Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll
- Thread starter von551
- Start date
[quote name='Hex']
what are traditional family values then? service to ye olde king?[/quote]
You're trying to refute the argument by narrowing it down to two extreme examples that everyone agrees are wrong, trying to prove the entire argument as invalid by association.
what are traditional family values then? service to ye olde king?[/quote]
You're trying to refute the argument by narrowing it down to two extreme examples that everyone agrees are wrong, trying to prove the entire argument as invalid by association.
nathansu
Banned
[quote name='spmahn']No, you're definitely spewing hate and ignorance, it's just a different kind of hate and ignorance than what most people are used to. Being against same sex marriage doesn't have to be about hate, or religion, or bigotry, it can also be about the desire to preserve traditional societal values.[/quote]
Right, this is like saying "we're equal, except if you're gay".
Here's the definition of hate, if you've forgotten.
[SIZE=-1]Hatred is a word to describe immense feelings of dislike toward someone or something, as well as prejudice or bigotry against a class of people, racism being a prominent example of this. The term hate crime is used to designate crimes committed out of hatred in this sense. [/SIZE]
The statement mentioned above, and what you're alluding to fits the definition quite well.
Facts, the real world, and apparently everything else relevant to the planet earth have quite the liberal bias.
Right, this is like saying "we're equal, except if you're gay".
Here's the definition of hate, if you've forgotten.
[SIZE=-1]Hatred is a word to describe immense feelings of dislike toward someone or something, as well as prejudice or bigotry against a class of people, racism being a prominent example of this. The term hate crime is used to designate crimes committed out of hatred in this sense. [/SIZE]
The statement mentioned above, and what you're alluding to fits the definition quite well.
Facts, the real world, and apparently everything else relevant to the planet earth have quite the liberal bias.
[quote name='von551'] And if you ever do read the constitution you'll find numerous references to the Bible and it's guidelines of life, where do you think they derived the constitution from?[/quote]
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
The Founding Fathers weren't christian.
America was not founded on christian principles, as much as you want to stamp your cute little feet like a two year old and scream that it was.
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."[/FONT]
Good ol' Jimmy Madison.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
The Founding Fathers weren't christian.
America was not founded on christian principles, as much as you want to stamp your cute little feet like a two year old and scream that it was.
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."[/FONT]
Good ol' Jimmy Madison.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='von551']And if you ever do read the constitution you'll find numerous references to the Bible and it's guidelines of life, where do you think they derived the constitution from?[/quote]Good golly, Miss Molly! Where... what... man. Okay, gimme a second. This is a long ways from the most original argument I've ever made - mostly just stealing it from another guy - but hey, I don't wanna reinvent the delicious cheese wheel here. I make no claims to be either a Biblical or constitutional scholar, so feel free to correct me here as needs be.
America is a Republican Democracy. Or republican democracy. I'm not too clear on how you capitalize it. And that bugs me. Anyway, there's not a lot of... okay, there's no real equivalent to that in the Bible. Lots and lots of monarchy, though!
The separation of powers is important in the United States. This is not the case in Biblical nations.
The constitution (Constitution?) can be amended. Contrast with Leviticus 23:41 and Galatians 1:8-9.
There is religious freedom - including, yes, protection of religion from the state. You think that killing people for blasphemy in Deuteronomy 13 and Leviticus 24:16 - hell, especially Leviticus 24:16 - is in any way similar?
There is freedom of speech in the United States. In Numbers 16, criticizing a leader results results in not only your death, but the death of your entire family.
There is no protection from cruel and unusual punishment (stoning), nothing remotely resembling the warrants for arrest/search/seizure, and Deuteronomy 19:15 is a helluva long way from a trial by jury.
And as for equality under the law? Leviticus 27:1-7, Leviticus 21:17-23, and hell, even Mark 7:27.
...
, I hope I got those numbers right. I better not have posted something that turns into, "And the LORD smote them on the backside," or, "Behold, I am against your pillows," or some shit.
America is a Republican Democracy. Or republican democracy. I'm not too clear on how you capitalize it. And that bugs me. Anyway, there's not a lot of... okay, there's no real equivalent to that in the Bible. Lots and lots of monarchy, though!
The separation of powers is important in the United States. This is not the case in Biblical nations.
The constitution (Constitution?) can be amended. Contrast with Leviticus 23:41 and Galatians 1:8-9.
There is religious freedom - including, yes, protection of religion from the state. You think that killing people for blasphemy in Deuteronomy 13 and Leviticus 24:16 - hell, especially Leviticus 24:16 - is in any way similar?
There is freedom of speech in the United States. In Numbers 16, criticizing a leader results results in not only your death, but the death of your entire family.
There is no protection from cruel and unusual punishment (stoning), nothing remotely resembling the warrants for arrest/search/seizure, and Deuteronomy 19:15 is a helluva long way from a trial by jury.
And as for equality under the law? Leviticus 27:1-7, Leviticus 21:17-23, and hell, even Mark 7:27.
...
, I hope I got those numbers right. I better not have posted something that turns into, "And the LORD smote them on the backside," or, "Behold, I am against your pillows," or some shit.
[quote name='spmahn']No, you're definitely spewing hate and ignorance, it's just a different kind of hate and ignorance than what most people are used to. Being against same sex marriage doesn't have to be about hate, or religion, or bigotry, it can also be about the desire to preserve traditional societal values.[/quote]
No, you have an immense hate and ignorance. You might hide it with a veil of love and care, even to yourself, but they are there.
On traditional societal values, see http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189782&title=i-now-denounce-you-chucklarry . Watch it to the end. There's really no such thing, the only standard is what you accept.
Traditional societal values, even if they were real, is no reason to oppose civil liberties. Your argument could just as easily be used as reason why women and blacks shouldn't vote, why interracial marriage should be outlawed, or why people should be married off by their parents instead of by their own choice. Heck, 'tradition' could be used as an excuse to send ourselves all back to the dark ages. The Amish do it.
No, you have an immense hate and ignorance. You might hide it with a veil of love and care, even to yourself, but they are there.
On traditional societal values, see http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189782&title=i-now-denounce-you-chucklarry . Watch it to the end. There's really no such thing, the only standard is what you accept.
Traditional societal values, even if they were real, is no reason to oppose civil liberties. Your argument could just as easily be used as reason why women and blacks shouldn't vote, why interracial marriage should be outlawed, or why people should be married off by their parents instead of by their own choice. Heck, 'tradition' could be used as an excuse to send ourselves all back to the dark ages. The Amish do it.
[quote name='spmahn']You're trying to refute the argument by narrowing it down to two extreme examples that everyone agrees are wrong, trying to prove the entire argument as invalid by association.[/quote]
You have yet to explain to me what you mean by traditional societal values. Considering that societal values change like the seasons, that term is prettying nebulous. Considering you're all for making me a second class citizen, I assumed you're also down with making separate fountains for the coloureds, putting them uppity wimminz back in the kitchen and making your misbehaving kids go work in a factory. 
You have yet to explain to me what you mean by traditional societal values. Considering that societal values change like the seasons, that term is pretty
ing nebulous. Considering you're all for making me a second class citizen, I assumed you're also down with making separate fountains for the coloureds, putting them uppity wimminz back in the kitchen and making your misbehaving kids go work in a factory. 
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Excerrent picture.
Dammit, I hate how I always get the last post on aing page...
Dammit, I hate how I always get the last post on a
ing page...Look, I'm done with this thread, it's a circular argument, you guys have your opinions, and I have mine, no one wins, it's a tie. All I can say is that if you want equality you're not going to find it until you distance yourself from some of the extremists like I have seen here. I hope you guys find whatever happiness it is you're looking for. Good luck, and god bless.
HumanSnatcher
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
[quote name='Hex']
[/quote]
You read my mind!
[/quote]You read my mind!
nathansu
Banned
[quote name='spmahn']Look, I'm done with this thread, it's a circular argument, you guys have your opinions, and I have mine, no one wins, it's a tie. All I can say is that if you want equality you're not going to find it until you distance yourself from some of the extremists like I have seen here. I hope you guys find whatever happiness it is you're looking for. Good luck, and god bless.[/quote]
Don't you love how when you throw facts (facts are facts, there is no bias involved) on the table in an argument with a religious extremist, they throw a fit and run away?
This is the single reason I read the old and new testament many times. Contradicting a bigot's point with verses from their own text they claim to be defending is one of the besting things in the world.
Don't you love how when you throw facts (facts are facts, there is no bias involved) on the table in an argument with a religious extremist, they throw a fit and run away?
This is the single reason I read the old and new testament many times. Contradicting a bigot's point with verses from their own text they claim to be defending is one of the best
ing things in the world.Oh, while we're on the subject of traditional values, let's be real simple and define them as what our parents accept.
My grandmother could really not have dreamed of a world where women would commonly hold careers of substance. My mother was smart, hardworking, and lucky enough to go to college, and get her own career, beyond McJobs. She married my father, had me, and so on. The values of my grandmother's generation would've assumed the woman would stay with the man, who would hold the job.
Bit of a problem with that formula: my father was abusive, practically unemployable, and had no expertise or qualifications.
So would you have had her stay with me in a household where we'd be abused, and struggle to afford basic costs like food and shelter, for the sake of preserving 'traditional values'?
Because her getting a divorce, raising a young child on her own, and working hard in her own career to give a good life to her child certainly doesn't fit into traditional values, however you define them. Yet it's clearly the superior option. My guess is you'll say you don't have a problem with that, and in fact probably don't even find a single mother non-traditional, BECAUSE YOU ARE ACCUSTOMED TO IT. You would never say that it should be illegal. And yet you say that gay marriage should be illegal. You simply don't see single mothers and gay persons as equal humans.
My grandmother could really not have dreamed of a world where women would commonly hold careers of substance. My mother was smart, hardworking, and lucky enough to go to college, and get her own career, beyond McJobs. She married my father, had me, and so on. The values of my grandmother's generation would've assumed the woman would stay with the man, who would hold the job.
Bit of a problem with that formula: my father was abusive, practically unemployable, and had no expertise or qualifications.
So would you have had her stay with me in a household where we'd be abused, and struggle to afford basic costs like food and shelter, for the sake of preserving 'traditional values'?
Because her getting a divorce, raising a young child on her own, and working hard in her own career to give a good life to her child certainly doesn't fit into traditional values, however you define them. Yet it's clearly the superior option. My guess is you'll say you don't have a problem with that, and in fact probably don't even find a single mother non-traditional, BECAUSE YOU ARE ACCUSTOMED TO IT. You would never say that it should be illegal. And yet you say that gay marriage should be illegal. You simply don't see single mothers and gay persons as equal humans.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='lilboo']Ok, to be serious now.
What do you mean if we want equality, we won't find it until we distance ourselves from some of the extremists?
What do ya mean? We need to physically be away from these people? I am actually not sure what you mean--not attacking.[/quote]
I believe he means "no threatening to masturbate with the Bible".
Or whatever the hell you were talking about last night.
What do you mean if we want equality, we won't find it until we distance ourselves from some of the extremists?
What do ya mean? We need to physically be away from these people? I am actually not sure what you mean--not attacking.[/quote]
I believe he means "no threatening to masturbate with the Bible".
Or whatever the hell you were talking about last night.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
This thread needs some levity, and some levity in poor taste at that:
[quote name='nathansu']Don't you love how when you throw facts (facts are facts, there is no bias involved) on the table in an argument with a religious extremist, they throw a fit and run away?
This is the single reason I read the old and new testament many times. Contradicting a bigot's point with verses from their own text they claim to be defending is one of the besting things in the world.[/quote]
I haven't seen any facts at all here, just differing opinions. There aren't that many facts to be had in this debate, and even the facts that there are, are up for debate. I'm not throwing a fit, I'm bowing out gracefully, this argument will never end, it'll go on and on forever.
What I mean by this is that you need to change public perception of what homosexuality is. For the majority of Americans, when you ask them to describe a homosexual, they usually associate the term with the guys out in the streets in San Francisco marching in parades wearing their speedo's and such. The movement needs to change this opinion and convince mainstream America that homosexuals are just normal people, they just happen to dig the same sex.
It would also help if you would at least be more respectful towards people with opposing views. Not everyone who disagrees with you is Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, but if you treat everyone that does as though they are, then you're never going to change the minds of anyone. No one is going to listen to people they see as antagonists.
This is the single reason I read the old and new testament many times. Contradicting a bigot's point with verses from their own text they claim to be defending is one of the best
ing things in the world.[/quote]I haven't seen any facts at all here, just differing opinions. There aren't that many facts to be had in this debate, and even the facts that there are, are up for debate. I'm not throwing a fit, I'm bowing out gracefully, this argument will never end, it'll go on and on forever.
What I mean by this is that you need to change public perception of what homosexuality is. For the majority of Americans, when you ask them to describe a homosexual, they usually associate the term with the guys out in the streets in San Francisco marching in parades wearing their speedo's and such. The movement needs to change this opinion and convince mainstream America that homosexuals are just normal people, they just happen to dig the same sex.
It would also help if you would at least be more respectful towards people with opposing views. Not everyone who disagrees with you is Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, but if you treat everyone that does as though they are, then you're never going to change the minds of anyone. No one is going to listen to people they see as antagonists.
nathansu
Banned
[quote name='spmahn']I haven't seen any facts at all here, just differing opinions. There aren't that many facts to be had in this debate, and even the facts that there are, are up for debate. I'm not throwing a fit, I'm bowing out gracefully, this argument will never end, it'll go on and on forever.
[/quote]
Hey tard - it is a FACT that everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the law. The amendment to the CA constitution is illegal due to this FACT.
Multiple other posters have thrown out FACTS like this, and you've yet to respond to any of them.
[/quote]
Hey tard - it is a FACT that everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the law. The amendment to the CA constitution is illegal due to this FACT.
Multiple other posters have thrown out FACTS like this, and you've yet to respond to any of them.
[quote name='nathansu']Hey tard - it is a FACT that everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the law. The amendment to the CA constitution is illegal due to this FACT.
Multiple other posters have thrown out FACTS like this, and you've yet to respond to any of them.[/quote]
But it's an OPINION that they are not guaranteed equal protection under the law.
Multiple other posters have thrown out FACTS like this, and you've yet to respond to any of them.[/quote]
But it's an OPINION that they are not guaranteed equal protection under the law.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Hex']http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
The Founding Fathers weren't christian.
America was not founded on christian principles, as much as you want to stamp your cute little feet like a two year old and scream that it was.
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."[/FONT]
Good ol' Jimmy Madison.
[/QUOTE]
You know since marriage was originally a religious institution, posts like that only fortify the argument that marriage shouldn't be recognized at all by the government.
I hope that's what you are going for, because I agree with it.
The Founding Fathers weren't christian.
America was not founded on christian principles, as much as you want to stamp your cute little feet like a two year old and scream that it was.
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."[/FONT]
Good ol' Jimmy Madison.
[/QUOTE]
You know since marriage was originally a religious institution, posts like that only fortify the argument that marriage shouldn't be recognized at all by the government.
I hope that's what you are going for, because I agree with it.
[quote name='nathansu']No, that is a FALSE STATEMENT. It's equivalent to saying "murder is OK if you are of the opinion that it is justified even though it is illegal".
Try again.[/quote]
Well, some people actually might find murder to be ok on some sort of personal level. It's still illegal, but that has nothing to do with whether or not a person can be ok with it.
Try again.[/quote]
Well, some people actually might find murder to be ok on some sort of personal level. It's still illegal, but that has nothing to do with whether or not a person can be ok with it.
[quote name='thrustbucket']You know since marriage was originally a religious institution, posts like that only fortify the argument that marriage shouldn't be recognized at all by the government.
I hope that's what you are going for, because I agree with it.[/quote]
Except it wasn't originally a religious institution. Strellington made a post about that a while back.
And no. I'm good with everyone getting married. this mentality of IF THEM $$$S GET MARRIAGE THEN NOBODY DOES.
Kindergarten logic.
I hope that's what you are going for, because I agree with it.[/quote]
Except it wasn't originally a religious institution. Strellington made a post about that a while back.
And no. I'm good with everyone getting married.
this mentality of IF THEM $$$S GET MARRIAGE THEN NOBODY DOES.Kindergarten logic.
I agree with it as well, and I'd be surprised if a majority of the pro-gay marriage people aren't of the opinion that government has no business getting involved with the mating practices of citizens. However, it'd be basically impossible to abolish government endorsed marriage, so it's far better to provide those legal rights to everyone.
blandstalker
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='von551']Hahaha. Wasn't marriage mentioned in the Bible thousands of years before priests? [/quote]
What? How old do you think the Christian Bible is?
There's this thing called history. You might want to give it a look.
For that matter, where in the Bible does it say that marriage was "created by God"?
For that matter, what, exactly, was marriage before the Bible. The Bible has only been around for less than two thousand years (New Testament -- Old Testament is older, but not that much older.). Marriage is older than the Bible.
It's bad enough you don't know history, but you don't even know the book you're thumping.
Oh, and one more question: Can Buddhists get married?
What? How old do you think the Christian Bible is?
No, seriously. Marriage was about property and inheritance rights.
There's this thing called history. You might want to give it a look.
Who said they were? Where, exactly, is California trying to make God recognize gay marriage? It must be that damned Gavin Newsom.
For that matter, where in the Bible does it say that marriage was "created by God"?
For that matter, what, exactly, was marriage before the Bible. The Bible has only been around for less than two thousand years (New Testament -- Old Testament is older, but not that much older.). Marriage is older than the Bible.
It's bad enough you don't know history, but you don't even know the book you're thumping.
Oh, and one more question: Can Buddhists get married?
Last edited by a moderator:
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Hex']Except it wasn't originally a religious institution. Strellington made a post about that a while back.
And no. I'm good with everyone getting married. this mentality of IF THEM $$$S GET MARRIAGE THEN NOBODY DOES.
Kindergarten logic.[/QUOTE]
I still believe it's nigh impossible to prove that the institution of marriage didn't form out of socio-religious beliefs several thousand years ago.
But I'm ok with your above stated position as long as there are no exceptions. That means you're ok with polygamy too.
After all, you have to admit that attempting to define marriage as "two people that love each other" is being just as oppressive to those that believe in polygamy.
And no. I'm good with everyone getting married.
this mentality of IF THEM $$$S GET MARRIAGE THEN NOBODY DOES.Kindergarten logic.[/QUOTE]
I still believe it's nigh impossible to prove that the institution of marriage didn't form out of socio-religious beliefs several thousand years ago.
But I'm ok with your above stated position as long as there are no exceptions. That means you're ok with polygamy too.
After all, you have to admit that attempting to define marriage as "two people that love each other" is being just as oppressive to those that believe in polygamy.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I still believe it's nigh impossible to prove that the institution of marriage didn't form out of socio-religious beliefs several thousand years ago.
[/QUOTE]
You don't think that we - as a species - couldn't figure outin', and thus that keeping around a person for in' to prolong our species and increase our familial power might be a good idea, before thinking about deities?
Really?
'Cuz you know, I think I probably had a boner as a young man before I could conceive of a god, and this is being brought up in a house where I was assuredly told about such beliefs before sex.
Shit. I bet the doctors didn't want me in the nursery too long because I was givin' those women the what for from mah crib.
[/QUOTE]
You don't think that we - as a species - couldn't figure out
in', and thus that keeping around a person for in' to prolong our species and increase our familial power might be a good idea, before thinking about deities?Really?
'Cuz you know, I think I probably had a boner as a young man before I could conceive of a god, and this is being brought up in a house where I was assuredly told about such beliefs before sex.
Shit. I bet the doctors didn't want me in the nursery too long because I was givin' those women the what for from mah crib.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='gaxur']I agree with it as well, and I'd be surprised if a majority of the pro-gay marriage people aren't of the opinion that government has no business getting involved with the mating practices of citizens. However, it'd be basically impossible to abolish government endorsed marriage, so it's far better to provide those legal rights to everyone.[/QUOTE]
The way around that is -
You first abolish government recognition of marriage. Which should have been done in 1776, but nobody questioned the definition of marriage then so nobody bothered.
You then require anyone and every adult that wants legal inheritance, paternal, visitation rights to fill out a government form cementing a legal union. This can be ANY two or more people.
Leave marriage to churches, clubs, bbq's, and cruise ships - as a novelty.
Lilboo is actually ok with this (last time I explained it to him anyway). So I think it's very fair. Everyone wins. Everyone is happy. But it will never happen.
The way around that is -
You first abolish government recognition of marriage. Which should have been done in 1776, but nobody questioned the definition of marriage then so nobody bothered.
You then require anyone and every adult that wants legal inheritance, paternal, visitation rights to fill out a government form cementing a legal union. This can be ANY two or more people.
Leave marriage to churches, clubs, bbq's, and cruise ships - as a novelty.
Lilboo is actually ok with this (last time I explained it to him anyway). So I think it's very fair. Everyone wins. Everyone is happy. But it will never happen.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Everyone is happy.[/QUOTE]
Nope. Not when you have the "we don't want to have to treat homosexuals like normal people/we don't want our children to think homosexuality is ok" crowd.
The same crowd that thinks intelligent design should be taught in science classes, mind. That same crowd and then some.
Nope. Not when you have the "we don't want to have to treat homosexuals like normal people/we don't want our children to think homosexuality is ok" crowd.
The same crowd that thinks intelligent design should be taught in science classes, mind. That same crowd and then some.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Strell']You don't think that we - as a species - couldn't figure out in', and thus that keeping around a person for in' to prolong our species and increase our familial power, before thinking about deities?
Really?
'Cuz you know, I think I probably had a boner as a young man before I could conceive of a god, and this is being brought up in a house where I was assuredly told about such beliefs before sex.
Shit. I bet the doctors didn't want me in the nursery too long because I was givin' those women the what for from mah crib.[/QUOTE]
You struck at the very core of my argument, thank you.
Of course people naturally group up into little tribes (families) and stuck together. Anyone can do that still today, but that isn't legally binding, nor can it be.
But at some point people started inserting religion into their bonds and created ceremonies to "seal" everything. Marriage is a CEREMONY.
If marriage didn't start out as a religious institution, why is there a ceremony? Even getting married by a judge requires one. Because it's a distant ancestor of a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.
I guess you can believe that the atheistic secular mind, at some point in history, would have wanted to perform a CEREMONY for a marriage, but that's quite a stretch.
in', and thus that keeping around a person for in' to prolong our species and increase our familial power, before thinking about deities?Really?
'Cuz you know, I think I probably had a boner as a young man before I could conceive of a god, and this is being brought up in a house where I was assuredly told about such beliefs before sex.
Shit. I bet the doctors didn't want me in the nursery too long because I was givin' those women the what for from mah crib.[/QUOTE]
You struck at the very core of my argument, thank you.
Of course people naturally group up into little tribes (families) and stuck together. Anyone can do that still today, but that isn't legally binding, nor can it be.
But at some point people started inserting religion into their bonds and created ceremonies to "seal" everything. Marriage is a CEREMONY.
If marriage didn't start out as a religious institution, why is there a ceremony? Even getting married by a judge requires one. Because it's a distant ancestor of a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.
I guess you can believe that the atheistic secular mind, at some point in history, would have wanted to perform a CEREMONY for a marriage, but that's quite a stretch.
Well Thrust I have a SOMEWHAT issue with Civil Unions. There have bee reports here in NJ about places such as hospitals STILL not allowing 1 partner to visit there other partner in the hospital because they weren't MARRIED.
Now, I am totally cool with Civil Unions IF the following 2 reasons apply:
1) It IS everything that a marriage consists of in every legal aspect AND it is recognized EVERYWHERE like hospitals, insurance companies, employment, ETC.
2) Straight people get these also. In the event civil unions where MAINLY had by gays (and I'm talking about a large difference)..then I am against it. It is only creating the 'separate, but equal' mentality. I know that sounds picky on my behalf, but it isn't. I just want to be equal and that's all.
Now, I am totally cool with Civil Unions IF the following 2 reasons apply:
1) It IS everything that a marriage consists of in every legal aspect AND it is recognized EVERYWHERE like hospitals, insurance companies, employment, ETC.
2) Straight people get these also. In the event civil unions where MAINLY had by gays (and I'm talking about a large difference)..then I am against it. It is only creating the 'separate, but equal' mentality. I know that sounds picky on my behalf, but it isn't. I just want to be equal and that's all.
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Marriage is a CEREMONY.
[/quote]
No. IT BECAME ONE. There is a difference.
Not if you go back beyond whatever arbitrary point in history you are thinking of. I've already touched on this a few times in this thread. Go look it up - marriage was a business transaction originally. I'll let your daughter marry my son if you give me three head of cattle. Priests got bored and took it over. This is historical content.
What about the notion of prima nocta? That's not very Christian, but it's born in the Middle Ages when people were fearful of God. However, that didn't extend to the king, who got to virgins left and right if he simply called shotgun.
Oh this is just ridiculous. So now you want to say that atheists wouldn't think to mark any kind of occasion with ceremony?
Why in the are you acting like ceremony is some magical word that can only be infused with religious intent and tone? There's all sorts of ceremonies that aren't like that.
Marriage is a CEREMONY.
[/quote]
No. IT BECAME ONE. There is a difference.
Not if you go back beyond whatever arbitrary point in history you are thinking of. I've already touched on this a few times in this thread. Go look it up - marriage was a business transaction originally. I'll let your daughter marry my son if you give me three head of cattle. Priests got bored and took it over. This is historical content.
What about the notion of prima nocta? That's not very Christian, but it's born in the Middle Ages when people were fearful of God. However, that didn't extend to the king, who got to
virgins left and right if he simply called shotgun.Oh this is just ridiculous. So now you want to say that atheists wouldn't think to mark any kind of occasion with ceremony?
Why in the
are you acting like ceremony is some magical word that can only be infused with religious intent and tone? There's all sorts of ceremonies that aren't like that.[quote name='thrustbucket']I still believe it's nigh impossible to prove that the institution of marriage didn't form out of socio-religious beliefs several thousand years ago.
But I'm ok with your above stated position as long as there are no exceptions. That means you're ok with polygamy too.
After all, you have to admit that attempting to define marriage as "two people that love each other" is being just as oppressive to those that believe in polygamy.[/quote]
I've know several people in polyamourous relationships; I'm fine with polygamy. Hell, several of my friends would be happy marrying their horses, but that's another matter entirely.
But I'm ok with your above stated position as long as there are no exceptions. That means you're ok with polygamy too.
After all, you have to admit that attempting to define marriage as "two people that love each other" is being just as oppressive to those that believe in polygamy.[/quote]
I've know several people in polyamourous relationships; I'm fine with polygamy. Hell, several of my friends would be happy marrying their horses, but that's another matter entirely.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Nope. Not when you have the "we don't want to have to treat homosexuals like normal people/we don't want our children to think homosexuality is ok" crowd.
The same crowd that thinks intelligent design should be taught in science classes, mind. That same crowd and then some.[/QUOTE]
I'm against that crowd.
But I honestly believe my idea is the only real "compromise".
I think you are up against two big issues here, that you have to find a way around:
1- The vast majority believes that marriage is defined as a man and woman. Even the Obamasiah believes so.
2- Almost all those same people have nothing against gay couples having all the legal rights a straight married couples have. THEY WANT them to have all the same rights. They just don't want it called marriage.
So what's the solution?
Is this issue about legal rights or is it about a word?
The same crowd that thinks intelligent design should be taught in science classes, mind. That same crowd and then some.[/QUOTE]
I'm against that crowd.
But I honestly believe my idea is the only real "compromise".
I think you are up against two big issues here, that you have to find a way around:
1- The vast majority believes that marriage is defined as a man and woman. Even the Obamasiah believes so.
2- Almost all those same people have nothing against gay couples having all the legal rights a straight married couples have. THEY WANT them to have all the same rights. They just don't want it called marriage.
So what's the solution?
Is this issue about legal rights or is it about a word?
[quote name='thrustbucket']Is this issue about legal rights or is it about a word?[/QUOTE]
It is about the word!
If Prop 8 was "Ban the term gay marriage, but allow civil unions" I really do believe it would pass.
That's why this whole thing gets me hot. People are getting HYPE over the definition of a word.
It is about the word!
If Prop 8 was "Ban the term gay marriage, but allow civil unions" I really do believe it would pass.
That's why this whole thing gets me hot. People are getting HYPE over the definition of a word.
nathansu
Banned
[quote name='spmahn']Well, some people actually might find murder to be ok on some sort of personal level. It's still illegal, but that has nothing to do with whether or not a person can be ok with it.[/quote]
...
My point still stands. Tons of facts here, which no "religious" person is addressing.
...
My point still stands. Tons of facts here, which no "religious" person is addressing.
[quote name='thrustbucket']But I honestly believe my idea is the only real "compromise". [/quote]
And yet somehow, in Canada, Britain, Spain and other civilized nations marriage is equal between all and manages to work. Guess that shows you how backwards conservative america is.
And yet somehow, in Canada, Britain, Spain and other civilized nations marriage is equal between all and manages to work. Guess that shows you how backwards conservative america is.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='lilboo']It is about the word!
If Prop 8 was "Ban the term gay marriage, but allow civil unions" I really do believe it would pass.
That's why this whole thing gets me hot. People are getting HYPE over the definition of a word.[/QUOTE]
I absolutely agree with you.
If Prop 8 was "Ban the term gay marriage, but allow civil unions" I really do believe it would pass.
That's why this whole thing gets me hot. People are getting HYPE over the definition of a word.[/QUOTE]
I absolutely agree with you.
nathansu
Banned
[quote name='thrustbucket']
I guess you can believe that the atheistic secular mind, at some point in history, would have wanted to perform a CEREMONY for a marriage, but that's quite a stretch.[/quote]
My wife and I are agnostics and we had a ceremony. It's the celebration of two people's love for each other, nothing more, nothing less.
I guess you can believe that the atheistic secular mind, at some point in history, would have wanted to perform a CEREMONY for a marriage, but that's quite a stretch.[/quote]
My wife and I are agnostics and we had a ceremony. It's the celebration of two people's love for each other, nothing more, nothing less.
[quote name='nathansu']My wife and I are agnostics and we had a ceremony. It's the celebration of two people's love for each other, nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]
Some people I used to know were going to have a wedding that was a pagan celebration. One was pagan, one was agnostic.
And yet, pagan celebrations aren't christian, yet I'm pretty sure they're recognized. Along with common law marriage.
How
about
that.
Some people I used to know were going to have a wedding that was a pagan celebration. One was pagan, one was agnostic.
And yet, pagan celebrations aren't christian, yet I'm pretty sure they're recognized. Along with common law marriage.
How
about
that.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I guess I think of ceremonies and celebrations as two different things. But I get your point.
bread's done