Was it really marriage? or was it?

[ElectroJosh]

Fun Fact: For a long time you couldn't get married in a church precisely because the christians didn't consider marriage to be something that should be their responsibility.
In honesty so much of what the anti same-sex marriage take for granted about what constitutes "traditional marriage" isn't even traditional for their religion. They have no idea how these ideas have changed so much in the last two centuries (let along the centuries before that). They have little to no understanding on historical context when they make their arguments. For example: in many European countries there weren't even ceremonies to declare a couple was married. It was very common for a couple to shack up and have kids and they were considered married by their community. They only important consideration was that the couple could support themselves financially (and were of an acceptable age) - this was what the christians were doing even though modern christians would find that immoral.

 

[Queen Michael]

100% of the stupid masses don't' believe in a god that can't see

True. Some believe in an all-seeing God, but nobody I ever heard of believe in a blind one.

Also, PLEASE check spelling grammar and punctuation in your rgeular rants.

 

[Risingblade]

Ok I THINK he's asking if gays wanted to get married just for the benefits and they just brought up the whole church thing to divert the fact that they just wanted the benefits instead of the whole married under god stuff.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

--snipperoony--

Sly, please never leave us. These rants are just too damned hilarious.

 

[DracoSuave]

This is ALL I can read from the OP.


1) You have the right to do something.

2) Gays do not have the right to do something.

3) You believe gays should not have the right to do something.
3a) You believe that lack of right should be legislated.

4) The entirety of your reasoning for believing this is based on a religious tenet.

5) Because of 3a and 4, you believe that they should have a right denied them by law based on a religious tenet.

6) Gays who want to get married do not believe in that religious tenet.

7) Because of 5 and 6, you wish a law imposed on gays that enforces a religious tenet on them they do not believe in.



In other words....

You're trying to impose your religion on other people against their will--and when they dare to actually call you on this bullshit, you have the GALL to claim that YOUR rights are somehow violated, that YOUR freedoms are in jeopardy.

Remove the religious reasoning and you have NO reason whatsoever to deny marriage rights to gays. Zero.

The rest of your argument is just acknowledging things are equal, and offering the very dubious suggestion that it's somehow 'right' that things are unequal. Sorry, you need reasons, and no 'God said so' is a shitty reason.

Furthermore, YOU don't even believe in 'God said so.' God said a LOT of things in the bible that you don't follow, and refuse to follow. Do you enact slavery on the women of conquered nations? Do you wed your brother's widow and force her to consumate the marriage? Do you advocate slavery, and the beating of death of slaves, providing the beating is slow? Do you propose the death penalty for eating lobster?

No. Of course you don't.

See, you pick and choose what words out of the bible appeal to you, but you don't follow ALL the laws given by its God, do you? No.

But you don't even think about WHY you don't follow them--you just mindlessly go about doing so, and don't even think about it.

Why should we pass laws about what is right and wrong based on the bleating of some asshat that's more concerned about what's up someone else's butt than he is his OWN sense of right and wrong?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Religion and Politics is that way.

 

[White-Death]

OUTRAGEOUS TALE,GOOD COMPANION.


Just because something goes against your magic man's word and book does not mean it should be universal law and common opinion.People have different beliefs,ways of life and opinions.
Why can't homosexual/lesbian couples have the same benefits as heterosexual couples,In your opinion,barring what your book/god says.
Isn't marriage considered a legal matter in 'Murica anyway? Odin/God/Allah/RaptorJebus/Flying Spaghetti monster have nothing to do with it.
The basement Religion and politics/Flamewar section is this way:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/index/528-Religion-and-Politics

 

[Olas]

%90 of married folk break up,

%%95 of couples that live together , aren't married, or hate each other so much they kill the other one of the party and it goes into a murder case blah blah

% you want to bring the bible into it.. 100% of the stupid masses don't' believe in a god that can't see and the government wants to claim to be there god when the government is as corrupt as it wants to be so you really thin they would care about what god thinks? nor do the people..

I'm pretty sure your statistics are off there buddy, and since there seems to be some confusion, you always put the percent sign after the number.

 

[Darken12]

Let me make this perfectly clear: we deserve any benefits you may have just as much as you do. If you think that "oh, they just want the benefits" is a valid reason to dismiss us, then you have no idea what it's like to be disadvantaged, marginalised or underprivileged. A lot of us (if not most) don't give two flying fucks about the church and don't want to force priests to marry us. Those of us who do give a fuck about it are the kind of people who, for some ludicrous reason, still have faith in God despite how much shit they have to take from His followers on a constant basis. For those people, being allowed to marry in the eyes of God would be a huge step towards being accepted by the church (who, hilariously, is quite selective with its enforcement of archaisms. You don't see them go after people who mix different kinds of fibres in their clothing with the same zeal, do you?), because for some reason, they have just as much faith as you (and if the Catholic doctrine of suffering and penance for one's original sin were true, they would get to Heaven before any of the straight people). But I'm an anti-theist, so what do I know?

As for the benefits that you so callously dismiss, I have a hard time not breaking into an angry tirade of expletives, so I will be brief: they matter. We shouldn't have to face additional hardships in life (such as not being allowed to visit each other in hospitals because we're not actually married, not getting pensions, tax breaks and other economical/social/workplace rights and advantages) because of something that is ultimately none of your damn business.

Also love or something. I don't like the emotional angle (I don't believe in love), but it actually matters to a lot of people. So while you and your sweetheart can get your feelings lawfully and socially recognised, we can't. Because of people like you.

So long and thanks for all the intolerance.

 

[loc978]

I still say we remove all current benefits and just treat everyone as individuals (I call it the No Special Rights for the Co-dependent movement). Not a perfect plan, I admit... but it sure would shut down this particular debate.

 

[Trinab]

Some interesting facts.

In the early medieval period, pre-thirteenth century or so, marriages were strictly state only affairs. Mainly because it involved property, inheritance, and a way for cement alliances and grow bonds between different regional groups. It was only after the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 did marriage become instituted as a religious sacrament.

So marriage as a holy rite has only been about for 800 years, verses the 1200 odd years before that, and yet still existed after the founding of Christianity, and the several thousand years before that in the days of polytheism.

To say that marriage is strictly biblical is frankly wrong, looking at it historically and sociologically. Marriage has existed in human society long before the Bible was written, and exists in societies where the Bible has had no social impact whatsoever. Pre-colonial Americas, the Far-East, Polynesia, etcetera.

Now the point of marriage, was to found a new household. It is a legal and societal distinction that basically lets people know that they are considered a single family unit. The gender of the participants, frankly, doesn't really matter.

Traditionally, yes, it was acknowledged as a man and a woman, because frankly, that's who normally gets married. Homosexuality has never quite been embraced in the past as it has now. Arguing it is against the Bible is a moot point, because frankly, in this context, the Bible does not matter. If homosexuals are banging on a church's doors, demanding they get married by a priest, which almost none are, then it may be. However no Government is forcing churches to acknowledge it. Churches are not needed for such, and as stated above, for the vast majority of history, they were not involved at all.

I live in a country where homosexual marriage is legal. Nothing has changed. All that has happened practically is that homosexual couples get the same tax benefits that heterosexual couples do, easing some paper-work.

And we call all agree, less paper-work is a good thing.

 

[Asita]

Anyone else find it darkly amusing when people say that same sex marriage would somehow be an insult to an institution that legally recognizes things like this? Because, let's be honest, at that point the only way left to go is up.

 

[Yopaz]

Everyone, look through his posts. He's an obvious troll. All his posts are like this, poorly spelled, topics that make people angry, random accusations and poor phrasing.

I regret reading the post and I regret the fact that I had to read it twice before I got some understanding of it.

 

[Vareoth]

I don't like your opinion and as such I will ignore every part of it.

Now that that's out of the way, does anyone know any funny jokes to dissipate the toxic cloud of lies that the OP has left behind in his wake?

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Why shouldn't homosexual couples get all the same benefits as heterosexual married couples? I doubt the benefits of marriage are the first thing that comes into the decision making process for any couple who wish to marry, but that doesn't mean that some people should not be entitled to that benefit just because they're gay.

That's just dumb.

Anytime we discuss this topic it always centers upon "benefits" and "rights" of marriage, the fairness to the couple getting married (every post in this thread has mentioned it). When you look at it from that perspective the answer seems simple - hetero/homo, same thing so why not? But then we get to the question, why in the first place? To encourage and assist two people in love who want to spend their life together? No, that can't be it. Surely it's about the kids and historically always was, arranging things so the best way (so they thought) of raising kids was made possible and thus the best advantages emerged and flowed to the state, with the accompanying impetus for population and therefore economic growth. Seems logical then that leaders should forget about marriage and structure the benefits around the kids, and get rid of the benefits given to two people choosing to live together. Marriage would then cease to be a meaningless legal thing and the bond might become once again centered around the kids, whether it's hetero or homo as the legal parents.

 

[mateushac]

Spoiler: Im sorry, but when I read the OP my mind got something like this

OT: Aside from the fact that most governments don't own healthcare or insurance companies AND the fact that legally binding marriage happens through the signing of a "contract", not through saying yes to the priest...
Well, aside from that there's really nothing else to say.

 

[Muspelheim]

Fifty crowns that Mr. Pizza won't bother replying this time either. I'd like to think it's because he doesn't have the guts. Sadly, it's more likely he can't be arsed, following the honoured tradition of barking rubbish in your face and then stomping off, because he knows full well that his little rant will be torn apart like the shite it is. Still, pointing that out is never a waste of breath.