Already happening.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
"they will teach gay marriage in schools"
And it's funny how people say "religion FTL again", when marriage is a sacred religious ceremony.
Last edited by {M5}Sniper3 (2009-05-26 15:59:08)
And it's funny how people say "religion FTL again", when marriage is a sacred religious ceremony.
1963 West Virginia still outlawed interracial marriages. A white person couldn't marry anyone from any other race. The SCOTUS case Loving overturned that law.... But I guess that was judicial activism too.Turquoise wrote:
Well, not surprisingly, religion has been used in the past to ban interracial marriages.Gawwad wrote:
That's bad...
What would you say if they banned black people from getting married?
So yeah, that's not far from the mark.
Religion FTL yet again.
if the people vote to kill all of a minority (like, idk, the jews) is that ok? If they vote to make different people use different things like water fountains, is that ok?
And I agree with Turq. Having the government only recognize "civil unions" instead of "marriage" would be the best option. That way everyone gets their tax breaks and visitation rights, and the "sacred institution" of marriage (which is only sacred 50% of the time ) is kept sacred.
And I agree with Turq. Having the government only recognize "civil unions" instead of "marriage" would be the best option. That way everyone gets their tax breaks and visitation rights, and the "sacred institution" of marriage (which is only sacred 50% of the time ) is kept sacred.
sodom and gomorrah
...yeah, except for the fact that the "sacred" defense was used to defend bans on interracial marriages too.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
And it's funny how people say "religion FTL again", when marriage is a sacred religious ceremony.
When you go down that road, you can defend (or ban) practically anything.
The Bible clearly defines marriage between a man and a woman, nothing in there about race. Now other religious texts, I do not know if they define marriage between a man and woman of same races, but I do not believe that they do.Turquoise wrote:
...yeah, except for the fact that the "sacred" defense was used to defend bans on interracial marriages too.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
And it's funny how people say "religion FTL again", when marriage is a sacred religious ceremony.
When you go down that road, you can defend (or ban) practically anything.
Separation of church and state. If you want government ruled by religion, move to Iran.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The Bible clearly defines marriage between a man and a woman, nothing in there about race. Now other religious texts, I do not know if they define marriage between a man and woman of same races, but I do not believe that they do.Turquoise wrote:
...yeah, except for the fact that the "sacred" defense was used to defend bans on interracial marriages too.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
And it's funny how people say "religion FTL again", when marriage is a sacred religious ceremony.
When you go down that road, you can defend (or ban) practically anything.
Then government shouldn't have any say in marriage, it would be though the church and the church only. And there shouldn't be any governmental benefit to being married.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Separation of church and state. If you want government ruled by religion, move to Iran.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The Bible clearly defines marriage between a man and a woman, nothing in there about race. Now other religious texts, I do not know if they define marriage between a man and woman of same races, but I do not believe that they do.Turquoise wrote:
...yeah, except for the fact that the "sacred" defense was used to defend bans on interracial marriages too.
When you go down that road, you can defend (or ban) practically anything.
I'd like to see the ruling. Anyone have a link?
The "greater good" reasoning fails the pro-ban crowd. What "good" is accomplished? Making the majority feel better at the expense of others' rights? /facepalm
The religious reasoning fails on the ground that it forces the government to take sides with a group of religions...BAD JUJU!
Even though I dislike homosexuality, I cannot figure out a good legal reason to ban same-sex marriage/unions/whatever-you-want-to-call-thems.
The "greater good" reasoning fails the pro-ban crowd. What "good" is accomplished? Making the majority feel better at the expense of others' rights? /facepalm
The religious reasoning fails on the ground that it forces the government to take sides with a group of religions...BAD JUJU!
Even though I dislike homosexuality, I cannot figure out a good legal reason to ban same-sex marriage/unions/whatever-you-want-to-call-thems.
Hahahahaha! Does that mean if a child brings home a book about a kid with imaginary friends we are teaching first-rate delusion? I seriously hope you possess the critical thinking and rationality to assess that commercial political ad for what it is.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Already happening.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
"they will teach gay marriage in schools"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4
And it's funny how people say "religion FTL again", when marriage is a sacred religious ceremony.
Just because certain religions hold marriage as a sacred ceremony doesn't mean the definition of marriage is a sacred ceremony. Sorry religion, you don't get to co-op existing words to fit your pigeonhole of a meaning.
Great. The bible isn't the law of the land. It may be your moral compass, more power to you. I don't force you to live according to my morals, so why do you think we should live according to yours? Bottom line - there is no rational reason to legislate morality. This is nothing more than a moral faction trying to implement their belief system into legislature.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The Bible clearly defines marriage between a man and a woman, nothing in there about race. Now other religious texts, I do not know if they define marriage between a man and woman of same races, but I do not believe that they do.
Exactly. All couples looking to "marry" should have to file for a civil union. If you want to have the ceremony known as a wedding, that's your business.Turquoise wrote:
What we ought to do is just separate marriage from government and replace all legal recognition of marriages with civil unions (straight and gay).
This guy has some sense.Wreckognize wrote:
Exactly. All couples looking to "marry" should have to file for a civil union. If you want to have the ceremony known as a wedding, that's your business.Turquoise wrote:
What we ought to do is just separate marriage from government and replace all legal recognition of marriages with civil unions (straight and gay).
That is what I have said when people ask me about it.
Just keep the term "marriage" out of government, ffs.
Leave "marriage" to religion.
So why not vote to abolish the word "marriage" from any government documents? Why the push to outlaw "gay marriage" instead of forcing the government to change their legal documents? That is honestly confusing me.nickb64 wrote:
This guy has some sense.Wreckognize wrote:
Exactly. All couples looking to "marry" should have to file for a civil union. If you want to have the ceremony known as a wedding, that's your business.Turquoise wrote:
What we ought to do is just separate marriage from government and replace all legal recognition of marriages with civil unions (straight and gay).
That is what I have said when people ask me about it.
Just keep the term "marriage" out of government, ffs.
Leave "marriage" to religion.
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
So why not vote to abolish the word "marriage" from any government documents? Why the push to outlaw "gay marriage" instead of forcing the government to change their legal documents? That is honestly confusing me.nickb64 wrote:
This guy has some sense.Wreckognize wrote:
Exactly. All couples looking to "marry" should have to file for a civil union. If you want to have the ceremony known as a wedding, that's your business.
That is what I have said when people ask me about it.
Just keep the term "marriage" out of government, ffs.
Leave "marriage" to religion.
{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Then government shouldn't have any say in marriage, it would be though the church and the church only. And there shouldn't be any governmental benefit to being married.
The sacred religious ceremony of marriage was there LONG before it was put into law by the government.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Just because certain religions hold marriage as a sacred ceremony doesn't mean the definition of marriage is a sacred ceremony. Sorry religion, you don't get to co-op existing words to fit your pigeonhole of a meaning.
Kinda a crappy idea since afaik marriage was a legal thing before it was hijacked by religion. Religion should just fuckoff and keep clear of it.nickb64 wrote:
This guy has some sense.Wreckognize wrote:
Exactly. All couples looking to "marry" should have to file for a civil union. If you want to have the ceremony known as a wedding, that's your business.Turquoise wrote:
What we ought to do is just separate marriage from government and replace all legal recognition of marriages with civil unions (straight and gay).
That is what I have said when people ask me about it.
Just keep the term "marriage" out of government, ffs.
Leave "marriage" to religion.
Hey, guess what, in Ye Olde Europe, back in the times of the Romans and Greeks... You know pre-Christ and such. When they were pagans yeah...{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Then government shouldn't have any say in marriage, it would be though the church and the church only. And there shouldn't be any governmental benefit to being married.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Separation of church and state. If you want government ruled by religion, move to Iran.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The Bible clearly defines marriage between a man and a woman, nothing in there about race. Now other religious texts, I do not know if they define marriage between a man and woman of same races, but I do not believe that they do.
People got married. AMFGMARRIAGEWITHOUTGODWTFISTHISSHIT?!?!?!??!??!
Marriage had nothing to do with Christianity in the Western World until the Catholic Church hijacked it as a means to further spread its influence and power, okay? Cool. Sorted. How about you learn some history before you spout off shit.
It was, is, and should remain a government institution under the control of the government. You want them to not be able to be 'married' before God? Fine, change the name of the ceremonies the Christian/Islamic/Hebrew Churches hold to 'religious unions' or something similar. Personally, I don't give two shits whether a homosexual marriages are legal or not. It doesn't affect me. I don't like it when religious bigots come in here spouting off 'fact' from a 1700 year old political document and have no clue as to the history of what they are talking about.
Yes because that really explains marriage in ancient Rome or Carthage.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The sacred religious ceremony of marriage was there LONG before it was put into law by the government.
Last edited by Flecco (2009-05-26 19:21:10)
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
That might matter in a theocracy{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The sacred religious ceremony of marriage was there LONG before it was put into law by the government.
Flecco wrote:
Hey, guess what, in Ye Olde Europe, back in the times of the Romans and Greeks... You know pre-Christ and such. When they were pagans yeah...
People got married. AMFGMARRIAGEWITHOUTGODWTFISTHISSHIT?!?!?!??!??!
Marriage had nothing to do with Christianity in the Western World until the Catholic Church hijacked it as a means to further spread its influence and power, okay? Cool. Sorted. How about you learn some history before you spout off shit.
It was, is, and should remain a government institution under the control of the government. You want them to not be able to be 'married' before God? Fine, change the name of the ceremonies the Christian/Islamic/Hebrew Churches hold to 'religious unions' or something similar. Personally, I don't give two shits whether a homosexual marriages are legal or not. It doesn't affect me. I don't like it when religious bigots come in here spouting off 'fact' from a 1700 year old political document and have no clue as to the history of what they are talking about.
The Bible was written around 1400 B.C., Rome was founded around 750 B.C., Carthage was founded around 810 B.C.Flecco wrote:
Yes because that really explains marriage in ancient Rome or Carthage.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The sacred religious ceremony of marriage was there LONG before it was put into law by the government.
Last edited by {M5}Sniper3 (2009-05-26 19:37:26)
You mean the Torah right?{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The Bible was written around 1400 B.C., Rome was founded around 750 B.C.Flecco wrote:
Hey, guess what, in Ye Olde Europe, back in the times of the Romans and Greeks... You know pre-Christ and such. When they were pagans yeah...
People got married. AMFGMARRIAGEWITHOUTGODWTFISTHISSHIT?!?!?!??!??!
Marriage had nothing to do with Christianity in the Western World until the Catholic Church hijacked it as a means to further spread its influence and power, okay? Cool. Sorted. How about you learn some history before you spout off shit.
It was, is, and should remain a government institution under the control of the government. You want them to not be able to be 'married' before God? Fine, change the name of the ceremonies the Christian/Islamic/Hebrew Churches hold to 'religious unions' or something similar. Personally, I don't give two shits whether a homosexual marriages are legal or not. It doesn't affect me. I don't like it when religious bigots come in here spouting off 'fact' from a 1700 year old political document and have no clue as to the history of what they are talking about.
Yes, or the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.Macbeth wrote:
You mean the Torah right?
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
That might matter in a theocracy{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The sacred religious ceremony of marriage was there LONG before it was put into law by the government.
{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Then government shouldn't have any say in marriage, it would be though the church and the church only. And there shouldn't be any governmental benefit to being married.
Last edited by {M5}Sniper3 (2009-05-26 19:43:22)
Just perused the case, the case is long and I can't cite to it. It on this page. look for Strauss v. Horton
The courts findings are
1. Prop 8 is valid
1. Proposition 8 does not invalidate same-sex marriages entered into before its passage.
2. Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate a same-sex couple’s substantive state constitutional right to marry as set forth in the Marriage Cases, but rather carves out an exception by “reserving the official designation of the term ‘marriage’ for the union of opposite-sex couples.”
So Prop 8 a hollow victory for Prop 8 supporters and it does not prevent same sex marriage. What prop 8 achieved was reserving the word marriage for opposite sex couples and so it created a form of legal segregation following the separate by equal type of thinking.
The court seems to think that the protection of the substantive rights that come with marriage are preserved by its previous court decision even in the face of Prop 8 so the whole fight was over the use of the word marriage, semantics....
EDIT I forgot to add..... I guess they could call it "MarriageX" where the X is silent and it wouldn't infringe on Prop 8.
The courts findings are
1. Prop 8 is valid
1. Proposition 8 does not invalidate same-sex marriages entered into before its passage.
2. Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate a same-sex couple’s substantive state constitutional right to marry as set forth in the Marriage Cases, but rather carves out an exception by “reserving the official designation of the term ‘marriage’ for the union of opposite-sex couples.”
So Prop 8 a hollow victory for Prop 8 supporters and it does not prevent same sex marriage. What prop 8 achieved was reserving the word marriage for opposite sex couples and so it created a form of legal segregation following the separate by equal type of thinking.
The court seems to think that the protection of the substantive rights that come with marriage are preserved by its previous court decision even in the face of Prop 8 so the whole fight was over the use of the word marriage, semantics....
EDIT I forgot to add..... I guess they could call it "MarriageX" where the X is silent and it wouldn't infringe on Prop 8.
Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2009-05-26 19:53:03)
So the Carthaginians were Jews?{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Yes, or the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.Macbeth wrote:
You mean the Torah right?Hurricane2k9 wrote:
That might matter in a theocracy{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
The sacred religious ceremony of marriage was there LONG before it was put into law by the government.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Then government shouldn't have any say in marriage, it would be though the church and the church only. And there shouldn't be any governmental benefit to being married.
Romans were Jews?
The Celts? wat
The Spartans and other Greek city-states?
Last edited by Flecco (2009-05-26 19:50:56)
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I haven't read any significant bible passages in about 10 years now. Can anyone point me in the direction of when and where marriage is explicitly mentioned and/or defined in the bible?
I'd go looking but I don't have my massively annotated copy of the NLT anymore.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I haven't read any significant bible passages in about 10 years now. Can anyone point me in the direction of when and where marriage is explicitly mentioned and/or defined in the bible?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
It was in Leviticus.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I haven't read any significant bible passages in about 10 years now. Can anyone point me in the direction of when and where marriage is explicitly mentioned and/or defined in the bible?
You know.
The book of laws both practical and arbitrary that Jesus said was no longer necessary.
DoctaStrangelove wrote:
It was in Leviticus.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I haven't read any significant bible passages in about 10 years now. Can anyone point me in the direction of when and where marriage is explicitly mentioned and/or defined in the bible?
You know.
The book of laws both practical and arbitrary that Jesus said was no longer necessary.
Hey anybody know which book that thing about putting unbelievers to the sword is from?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.