Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Defining Marriage. Yeah, again.
Zacq Posted: Thu Apr 28 20:23:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Okay this might be a little odd because I'm still tossing the idea around in my head.

The United States government is, for the most part, against gay marriage, and they are based on what the call the definition of marriage as stated in the Bible.

According to the Bible, two Muslims getting married in an Islamic mosque don't really qualify as married. You have to be married by an ordained priest of a church. The Bible would also therefore not recognize people getting married at the mayor's office, which people can do.

So, the government is using the church's definition of marriage to prevent gays from marrying, but making no attempt to fully uphold the Bible's true definition of marriage. That makes it discrimination against gays.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Apr 28 20:32:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Okay this might be a little odd because I'm still tossing the idea around in my head.

And because I have had horrible grammar recently.

>and they are based on what the call the definition of marriage as stated in the Bible.

...and they base it on what they call...


 
libra Posted: Thu Apr 28 21:22:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq darling, i love the way you're thinking...

i agree with you, this gay marriage ban rubs me in all the wrong ways.


and on a side note, since when did christians actually follow the bible, and, seeing as the bible was the creation of a power hungry greek emperor and some speculative and rather power hungry bishops, i wouldn't go very far saying that it has many valid points.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Thu Apr 28 22:53:05 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>and on a side note, since when did christians actually follow the bible, and, seeing as the bible was the creation of a power hungry greek emperor and some speculative and rather power hungry bishops, i wouldn't go very far saying that it has many valid points.

I disagree. There are several Christian fanatics that pride themselves on following the Bible to a T.

also, while the bible may have been compiled by a power hungry greek emperor, it was written by the people [people like Luke and Paul and Matthew and such]. and it does hold a lot of valid points like...

being nice to people. loving people. preserving peace in the world. not committing adultery...

overall a pretty decent morals guide.

Like, even if I didn't believe in the Bible and whatever it says, I'd still agree that it lays down some fairly good laws about morals and ethics. Maybe not all the things the Bible says are correct, but it does hold valid points.

And in case anyone's wondering, I'm for gay marriage. The way i see it, marriage has been defiled enough, and if you want to preserve the sanctity, then do it on your own.


 
libra Posted: Fri Apr 29 00:19:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>
>
>also, while the bible may have been compiled by a power hungry greek emperor, it was written by the people [people like Luke and Paul and Matthew and such]. and it does hold a lot of valid points like...


what about the thirty or more parts that they threw out because they felt they were 'inaccurate' or didn't fit with what they wanted christianity to be.




 
innocenceNonus Posted: Fri Apr 29 00:55:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>what about the thirty or more parts that they threw out because they felt they were 'inaccurate' or didn't fit with what they wanted christianity to be.
>
>

those might hold valid points too. like, don't get me wrong. i wasn't trying to make a personal dig or anything.

i'm just saying that the Bible isn't totally discredible just because you might not find it true. There are lots of novels out there with fantastic messages and/or points.

Take for instance Catch 22. Totally false account and a fairly comedic one at that. But the brilliance and messages found inbetween the lines is phenomenal.


 
libra Posted: Fri Apr 29 01:02:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>those might hold valid points too. like, don't get me wrong. i wasn't trying to make a personal dig or anything.
>
>i'm just saying that the Bible isn't totally discredible just because you might not find it true. There are lots of novels out there with fantastic messages and/or points.
>
>Take for instance Catch 22. Totally false account and a fairly comedic one at that. But the brilliance and messages found inbetween the lines is phenomenal.

I can understand that the bible has some good things to say, it's an excellent tool for an excellent form of social government.

But I don't like the idea of a dead man with supposed magical abilities and the people who manipulated and altered his word to their advantage hundreds of years ago to be one of the main influences of the society i live in. It scares me.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Apr 29 07:02:55 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Um, you guys are talking about a church marriage and the government is talking about a civil marriage.
At least get the argument in the right place.


 
libra Posted: Fri Apr 29 11:33:58 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Um, you guys are talking about a church marriage and the government is talking about a civil marriage.
>At least get the argument in the right place.

We're talking about the government using the church to define it's version of marriage. I'd say that's a definite violation of the SEPARATION of church and state.

In Navajo society, a man can marry a man. What if one was navajo, could they be married to a member of the same sex? No. Because the US doesn't follow their religious ideas about marriage.

Fuck the sanctity of marriage. If people can get divorced on and off and get married for the night in Vegas and annull it...i don't see anything special about it.


 
addi Posted: Fri Apr 29 11:51:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:

>Fuck the sanctity of marriage.

I don't know why, but my heart always skips a beat when [redacted] cusses.

: )


 
libra Posted: Fri Apr 29 12:24:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>
>I don't know why, but my heart always skips a beat when [redacted] cusses.
>
>: )


my boyfriend laughs at me because when I say 'fucking' i say it with the full "ing" sound, whereas he say's "fuckin'" like everyone else. I sound very proper when I swear.



 
addi Posted: Fri Apr 29 12:28:10 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:

>my boyfriend laughs at me because when I say 'fucking' i say it with the full "ing" sound, whereas he say's "fuckin'" like everyone else. I sound very proper when I swear.

LOL!
Good. As long as you're enunciating correctly I feel much better about it. Nothing more disturbing than sloppy diction when one is cussing i say.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Apr 29 13:30:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's not about how special it is and it's not about what the bible says either, it's about how society chooses to define marriage.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Apr 29 13:30:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  by the way Libra, I get a little wood everytime you say "fucking"


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Apr 29 13:52:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>by the way Libra, I get a little wood everytime you say "fucking"

sweet nausea


 
Silentmind Posted: Fri Apr 29 18:43:41 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It's not about how special it is and it's not about what the bible says either, it's about how society chooses to define marriage.


And in a society, the majority rules, but in a democracy, the majority rules with respect to minorites. Thats the only way it'll work. And you know what made my face drop the other day? The leader of the conservitive party in canada stated that why go all the way with gay marriage, like Canada is trying to do, when we can be like the countries that have reduced versions for gays. He was in effect saying, fuck being a leader, lets just go with the crowd and only be "good enough" not the best. Sigh.


 
Zacq Posted: Fri Apr 29 18:49:27 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Libra called me darling : )

The argument I've often heard against gay marriage is that if the majority of the country doesn't believe it should be legal it shouldn't be. Unfortunately, if banning gay marriage is discrimination, that doesn't matter. If 90% of the country rose as one and said 'We should kill Ralph', if he hadn't done anything worthy of capital punishment it could not happen. One key difference between our government and a pure democracy is that the majority cannot decide to take away someone's property or discriminate without just cause.

And yes, it just looks a little weird to see Libra swear.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sat Apr 30 02:53:08 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>But I don't like the idea of a dead man with supposed magical abilities and the people who manipulated and altered his word to their advantage hundreds of years ago to be one of the main influences of the society i live in. It scares me.

Can't say I blame you. How much Bush controls America scares me... And how much materialism drives America scares me too.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Apr 30 08:11:53 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
And you know what made my face drop the other day? The leader of the conservitive party in canada stated that why go all the way with gay marriage, like Canada is trying to do, when we can be like the countries that have reduced versions for gays.
>
Reduced versions ?
What reduced versions ?
The civil union that has been proposed is not a reduced version of anything.
It comes with all the benefits of marriage between a man and a woman.
The opposition to gay marriage is not about the bible, it's about those who believe that marriage is sacred and between a man and a woman. Those same people who oppose gay marriage, have no problem with civil unions.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sat Apr 30 12:38:20 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>What reduced versions ?

ie. he felt that a couple living together would be considered common law, and the civil union would not provide the same protections. He also called gays and lesbians the "latest fad." Kinda like universal suffrage.

>It comes with all the benefits of marriage between a man and a woman.

There are many benefits to gay marriage as well. They provide stable homes, the children grow up more tolerant, they have the ability to adopt, something many straight couples scoff at. In short, they are just as beneficial as a traditional marriage. In some points, they'r even stronger.


>The opposition to gay marriage is not about the bible, it's about those who believe that marriage is sacred and between a man and a woman. Those same people who oppose gay marriage, have no problem with civil unions.


So, its sacred { Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices} but it has nothing to do with the form that religion has set. It has been the religions of the world that have set forth this traditional definition of marriage. The greeks and romans, were accepting of homosexuality and bisexuality. The greeks gave us democracy, something the gov't oh so loves to make war over, so why not institute this?

I'll bring up this example yet again. 1000 or so years ago, the "traditional, sacred, definition" of a person, was a man, that owned land. Now, persons were able to vote, but not the second class citizens, all women, and non-land owning men. The "traditional defininition" changed when the mounting pressure {I'm using the example of Canada} forced the gov't to realize it was discriminating, and that a person, was a man or a woman. Traditional versions change.




 
Silentmind Posted: Sat Apr 30 12:39:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>I'll bring up this example yet again. 1000 or so years ago


Read: 100 or so years ago. Pardon the bad grammar, kinda tired.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Apr 30 13:04:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>

>>It comes with all the benefits of marriage between a man and a woman.
>
>There are many benefits to gay marriage as well. They provide stable homes, the children grow up more tolerant, they have the ability to adopt, something many straight couples scoff at. In short, they are just as beneficial as a traditional marriage. In some points, they'r even stronger.
>
The benefits I was speakin of were the legal benefits such as taxes and inheritance, the only reasons why you have civil marriage in the first place.
Otherwise you could just get married in the church.
>
>>The opposition to gay marriage is not about the bible, it's about those who believe that marriage is sacred and between a man and a woman. Those same people who oppose gay marriage, have no problem with civil unions.
>
>
>So, its sacred { Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices} but it has nothing to do with the form that religion has set. It has been the religions of the world that have set forth this traditional definition of marriage. The greeks and romans, were accepting of homosexuality and bisexuality. The greeks gave us democracy, something the gov't oh so loves to make war over, so why not institute this?
>
Because the overwhelming majority of the people are against it.

>I'll bring up this example yet again. 1000 or so years ago, the "traditional, sacred, definition" of a person, was a man, that owned land. Now, persons were able to vote, but not the second class citizens, all women, and non-land owning men. The "traditional defininition" changed when the mounting pressure {I'm using the example of Canada} forced the gov't to realize it was discriminating, and that a person, was a man or a woman. Traditional versions change.
>
Of course they do, and someday gay marriage could be ok, but not until folks change their attitudes, something that will probably not happen in my lifetime, maybe in yours, I dunno.
I will say this, gay and lesbian political activists are not going to change attitudes by trying to shove this down our throats.



 
Silentmind Posted: Sat Apr 30 13:10:23 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>>
>Because the overwhelming majority of the people are against it.

Again, in the democracy that you live in, and the one I live in (US and Canada, respectivly) it is rule by majority, with RESPECT to the minority. And no, denying marriage is not respect.



>>
>Of course they do, and someday gay marriage could be ok, but not until folks change their attitudes, something that will probably not happen in my lifetime, maybe in yours, I dunno.

And so instead of being at the head of the pack, and being free and open, we should be close minded?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Apr 30 13:35:07 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>
>>>
>>Because the overwhelming majority of the people are against it.
>
>Again, in the democracy that you live in, and the one I live in (US and Canada, respectivly) it is rule by majority, with RESPECT to the minority. And no, denying marriage is not respect.
>
So according you your logic, we should legalize basically . . . everything ?
Are you familiar with the North American Man Boy Love Association ?
They are a minority too.
>
>>>
>>Of course they do, and someday gay marriage could be ok, but not until folks change their attitudes, something that will probably not happen in my lifetime, maybe in yours, I dunno.
>
>And so instead of being at the head of the pack, and being free and open, we should be close minded?
>
At the head of what pack ?
Close minded is your term not mine.
I dont see offering civil unions as being close minded, that is with respect to the minority.
Anything other than that is merely trying to shove it down our throats.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sat Apr 30 13:44:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>>
>So according you your logic, we should legalize basically . . . everything ?
>Are you familiar with the North American Man Boy Love Association ?
>They are a minority too.


No, that brings in a third part of the gov't. Rationalism.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Apr 30 16:40:49 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Never heard of that part of govt, it certainly isn't in our constitution.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sun May 1 15:52:58 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Democratic gov'ts, yours included, is based on a ideas that came out of the French revolution. Secularism and rationalism.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sun May 1 15:53:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  s/is/are/


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]