based on assumptions, like you clearly are just because you never heard anything else. If you would like to know the history of marriage and religion, go to the library. It’s not my fault you didn’t research the thing you’ve been arguing about with someone who did spend time researching it.

So I should accept everything you say as fact because you say it's a fact? How would that make any sense? Marriage has had a certain meaning in America for over two centuries and in the Catholic Church for 2000 yrs and I'm both a US citizen and a Catholic. I'd like to see the definition I've experienced remain untouched and if I had a serious problem with it remaining untouched, I'd leave one or both of them.

Aurora_Sunset
06-28-2011, 08:29 AM
The entire reason I gave my history on the research I've done on the subject was to show my credentials on talking about the subject. Like I said, I'm not gonna pull a bunch of books off my shelf and quote specific passages and write you a 20 page paper to prove that I know what I'm talking about. I'm repeating facts from my memory. If you think I'm just making shit up - go research it for yourself. Being a citizen and being part of a church does not make you an expert on the history of this country or marriage in this country. Actually researching it makes you an expert (btw, watching the news and reading other people's assumptions is not research). I know I speak fact from historical documents and historian's and scholar's books that I've read. Again, if you think I'm just lying, go to the library yourself. I've already done my research.

jjk
06-28-2011, 08:32 AM
On some level the only reason I have to support gay marriage is that if I don't then I am labeled a bigot and homophobic.

I don't see marriage as a fundamental human right on the same level as voting. I view marriage as something you out of financial reasons not out of love. I don't see this as oppression
If it becomes legal in all 50 states how many gays are going to get married and are they better off

bem401
06-28-2011, 08:35 AM
You're missing the point. I'm not interested in what happened elsewhere in the world. I'm interested in what has happened in my country and in my religion. What happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away is not applicable when we are talking about the United States and Christianity.

For the record, I graduated from one of the most liberal elite institutions in the country (maybe the most liberal one) and am well aware of how they have an agenda to push.

bem401
06-28-2011, 08:39 AM
On some level the only reason I have to support gay marriage is that if I don't then I am labeled a bigot and homophobic.

Its the way the Left argues everything. Oppose gay marriage, you're a homophobic bigot. Oppose Obama and you're a racist bigot. Oppose illegals, you're the same thing.

Aurora_Sunset
06-28-2011, 08:40 AM
I WAS talking about in the history of the United States in my last few posts. The Catholic Church has not changed but the Catholic Church does not, and has never, run this country. I was telling that marriage has not held a static "traditional" definition over the course of THIS COUNTRY'S history.

Really? You think everything I've read from scholars and historians and all the historical documents to back them up was fabricated to push the homosexual agenda? I'm not talking about liberal interpretations of these historical facts - I'm talking about the stone cold fact that marriage has gone through many forms even throughout the course of THIS COUNTRY'S short history. The church's definition, once again, doesn't matter. They didn't invent it, they don't own it. You want to try to talk about the definition of marriage within this country's history - I'm telling you it has changed several times. It was never static. That is not "liberal skewing" - those are facts that you can find yourself if you actually cared to research a subject instead of just arguing based on your assumptions.

bem401
06-28-2011, 08:47 AM
In that case, show me when and where gay MARRIAGE was recognized by the US government.

Aurora_Sunset
06-28-2011, 08:52 AM
In that case, show me when and where gay MARRIAGE was recognized by the US government.

It wasn't. I already said that. Your argument for not allowing it now is that you do not want to change the definition of marriage that has always existed. That's a poor argument because the definition of marriage has been changing and morphing since this country was created. You can't make an argument for not changing it now based on it "never changing in the past" when it has changed in the past. Why not allow it to change again, since change is what has brought it to its current form that you approve of anyway? Again, slippery-slope arguments are meaningless and the church is not involved. If you would like to just say that your argument is purely religious and you would like to follow the Catholic Church, just say that and I'll stop because there's no sense in arguing when it comes to religious reasoning. But stop trying to change your reasoning around every time I put down an argument.

bem401
06-28-2011, 09:25 AM
I have not been changing my reasoning one bit since I weighed in on this thread. The definition of marriage has not changed in the eyes of the US during its history. It has not changed in the eyes of the church in its history. If neither of these institutions have changed it heretofore, why should it change now when the majority of the population opposes changing it? It would only open the door to people looking for changes at least as significant in the future.

Aurora_Sunset
06-28-2011, 09:31 AM
Well, your first argument was that it was disrespectful to the church to use “their” word and they haven't changed– I said it was not “their” word and therefore they have no grounds to feel disrespected, and the church should have no bearing on the laws.


Then you said you wanted marriage to stay the same as it’s been “for time immemorial” – I pointed out that marriage has changed many times and even included gay marriage in some societies long before the church existed.



So you changed it to only caring that marriage keep the static definition it has had since the founding of this country – I said that marriage has not had a static definition in this country so changing it again is nothing new – yes, it has changed in the eyes of the US over the course of its history – just because it didn’t include gay marriage, doesn’t mean the definition has remained completely unchanged and "traditional".



And at one point, you tried to bring polygamy and incest and the majority population into it, which you’re still doing, and which I already pointed out are worthless arguments in relation to your original claim. Yes, your argument has changed numerous times.


If your main argument is still because of the “disrespect of church” just because they haven't changed their definition, see my original post – and since you clearly don’t see the value in the church not owning the word and them not being involved in what’s legal, I’m done here.

bem401
06-28-2011, 09:52 AM
I was content to be done from my first post when I said give them the same rights but call it something different.

From the religious perspective, "Man shall not lie down with man" is from Leviticus, the third book of the Bible. That constitutes damn near time immemorial to me that gay relationships have been frowned upon. To try to confer the term "marriage "on such relationships is an affront to those faiths that incorporate the Old Testament and offer marriage as a sacrament.

From the civic standpoint, gay marriage never has been and IMO never should be recognized as nothing more than an alternative to traditional marriage in the US. It's never been recognized and in my opinion never should be, for the reasons enumerated in this thread.

At least we disagreed relatively agreeably. I say put it to a vote and let the people determine how it'll be treated.

Krill_
06-28-2011, 10:43 AM
If neither of these institutions have changed it heretofore, why should it change now when the majority of the population opposes changing it? It would only open the door to people looking for changes at least as significant in the future.

Wrong, it's now dead even.

http://i.imgur.com/Ds0Kr.png

It's impossible to refute the trend too; it won't be long before there's a clear majority in favor. Slippery slope arguments (i.e. if this, what next) are also poor unless it's part of clearly established pattern with a logical next step. As you've said gay marriage has historically never been recognized by the federal government or some Christian sects, so there's no pattern. You just end up with arguments like if gays are allowed to marry, what next, dogs?

lemiwinks31
06-28-2011, 10:55 AM
Wrong, it's now dead even.

http://i.imgur.com/Ds0Kr.png



How fitting that the 2 groups meet at the head of the penis.




I dont think this "poll" was meant to be serious.