McBell
Unbound
Especially for a quadriplegic...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Prop H8 mostly upheld
- Thread starter Smoke
- Start date
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Get a room.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
I'm going to feel soooooo.... sorry for those poor Christians when their rights get taken away and those awful awful Homosexuals are allowed to get married. Gosh, what is this world comming to, equality? We're falling apart at the seams here. No longer can out tyrranical stone aged mythology win over the injustice called freedom and equality. No longer can we use God's will to crush the rights of those silly minorities.
*cough*
*cough*
I'm of the opinion that marriage should be left to the domain of religion. Why would a government want or need right to regulate a religious institution of any sort? Civil unions or incorporation(can't think of a way this can be outlawed by states) is a much better solution, imho.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
While I agree with this I think you may be missing a subtle point.
The issue is equal rights.
If the courts called this right marriage and conferred rights&benefits X,Y and Z to straight couples, then the campaign of gay couples is to obtain the same right called marriage and associated benefits X,Y and Z.
Insert any term you want for marriage in the above and it will be reflective of want is being campaigned for.
McBell
Unbound
Except that marriage is a LEGAL contract.
IF religion ever did have a claim to marriage, they gave it up long long ago and are just now wanting it back.
I agree.
Take the legal contracts now known as 'marriage' and rename to say 'Civil Unions' and give the religions the word 'marriage'.
since it seems to me that this whole mess is over the use of a word....
Yep, they got their priorities straight.....
i also find it rather hypocritical how they argue not to redefine the word 'marriage' when the definition they argue over is itself a redefinition of the word.
Smoke
Done here.
Your statement makes no sense. There are religions that are perfectly prepared to bless same-sex marriages, so if you think the issue ought to be left to religion, then you should support legalizing same-sex marriage. If marriage is a religious institution, then the state has no business regulating it at all. Whether it is a religious institution or not, the state has no business endorsing a particular religious opinion.
What makes you say religion gave up a claim to marriage long long ago?
McBell
Unbound
The current state that marriage is in.
That's the point I was hinting at.
Well forgive me if I don't buy that. My religion very much makes a claim on the importance of marriage extending back to the time of Adam and Eve.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Since there were no Adam and Eve (we know this from genetics) does that mean Mestemiais right?
Smoke
Done here.
That seems a very shaky claim to make.
McBell
Unbound
Don't buy what?
I am not selling anything.
You asked my opinion and I gave it.
Though I have to wonder what what all that ancient history has to do with the CURRENT state of marriage.
Take a little looksie at the divorce rate?
Why isn't religion making a big to do about that?
You do not see religious groups pushing for bans on divorce, now do we?
You do not want me to get started on the millions of people who are not allowed to enter into the congregation for seven to ten years.
Yet again you do not see religious groups trying to get laws passed to prevent it.
So yeah, religions can make all the CLAIMS they want to marriage, but the fact is, they gave it up when the government started charging people to get married.
They gave it up when the government turned marriage into a legal contract.
They gave it up when they remained silent as the divorce rate sky rocketed.
they gave it up when the remained silent as the number of children born out of wedlock skyrocketed.
yet when two informed consenting adults want to enter into a LEGAL contract, religious groups go all ape **** because they all of a sudden are concerned with their alleged "claim" on marriage. What a load of ********...
Al Bundy
Dook Sux
Do you have a receipt for that? :areyoucra
misanthropic_clown
Active Member
I don't really see how these points present an affront to the sanctity of marriage. The state gets involved in marriage to afford civil rights to married couples. To do this, it incurs paperwork and paperwork costs money. My church at least tries to keep marriages together where possible by counseling, and also frowns on sex before marriage never mind children outside of wedlock.
McBell
Unbound
Your church also does not spend the money to pass laws preventing them either, but spent how much again on Prop 8?
All over this alleged 'sanctity' of marriage?
Why is divorce allowed to crap all over this alleged 'sanctity'?
Why are children being born out of wedlock allowed to crap all over this alleged 'sanctity'?
Your church makes a much bigger to do over two informed consenting adults entering into a legal contract than they do over abortion.
So what does that tell us about which they think is worse?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
He wasn't arguing the sanctity of marriage, he was arguing religion's ownership of it.
And the instant they did that, they lost the right to deny those rights to same sex couples.
Irrelevant.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Religious beliefs should not be relevant on this issue since it concerns a civil matter, not a religious one.
