| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/17/2008 07:44:54 PM · #376 |
Marriage simply isn't a religious institution anymore. Maybe once upon a time it was, but no more.
A couple that gets married at the courthouse by a judge is no less married than a couple who has a 3 hour Catholic wedding presided over by a priest. You can argue about being married "in the eyes of the church" or what-have-you until you're blue in the face, but no one out side the church cares. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on marriage anymore.
Why should a same sex couple be denied the same right to be legally married that a hetero couple has? I have yet to hear a reasonable answer that's not rooted in religion and the religion excuse is BS because religion is not necessary for a marriage.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 08:00:37 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by Mick:
If that doesn't do the trick, then you might ask yourself, "What is the single most important thing that Jesus asked of us." |
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, strength and mind.
I'm guessing you were asking about the second most important...
Message edited by author 2008-10-17 20:00:48. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 08:13:14 PM · #378 |
| From the back and forth I think we can all just see why the conundrum exists at all. Like most problems, it all comes down to how the problem is even viewed. One says marriage is civil and all the hubbub is ridiculous. The other says marriage is traditional and worth defending. We probably don't need to go back and forth about this much more. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 08:24:54 PM · #379 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mick:
If that doesn't do the trick, then you might ask yourself, "What is the single most important thing that Jesus asked of us." |
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, strength and mind.
I'm guessing you were asking about the second most important... |
Yes, I meant love. Love for God and love for your fellow man.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 08:25:52 PM · #380 |
| Jason, I'm curious though. Do you feel that atheists should be denied marriage? |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 09:02:58 PM · #381 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Jason, I'm curious though. Do you feel that atheists should be denied marriage? |
Haha. Well...do you mean civil marriage or religious marriage? See, it's confusing. Of course atheists should be allowed civil unions. But, of course, it makes little sense to have a Christian marriage, for example, when neither believes in God. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 09:07:05 PM · #382 |
I'm guessing you were asking about the second most important...
Originally posted by Mick:
Yes, I meant love. Love for God and love for your fellow man. |
I've always found the story of Jesus confronting the woman caught in adultery fascinating. His response at the end is so amazing to me. I'll quote the whole story below in a paraphrase so as to make it more readable:
1-2 Jesus went across to Mount Olives, but he was soon back in the Temple again. Swarms of people came to him. He sat down and taught them. 3-6The religion scholars and Pharisees led in a woman who had been caught in an act of adultery. They stood her in plain sight of everyone and said, "Teacher, this woman was caught red-handed in the act of adultery. Moses, in the Law, gives orders to stone such persons. What do you say?" They were trying to trap him into saying something incriminating so they could bring charges against him.
6-8Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger in the dirt. They kept at him, badgering him. He straightened up and said, "The sinless one among you, go first: Throw the stone." Bending down again, he wrote some more in the dirt.
9-10Hearing that, they walked away, one after another, beginning with the oldest. The woman was left alone. Jesus stood up and spoke to her. "Woman, where are they? Does no one condemn you?"
11"No one, Master."
"Neither do I," said Jesus. "Go on your way. From now on, don't sin."
Message edited by author 2008-10-17 21:07:26. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 09:13:32 PM · #383 |
THAT was lame :0 Why not just answer the question? (I'll even pose a different one, if Sheila's isn't to your liking:)
I was married in a Christian Church, but have since found myself agnostic. Does that automatically void my LEGAL rights? Does the love for my wife & children (and the inherent legal, medical, and financial rights) suddenly dissolve? Should we, after nearly 19 years of marriage, stop proclaiming it as such?
Again, no disrespect intended Jason. Simply trying to understand your reasoning.
(note to self: Moth, meet flame. hehe.)
eta - sorry, seems I didn't post quick enough; am referring to your very short answer to Sheila's question.
Message edited by author 2008-10-17 21:17:39.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 09:16:23 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Jason, I'm curious though. Do you feel that atheists should be denied marriage? |
Haha. Well...do you mean civil marriage or religious marriage? See, it's confusing. Of course atheists should be allowed civil unions. But, of course, it makes little sense to have a Christian marriage, for example, when neither believes in God. |
Okay, do I have this right? Your main argument is that only religious bonding should be called marriage, and legal bondings should be renamed? |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 09:19:50 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Okay, do I have this right? Your main argument is that only religious bonding should be called marriage, and legal bondings should be renamed? |
Yes, as said, I'd probably prefer they were all called civil unions. If you are trying to point out that the term marriage (based on religous roots) seems to make no sense for atheists, then I'd actually agree. It is awkward. If you are trying to somehow get me caught up and admit that I don't think atheists have the right to civil unions, that's crazy. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 09:22:56 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Okay, do I have this right? Your main argument is that only religious bonding should be called marriage, and legal bondings should be renamed? |
Yes, as said, I'd probably prefer they were all called civil unions. If you are trying to point out that the term marriage (based on religous roots) seems to make no sense for atheists, then I'd actually agree. It is awkward. If you are trying to somehow get me caught up and admit that I don't think atheists have the right to civil unions, that's crazy. |
No, I was just trying to clarify for myself. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 09:29:33 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Okay, do I have this right? Your main argument is that only religious bonding should be called marriage, and legal bondings should be renamed? |
Yes, as said, I'd probably prefer they were all called civil unions. If you are trying to point out that the term marriage (based on religous roots) seems to make no sense for atheists, then I'd actually agree. It is awkward. If you are trying to somehow get me caught up and admit that I don't think atheists have the right to civil unions, that's crazy. |
Why should the word marriage only apply to religious unions? Why shouldn't Churches come up with a new terminology if they want to set their particular flavor of union apart?
A marriage, performed at a courthouse by a judge is still a marriage even without the involvement of religion. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 09:37:27 PM · #388 |
Good spot to bring up Shakespeare:
"Let me not to the marriage of true minds / admit impediments..."
R. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 09:55:44 PM · #389 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
A marriage, performed at a courthouse by a judge is still a marriage even without the involvement of religion. |
Not according to the church. And back and forth we go. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 10:04:56 PM · #390 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
A marriage, performed at a courthouse by a judge is still a marriage even without the involvement of religion. |
Not according to the church. And back and forth we go. |
Who cares what the church says? I certainly don't. If that's important to you, get married in a church.
Why should the church get the say-so over what is and what isn't a marriage in the legal sense of the word? Are they a religious institution or the government?
Because they "invented" the idea? I don't think that's reasonable at all. Any "patent" they might have had on the concept of marriage has long since run out.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 10:06:28 PM · #391 |
I'd like to actually return to the "brothers in love" dilemma posed above to once and for all put to rest the Liberty Argument. This argument will say that as long as it harms nobody, two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. This would naturally include gay marriage (if we assume nobody is harmed). I was impressed with the sharp response toward our two brothers who, being in love, wanted to marry. Basically I was told, "don't go there!"
The problem with the Liberty Argument is as soon as a line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, the argument becomes merely where to draw that line. That new argument is purely subjective and only amounts to opinion.
So, it is generally agreed that incestuous relationships are bad because they harm any offspring. Rare genetic defects rise to the surface and the children suffer. However, our two brothers, being gay, have zero chance to have offspring and thus I cannot conclude any actual harm being done in the relationship. (I'm open to suggestions though.) So, if we are to accept the Liberty Argument, we must conclude the brothers should be allowed to marry. People seemed to be in favor of polygamy. I'll now go "all in" and ask if those same people feel the two brothers should be allowed to marry?
Who's up for it? |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 10:10:46 PM · #392 |
When hundreds of thousands of brother/brother pairs around the world start voicing their desires to get married, I'll take you up on that discussion. Until then, it's a non-issue. A red herring. A what-if ploy for a voice that has nothing else left.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 10:12:40 PM · #393 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
A marriage, performed at a courthouse by a judge is still a marriage even without the involvement of religion. |
Not according to the church. And back and forth we go. |
No, there is no 'back and forth' with this one. There is already a precedence in existence. NO church is required for the IRS Federal Government to recognize a marriage. I visited my county courthouse just today. Funny, but that is where my LEGAL marriage certificate can be found. Its also where it was issued.
Also, you weren't told "Don't go there" (re: two brothers). You were told that this is not the issue at hand. Huge difference. Please stop grabbing at straws.
Message edited by author 2008-10-17 22:16:32.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 10:52:26 PM · #394 |
| OK, that's two people who are afraid to answer. Sometimes principles are tested by taking them to the extreme. It appear neither rossbilly nor K10 are willing to allow the brothers to marry. That's fine. I wouldn't either. However, the Liberty Argument is now not open to either of them. They can argue another argument, but not that one. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 10:53:33 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
No, there is no 'back and forth' with this one. There is already a precedence in existence. |
If we're going by precedence, then why not note that the precedent of marriage in our country (since you mention the IRS) is between a man and a woman? |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 10:55:03 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
When hundreds of thousands of brother/brother pairs around the world start voicing their desires to get married, I'll take you up on that discussion. Until then, it's a non-issue. A red herring. A what-if ploy for a voice that has nothing else left. |
Careful. There are far from "hundreds of thousands" of gay couples wanting to marry. And you are risking posthumous' "tyranny of the majority". Are you saying that their plight is too small for you to bother with? |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 11:09:12 PM · #397 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
No, there is no 'back and forth' with this one. There is already a precedence in existence. |
If we're going by precedence, then why not note that the precedent of marriage in our country (since you mention the IRS) is between a man and a woman? |
Does the woman have rights, distinct from those of a man in a marriage? If so, then what are those rights, I'd like to know? If there is no difference in those rights then the government treats the parties to a marriage as equals, and not specifically according to their gender. Making the treatment of one party based on gender as happens when the both parties to the marriage are of the same gender, making that treatment discriminatory.
Message edited by author 2008-10-17 23:22:59. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 11:16:38 PM · #398 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
When hundreds of thousands of brother/brother pairs around the world start voicing their desires to get married, I'll take you up on that discussion. Until then, it's a non-issue. A red herring. A what-if ploy for a voice that has nothing else left. |
Careful. There are far from "hundreds of thousands" of gay couples wanting to marry. And you are risking posthumous' "tyranny of the majority". Are you saying that their plight is too small for you to bother with? |
World wide? I think you'd be surprised. As for the plight being too small? Yes, it's too small. So small it's practically non-existent, and it's not the issue, as much as you want to divert people. End Transmission.
*PS* I did NOT say I wasn't willing to allow anything. Don't put words in my posts. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 11:17:02 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, that's two people who are afraid to answer. Sometimes principles are tested by taking them to the extreme. It appear neither rossbilly nor K10 are willing to allow the brothers to marry. That's fine. I wouldn't either. However, the Liberty Argument is now not open to either of them. They can argue another argument, but not that one. |
Why would I be 'afraid to answer'? It simply isn't relevant. At all. Example: You're LDS, and gay marriage is made legal in your state. Will you suddenly begin drinking?
Your point re: brothers isn't relevant either.
------------------------------------
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
No, there is no 'back and forth' with this one. There is already a precedence in existence. |
If we're going by precedence, then why not note that the precedent of marriage in our country (since you mention the IRS) is between a man and a woman? |
That would be your crowning height of double-talk. Of COURSE there isn't a precedence of gay marriage (since it doesn't yet exist). Your points usually do have SOME legitimacy, but it seems your really reaching of late. Honestly not trying to accuse you of anything, but it seems like you are reaching more and more these days. Has your conviction waned that much?**
**Often, before having a change of heart, one finds them selves making ever more unusual claims. Again, you really remind me of myself. Its ok. Come to the light! (sorry, guess I'm a little 'punch drunk')
Message edited by author 2008-10-17 23:19:19.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 11:34:57 PM · #400 |
Heh, you guys just aren't willing to follow the logical conclusion to the argument (actually I can't say that you two in particular ever used the Liberty argument to start with). Well, K10 now admits that he IS for allowing the brothers to get married. OK, that takes some guts to say, but I hear ya.
I didn't know we were talking about "world-wide". Perhaps we may get into hundreds of thousands then, but we may not. The argument, up until now, has been centered on legal rights in the US, so warn me when you change gears.
Ross also contends that my precedent argument amounts to "double-talk" because naturally there was a point where no gay marriages existed. I'd counter that there was naturally a point where the church was required to be "married". (Actually I would be unsure if that would count in our country's history, but I wouldn't doubt it.) Anybody wanna Google marriage in the colonies? |
|
