Same Sex Marriages in Mass.

[DigDug]

As I said, marriage should be a strictly religious term

And what does that mean? You've just widened the ambiguity tenfold. Say I'm a Christian, and I believe marriage includes homsexual marriage. Now what do you do? Get the court to start pulling the church back into things? That's going in the wrong direction, if current affairs (muslim state actions, for example) have anything to say on the matter.

 

[Atomic Rooster]

This country is going to hell in a fvcking handbasket. :disgust:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BadDaddy
This country is going to hell in a fvcking handbasket. :disgust:

You mean gone! It started back in 1968

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: DigDug

As I said, marriage should be a strictly religious term

And what does that mean? You've just widened the ambiguity tenfold. Say I'm a Christian, and I believe marriage includes homsexual marriage. Now what do you do? Get the court to start pulling the church back into things? That's going in the wrong direction, if current affairs (muslim state actions, for example) have anything to say on the matter.

If you're a Christian and you believe that homosexual marriage should be condoned by your church, you can go to one of the many churches that allow homosexual marriage, or you could start a dialogue on the subject in your own church and see if you can change their interpretation of the Bible. Accepting homosexual marriage as a RELIGIOUS institution would be for the churches to decide amongst themselves, as it is now. The courts have no jurisdiction over a church's religious doctrine, I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

The root of the "problem" is that we use one term for an institution that can be both religious and secular. On the religious side it is a sacred institution, on the secular side it is a contract. Marriage != marriage. If you stopped using a religious term for a secular institution, the religious folks would mind their own business and the non-religious could do what they want and everybody should be happy. It's not going to happen though, because there's nothing so unromantic as the term "civil union." Women would never go for it. Hence you have non-religious people married in traditional religious ceremonies.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: DigDug

As I said, marriage should be a strictly religious term

And what does that mean? You've just widened the ambiguity tenfold. Say I'm a Christian, and I believe marriage includes homsexual marriage. Now what do you do? Get the court to start pulling the church back into things? That's going in the wrong direction, if current affairs (muslim state actions, for example) have anything to say on the matter.

If you're a Christian and you believe that homosexual marriage should be condoned by your church, you can go to one of the many churches that allow homosexual marriage, or you could start a dialogue on the subject in your own church and see if you can change their interpretation of the Bible. Accepting homosexual marriage as a RELIGIOUS institution would be for the churches to decide amongst themselves, as it is now. The courts have no jurisdiction over a church's religious doctrine, I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

The root of the "problem" is that we use one term for an institution that can be both religious and secular. On the religious side it is a sacred institution, on the secular side it is a contract. Marriage != marriage. If you stopped using a religious term for a secular institution, the religious folks would mind their own business and the non-religious could do what they want and everybody should be happy. It's not going to happen though, because there's nothing so unromantic as the term "civil union." Women would never go for it. Hence you have non-religious people married in traditional religious ceremonies.

I find that more men than women know about "womens romantic ideas".

Honestly, do you think a grown woman even cares what it is called?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Klixxer
What is it about two consenting adults that is so hard to understand, three words TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.

Not a man and an animal, not THREE consenting adults, not a woman and a child. TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, look up the words and the phrase if you do not understand it.

My point was that defining it as between TWO consenting adults is as arbitrary as defining it as between one man and one woman (which has been the generally accepted definition for a good long time).

See:
arbitrary
marriage

The problem with polygamy would be that beautiful men like me would have a harem and that would leave none for the rest of you guys.

🙂

Personally I think the government should stop using the term marriage in a legal sense and treat ALL marriages as "civil unions," leaving marriage as a strictly religious term. I think PlatinumGold or vi_edit or one of the other wolf avatars suggested that in a previous thread.

i'm not sure if the post your referring to was by me, but i have long maintained that church and govt should be separate.

civil unions are civil unions and the license the govt has NOTHING to do with the sanctity of marriage. in my opinion anyway.

 

[Xionide]

Next, a man is denied of marrying his dog.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I remember a Robert Heinlein book or 2 that talked about "Corporation Marriages" essentially, it had >2 partners, and was heavily regulated, but when you married, you married into essentially a corporation.

NPR had a couple really good interviews about equal protection, gay marriage & polygamy, using the equal protection argument, it is really a foot in the door toward polygamy.

IMHO, it's not a big deal, it's already happening, it's just not recognized by government entities (gay & polygamous marriages).

We'll be dealing with the leftovers from our puritan heritage for a long time.

Next thing will be cats & dogs sleeping together. The horror, OMFG, the horror of it all.

 

[Linux23]

Originally posted by: Xionide
Next, a man is denied of marrying his dog.

it's discrimination. why can't a man marry a dog? or a farmer his cow? 😛

 

[thraashman]

I'd just like to thank Massachusettes for being the first state to recognize and enforce the 14th amendment to the Constitution. It's good to finally see equal rights becoming a reality.

 

[Wuffsunie]

Originally posted by: Linux23

Originally posted by: Xionide
Next, a man is denied of marrying his dog.

it's discrimination. why can't a man marry a dog? or a farmer his cow? 😛

And as soon as the dogs and cows can give consent to the marriage, they can argue that it should be allowed.

marriage = consenting adults... geeze, people.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: Wuffsunie

Originally posted by: Linux23

Originally posted by: Xionide
Next, a man is denied of marrying his dog.

it's discrimination. why can't a man marry a dog? or a farmer his cow? 😛

And as soon as the dogs and cows can give consent to the marriage, they can argue that it should be allowed.

marriage = consenting adults... geeze, people.

I'd like to thank you wuff for shooting down a stupid argument. It's good to see some intelligence here.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

I haven't read this entire thread yet so my apologies if this was already posted..but I must say this:

How can we say that gay marriages are dissolving the sanctity of marriage when you have television shows that base the entire instution of marriage on lies and material goods?

Look at all those reality shows from "Who Wants to Marry my Dad" to "The Bachlor" to "How Wants to Marry a Midget". You have a bunch of shows that marry people off without any real trust or foundations.

Isn't that destructing the integrity of marriage more than gay folks marrying each other because they truley love their partners?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
I haven't read this entire thread yet so my apologies if this was already posted..but I must say this:

How can we say that gay marriages are dissolving the sanctity of marriage when you have television shows that base the entire instution of marriage on lies and material goods?

Look at all those reality shows from "Who Wants to Marry my Dad" to "The Bachlor" to "How Wants to Marry a Midget". You have a bunch of shows that marry people off without any real trust or foundations.

Isn't that destructing the integrity of marriage more than gay folks marrying each other because they truley love their partners?

Simple, the bible doesn't say anything about televised marriages and such, but it cracks down on gays pretty hard.

Of course, i am only joking. Marriage as a religious institution died the day the first couple got divorced, what god has joined let no man separate, remember? Of course, as usual, as the bible is filled with contradictions there is another passage where god uses Ezra to cause believers to "divorce" non-believers, so if you were to follow that, a believer may not marry a non believer.

You can probably find a passage that contradicts that too if you just look for it.