DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?
Pages:   ... [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] ... [266]
Showing posts 3051 - 3075 of 6629, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/10/2009 12:24:23 PM · #3051
There are admittedly gay-hating bigots, who believe HIV is God's instrument to punish homosexuals, etc. There is little we can do about it. However most people, even those opposed to gay marriage, do not fall into this category.

For many it is a religous issue. For others, it is a matter of maintaining the language. I know this may sound odd. We live in an age where many want to redefine, reinterpret, reimagine, revisit and spin almost everything. The most guilty are politicians.

One thing is undisputed. For thousands of years, societies have defined marriage as being between a man and woman; in some cases it's been a man and several women. For many, it's as if someone announced "up" will be another version of down.

Let's remember the core of the issue, which for most people is legal, such as inheritance, child custody, medical directives, etc.

The solution is simple. Let all couples who wish to make a legal commitment, whether hetrosexual or homosexual, go to the government to become "domestic partners". If they want to be "married" we can then go to a church, temple, synogague or mosque.

A little compromise in language can go a long way.
12/10/2009 12:50:29 PM · #3052
Originally posted by Slagathor:
One thing is undisputed. For thousands of years, societies have defined marriage as being between a man and woman; in some cases it's been a man and several women. For many, it's as if someone announced "up" will be another version of down.

Oh, it's definitely disputed. Some societies have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. For the rest (and the rest of time) it's simply been a social contract of commitment between two people. Same-sex marriages are currently recognized by Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, and Sweden, so clearly those societies do not follow your [re]definition.

"Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways, depending on the culture or demographic." "In lexicography, words have often changed and expanded in accordance to the status quo. According to the first edition of Webster's Dictionary of the English Language published in 1806, marriage was defined as "the act of joining man and woman..." although this failed to recognize other types of marriages, such as Polygyny, Polyandry, etc. By 2009, all major English language dictionaries dropped gender specifications, or supplemented them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or same-sex unions."

"While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sex couples, recent publicity and debate over the past decade gives an impression that civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples is novel and untested. There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world."

Originally posted by Slagathor:
The solution is simple. Let all couples who wish to make a legal commitment, whether hetrosexual or homosexual, go to the government to become "domestic partners". If they want to be "married" we can then go to a church, temple, synogague or mosque.

This is where your bias is revealed. People can be married by a justice of the peace, ship captain, etc. The license is issued by government, not a church. You're "redefining" marriage as a religious institution, when it is certainly not.

One very glaring problem for religious, sex-based definitions of marriage is that religions generally consider every human to be the willed creation of a perfect being, yet "as many as 1% of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity, and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births being ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including sometimes involuntary surgery to address their sexual ambiguity." Using the lower end of that estimate, approximately 700,000 people cannot be defined as man OR woman without intervention against nature. How can any religion possibly reconcile that, much less the possibility (or likelihood) that sexual orientation itself is also genetic?

Message edited by author 2009-12-10 12:53:24.
 12/10/2009 02:47:41 PM · #3053
Originally posted by Slagathor:
One thing is undisputed. For thousands of years, societies have defined marriage as being between a man and woman;

Originally posted by scalvert:
Same-sex marriages are currently recognized by Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, and Sweden, so clearly those societies do not follow your [re]definition.


For thousands of year, marriage = Man + Woman
For the past few years (in a few countries), marriage = (Man or Woman) + (Man or Woman)

Who's doing the redefinition?

Originally posted by scalvert:
People can be married by a justice of the peace, ship captain, etc. The license is issued by government, not a church. You're "redefining" marriage as a religious institution, when it is certainly not.


Once again, who is redefining marriage. For thousands of years, it's been a religious institution. So much so that nobody's bothered to spell it out as being a religious institution. Just because the government offers licenses for it, doesn't make it a government institution.
12/10/2009 03:13:48 PM · #3054
Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by scalvert:
People can be married by a justice of the peace, ship captain, etc. The license is issued by government, not a church. You're "redefining" marriage as a religious institution, when it is certainly not.


Once again, who is redefining marriage. For thousands of years, it's been a religious institution. So much so that nobody's bothered to spell it out as being a religious institution. Just because the government offers licenses for it, doesn't make it a government institution.


I would strongly recommend that you read Scalvertposts again in this regard... slowly this time.

Ray
 12/10/2009 03:21:23 PM · #3055
Originally posted by Nullix:
Once again, who is redefining marriage. For thousands of years, it's been a religious institution. So much so that nobody's bothered to spell it out as being a religious institution. Just because the government offers licenses for it, doesn't make it a government institution.


That simply is not true, sorry. Marriage as a religious institution is a relatively recent phenomenon. But it has *always* been a civil contract, as long as it has existed.

R.
 12/10/2009 03:59:32 PM · #3056
Originally posted by Nullix:
For thousands of year, marriage = Man + Woman ...
For thousands of years, it's been a religious institution.

Wrong on point A, and wrong on point B.
 12/10/2009 04:10:02 PM · #3057
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Slagathor:
The solution is simple. Let all couples who wish to make a legal commitment, whether heterosexual or homosexual, go to the government to become "domestic partners". If they want to be "married" we can then go to a church, temple, synogague or mosque.


This is where your bias is revealed. People can be married by a justice of the peace, ship captain, etc. The license is issued by government, not a church. You're "redefining" marriage as a religious institution, when it is certainly not.


It's interesting that you say my "bias is revealed". As a heterosexual, I personally couldn't care less whether gay marriage occurs or not. It in no way affects my marriage. I suggest you reread my post more carefully. I was merely "proposing" a practical solution to address the concerns of both sides. We have far more serious issues in this world right now. It's not global warming or economic collapse, which are issues facing everyone regardless of sexual orientation. Gay marriage is an issue that can be easily resolved if people on both sides dialed down the emotional rhetoric.

Whether people like it or not, gay marriage (or some analog) is inevitable. People should look at real interests or concerns, not dogmatic positions.
 12/10/2009 05:10:01 PM · #3058
Originally posted by Slagathor:
It's interesting that you say my "bias is revealed." I was merely "proposing" a practical solution to address the concerns of both sides.

Yep, you inferred that the word marriage is automatically associated with some church, therefore your "solution" is to reserve that term ONLY for religion. Why didn't you propose that any consenting adults can be "married," but if they want a "religious ceremony" they need a church? Those would be the correct terms. Your misperception has made you guilty of the very thing you railed against: attempting to redefine a word to mean something new.

"For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties."

Just like diamond rings, today's traditions are yesterday's innovations. The popular misperception of marriage is an understandable myth that stems from this era:

"As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1563 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life.""

Note those dates. For most of Christianity (and the thousands of years before), marriage was NOT subject to church oversight, and NOT defined as between a man and a woman. Unless you happen to subscribe to those ideas, it still isn't— you can be married without a church, and a number of societies care more about the promise of commitment than the sex, skin color or religion of those professing it. On this issue of human rights, the U.S. lags behind South Africa, and future historians will look back on it like segregation and slavery.

Originally posted by Slagathor:
As a heterosexual, I personally couldn't care less whether gay marriage occurs or not.

Interesting statement. I'm a heterosexual, too. Does that mean I shouldn't care? As a white male, should I not care about the rights of women or minorities? I care as a human being.
 12/10/2009 06:26:28 PM · #3059
Originally posted by scalvert:

"As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1563 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life.""

Note those dates. For most of Christianity (and the thousands of years before), marriage was NOT subject to church oversight, and NOT defined as between a man and a woman. Unless you happen to subscribe to those ideas, it still isn't— you can be married without a church, and a number of societies care more about the promise of commitment than the sex, skin color or religion of those professing it.


You seem to be under the assumption that until the Council of Trent, the church didn't recognize or regulate marriage. This is incorrect.

Since it's a sin to marry more than one person, the bishop was required to know who was marrying who. Since the second century, it was required to inform the bishop of all proposed marriages.

This was until the 5th century when the parish system was put in place and it became the duty of the parish priest.

Just research the history of "Banns of Marriage" This was the requirement to announce who was marrying who and to prevent people from double marrying.
 12/10/2009 07:14:23 PM · #3060
Originally posted by Nullix:
You seem to be under the assumption that until the Council of Trent, the church didn't recognize or regulate marriage. This is incorrect.

It's entirely correct. I never said they didn't recognize marriages. They just didn't control them. You don't appear to know much about history.

Originally posted by Nullix:
Since it's a sin to marry more than one person, the bishop was required to know who was marrying who. Since the second century, it was required to inform the bishop of all proposed marriages.

Until the Middles Ages, Catholic priests and even popes were allowed to marry and often had several wives or concubines. The later requirement for celibacy was a matter of inheritance, not morality, and quite a few church leaders continued the polygamy party. Martin Luther himself even granted multiple wives, and declared that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." In the 1500's, the Council of Trent condemned concubinage, required a priest and two witnesses, introduced the "man and wife" definition, reaffirmed the celibacy of priests and denied innocent parties the right to remarry after a divorce if the other party was alive (even if the other person committed adultery). Of course, this only applies to Catholics. "In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses." The Protestant Reformation sought return the church to its biblical foundations, and as part of that the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage was returned to the state.

Originally posted by Nullix:
Just research the history of "Banns of Marriage" This was the requirement to announce who was marrying who and to prevent people from double marrying.

OK, researched. You might want to do the same. "The original Catholic Canon law on the subject, calculated to check the increase of clandestine, or secret, marriages, was decreed at the Council of Trent on November 11, 1563." It's ironic that you would bring up the subject. "In the Canadian province of Ontario, the publication of banns "proclaimed openly in an audible voice during divine service" in the church(es) of the betrothed remains a legal alternative to obtaining a marriage license. Two same-sex couples married this way at the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto on January 14, 2001, since the province was not then issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples. The marriages were ruled valid in 2003."

Message edited by author 2009-12-10 19:17:43.
 12/10/2009 07:15:07 PM · #3061
and, the governments got into the business to collect taxes.
 12/10/2009 08:09:49 PM · #3062
Originally posted by David Ey:
and, the governments got into the business to collect taxes.

Until 1969, married couples paid substantially LESS taxes than individuals.
 12/11/2009 12:23:28 PM · #3063
so? I was refuring to local gov. collecting the license tax. Don't worry, you will get what's coming to you.

Message edited by author 2009-12-11 12:23:56.
 12/11/2009 12:49:55 PM · #3064
Originally posted by David Ey:
so? I was refuring to local gov. collecting the license tax.

That makes even less sense. The cost of the license varies by state, but it's generally a one-time expense of $20-50... not exactly a big revenue stream for government.
 12/11/2009 12:55:58 PM · #3065
Originally posted by David Ey:
and, the governments got into the business to collect taxes.


...and churches charge for a variety of fees associated with the wedding... so what?

Ray
 12/11/2009 07:28:41 PM · #3066
Yes, it is a one-time expense....that you must pay...goes into the general fund so the powers that be can squander as they see fit...like they do with a large portion of the other taxes they steal from the public.

The church I attend does not charge members for any services. I understand many churches do charge but we are not in the business of making a profit. Weddings sanctioned by Our Lord are freely performed.

12/11/2009 07:46:42 PM · #3067
Originally posted by David Ey:
Yes, it is a one-time expense....that you must pay...goes into the general fund so the powers that be can squander as they see fit...like they do with a large portion of the other taxes they steal from the public.

The church I attend does not charge members for any services. I understand many churches do charge but we are not in the business of making a profit. Weddings sanctioned by Our Lord are freely performed.


Well, nevertheless, there's a real, tangible cost involved for the municipality to create these licenses and maintain the records of them. I fail to see why we should expect that to be done for free. The charge is eminently reasonable, IMO.

R.
 12/11/2009 08:04:03 PM · #3068
Yeah, you are right B. Could be I am pissed about the 6.5k tax bill I got on my home that has been paid for for many many years. Did I say paid for? What a joke.
 12/11/2009 09:20:30 PM · #3069
Originally posted by David Ey:
Yeah, you are right B. Could be I am pissed about the 6.5k tax bill I got on my home that has been paid for for many many years. Did I say paid for? What a joke.


Awwww, David, you know better than that. That sewer pipe from your house to the street, the electric light pole nearby, and all the other stuff that your house and you connect to (like the police, fire and emergency service) in your community.

Okay, back to the subject at hand.
:-))
 12/12/2009 01:07:39 PM · #3070
Originally posted by David Ey:
Yes, it is a one-time expense....that you must pay...goes into the general fund so the powers that be can squander as they see fit...like they do with a large portion of the other taxes they steal from the public.

The church I attend does not charge members for any services. I understand many churches do charge but we are not in the business of making a profit. Weddings sanctioned by Our Lord are freely performed.


...and not unlike other churches, I would bet yours doesn't pay taxes either... essentially sponging off of the rest of society. Yep, a great example that.

Ray
 12/12/2009 01:15:47 PM · #3071
Originally posted by David Ey:
Yeah, you are right B. Could be I am pissed about the 6.5k tax bill I got on my home that has been paid for for many many years. Did I say paid for? What a joke.


A 6.5K bill... related to what. Tell me what the mill rate is and I might feel some compassion (likely not) but a number means dick to me. One must also consider one's ability to pay when looking at issues such as this.
Wanna talk taxes, move slightly further north and then we can talk and cry in each others beer. :O)

Ray

Getting back to the thread topic...Gay rights are evolving, but certainly the evolution could be greatly improved upon.

Message edited by author 2009-12-12 15:55:55.
 12/12/2009 06:22:03 PM · #3072
Well Ray,I suppose you think folks should be required to pay the same rate of property tax in their limited income years as they did when they had better control of their income and if they can't, be forced to sell and move. We do have our school tax frozen at age 65 bless their hearts.
I also believe the church gives more to the comunity than they would pay in taxes and as an added benefit none of their money goes to support things they do not believe in.

Anyway, you gays are getting what you want.
 12/12/2009 06:43:49 PM · #3073
Originally posted by David Ey:
Anyway, you gays are getting what you want.


"You gays"? WTF? Ray isn't gay, he's married, he has kids, he's a registered heterosexual. He's been a guest at my house, I know :-)

R.
 12/12/2009 06:45:22 PM · #3074
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well Ray,I suppose you think folks should be required to pay the same rate of property tax in their limited income years as they did when they had better control of their income and if they can't, be forced to sell and move. We do have our school tax frozen at age 65 bless their hearts.
I also believe the church gives more to the comunity than they would pay in taxes and as an added benefit none of their money goes to support things they do not believe in.

Anyway, you gays are getting what you want.


Goodness... what a quantum leap. It might come as a really really big surprise to you, but a lot of the people supporting gay rights are red blooded heterosexuals. Personally I have been with my significant other (read female)for 30 years and can assure you that your supposition in this instance most certainly does not apply.

I have no idea as to what your age is but I happen to be in my golden years and yes truly do not care for the continued increases in property taxes. However, having said this I also realize that compared to many I am leading a wonderful life. I get a full pension from a job I occupied for 30 years and manage to generate a very significant income from contractual work and have no problems in paying what I consider is my fair share.

Concerning your church and it's altruistic support of the downtrodden, it truly is enlightening to note that the decisions rendered in this instance are based solely on a belief value... almost akin to "We only help those that are like us"... yes indeed... a truly shining example that I want to pass on to the next generation.

Lastly, I am surprised at your veiled proposal that we should lighten the tax load for limited income elders... goodness ... that almost sounds like a socialist proposal. :O)

Ray
 12/17/2009 05:06:53 PM · #3075
Why is it that people always come to the conclusion that because Christians don't condone gay marriage, that must mean they don't like gays?

I'm a Christian, and I don't have anything against homosexuals. In my opinion Christian marriage is different from the legal social contractual marriage that is recognized by the government. I don't really care if the government allows gay marriage because I believe that a Christian heterosexual marriage is different from a gay marriage, or a Christian gay marriage, or a secular heterosexual marriage, etc... Marriage is just a word. All Christians should accept that just because the government or secular society calls something "marriage", that doesn't change the definition or meaning of Christian marriage.

Essentially, Christian marriages are different from any other form of social union because Christian marriages have something other unions don't have.

A: "Marriage" as defined by most governments, are simply social unions with benefits. There are two parties that form an agreement, like a contract.
B: "Marriage" as defined by God is a covenant between one man, one woman, and God.

When a Christian get's married, it ALWAYS involves part B and usually involves part A (at least in the United States).
When anyone else get's married it involves part A and never part B.

So... Christians shouldn't get their undies in a bundle about gay marriage because gay marriage and any government cannot change God's mind about marriage, and everyone else should stop bashing Christians and complaining that Christians don't like homosexuals.

Message edited by author 2009-12-17 17:09:29.
Pages:   ... [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] ... [266]
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 12:29:49 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 12:29:49 PM EDT.