Originally posted by Grimm22
Like I said before, the government has no REAL control over marriage, the religion does
Wrong again buddy 👇
A single marriage is entirely dependent on the TWO PEOPLE who participate in it...
Two straight people getting married does NOT validate thier union, or make thier union any stronger or more important than it was before.
Marriage is SIMPLY a human ceremony, which existed WAYYY BEFORE Christianity did....nothing more, nothing less.
Marraige is NOT sacred, it enhances nothing except legal power....
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Wrong again buddy 👇A single marriage is [b]entirely
dependent on the TWO PEOPLE who participate in it...Two straight people getting married does NOT validate thier union, or make thier union any stronger or more important than it was before.
Marriage is SIMPLY a human ceremony, which existed WAYYY BEFORE Christianity did....nothing more, nothing less.
Marraige is NOT sacred, it enhances nothing except legal power.... [/B]
You're right, it started with Judaism 😄
My point still remains that the government should not have any more power than they need to have to protect the freedom of the people. That is what it was created to do.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Ah, yes, the other half of the coin: it ought to be sacred.But, any sacredness of marriage has kind of been destroyed.
IT ought to be sacred ? 😬
That's kind of a weak argument, don't you think ? If Marraige is truly from God, then it is sacred no matter what....we can't make it sacred, if it is already a gift from God....
IT's not sacred.....that's a myth. Marriage is only as strong and valuable as the two people make it.....heterosexuals have no more or less Love capability than homosexuals....end of story.
Originally posted by Grimm22
Marriage was created by religions (Judaism, Christianity, ect..) as a bond between two people overseen by god.Last time I checked the government is not god, thus they have no power to oversee a marriage
Shame all marriage that is legal and at all binding was created, legislated and managed by the state.
And I have said it before and I will say it again - we didn't come down from the trees clutching some legislature saying "Marriage - DO NOT TOUCH!" - it has changed over the years, both legally and the perception of it.
Ultimately the state can alter marriage laws. Because you know, they do actually have power to oversee it. And hell, you can even get married with no religious aspects at all in this day and age, sign the license, get someone with government approved authority, and bingo, you're married.
Because other religions have marriage as well, and most of them don't utilise Christian priests. To be legally married the officiating party has to be recognised legally - priests are, and so forth.
Then maybe we should get rid of the federal benefits to marriage
Which is a great deal easier then, you know, just allowing same-sex marriages, or something comparable.
Marriage should not be rewarded like a prize at a fair, marriage itself IS a reward. The reward of finding someone you truly love.
Awwwwww. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
And when the government toys with matters beyond their perception like this, they simply bastardize it
Technically it isn't beyond their perception. Marriage laws are some of the simpler laws out there.
Ah, yes, the other half of the coin: it ought to be sacred.But, any sacredness of marriage has kind of been destroyed.
Ooooo. When exactly was it sacred? When Christianity didn't exist? And it was conducted by other religions and cultures? Or when Christianity was happy to allow marriage of conveniance, posistion, necessity, politics etc? Marriage of very young people often to other people?
When exactly did marriage go from the wonderous sacredness of 2000 years ago or longer to the terrible state it is in today?
Originally posted by Grimm22
You're right, it started with Judaism 😄
Go farther back....go back to Mesopotamia.....then go to Ancient Greece....go to Ancient Egypt....Ancient Incan culture.....
Then go to Judaism and Christianity which adopted it later.....
Originally posted by Grimm22
My point still remains that the government should not have any more power than they need to have to protect the freedom of the people. That is what it was created to do.
I don't get your argument....protect the freedom of the people ? How is banning gay marriage protecting anybody ? 🤨
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
IT ought to be sacred ? 😬That's kind of a weak argument, don't you think ? If Marraige is truly from God, then it is sacred no matter what....we can't [b]make
it sacred, if it is already a gift from God....[/B]
In our society, marriage has--figuratively--been removed from the inner temple and has been strewn about the unsanctified. It's not as though marriage itself isn't inherently sacred; it's that its sacredness has been diminished and, in a way, removed.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I believe in Judaism, to remove something sacred from the inner temple to the outer courtyard, amongst the Gentiles, was cause for death. Essentially, to take something holy and trivialize it earned the death penalty.In our society, marriage has--figuratively--been removed from the inner temple and has been strewn about the unsanctified. It's not as though marriage itself isn't inherently sacred; it's that its sacredness has been diminished and, in a way, removed.
Interesting....do you beleive that allowing Homosexuals to marry somehow takes away the sacredness even further ?
Originally posted by FeceMan
I believe in Judaism, to remove something sacred from the inner temple to the outer courtyard, amongst the Gentiles, was cause for death. Essentially, to take something holy and trivialize it earned the death penalty.In our society, marriage has--figuratively--been removed from the inner temple and has been strewn about the unsanctified. It's not as though marriage itself isn't inherently sacred; it's that its sacredness has been diminished and, in a way, removed.
Yes... it is the adherence to rules, not the intent behind it, that should be sacred.
If you think marriage in the past was somehow whiter and more sacred and it is somehow vastly worse today, well, it is delightfully romantic in a "I wish I could live in Chivalric France, shining knights and nobility. Ahhhh" kind of way.
When in reality it was a filth ridden time, often of disease, war and hunger, where knights weren't all that noble and exploited most everyone. As to marriage - it has always been used - sacrad is just a nicer word: Marriage for political/power gain, little choice for women, marriage of necessity (OMG Babies!), marriage of convenience, of control, arranged marriages etc. etc. etc.
Of course people stayed together in those days, giving it an image of "wow, it was better" - of course no avenue for divorce might have had something to do with that. These days it is just the same, only it is over used, and people enter into it without thinking (so, we've been married for like 48 hours. Lets get a divorce.)
Originally posted by Lana
Sithsaber, would you care to address these questions?
Yes, of course. Never intended not too, but I DO have to get a few things accomplished at work.
I don't know that I have time to collect all polls and data done on gay marriage, but I know that it usually ends up with the majority not approving it.
Even in the liberal state of California where I live, when put to a vote of the people the answer is: No.
A quick and simple poll of opinion would be this:
In the last mid-term elections when the Democratic party took the congress and a small majority in the senate, 6 states had measures approving gay marriage on the ballot.
Only 1 passed.
If 5 out of 6 don't approve it, that equals about 80%, wouldn't you say?
I was thinking about posting why I consider homosexuality to be a destructive lifestyle, but I won't out of respect and out of the fact that most of it is subjective anyway and not good fodder for debate.
(except to say that there's alot of gay people in this thread who are supposed to be open and wonderful and free and they're all really pissy.) 😛
*for everybody*
Let's take a step back here.
I'm no geneticist or scientist. (obviously that's a surprise to nobody.)
I've only completed high school biology. (again, surprising nobody.)
But in response to honest questions and points all I got was alot of yelling and name-calling and at the end of it all there was Draco and Alliance basically patting me on the head and saying: "Well, it's all a bit complicated son. Just take my word for it."
I don't see how that helps anything.
Again, the majority of Americans think of it as I do:
Gay sex isn't a normal part of human beings. It exists, sure and the people who engage in it are people like anybody else with hopes and dreams and so on.
But what they do isn't natural. Sexual organs, by design and by function are for sexual relations with the opposite sex. They are the tools for the creation of more heterosexual people who will in turn make more, etc...
So if people for whatever undetermined reason are gay, so be it.
But it doesn't mean that they get some special treatment, and they aren't being put down as a class of people like minorities were for skin color that they were born with.
They just aren't recognized as their own separate group of people "born that way."
If your aim is to change that, then pointing to animals will never work and nor will saying : "Genetics, take a class."
(because last I heard, the jury was still out on the genetics of homosexuality being a proven fact. Other wise I would think it would be in every national paper in America as a proven fact and we wouldn't be here debating would we?)
I'm honestly waiting for the true answers here.
Dumb it down, or say "In a nutshell...." but tell me how you would prove to me and the majority of America who don't support gay marriage (mainly for the reasons posted above, I'd assume) why we are wrong and should change our minds.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
In the last mid-term elections when the Democratic party took the congress and a small majority in the senate, 6 states had measures approving gay marriage on the ballot.Only 1 passed.
If 5 out of 6 don't approve it, that equals about 80%, wouldn't you say?
Jesus F. Christ!
Are you assuming that is 100% each?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Interesting....do you beleive that allowing Homosexuals to marry somehow takes away the sacredness even further ?
As I have stated before, I don't believe that engaging in a homosexual lifestyle is inherently sinful. However, same-sex marriage was never practiced in Judaism, and thus I honestly cannot make a statement about how it affects the status of being sacred or not.
On one hand, marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman; this was practiced in Judaism and early Christianity (well, it still is, but you know what I mean) and there's nothing to argue about that. Sex itself is all about uniting and becoming "one flesh" through love--and, again, traditionally has been between a man and a woman. The position of coitus between a man and a woman is figurative in this aspect (not that the original statement wasn't symbolic).
Then again, homosexuals are perfectly capable of loving one another. They are capable of sharing the same affections for one another that heterosexuals feel for their wives and husbands, respectively. To allow them to marry and be recognized before God would not violate the idea of marriage.
As said, I cannot make a statement on this.
However, what I can do is assert the following.
1. Dragging marriage into the political arena certainly is degrading to it. (What is said..."Politics is the world's second oldest profession. It has remarkable similarities to the world's oldest profession."😉
2. Divorce rates are inexcusable. That, in my opinion, is the biggest detractor from sacredness.
3. If homosexuals want to get married, they need to start acting like it. Now, I'm not saying that all gays are promiscuous sluts, but when they are fornicating in the street, they set an example that says that they are far too base in their desires to be qualified for marriage. Quite frankly, a loss of self-control into physical pleasures like that--in public!--demonstrates and almost animalistic, bestial nature to them; they appear...unevolved. If gays want to marry, such activities need to stop at once.
Originally posted by FeceMan
3. If homosexuals want to get married, they need to start acting like it. Now, I'm not saying that all gays are promiscuous sluts, but when they are fornicating in the street, they set an example that says that they are far too base in their desires to be qualified for marriage. Quite frankly, a loss of self-control into physical pleasures like that--in public!--demonstrates and almost animalistic, bestial nature to them; they appear...unevolved. If gays want to marry, such activities need to stop at once.
Wow...you are crazy.
Why can't some behave that way and others marry? Also, what has one to do with the other at all.