Originally Posted by TomPaine
One of the issues I have are the examples of marriage in the bible and in the real world that seem more contradictory then gay marriage. To be clear, I do not find gay marriage a contradictory term at the slightest. In the bible of course there are examples abundant of the nuclear family (as in explosive), but there are also examples of less-than-nuclear marriages.
These terms are undefined. I can only guess at what you mean here, and I guess you mean by nuclear as "unstable" or "unorthodox". People, don't make me guess at your definitions. Explain terms you use clearly please.
One that I slightly find insulting is marrying your brother's widow. Not too terrible, just a bit creepy.
What does it contribute to this argument?
Then there's the wife and concubines. It's like you have your main wife and then an extra piece(s) of heterosexual sodomy on the side. You have the one that you make love to, and then you have the one you get freaky with...
Today, one of the virtues we hold dearly in marriage is faithfulness (other than open marriages).
There's also examples of being married to a woman who owns another woman, thus after marrying that first woman you also own her property, that other woman's sex organs.
What does it contribute to this argument?
And of course there are examples of polygamy around. a master can also dictate who his women slaves have to marry and conceive with.
See what I said about faithfulness.
My top two favorite involve the wonderful POW scenario where a man from a victorious neighboring village war can claim a woman from the losing team to give him babies. AND, rapist get to marry there victims no questions asked... I love traditional bible marriages....
What's your point? That there are "nuclear" traditional marriages as well?
A more practical real life scenario is more of a personal matter. My wifey poo and I are Atheist. We disbelieve in gods. Yet, the church let us marry. We mock them and tell them there god isn't real, but they let us marry, there holy ceremony...
You're atheists and you got a Church wedding? Or are you saying that if you got a Church wedding you would still be allowed one if you're not gay? You obviously don't know what a Church wedding is then.
'The church' will let anti-theistic cousins marry in a horror and clown and dubstep and nude themed wedding, as long as they promise that they're not gay.
That is blatantly untrue. Do I even need to explain?
I know not all states allow first cousin marriages, but more states recognize that union than that of same sex partnership. So, what's the problem with letting two God fearing, law abiding, Jesus loving gays to get married? Christian oppression of Christians.
Are you talking about the Church here? Or the state?
The Church recognizes that some people have deeply rooted homosexual affections. This is why Catholic Catechism now says that they are to be treated with respect and acceptance. They recognize that homosexuality isn't always due to a sense of imbalanced pleasure or anything hedonistic, but actual romantic love.
I also had an idea that I'd like to pass through you bunch,
Let's say that we remove the term marriage from any legal frame work and let those crazy Christians have it.
Yay give it to them crazy Christians.
It will be there little special ceremony, like baptism.
Your belittling is annoying.
Then, we use a different term, like civil unions, to apply to all legally recognized partnerships between two mutually consenting adults. It would provide equality legally, and put more focus on the church to change. But who cares, marriage is just another weird ceremony then.
Marriage as far as the state is concerned is a civil union. What Christianity says about homosexual civil unions is that it is immoral. That is why it is outlawed. Obviously, it isn't.
I don't know, I know I don't sound terribly intelligent, but please take the insults light on this old bear.
I'm not going to insult you, but throughout your post you have unnecessarily belittled, mocked, and misrepresented Christianity. What's up with that?
Originally Posted by StarshipPain
If a Man can go home and beat the shit out of his wife, why cant 2 loving responsible people of the same gender marry.
He can't beat the shit out of his wife. Since when is beating your spouse legal? Also, this is not a fitting analogy. Beating your wife is seen as immoral because it is belligerent, hateful, and wrong. Homosexuality is seen as immoral because many think that such relationships exist just for pleasure.
Originally Posted by gabrielll
Why don't we let someone love whoever he/she wants?
A discuss about it is just pointless, no one will change no one in a online forum, open your eyes.
Discussion of any kind is important. We don't debate to change each other's minds, we debate to share our points and see other's points of view.
Mei fati dominus, mei animi dux
Need to PM a SMod?
Unofficial Skimmer of Discussion!
Fabula Magnus wants more able RPers!
Cataclysm is still alive?
Thorn
Wiggi must love me forever now.
You make me cry ray! It's like talking in two different languages or something.
I thought everyone knew what nuclear families were. It's not my term. The (part) is just a joke. Nuclear families are your typical happily married mother and father.
Well my argument was that there are a lot of marriage examples we can find in the bible that today we would find socially incomprehensible. So, why do we rely on the bible and the religious context of marriage when there are less than flattering examples like these found in the bible?
What are you getting at when you bring up faithfulness? I am in no way suggesting that it is acceptable... The fact that it is not is what I am highlighting. Highlighting the religious and faulty contextual marriages.
The point of my favorite two non-nuclear marriage examples I find in the bible is to show how much the bible version of marriage differs to that of today's view on marriage. I mean, could you imagine forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist? Yet, the bible said it was acceptable and expected.
What I was hinting at about Atheist marrying has less to do with the physical church sense and more to deal with the alleged sanctity of marriage. The fact is that in North Carolina, where I reside, the number one persuasion in the opposition of gay marriage was the idea that many Christians and churches thought that gay marriage would destroy the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Again, I am not talking about the physical building where the gathering occurs. What part do you find blatantly untrue. Was it just my use of church? Because I assure you I am not blatantly lying.
Heres a page that outlines state laws about first cousin marriages pretty well:
http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states
I am sure you're not questioning themed weddings, right?
If you are questioning the last sentence here, I am talking about Christians. If you're asking about everything besides the last sentence, I am talking about states. As to the last sentence, majority support of a law that only and directly affects the minority is oppression. They are using leverage to stunt their minority counterpart. I guess you're welcome to respectfully disagree with that lackluster definition though.
See, crazy Christians is my way of separating moderate Christians from their extreme counterpart. Perhaps crazy could've been replaced with a less crazy word. Perhaps, perhaps.
As to the belittling, so be it.
Well, I do think some points were made that might indirectly be linked to me belittling Christianity. I will admit to being harsh, but only in the marriage as a cermony paragraph; those examples above and the phrase 'weird ceremony'. As to why, well I guess it roots from the political turmoil I've been involved with lately. Perhaps I'm projecting a little much. The idea that they feel ownership over marriage kills me. It can't be owned by the church and have legality. It just does not make any good sense.
Originally Posted by RayA75
Originally Posted by TomPaineOne of the issues I have are the examples of marriage in the bible and in the real world that seem more contradictory then gay marriage. To be clear, I do not find gay marriage a contradictory term at the slightest. In the bible of course there are examples abundant of the nuclear family (as in explosive), but there are also examples of less-than-nuclear marriages.
These terms are undefined. I can only guess at what you mean here, and I guess you mean by nuclear as "unstable" or "unorthodox". People, don't make me guess at your definitions. Explain terms you use clearly please.
I thought everyone knew what nuclear families were. It's not my term. The (part) is just a joke. Nuclear families are your typical happily married mother and father.
Originally Posted by RayA75
Originally Posted by TomPaineOne that I slightly find insulting is marrying your brother's widow. Not too terrible, just a bit creepy.There's also examples of being married to a woman who owns another woman, thus after marrying that first woman you also own her property, that other woman's sex organs.
What does it contribute to this argument?
Well my argument was that there are a lot of marriage examples we can find in the bible that today we would find socially incomprehensible. So, why do we rely on the bible and the religious context of marriage when there are less than flattering examples like these found in the bible?
Originally Posted by RayA75
Originally Posted by TomPaineThen there's the wife and concubines. It's like you have your main wife and then an extra piece(s) of heterosexual sodomy on the side. You have the one that you make love to, and then you have the one you get freaky with...And of course there are examples of polygamy around. a master can also dictate who his women slaves have to marry and conceive with.
Today, one of the virtues we hold dearly in marriage is faithfulness (other than open marriages).
What are you getting at when you bring up faithfulness? I am in no way suggesting that it is acceptable... The fact that it is not is what I am highlighting. Highlighting the religious and faulty contextual marriages.
Originally Posted by RayA75
Originally Posted by TomPaineMy top two favorite involve the wonderful POW scenario where a man from a victorious neighboring village war can claim a woman from the losing team to give him babies. AND, rapist get to marry there victims no questions asked... I love traditional bible marriages....
What's your point? That there are "nuclear" traditional marriages as well?
The point of my favorite two non-nuclear marriage examples I find in the bible is to show how much the bible version of marriage differs to that of today's view on marriage. I mean, could you imagine forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist? Yet, the bible said it was acceptable and expected.
Originally Posted by RayA75
Originally Posted by TomPaineA more practical real life scenario is more of a personal matter. My wifey poo and I are Atheist. We disbelieve in gods. Yet, the church let us marry. We mock them and tell them there god isn't real, but they let us marry, there holy ceremony...
You're atheists and you got a Church wedding? Or are you saying that if you got a Church wedding you would still be allowed one if you're not gay? You obviously don't know what a Church wedding is then.
What I was hinting at about Atheist marrying has less to do with the physical church sense and more to deal with the alleged sanctity of marriage. The fact is that in North Carolina, where I reside, the number one persuasion in the opposition of gay marriage was the idea that many Christians and churches thought that gay marriage would destroy the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Originally Posted by RayA75
Originally Posted by TomPaine'The church' will let anti-theistic cousins marry in a horror and clown and dubstep and nude themed wedding, as long as they promise that they're not gay.
That is blatantly untrue. Do I even need to explain?
Again, I am not talking about the physical building where the gathering occurs. What part do you find blatantly untrue. Was it just my use of church? Because I assure you I am not blatantly lying.
Heres a page that outlines state laws about first cousin marriages pretty well:
http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states
I am sure you're not questioning themed weddings, right?
Originally Posted by RayA75
Originally Posted by TomPaineI know not all states allow first cousin marriages, but more states recognize that union than that of same sex partnership. So, what's the problem with letting two God fearing, law abiding, Jesus loving gays to get married? Christian oppression of Christians.
Are you talking about the Church here? Or the state?
The Church recognizes that some people have deeply rooted homosexual affections. This is why Catholic Catechism now says that they are to be treated with respect and acceptance. They recognize that homosexuality isn't always due to a sense of imbalanced pleasure or anything hedonistic, but actual romantic love.
If you are questioning the last sentence here, I am talking about Christians. If you're asking about everything besides the last sentence, I am talking about states. As to the last sentence, majority support of a law that only and directly affects the minority is oppression. They are using leverage to stunt their minority counterpart. I guess you're welcome to respectfully disagree with that lackluster definition though.
Originally Posted by RayA75
Originally Posted by TomPaineI also had an idea that I'd like to pass through you bunch,
Let's say that we remove the term marriage from any legal frame work and let those crazy Christians have it.It will be there little special ceremony, like baptism.
Yay give it to them crazy Christians.Your belittling is annoying.
See, crazy Christians is my way of separating moderate Christians from their extreme counterpart. Perhaps crazy could've been replaced with a less crazy word. Perhaps, perhaps.
As to the belittling, so be it.
Originally Posted by RayA75
Originally Posted by TomPaineI don't know, I know I don't sound terribly intelligent, but please take the insults light on this old bear.
I'm not going to insult you, but throughout your post you have unnecessarily belittled, mocked, and misrepresented Christianity. What's up with that?
Well, I do think some points were made that might indirectly be linked to me belittling Christianity. I will admit to being harsh, but only in the marriage as a cermony paragraph; those examples above and the phrase 'weird ceremony'. As to why, well I guess it roots from the political turmoil I've been involved with lately. Perhaps I'm projecting a little much. The idea that they feel ownership over marriage kills me. It can't be owned by the church and have legality. It just does not make any good sense.
PigeonHive Flap Buzz
Originally Posted by TomPaine
You make me cry ray! It's like talking in two different languages or something.
I thought everyone knew what nuclear families were. It's not my term. The (part) is just a joke. Nuclear families are your typical happily married mother and father.
Alright then.
Well my argument was that there are a lot of marriage examples we can find in the bible that today we would find socially incomprehensible. So, why do we rely on the bible and the religious context of marriage when there are less than flattering examples like these found in the bible?
We do have to put things to context to understand why it is so. That context is that marriage in Biblical times was not a romantic bond. It was an economic, practical one. A man and a woman did not get together and get married because they loved each other, but because they had to. Some of these are due to political reasons (kings marrying their daughters off), or practical reasons (a man and a woman marrying to have children so that they could have children that would work on a farm and take over the business). We have very different values we hold on marriage nowadays.
What are you getting at when you bring up faithfulness? I am in no way suggesting that it is acceptable... The fact that it is not is what I am highlighting. Highlighting the religious and faulty contextual marriages.
Faithfulness is one of the values we hold in marriage nowadays as I mentioned. Those marriages conform to the practical/political reasons for marriage earlier in Biblical times.
By the way, where are these examples mentioned in the Bible?
The point of my favorite two non-nuclear marriage examples I find in the bible is to show how much the bible version of marriage differs to that of today's view on marriage. I mean, could you imagine forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist? Yet, the bible said it was acceptable and expected.
Again, political marriage. I don't remember anything in the Bible talking about rape victims marrying their rapists.
What I was hinting at about Atheist marrying has less to do with the physical church sense and more to deal with the alleged sanctity of marriage.
Because it is a civil marriage. Two people who are not in the Church cannot get married in the Church. Also, the sanctity of marriage is more or less a moral issue pursued by believers in Christianity's notion that homosexuality is intrinsically wrong.
The fact is that in North Carolina, where I reside, the number one persuasion in the opposition of gay marriage was the idea that many Christians and churches thought that gay marriage would destroy the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Like I said, a moral issue.
Again, I am not talking about the physical building where the gathering occurs. What part do you find blatantly untrue. Was it just my use of church? Because I assure you I am not blatantly lying.
Heres a page that outlines state laws about first cousin marriages pretty well:
http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states
I am sure you're not questioning themed weddings, right?
The Church does not marry anti-theists, much less nude. The state might, I don't know. What you're doing here is denying the separation of Church and state. The Church does not marry those in it, and it has no bearing to those in it. If two Catholics want to get married nude in such an oddly themed wedding, I'm pretty sure the Church would object to that. The state may not. This is then something the couple must take up with the Church.
If you are questioning the last sentence here, I am talking about Christians. If you're asking about everything besides the last sentence, I am talking about states. As to the last sentence, majority support of a law that only and directly affects the minority is oppression. They are using leverage to stunt their minority counterpart. I guess you're welcome to respectfully disagree with that lackluster definition though.
I know. And this is terrible. But this is not Christians or Christianity oppressing itself. This is citizens who are probably Christians or conservatives oppressing homosexuals who may or may not be Christians.
See, crazy Christians is my way of separating moderate Christians from their extreme counterpart. Perhaps crazy could've been replaced with a less crazy word. Perhaps, perhaps.
As to the belittling, so be it.
Where are you getting this separation? By crazy do you mean fundamentalist? Do you mean those who follow the teachings and catechism of the Church? By moderate do you mean practicing? Or do you mean undogmatic?
Well, I do think some points were made that might indirectly be linked to me belittling Christianity. I will admit to being harsh, but only in the marriage as a cermony paragraph; those examples above and the phrase 'weird ceremony'. As to why, well I guess it roots from the political turmoil I've been involved with lately. Perhaps I'm projecting a little much. The idea that they feel ownership over marriage kills me. It can't be owned by the church and have legality. It just does not make any good sense.
See, the United States is not a theocracy. Directly, they (Christianity) don't own anything. They don't make decisions, and they don't govern. But they might as well. Christians living in the US don't bother to analyze both sides of the argument, and don't bother to question their dogmatism. This has no place in a properly functioning society, and is a problem to be solved. Religion does not rule our country, people's morality and sense of justice does; except religion affects most of people's morality and sense of justice. I've demonstrated why I don't think religion should be so discriminatory toward homosexuals, and I think that's the only solution. Get to the root of the problem.
Mei fati dominus, mei animi dux
Need to PM a SMod?
Unofficial Skimmer of Discussion!
Fabula Magnus wants more able RPers!
Cataclysm is still alive?
Thorn
Wiggi must love me forever now.
Being gay isn't a choice
If you are gay you can't decide to be straight.
If you are straight you can't decide to be gay.
I you're in love, did you choose it? And if you're in love can you choose to stop lovin?
If you are gay you can't decide to be straight.
If you are straight you can't decide to be gay.
I you're in love, did you choose it? And if you're in love can you choose to stop lovin?
Brendan (he who passeth judgement on the frequent changing of signatures): I don't do hentai anymore
Originally Posted by Redundant
A correlation between genetic traits and homosexuality has been confirmed ages ago with various twin studies.
This is the most recent one afaik.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2263646523551487/
Correlation does not imply causation, thus we cannot conclude that homosexuality is genetic...
A mere correlation does not impact the arguments put forward, for example perhaps homosexuals prefer to wear scarves. However if you put a scarf on a hetrosexual they probably won't turn gay - no matter how strong the correlation is.
That said, does it matter either way? Are we going to deny rights of marriage to people based on genetics/life choices? Either way doesn't seem right to me, so why bother making a distinction?
