Author
|
Topic: Same Sex Marriage (Read 32667 times)
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Technically no, I've never heard of the state acknowledgeing a marriage on it's own behalf maybe at a city hall or a courthouse, or Las Vegas
What are you talking about? The state certainly does acknowledge marriage on its own behalf!
Even when it's a religious ceremony, you know that phrase, "By the power vested in me by the state of X, I pronounce you man and wife!" that pops up in hetero marriages? You got that 'power vested in me by the state of...' bit?
These ministers are state licensees of the right to conduct marriages, a legal proceeding.
but let me get back to the point at hand most religions regard marriage as a sacred or holy bond between a man and a woman.
Yes, and the state considers it a legal bond.
Anyway, there are many religions which have differing views of marriage. Polygamy is a feature of many religions (though even in religions which permit it it is rare due to the expense and other practical matters). In some areas, a woman cannot marry a man without implicitly marrying his brothers as well.
Being married as a young child is also quite common, that certainly deviates from the 'a man and a woman' concept, in a different way.
Some religions allow for divorce. Some do not. Some do not even allow for widows to remarry (though widowers usually can). A few even hold that a couple is not truly married until the woman is a mother.
You can see that there isn't a clear agreement on the religious definition of marriage.
Also note that the United States has never forced a religion to recognize a marriage just because a state recognized that marriage. If gays are allowed to marry, the Catholic Church or the Episcopalians or the Baptists can decline to recognize that marriage.
BTW: Attacking Mormonism was utterly uncalled for.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zeep-Eeep
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Good Grief
|
Instead of throwing around slang, maybe we should just use the term homosexual. This could replace queer, gay, lesbian, fag and any other scary, offensive terms.
As a few people have commented on my shot on Morons, I'd like
to address that. First of all, I'd like to say that I've never met a Moron I didn't like. It's the religion I have a problem with, not the people themselves.
I love having Morons over, we trade baked goods, debate religion and it's great.
Second, this entire thread is based on attacking or supporting homosexual marriage, adoption and homosexuals themselves. Now, if some of this board's members feel that they can take shots at homosexuals (even dedicate a whole thread to the subject) then why should I restrain my comments on religious dogma?
Furthermore, I seem to remember Jesus taking shots at organsized religion. but I don't remember him saying that homosexuals couldn't marry.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 09, 2004, 09:09:28 pm by Zeep-Eeep »
|
Logged
|
What sound does a penguin make?
|
|
|
FalconMWC
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1059
Avatar Courtesy of Slyrendro
|
First of all, I would not consider us taking "shots" at homosexuals. We are debating. And if you notice, there is a debater for each side. Taking "shots" as you call it is not what is happening here.
2. The Bible is very clear about homosexuals - Don't. (I will find the verse if you want - I don't know it off the top of my head.) Now whether or not Jesus said it or not I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Culture20
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 917
Thraddash Flower Child
|
No record exists of Jesus saying anything about homosexuals, but he does say a few things about the sanctity of marriage. Paul and Moses were the two most vocal writers about homosexuality.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FalconMWC
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1059
Avatar Courtesy of Slyrendro
|
I thought that is what I said.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
(Edit: oh, yes, by referring to the 'catholic' instead of 'Catholic' you really did mean all those groups. Disregard point 1)
First, Catholicism is not the majority religion in America; though it has the plurality with 24%, it is outnumbered by protestants 2 to 1.
Then you get the 10% who were generically unreligious, and 7% who are explicitly agnostic or atheist.
Then you get religions of slight representation - Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Unitarian, Neopagan, American Animist, Baha'i, and the Pkunk.
Second, the first amendment prohibits the establishment of religion in law. How is the argument that something should be done only because the majority religion says it should be not an attempt to establish religion in law?
Third, if you are taking into consideration those laws of Moses concerning homosexuality, why not take into consideration of the others? Do you shake hands with women without checking if they are menstruating? Do you offer burnt offerings?
Yes, Jesus replaced the old law with the new (keeping the 10 commandments and adding an eleventh). Great! Now justify this selective use of the laws of Moses.
As for Paul, could you elaborate? I see lots of stuff about love, for sure.
(Edit: DUH, I know what the 11th commandment was. Care to actually address the issues?)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 10, 2004, 07:15:07 pm by Death_999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Culture20
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 917
Thraddash Flower Child
|
Third, if you are taking into consideration those laws of Moses concerning homosexuality, why not take into consideration of the others? Do you shake hands with women without checking if they are menstruating? Do you offer burnt offerings?
Thankfully I'm a gentile, so technicallly leviticus is just a bunch of good suggestions to me. 
Yes, Jesus replaced the old law with the new (keeping the 10 commandments and adding an eleventh). Great! Now justify this selective use of the laws of Moses.
As for Paul, could you elaborate? I see lots of stuff about love, for sure.
1 Timothy 1:8-11 applies (law is for the lawless, not the lawfull, homosexuality mentioned in a long list of unlawfulls)
I'm certain there's more, but I'm probably not entering the right terms into the search engines. Paul was one of the big "love the sinner, hate the sin" guys (except when it came to obviously unrepentant people pretending to be christian [1 Corinthians 5:9-13])
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Captain_Falkenhayn
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 19
dark horse disney
|
Upon the very same page of the Torah where it condemns homosexuals to death it also condemns to death those who eat shellfish or have sex with a menstruating woman. We don't think of those as on equal footing with homosexuality, for some reason. Gee, I wonder if there's an ulterior motive to all this anti-gay hate?
Also, gay does not strictly speaking refer exclusively to men, though it is often used that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Fine. Now respond to the modified question...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
FalconMWC
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1059
Avatar Courtesy of Slyrendro
|
Not flaming you, just suggesting that you call "death" Death 999 or D_999 or something like that. It is easier to read that way. 
Also it shows slight respect for calling a person their name.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 13, 2004, 09:08:19 am by FalconMWC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
First i must apologize ahead of time I allready know I will recieve alot of heat from the flames I am most certainly going to recieve, since D_999 forced this on me. wow that sounded a little odd.
there are certain roles men and women play in life in recent(I use recent very loosely) years this has changed from the cooking/cleaning woman and working man to it can work either way. This change might have become welcome if the timing was somewhat different. This change in whats accepted in society in quite a bit drastic to what most people are used to. How long did it take for women to gain the right to vote? blacks? One final thought What legitamate reason(not like the pro-marawana movement) why it is necessary for partners of the same gender and sexual preferance need to be married and will withdraw from this thread. If u expect me to write a 30 page thesis on this you are sadly mistaken. Let me end it here for now before I offend any more people. Any flames please e-mail me it's in my profile we do not need 25 posts of people yelling at me here.
EDITED FOR CONTENT GETTING EARLY LATR.
This post is offensive, but not in the way you're thinking...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
