The Evil of Gay Transcends Individual Religion

My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument. ;)

Really quick again though.

I mention that our lives are incredibly short, and that we all deserve a shot at happiness.

If allowing gays to marry will make a certain group of people much more happier, and improve their lives drastically, all while not changing the lives or legal rights of straight people one bit (as they will still be allowed to marry people of the same sex and call it marriage), how can that possibly be a bad thing?

I’m not saying that the church should be barred from speaking their opinion – as I believe in freedom of speech – but what I am saying is that they are only working to make the humanity worse off. No one’s benefiting from banning gay marriage. There’s only losers. So what’s the point?

On most of your points I agree with you. And if there's such a 'bad feeling' from a majority about having it called a marriage, then call it something else and move on. You get what you want, do you not? Unless that's not what they want?

i have a better idea... the religious right should try to remember we don't live in a theocracy and move on.
 
On most of your points I agree with you. And if there's such a 'bad feeling' from a majority about having it called a marriage, then call it something else and move on. You get what you want, do you not? Unless that's not what they want?

How about this (as Doc mentioned, but a point I make quite frequently as well) we just get the government out of the “marriage business” altogether, and simply call all unions (same or opposite sex) “civil unions” or something like that under the law (public space), and then leave the word marriage left to be defined by whatever institution the couple is a part of (private space).

Because as we've seen in the past, the concept of "separate but equal" simply doesn't work that well. No matter how hard you try, the two are not going to be the same, and there are going to be unfair differences that extend beyond simply what you call it.

If they’re gay and want to be married in a Catholic Church, too bad, move on.

That way, everyone wins, and we can go back to focusing on policy making that will actually improve humanity as a whole, rather than make humanity worse off as a whole.

Yep, I completely agree with that. So what's keeping that from happening? It isn't the christians...
 
On most of your points I agree with you. And if there's such a 'bad feeling' from a majority about having it called a marriage, then call it something else and move on. You get what you want, do you not? Unless that's not what they want?

How about this (as Doc mentioned, but a point I make quite frequently as well) we just get the government out of the “marriage business” altogether, and simply call all unions (same or opposite sex) “civil unions” or something like that under the law (public space), and then leave the word marriage left to be defined by whatever institution the couple is a part of (private space).

If they’re gay and want to be married in a Catholic Church, too bad, move on.

That way, everyone wins, and we can go back to focusing on policy making that will actually improve humanity as a whole, rather than make humanity worse off as a whole.


no. everyone doesn't win. that would allow religious types to be "married" and force everyone else to be "civil unioned".

i don't think so.

how about we leave marriage where it is and just apply marriage laws equally?

no church or any other facility has to marry anyone they don't choose to...

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about, it's not about the LEGAL aspect of it at all. Thanks for making my point Jillian.

They have to be 'the same' in the eyes of everyone, including the church. Somehow a 'legal union' isn't the same as 'marriage', even tho in the eyes of the law, it would be exactly the same.
 
On most of your points I agree with you. And if there's such a 'bad feeling' from a majority about having it called a marriage, then call it something else and move on. You get what you want, do you not? Unless that's not what they want?

How about this (as Doc mentioned, but a point I make quite frequently as well) we just get the government out of the “marriage business” altogether, and simply call all unions (same or opposite sex) “civil unions” or something like that under the law (public space), and then leave the word marriage left to be defined by whatever institution the couple is a part of (private space).

If they’re gay and want to be married in a Catholic Church, too bad, move on.

That way, everyone wins, and we can go back to focusing on policy making that will actually improve humanity as a whole, rather than make humanity worse off as a whole.


no. everyone doesn't win. that would allow religious types to be "married" and force everyone else to be "civil unioned".

i don't think so.

how about we leave marriage where it is and just apply marriage laws equally?

no church or any other facility has to marry anyone they don't choose to...

False, there are TONS of churches that will marry gays.

Not hard to find one at all, also if gay marriage is legalized everywhere plenty more churches will allow them because of the $ they'd get.
 
Why is it that the religious should be the ones who get the right to use the term marriage, while secular must use some other term?

What are the chances that heterosexuals will be willing, en mass, to give up the term marriage in a legal sense and take up the term civil union?

Perhaps this isn't just about some attempt to weaken religion, or subvert the moral beliefs of the country. Perhaps, if there were a large movement to have not just homosexual marriage, but heterosexual marriage, become civil unions for the purposes of government, this issue really would be solved. What I remember, though, are attempts to have gays be given civil unions, while straights retain the ability to have marriage.

If the government provided all couples civil unions and stopped using the word marriage, I'd be fine with it. I don't see why the word marriage should be reserved for religion, but it would simplify things. Gays being given civil unions while straights are given marriages, however, just isn't going to work.
 
Why is it that the religious should be the ones who get the right to use the term marriage, while secular must use some other term?

What are the chances that heterosexuals will be willing, en mass, to give up the term marriage in a legal sense and take up the term civil union?

Perhaps this isn't just about some attempt to weaken religion, or subvert the moral beliefs of the country. Perhaps, if there were a large movement to have not just homosexual marriage, but heterosexual marriage, become civil unions for the purposes of government, this issue really would be solved. What I remember, though, are attempts to have gays be given civil unions, while straights retain the ability to have marriage.

If the government provided all couples civil unions and stopped using the word marriage, I'd be fine with it. I don't see why the word marriage should be reserved for religion, but it would simplify things. Gays being given civil unions while straights are given marriages, however, just isn't going to work.

Because marriage is a religious concept and term and has been defined as is for centuries. There was no government or law involved in it. If all we're talking about here is LEGAL EQUALITY, which is what I'm always told it's about, it shouldn't matter what it's called under the law. Actually, something different is better in order to distinguish it as civil/legal versus religious.
 
Why is it that the religious should be the ones who get the right to use the term marriage, while secular must use some other term?

What are the chances that heterosexuals will be willing, en mass, to give up the term marriage in a legal sense and take up the term civil union?

Perhaps this isn't just about some attempt to weaken religion, or subvert the moral beliefs of the country. Perhaps, if there were a large movement to have not just homosexual marriage, but heterosexual marriage, become civil unions for the purposes of government, this issue really would be solved. What I remember, though, are attempts to have gays be given civil unions, while straights retain the ability to have marriage.

If the government provided all couples civil unions and stopped using the word marriage, I'd be fine with it. I don't see why the word marriage should be reserved for religion, but it would simplify things. Gays being given civil unions while straights are given marriages, however, just isn't going to work.

Because marriage is a religious concept and term and has been defined as is for centuries. There was no government or law involved in it. If all we're talking about here is LEGAL EQUALITY, which is what I'm always told it's about, it shouldn't matter what it's called under the law. Actually, something different is better in order to distinguish it as civil/legal versus religious.

Not solely.
 
You have something that predates the Bible?

Judaism/Christianity (well especially Christianity) are not the world's oldest religions. I believe that honor belongs to Hinduism, perhaps?

Man has been "marrying" each other much longer than the scriptures of the Bible were first written down, that I can say with utmost certainty.

I believe the concept of "marriage" is older than any of the modern religions we have surviving today.
.
.
.
 
Why is it that the religious should be the ones who get the right to use the term marriage, while secular must use some other term?

What are the chances that heterosexuals will be willing, en mass, to give up the term marriage in a legal sense and take up the term civil union?

Perhaps this isn't just about some attempt to weaken religion, or subvert the moral beliefs of the country. Perhaps, if there were a large movement to have not just homosexual marriage, but heterosexual marriage, become civil unions for the purposes of government, this issue really would be solved. What I remember, though, are attempts to have gays be given civil unions, while straights retain the ability to have marriage.

If the government provided all couples civil unions and stopped using the word marriage, I'd be fine with it. I don't see why the word marriage should be reserved for religion, but it would simplify things. Gays being given civil unions while straights are given marriages, however, just isn't going to work.

Because marriage is a religious concept and term and has been defined as is for centuries. There was no government or law involved in it. If all we're talking about here is LEGAL EQUALITY, which is what I'm always told it's about, it shouldn't matter what it's called under the law. Actually, something different is better in order to distinguish it as civil/legal versus religious.

Once again, your assertion is false. Marriage is a creation of government in order to control property rights.

And even if originally that were not the case, in this country marriage is a fundamental right and you have no right to divest anyone of the right to marry because of your own religious predilections.
 
Why is it that the religious should be the ones who get the right to use the term marriage, while secular must use some other term?

What are the chances that heterosexuals will be willing, en mass, to give up the term marriage in a legal sense and take up the term civil union?

Perhaps this isn't just about some attempt to weaken religion, or subvert the moral beliefs of the country. Perhaps, if there were a large movement to have not just homosexual marriage, but heterosexual marriage, become civil unions for the purposes of government, this issue really would be solved. What I remember, though, are attempts to have gays be given civil unions, while straights retain the ability to have marriage.

If the government provided all couples civil unions and stopped using the word marriage, I'd be fine with it. I don't see why the word marriage should be reserved for religion, but it would simplify things. Gays being given civil unions while straights are given marriages, however, just isn't going to work.

And there you have exactly nailed the issue. (though i have no interest in being civilly unioned... rather than married).
 
Why is it that the religious should be the ones who get the right to use the term marriage, while secular must use some other term?

What are the chances that heterosexuals will be willing, en mass, to give up the term marriage in a legal sense and take up the term civil union?

Perhaps this isn't just about some attempt to weaken religion, or subvert the moral beliefs of the country. Perhaps, if there were a large movement to have not just homosexual marriage, but heterosexual marriage, become civil unions for the purposes of government, this issue really would be solved. What I remember, though, are attempts to have gays be given civil unions, while straights retain the ability to have marriage.

If the government provided all couples civil unions and stopped using the word marriage, I'd be fine with it. I don't see why the word marriage should be reserved for religion, but it would simplify things. Gays being given civil unions while straights are given marriages, however, just isn't going to work.

Because marriage is a religious concept and term and has been defined as is for centuries. There was no government or law involved in it. If all we're talking about here is LEGAL EQUALITY, which is what I'm always told it's about, it shouldn't matter what it's called under the law. Actually, something different is better in order to distinguish it as civil/legal versus religious.

I think you may have missed my point.

It shouldn't matter what it's called under the law.....as long as it's called the same thing regardless of the genders of the couple. What I am saying is that I'd be ok with the legal joining being called a civil union (or whatever other term might be used) so long as that is the term used for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Instead, what I have seen is that the attempts made to compromise or placate the homosexuals involve granting them civil unions, while heterosexual couples continue to receive marriages under the law.

I disagree that religion has any particular hold over the word marriage, but that's really beside the point. It wouldn't be right to, for instance, have marriages between first time couples called marriages while calling the same thing a civil union if one or both partners have been through a divorce. It wouldn't be right to use a different term for marriages between Christians than between Muslims, or Jews, or atheists. Etc. etc....you see what I'm saying.

My take has always been that gays wanting the same term used for their legal contract as the government uses for straights makes sense (generally speaking, I'm not speaking about any individual craziness that some gays may express). Whether it is marriage, or civil union, or anything else, the government shouldn't use different terms if the contract entails the exact same things. And I haven't noticed many publicized calls for both homosexuals and heterosexuals to be given civil unions rather than marriages.

P.S. - In case all of this is just a misunderstanding of what we each meant to say, let me apologize in advance. :D
 
Top Pope official Mennini called for people of all faiths - including Christians, Jews, and Muslims - to "unite" to defeat gay marriage.

Funny that issues like fighting poverty, hunger, and war weren't important enough to unite on, but when it comes to the gays, well....

Any thoughts?

Archbishop Antonio Mennini, Pope's Representative, Calls For Christians, Jews, Muslims To Unite Against Gay Marriage

It's not about the 'gay' part, it's about the 'marriage' part. I do wish people would understand that. It is not Christian to 'hate' gays.... but we cannot support gay marriage. Why? Because it's against the teachings of Christ.

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matthew 19 4-6


"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Mark 10 6-9


It's the 'marriage' part that is the problem, not that they are gay.

Likewise with divorce, but thats a bigger "problem" than gay marriage and you guys don't do jack shit about that.
 
Top Pope official Mennini called for people of all faiths - including Christians, Jews, and Muslims - to "unite" to defeat gay marriage.

Funny that issues like fighting poverty, hunger, and war weren't important enough to unite on, but when it comes to the gays, well....

Any thoughts?

Archbishop Antonio Mennini, Pope's Representative, Calls For Christians, Jews, Muslims To Unite Against Gay Marriage

I notice he only looked to the Abrahamic religions, because if he'd asked Hindus or Buddhists to join in, he'd be sorely disappointed, as in those religions, there IS room for gay people.
 
i-can-catch-lightning-in-a-bottle.jpg

:lol:

jokes on you

Image blocked, link it if you dare!!

i can see it just fine, sparky

http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/i-can-catch-lightning-in-a-bottle.jpg

Do you also see white people?

Google can't find your image.

meh

don't like freedom for all things? Is that it?
 
Last edited:

Do you also see white people?

Google can't find your image.

meh

don't like freedom for all things? Is that it?

adjust your meds, sparky, you're making even less sense than usual

I can catch lightning in a bottle.. - random images - moonbuggy

Too fuckin' funny dude! I liked the old man and his wife out there harvesting stuff.
 

Do you also see white people?

Google can't find your image.

meh

don't like freedom for all things? Is that it?

adjust your meds, sparky, you're making even less sense than usual

I can catch lightning in a bottle.. - random images - moonbuggy

ok


If you support the right to marriage and are against state restrictions, then you must be against state restrictions of all rights.

Jills a huge fan of gun laws, just pointing out the double standard
 
Do you also see white people?

Google can't find your image.

meh

don't like freedom for all things? Is that it?

adjust your meds, sparky, you're making even less sense than usual

I can catch lightning in a bottle.. - random images - moonbuggy

ok


If you support the right to marriage and are against state restrictions, then you must be against state restrictions of all rights.

Jills a huge fan of gun laws, just pointing out the double standard

no, i mustn't, but you keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. :thup:
 

Forum List

Back
Top