I got in a long discusion with a good friend who is agaist gay marrage, and I have one question for you anti gay marrage people. Why do you care so much about what other people do with their lives?
Gay marrage?
- Thread starter TheMontashu
- Start date
A marriage can/does/has connotate(d) a religious ceremony. Civil unions do not.
Why argue over semantics?
Because semantics and ideas are al we have to figght about.
Why argue over semantics?
Because semantics and ideas are al we have to figght about.
It's largely a lack of empathy, combined with ignorance, bigotry and paranoia.
They don't realize there are two parts to marriage, civil, and spiritual. The law recognizes marriage as a civil contract. The church (thousands of different versions) see it as a sacrament (or the equivalent). Both are called Marriage. Prince Charles was married in a civil ceremony because his divorce prohibited him from a holy marriage. He's still legally married. I believe (and anyman please comment) most Christian churches didn't allow marriages in the church until the middle ages when they reversed a centuries old policy and made marriage a sacrament.
Holy matrimony, and it's conditions should be determined by your spiritual beliefs, if any, and because it's defined so many different ways has no point in law.
I was married in a civil ceremony, by a judge, out of choice. My wife and I didn't want a church wedding. We are still married, and after 15 years have beaten the odds.
What I do think will need to be changed is the Tax code, which is out of date anyway. Instead of single, head of household, and married..the status needs to be changed to just look at your number of dependents. The married status was intended to give people starting families a financial break and contribute to raising the next generation of our society. If you are married or single and don't plan to have kids (gay, choice, etc) you shouldn't get the tax break. On the other hand if you are responsible for caring for other people (an elderly parent, child etc.) you should get the break, independent of your marital status.
They don't realize there are two parts to marriage, civil, and spiritual. The law recognizes marriage as a civil contract. The church (thousands of different versions) see it as a sacrament (or the equivalent). Both are called Marriage. Prince Charles was married in a civil ceremony because his divorce prohibited him from a holy marriage. He's still legally married. I believe (and anyman please comment) most Christian churches didn't allow marriages in the church until the middle ages when they reversed a centuries old policy and made marriage a sacrament.
Holy matrimony, and it's conditions should be determined by your spiritual beliefs, if any, and because it's defined so many different ways has no point in law.
I was married in a civil ceremony, by a judge, out of choice. My wife and I didn't want a church wedding. We are still married, and after 15 years have beaten the odds.
What I do think will need to be changed is the Tax code, which is out of date anyway. Instead of single, head of household, and married..the status needs to be changed to just look at your number of dependents. The married status was intended to give people starting families a financial break and contribute to raising the next generation of our society. If you are married or single and don't plan to have kids (gay, choice, etc) you shouldn't get the tax break. On the other hand if you are responsible for caring for other people (an elderly parent, child etc.) you should get the break, independent of your marital status.
Problem with that:ummbikes said:
I'm married. Plus, my wife and I aren't having kids. My views on religion are known well enough in this forum.
I'd like to see gay marriage opponents change the laws so that that I can't marry. Once they get serious about that, I'll believe that it is something more than the closeminded "ick" factor or just plain ole' bigotry.
Ive explained my stance before in another thread, but I support gay marriage.
While I philisophically oppose gay marriage, you'd never find me either teaching against it, or on TV in some retarded demonstration against it.
Personally, the evangelical protestant church (which seems to be the loudest opponent to gay marraige, other than the Catholic church) needs to keep it's mouth shut since the divorce rate in the evangelcial camp is higher than the national average.............you know that whole log in the eye bit.
Personally, the evangelical protestant church (which seems to be the loudest opponent to gay marraige, other than the Catholic church) needs to keep it's mouth shut since the divorce rate in the evangelcial camp is higher than the national average.............you know that whole log in the eye bit.
Sheesh I need to learn how to type.
all all all all all all all
fight fight fight fight
all all all all all all all
fight fight fight fight
Why? I believe that was the original question.Andyman_1970 said:
I think the whole idea of 'marriage' needs to be updated for our modern times.
Initally marriage should be entered into for 3 years then there would be an evaluation and 2 year options there after.
Initally marriage should be entered into for 3 years then there would be an evaluation and 2 year options there after.
Here is my question why do people care if a man-man or women-women get married?? How does it directly affect them?? If these two people are happy and contributing to society then what it the big deal??
Religiously or philosophically, I was just wondering why he opposes it, which (I believe) was the reason behind this whole post.LordOpie said:
It could be like proffesional Athletes. When ready to get hitched you enter in a draft. After a few years of marriage you have the option of getting a new contract or becoming a free agent. Trades can also be made.N8 said:
Yes, I agree with that. I'm not sure if Andyman supports gay marriage rights or not. He might support them for others, which would be cool. I'm just wondering why he would say that he doesn't support them.sanjuro said:
I understand the distinction you are making here. I'm not trying to talk about that. Whether he meant religiously or philosophically, I'm still interested in the reason why he would say that he opposes gay marriage.LordOpie said:thing is, philosophy teaches you to question whereas religion is, well, for many, just brainwashing. There, I said it
Old Man G Funk said:
Old Man G Funk said:
I oppose (I hate using that word) the concept of gay marriage, or even homosexuality for that matter as marriage in the Scriptures is a man and a woman. I disagree with this just as I disagree with corporations that mistreat their employees and creation, again on a Scriptural basis .so its not like this issue of gay marriage is special or at the top of my opposition list.Old Man G Funk said:
Now, from a practical everyday living standpoint, would I say lecture my gay neighbors on the issue after they get married .no. Would I make sure that I participate in public demonstrations against it .no. Would I petition my lawmakers to pass laws against it ..no. Being a follower of Jesus according to the Scriptures involves loving people unconditionally, that doesnt mean I have to agree with them, but it does mean I am to treat them with love and respect, just as I would want to be treated.
The rabbis have a method of interpretation that tries to determine which commandments are heavier (important) and which are lighter (less important) with the idea that if two commandments conflict which is heavier and should thus be lived out .loving others unconditionally I believe Jesus indicates is heavier than actively opposing gay marriage. Not to mention the evangelical church for the most part cant demonstrate what marriage looks like according to the Scriptures, and thus IMO has no leg to stand on when judging others on the matter.
As reactor pointed out, from the state's standpoint there is only civil marriage (separate from scripture or holy matrimony.) Can we take it that you don't oppose the state allowing gay marriage?Andyman_1970 said:
No argument about that.
I wouldn't be crazy about the state allowing it, but the word "oppose" is too strong of a word to describe my not being crazy about it.Old Man G Funk said:
So, the original question was why do you care what two people do? Why would you "not be crazy" about the state sanctioning it?Andyman_1970 said:
I really dont care as long as what they do or believe doesnt adversely affect myself, my family or those I care about.Old Man G Funk said:
See my aforementioned comments about marriage and the Scriptures. I understand that the differences outlined between a religious and civil ceremony. Regardless of the ceremony be it religious or civil I believe marriage to have a Spiritual aspect to it thus the not real crazy feeling I have about the issue.Old Man G Funk said:
My only qualm about the state sanctioning gay marriage would be the potential for that to be a must do for institutions that dont affirm gay marriage that conduct state sanctioned marriages that seems like it could be a potentially slippery slope. Churches typically have a tax exempt status (dont get me started on that) and I could see a conflict with that being held over their heads should they not agree to perform gay marriages.
It doesn't, does it?Andyman_1970 said:
But, not according to the state, correct? The state can not take "spiritual" issues into account.
In states that do sanction gay marriage (or state really) has that been a problem for churches? I'd say most likely not. As far as the state is concerned, aren't two people married once they get their marriage license signed? Don't most city halls have people that perform that very function? Certainly we can't force churches to perform ceremonies against their will, and I don't think that's really something that is at stake right here.
I don't think it's at stake either, just a possible problem that might arise from the issue............I was just throwing out some food for thought.Old Man G Funk said:
Not if we have a true separation of church and state. The state gives out civil marriage rights, one decides whether or not to have a marriage in the "eyes of the church." It sort of sounds like a red herring.Andyman_1970 said:
I understand that you have your own objections, but they don't really rise to the level of what the state should or should not do according to law, correct? If so, why should you oppose the state allowing gay marriage other than your personal convictions that the state is not allowed to consider (since they are religious)?
Please note I didn't say I "oppose" it state wise, I said I wasn't crazy about it, and that would be based on my personal convictions.
Don't hurt yourself trying to pat yourself on the back there.H8R said:
Good idea. I am always trying to find a uses for all the anti-gay person severed arms I have laying around the house. It just seems wasteful to throw them away and the dog will get fat if I give him too many.H8R said:
Hand end or bloodied stump end?H8R said:
I wish they would just give the babies there bottle already so we could stop hearing about it. Does anyone realy care if adam calls steve his wife as he's railing him in the a$$. (disturbin thougth) Lets just give 'em everything they want so they have nothing left to bitch about and then sweep em back under the rug and forget about em
I think we need to sweep farging isoles like you under the rug you bible thumping biggot!The Amish said:
Edit: and don't forget to stomp really hard to flatten out all the lumps
...or beating the living daylights out of the AmishH8R said:
N8 said:
Cool, then you could have a "free agent" clause in then contract
Wish I had thought of that.Reactor said:Cool, then you could have a "free agent" clause in then contract