What does same-sex marriage have to do with religion?

[Pah]

I was just suggesting we applied common courtesy. If about 70% of the population would prefer to keep marriage as it is, then it must be possible to accommodate those. Not discriminating against minorities, does not give people the right to discriminate against majorities.

Common curtesy would dictate that all share the same freedoms. Keeping marriage as a majority position is only selfishly keeping a privilege.

Marriage for 70% (your figure) will NOT change one iota. There is no discrimination against the majority. They, with their demand to retain privilege show characteristics of unamerican principles.

 

[Fascist Christ]

It is not just a word. It is the name of a holy sacrament. There are other secular words which are protected. You cannot call yourself a lawyer unless you are. You can call yourself a bank unless you meet certain criteria. So it is not alone in the word being more than a word but the name of an institution. It is this institution that people feel so strongly about.

Forgive me, I do not know the laws of your country. However, in the United States, the government can only regulate the use of words in commerce. For example, you cannot sell something as "low fat" unless it meets the criteria to do so. But I can call myself low fat, I can make a triple cheeseburger and call it low fat, as long as I am not selling it.

In the case of lawyers, you need a license to practice law professionally (ie: commercial purposes). However, you do not need any qualifications to represent yourself. In law, they are not even called "lawyers" but "legal council." You can consult with your retarded cousin for all they care, though they will probably advise against it.

There are a lot of banking regulations, although they are legally called "financial institutions." But if a piggy bank fits the criteria, then our regualtions are pathetic.

Notice how they use more specific words. This clears up alot of ambiguity, plus within the law they will define the terms as used within that law. A different law may define the term differently, and these definitions do not determine everyday use.

Even with the limited power that the government has over the words, none of these examples exhibit a "holy sacrament." The closest thing that I can come up with would be the use of the word "kosher." Could the federal government define what makes something kosher? If they do, they dictate that you cannot sell something called kosher without it meeting certain criteria. But, once again, this would not in anyway change what the Jews consider to be kosher. It would only apply to commerce.

Since marriage has nothing to do with commerce, the only conscern would be what it is called in the law. They can call it a "strategic tax alliance" or a "joint liability contractual obligation." It has been traditionally called marriage, and is considered such in the eyes of that law. For example, we could make a law that defines marriage as the union between a man and his dog, and the law could state that the man can void the marriage by taking his dog to an animal shelter. This would not effect the definition of a marriage as defined under any other law, nor would it effect the relationship between a man and his wife.

If the usage of a word is so important to a group of people, they need to request that a different word be used. The problem that we have here is that these people, since they hold the majority, wish to change the legal definition of the word. Our government has no business in regulating the qualification or procedures of religious ceremonies or sacraments. It baffles me why anybody would want to change that treasured separation.

 

[Merlin]

Forgive me, I do not know the laws of your country. However, in the United States, the government can only regulate the use of words in commerce. For example, you cannot sell something as "low fat" unless it meets the criteria to do so. But I can call myself low fat, I can make a triple cheeseburger and call it low fat, as long as I am not selling it.

In the case of lawyers, you need a license to practice law professionally (ie: commercial purposes). However, you do not need any qualifications to represent yourself. In law, they are not even called "lawyers" but "legal council." You can consult with your retarded cousin for all they care, though they will probably advise against it.

There are a lot of banking regulations, although they are legally called "financial institutions." But if a piggy bank fits the criteria, then our regualtions are pathetic.

Notice how they use more specific words. This clears up alot of ambiguity, plus within the law they will define the terms as used within that law. A different law may define the term differently, and these definitions do not determine everyday use.

Even with the limited power that the government has over the words, none of these examples exhibit a "holy sacrament." The closest thing that I can come up with would be the use of the word "kosher." Could the federal government define what makes something kosher? If they do, they dictate that you cannot sell something called kosher without it meeting certain criteria. But, once again, this would not in anyway change what the Jews consider to be kosher. It would only apply to commerce.

Since marriage has nothing to do with commerce, the only conscern would be what it is called in the law. They can call it a "strategic tax alliance" or a "joint liability contractual obligation." It has been traditionally called marriage, and is considered such in the eyes of that law. For example, we could make a law that defines marriage as the union between a man and his dog, and the law could state that the man can void the marriage by taking his dog to an animal shelter. This would not effect the definition of a marriage as defined under any other law, nor would it effect the relationship between a man and his wife.

If the usage of a word is so important to a group of people, they need to request that a different word be used. The problem that we have here is that these people, since they hold the majority, wish to change the legal definition of the word. Our government has no business in regulating the qualification or procedures of religious ceremonies or sacraments. It baffles me why anybody would want to change that treasured separation.

I hope everybody else is as baffled as I am with the above.

The generalised point I was making, is that we should not disadvantage the many just to make sure we never disadvantage the few. We should find a solution that satisfies both.

 

[Fascist Christ]

The generalised point I was making, is that we should not disadvantage the many just to make sure we never disadvantage the few. We should find a solution that satisfies both.

But some rights supersede others, in which case there is NO room for compromise. As an example, my right to spend my money as I choose does not allow me to hire a hit man, because a person's right to live supersedes my right to spend my money. Likewise, a homosexual's right to equality under the law supersedes anybody's right to change the law. Furthermore, no one has the right to make a law that respects an establishment of religion. If they really wanted to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" they would take the word out of the law completely. This is not what they are doing. In fact, they are violating their own rights by denying themselves and their churches the ability to define the qualifications on their own. It's amazing how easily people can be convinced to relinquish their rights without even realizing it.

 

[Pah]

I hope everybody else is as baffled as I am with the above.

The generalised point I was making, is that we should not disadvantage the many just to make sure we never disadvantage the few. We should find a solution that satisfies both.

Then they would be getting special privilege and entirtely based on religious use. You would trample both the equality of humanity and the freedom of the non-religious. Religious definition does not belong in law.

Please keep your sacristry out of my senate. Leave secular matters to citizens. In the religious world, pracise as you will - I'm all for it - but don't incorporate Christian religiousity in my government. My tradition does not include religion and I'll keep the term that is first and foremost a civil word. And as long as anyone goes to a government office to register a marriage it will stay a civil word.

 

[muichimotsu]

Indeed. The idea of bringing religiosity and the influence of sacred texts into the secular government is for Christians, I believe, their way of "purifying" the worldly government and making it the way it is supposed to be. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm still not yet knowledged enough to speak about it. But the core ideal I'm getting across is that since people all have individual ideas about practically everything, there's not going to be a logical or reasonable way to solve every problem. That sounds pessimistic, yes, but when you think about it, it also makes sense. Can't exactly make the Muslims feel great, because that usually pisses off their Christian "brethren" anyway. And let's not forget the other two mainstream patheistic and atheistic religions that would feel that they are being excluded completely, even if they thought Christianity and Judaism were being included in the "Muslim reform" that would occur at said time.

 

[michel]

But some rights supersede others, in which case there is NO room for compromise. As an example, my right to spend my money as I choose does not allow me to hire a hit man, because a person's right to live supersedes my right to spend my money. Likewise, a homosexual's right to equality under the law supersedes anybody's right to change the law. Furthermore, no one has the right to make a law that respects an establishment of religion. If they really wanted to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" they would take the word out of the law completely. This is not what they are doing. In fact, they are violating their own rights by denying themselves and their churches the ability to define the qualifications on their own. It's amazing how easily people can be convinced to relinquish their rights without even realizing it.

Do you know, I have just looked at the calendar, and noticed it is 'denseday'......would you mind running that past me afgain, using different words?

 

[Ingledsva]

Some people believe that marriage is a God-given thing and that only those that follow their religion are entitled to a 'true' marriage (which I could care less about; I just want my legal rights) or that since they believe homosexuality is a sin, gays don't have the right to marry. Much in the same way that adult bookstores don't have the right to operate.

Sorry if I'm a little bitter; I'm not trying to make generalizations about anyone here. I know there are just as many kind souls here that think just the opposite.

I live in Alaska which just made Gay Marriage legal.

Hopefully your state, and all the rest, will follow very soon.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

First of all, I do not care if homosexuals and lesbians want to marry each other. That is fine by me.

The point I'm making is that there are many people who have a passionate belief that marriage is an institution ordained by God and supported by their particular denomination and religion. These people have the right to consider that homosexual and lesbian unions being called marriage is an affront to what they consider a proper family unit blessed by God and their Scriptures.

I was therefore suggesting that these people's human rights (to believe in a holy institution of marriage) is being violated if you are allowed to change the meaning of marriage.

Therefore I quite like the UK government response. Give homosexuals and lesbians all the rights of being married, give them their own ceremony and civil contract, just don't call it 'marriage'. They are then not disadvantaged at all. They can even call themselves married. But people (I suspect the majority) who really do not want this ancient holy institution sullied by making it unite people that the Scriptures never intended.

Then everyone can have what they want. And nobody disadvantaged. And nobody has to be distraught.

People got "married" long before religions.

It is basically a contract, and tells others you have chosen to be together.

Interesting note - At least two Roman Emperors married men.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Depends on the purpose.

Assume for a moment, that the sole purpose of legal marrage was to create an envyronment condusive to the rearing of kids concieved by the members of the marriage during the course of the marriage.

This would obviously exclude gays, and old people, and any non-interfertile couple. I would not consider it descriminitory any more than I consider not offering welfare to the rich or veteren's benifits to non-vetrens. Of course, the fact that we let old people marry proves that this is not the reason we have marriage.

Personally, I agree that (if we must have marraige as it stands), then there's no reason not to extend it to gay couples or polyagomous groups.

Ummm! Gay people, and a lot of Grandparents, raise children too, - and need protection for them!

*

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

What does same-sex marriage have to do with religion?

Depends what religion we're talking about. Some Christian churches believe same sex relations and marriage are ok, most don't. Reform Judaism accepts it to my knowledge. I'd venture to say its not even an issue to most pagans. The religion that probably has the biggest problem with it is Islam.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

People got "married" long before religions.

It is basically a contract, and tells others you have chosen to be together.

Interesting note - At least two Roman Emperors married men.

*

Very true. Before the Abrahamic religions anyway

 

[Christ's Prophet]

I put it this way, which is my favourite saying. “The whole world is dysfunctional because of the fall and consequent sin, everyone in the world is dysfunctional, and the end of all dysfunction is death.’ None of us lives forever in this world. One of the dysfunctions of this is homosexuality which can be found in all creatures, including humans. God who is the Author of all things that is good, pure and holy, and to whom we are all accountable, tells us very strongly that homosexuality is particularly abhorrent to Him. It is a terrible perversion of His creation. Read your Bibles for yourselves (Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Revelation 21:8; Leviticus 18:22: Leviticus 20:13). What annoys me, is so many homosexual men and women are demanding their so called rights in society, and by so doing, they are showing their complete contempt for their Creator. They need to get medically treated for their sickness. Well, talking about rights, I guess, they have also the right to go to Hell forever, a place where Christ is not, because they have rejected Christ as Lord over their lives.
Albert Brownsey
Certainty for Eternity

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I put it this way, which is my favourite saying. “The whole world is dysfunctional because of the fall and consequent sin, everyone in the world is dysfunctional, and the end of all dysfunction is death.’ None of us lives forever in this world. One of the dysfunctions of this is homosexuality which can be found in all creatures, including humans. God who is the Author of all things that is good, pure and holy, and to whom we are all accountable, tells us very strongly that homosexuality is particularly abhorrent to Him. It is a terrible perversion of His creation. Read your Bibles for yourselves (Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Revelation 21:8; Leviticus 18:22: Leviticus 20:13). What annoys me, is so many homosexual men and women are demanding their so called rights in society, and by so doing, they are showing their complete contempt for their Creator. They need to get medically treated for their sickness. Well, talking about rights, I guess, they have also the right to go to Hell forever, a place where Christ is not, because they have rejected Christ as Lord over their lives.
Albert Brownsey
Certainty for Eternity

Judging from the nastiness in your post, I can comfortably say I want nothing to do with your god.

 

[Ingledsva]

I put it this way, which is my favourite saying. “The whole world is dysfunctional because of the fall and consequent sin, everyone in the world is dysfunctional, and the end of all dysfunction is death.’ None of us lives forever in this world. One of the dysfunctions of this is homosexuality which can be found in all creatures, including humans.

ING - Straight out bull! It is found in all creatures because it is natural, and had some benefit to the survival of the species!

God who is the Author of all things that is good, pure and holy, and to whom we are all accountable, tells us very strongly that homosexuality is particularly abhorrent to Him.

ING - No he doesn't! A lot of verses about Sacred Sex which is idolatry though!

It is a terrible perversion of His creation.

ING - NOT!

Read your Bibles for yourselves (Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Revelation 21:8; Leviticus 18:22: Leviticus 20:13).

ING - ALL of these verses have already been dealt with. Sacred Sex.

What annoys me, is so many homosexual men and women are demanding their so called rights in society, and by so doing, they are showing their complete contempt for their Creator.

ING - In your opinion - and we don't care about YOUR OPINION on someone else's sexuality.

They need to get medically treated for their sickness.

ING - It is not a sickness. You need to get up to date on such designations.

Well, talking about rights, I guess, they have also the right to go to Hell forever, a place where Christ is not, because they have rejected Christ as Lord over their lives.
Albert Brownsey
Certainty for Eternity

ING - There is no HELL in the Bible. Nor are people going to any such place for loving someone else.

The "sickness" is what you are spewing about LOVE!

*

 

[SkepticThinker]

I put it this way, which is my favourite saying. “The whole world is dysfunctional because of the fall and consequent sin, everyone in the world is dysfunctional, and the end of all dysfunction is death.’ None of us lives forever in this world. One of the dysfunctions of this is homosexuality which can be found in all creatures, including humans. God who is the Author of all things that is good, pure and holy, and to whom we are all accountable, tells us very strongly that homosexuality is particularly abhorrent to Him. It is a terrible perversion of His creation. Read your Bibles for yourselves (Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Revelation 21:8; Leviticus 18:22: Leviticus 20:13). What annoys me, is so many homosexual men and women are demanding their so called rights in society, and by so doing, they are showing their complete contempt for their Creator. They need to get medically treated for their sickness. Well, talking about rights, I guess, they have also the right to go to Hell forever, a place where Christ is not, because they have rejected Christ as Lord over their lives.
Albert Brownsey
Certainty for Eternity

What annoys me, is people like yourself displaying such contempt toward your fellow human beings and declaring they don't have the right to be who they are or love whomever they choose, when they're hurting absolutely no one, based on some ancient writings in a musty old book. I would suggest you are the sick one.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

I put it this way, which is my favourite saying. “The whole world is dysfunctional because of the fall and consequent sin, everyone in the world is dysfunctional, and the end of all dysfunction is death.’ None of us lives forever in this world. One of the dysfunctions of this is homosexuality which can be found in all creatures, including humans. God who is the Author of all things that is good, pure and holy, and to whom we are all accountable, tells us very strongly that homosexuality is particularly abhorrent to Him. It is a terrible perversion of His creation. Read your Bibles for yourselves (Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Revelation 21:8; Leviticus 18:22: Leviticus 20:13). What annoys me, is so many homosexual men and women are demanding their so called rights in society, and by so doing, they are showing their complete contempt for their Creator. They need to get medically treated for their sickness. Well, talking about rights, I guess, they have also the right to go to Hell forever, a place where Christ is not, because they have rejected Christ as Lord over their lives.
Albert Brownsey
Certainty for Eternity

Yes we demand our rights. This society runs on the premise of innate rights for all or none.

Enjoy ignore

 

[Norman]

Yes we demand our rights. This society runs on the premise of innate rights for all or none.

Enjoy ignore

Hello Gnostic Seeker, did you ignore "Albert Brownsey? If so, why would you do that. Isn't this forum the reason we call all share our belief's one with another. Where is the tolerance for someone else's belief's? Please correct me if I am wrong. If you respond, thank you.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Hello Gnostic Seeker, did you ignore "Albert Brownsey? If so, why would you do that. Isn't this forum the reason we call all share our belief's one with another. Where is the tolerance for someone else's belief's? Please correct me if I am wrong. If you respond, thank you.

I did that because he suggested that me wanting rights is contemptous to his god.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hello Gnostic Seeker, did you ignore "Albert Brownsey? If so, why would you do that. Isn't this forum the reason we call all share our belief's one with another. Where is the tolerance for someone else's belief's? Please correct me if I am wrong. If you respond, thank you.

We don't have to talk to people who view us as lower than them due to innate traits. There's a few white supremacists on this board and I don't give them the time of day.