Zophar's Message Domain

Zophar's Message Domain (http://www.zophar.net/forums/index.php)
-   Talk of the Town (http://www.zophar.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage (http://www.zophar.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2129)

Turtle 08-12-2004 11:10 PM

Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage
 
The reason I hear most often cited for why someone opposes legalizing gay marriage is that "marriage between a man and a woman is a union blessed by God" and that allowing homosexual to marriage is "an affront to God." So does this mean that you also oppose marriage between non-Christian heterosexuals,?

<P ID="signature"></P>

MooglyGuy 08-12-2004 11:50 PM

Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage
 
> So does this
> mean that you also oppose marriage between non-Christian
> heterosexuals,?

Of course they don't. This is because they are hypocrites.

<P ID="signature">http://www.zophar.net/Files/mooglish.png
"Kupo, motherfucker!! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?"</P>

Danoz 08-13-2004 01:07 AM

Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage
 
It isn't a religious reasoning, but an attempt to protect us from both radical Judges who find themselves above the law, and the abolishing of traditional marriage (which is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman). Frankly, we just want those desiring homosexual marriage to go about getting it the right way-- and hopefully, to find a common ground involving a fair civil partnership of appropriate recognition and benefits.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif</P>

Mr. Saturn 08-13-2004 01:44 AM

Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage
 
> Frankly, we
> just want those desiring homosexual marriage to go about
> getting it the right way-- and hopefully, to find a common
> ground involving a fair civil partnership of appropriate
> recognition and benefits.

You know what would be really fair? For the government to reject future marriages, remove the benefits for it, and enforce only civil unions, with benefits. That way conservatives have their marriage, and homosexuals get to be mar-Oops. I mean civil-unioned.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee></P>

Ugly Joe 08-13-2004 01:51 AM

Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage
 
> You know what would be really fair? For the government to
> reject future marriages, remove the benefits for it, and
> enforce only civil unions, with benefits. That way
> conservatives have their marriage, and homosexuals get to be
> mar-Oops. I mean civil-unioned.

What is so wrong with having two different terms for it? There is clearly a difference between the two, so why not make it explicit? I mean, your post is most likely just a troll at Danoz, but really it could work if a couple could be both married and "civily-unioned".

<P ID="signature"></P>

Mr. Saturn 08-13-2004 01:55 AM

Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage
 
> What is so wrong with having two different terms for it?
> There is clearly a difference between the two, so why not
> make it explicit? I mean, your post is most likely just a
> troll at Danoz, but really it could work if a couple could
> be both married and "civily-unioned".

That's what my ideal position is. The problem is it won't happen. So I have to take more cynical positions.
<img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee></P>

Turtle 08-13-2004 02:07 AM

Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage
 
> What is so wrong with having two different terms for it?
> There is clearly a difference between the two, so why not
> make it explicit?

It works all the time in Europe. However, Europe has a few thousand more years experience than North America in being civilized, so you can't blame the US for lagging behind on occasion.

<P ID="signature"></P>

Turtle 08-13-2004 02:11 AM

Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage
 
> traditional marriage (which is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman).

Could you point out to me where this is defined? Is there a particular verse in the Bible that defines marriage or is the definition coming from another source? (Please don't take this as a challenge to the authenticity of your claim, I'm simply curious as to where precisely such is defined, as I don't recall having seen this before.)

<P ID="signature"></P>

WhyteKnight 08-13-2004 02:39 AM

Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage
 
> (which is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman).

Um. In the approximately 2 minutes I spent researching this, I found that the definitions of the words marriage, wedlock, and matrimony are more commonly explained as a union "between two people" or "any close union" as opposed to "between a man and a woman." example:
"Syn: Matrimony; wedlock; wedding; nuptials.
Usage: {Marriage}, {Matrimony}, {Wedlock}. Marriage is
properly the act which unites the two parties, and
matrimony the state into which they enter. Marriage
is, however, often used for the state as well as the
act. Wedlock is the old Anglo-Saxon term for
matrimony."
Webster's revised only mentions "man and woman" one time in their definition. The Oxford English Dictionary, the definitive authority on the English language, never did specify marriage as being between a man and a woman.

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>http://www.girls-tacos.com/whyteknig...ton_raven2.jpg</a></center></P>

Danoz 08-13-2004 02:57 AM

Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage
 
Where do you get this mesh? How do you think those marriages were overturned at all? The first definition of marriage, the word, has been as follows; "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." This isn't even open for debate. The institution is thousands of years old and it has historically, always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. It's clear you ignored the first line.

Then where is the argument? Definitions change. In this case, added to-- let's continue down the list.
"A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage."
Easy enough, right? No. We're talking about intent now, and it's obvious that at the writing of the word was for the definition accepted at the date of writing.

If marriage is to be allowed between same sex couples, it should be amended to the constitution and clarified. This is where I stand.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif</P>


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.