Zophar's Message Domain

Go Back   Zophar's Message Domain > General Chat > Talk of the Town

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-13-2004, 04:00 AM   #11
MooglyGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 4,014
Default 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".

As for me, this is one time I agree with Danoz. There's no reason why churches should be forced to marry same-sex couples if they don't wish to do so. I'm of the stance that the legal definition of marriage should apply to same-sex marriages as well - you still have to get a marriage license, still have to go through the same legal hoo-hah to get married as a heterosexual couple, and still get the same benefits. If you want to call it a civil union, fine. Call it an extruded pineapple for all I care. I don't speak for the gay community as a whole (which is unfortunate), but the problem is that the gay community aren't separating out the religious and legal sides of it. Should gays be legally married/unioned/pinappled/whatevered? Sure. Should churches be forced to have a religious marriage ceremony for said gay couple to be able to get legally married? Fuck no.

<P ID="signature">
"Kupo, motherfucker!! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?"</P>
MooglyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 04:04 AM   #12
mrfreeze
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,158
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

Should gays be legally
> married/unioned/pinappled/whatevered? Sure. Should
> churches be forced to have a religious marriage ceremony for
> said gay couple to be able to get legally married? Fuck no.
>


<img src=smilies/werd.gif> If we could just get everyone to agree on tihs we would save everyone a lot of headaches. Although I don't see that happening anytime soon. I personally would love to vote yes on the pineapple extrusion bill.

<P ID="signature"><image src=http://imageshack.us/files/donsig2.gif></P>
mrfreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 04:05 AM   #13
Turtle
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 52
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

> Where do you get this mesh? How do you think those marriages
> were overturned at all?

They were overturned because the California Supreme Court declared that as Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom had no right to change the laws. It has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of marriage. Had Newsom declared that it was now legal to drive a car in San Francisco without wearing a seatbelt, it would have been overturned on the exact same grounds.

> The institution is thousands of years old and it has
> historically, always been defined as a union between a man
> and a woman.

So you're basing your opinion of the legality of gay marriage based on the dictionary definition of the word?

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

How about if we institute a Constitutional Dictionary that defines every word in the Constitution? Then instead of having to reword it, we could simply redefine the words as necessary. It would make it much easier for children to memorize the text of the document in school.

<P ID="signature"></P>
Turtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 04:09 AM   #14
Disch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,387
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

> What is so wrong with having two different terms for it?

There's a lot of fine print that specifically applies to the word "marraige" or "spouse" or "husband" or "wife" etc. Not just federal benefits, but insurace coverage, employment benefits, etc. Without the specific word 'marraige'... none of that would have to apply. So a in a heterosexual marraige, one person will be covered under the benefits of their spouse's insurance and whatnot, but in a homosexual 'civil union', there'd be no joint coverage at all.

There's no way in hell all that text is going to get changed to include both marriages and civil unions. You've got better odds of getting the states to convert to the metric system.

Without all that... the term 'civil union' means nothing more than boyfriend/girlfriend.

I suppose there could always be a law passed that says all rights/benefits that applies to legal marraiges must also apply to legal civil unions. That would theoretically solve everything... but I get the feeling there'd still be guff from both sides.

Personally I don't see what the big deal is with the word marriage. Allowing homosexuals to get married isn't any more of a definition twist than allowing married couples to be divorced (it IS supposed to be a life long commitment, after all). And it's the LEGAL definiton of marriage they're looking to change/clarify. Religions can still only recognize heterosexual marriages if they want... that's their call... but that shouldn't have any impact on what the government decides to do.

<P ID="signature"></P>
Disch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 04:10 AM   #15
Ugly Joe
Senior Member
 
Ugly Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,461
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

> Should
> churches be forced to have a religious marriage ceremony for
> said gay couple to be able to get legally married? Fuck no.

Oh, I completely agree with you there. I was unaware I had said the contrary. I meant that you would have to get a civil union through the government if you want to get the government benefits. This would leave marriage (Christian marriage, that is) completely to the church and the government wouldn't care if you did it or not (just like they don't care if you're baptised or have taken communion)..

<P ID="signature"></P>
__________________
Ugly Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 04:12 AM   #16
WhyteKnight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 775
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

> 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.

Edit: On second thought, using nothing more than a sarcastic retort here is pointless and in poor taste. However, I firmly hold that it is open, in that not only do different institutions define it differently, and also in that one definition, no matter its placement in the list, does not necessarily give it precedence over others

> The institution is thousands of years old

So was slavery. This doesn't justify it.

> historically, always been defined as a union between a man
> and a woman. It's clear you ignored the first line.

Um, then why did I say that there was one mention of it?

> 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."

Added to, yes. The point remains though that OED never defined marriage as between man and woman.

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

It probably should but it doesn't necessarily mean it should be prevented because the constitution doesn't mention it

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/></a></center></P>
WhyteKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 04:29 AM   #17
SpaceTiger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,548
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

I dunno, it seems to me that the whole argument is silly. Even the word "definition" is fuzzy here because different people take it to mean different things. You could take the dictionary to be the last word, but then different dictionaries say different things and any linguist would laugh at the idea of closing an argument with a dictionary definition. You could take the Bible to be the last word, but then not everyone believes that the Bible should be taken literally (or at all).

It sounds to me that Danoz is just trying to reword the argument to give his point of view more weight. He thinks marriage should only be between a man and a woman, probably for religious reasons. Fine. We know that. He won't say that, though. Instead, he tries to universalize it by saying that it sits in some sort of absolute "definition". But that's exactly what we disagree with, so it's redundant. The argument was doomed from the start.

<P ID="signature"></P>
SpaceTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 04:40 AM   #18
Turtle
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 52
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

The issue here is the sanctity of marriage. Why that's the issue or what it even is, I'm not sure, but I wanted to use the word sanctity because nobody else has used it and I'm afraid we may be in violation of some statute that requires it.

I would, however, like to point out that anyone who thinks gay marriage should be illegal because it "spoils the sanctity of marriage" should also be willing to outlaw divorce and extra-marital sex since they also "spoil the sanctity of marriage."

In fact, since my state (Missouri) recently outlawed homosexual marriage via a constitutional amendment, I'm going to start the process of getting an amendment on the ballots to ban divorce.

<P ID="signature"></P>
Turtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 08:20 AM   #19
Gavin_86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,082
Default 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).

yes of course, blindly clinging to tradition is the best way to solve the matter. i mean, those crazies who think that, "wait.. maybe there can be a better way, and maybe our society has evolved and changed in the last 200 years since precident was set", are obviously radicals and too scary to be taken seriously.

and we should stick to those judges who, thinking themselves above the law, stick religious doctrine on state grounds against the set law that you so desparatly cling to.

> 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.

please tell me, which correct way is that? they should patiently wait while thier rights are completely destroyed before petitioning for marriage by some old pricks who think that their semi-fundamentalist views should be forced on the world..?

and i have a sneaking suspision that your 'fair and appropriate regonition of benefits' would leave them with nothing but appropriate recognition or any benefits at all <img src=smilies/headshake.gif>

<P ID="signature"><center>I'm just a Paranoid Android watching through my superb crystal viewing glass

.::http://gavin.panicus.orgGavin.Panicus.org</a> ::.
</center></P>
Gavin_86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 09:09 AM   #20
Lenophis
Senior Member
 
Lenophis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,386
Default Re: Question for Christians who Oppose Gay Marriage

> I would, however, like to point out that anyone who thinks
> gay marriage should be illegal because it "spoils the
> sanctity of marriage" should also be willing to outlaw
> divorce and extra-marital sex since they also "spoil the
> sanctity of marriage."

Here's MY question, let's just say that same sex marriage IS allowed...(This is called a hypothetical situation, Danoz, don't blow a vein...yet. You've made the one mistake I've been waiting for. Now, I'm just waiting for you to corner yourself.) How does that stop the opposite sex from marrying each other? You've mentioned on many occasions that you want to preserve "the sanctity of marriage," which I've also shot down many times. How? Lemme remind you, marriage is not a materialistic thing, therefore, no possible value. Also, there is no "sentiment" to marriage, so no "sentimental value" to it either.

Also, I'd like to touch on Danoz's constant nagging about how marriage is defined. He says it's already law that is it clearly defined as "between a man and a woman." I'll re-ask for the first that asked, WHERE is that stated? US Constitution? Nope... Supreme Court ever say it? Nope... (Notice how I stay away from the other side, if any response to this line, use your head, hard as you can.)
<img src=smilies/liefde.gif> <-- Would you oppose these two from marrying one another? What if I told you they were designed as a gay smiley couple?

And then, the next point Danoz LOVES to bring up. Apparently, the mind of a child will be warped if raised by two same sex people... I can assure you, a child's mind will be warped by many other things well before this ever sets in. Want examples?
1. Music videos <-- Christina, Brittany, nuff said.
2. Media <-- pretty much plays in with number 1. This includes all music itself, movies, and regular "network" TV.
3. Peer pressure <-- nuff said.
4. Full House, THREE same sex people raising three girls. Did they warp at ALL? (Father of three, and his two brothers. Joey is clearly the oddball, so try and crack him why don't ya.) Ok, bad example. <img src=smilies/sleep.gif>

Of all of those I gave, you think that gay marriage is the big threat? You need to get your priorities straight... For now I'm just gonna sit here and wait it out, until you bring in the one magic word. Be prepared for the biggest flame of your life. Nothing that Lillymon or anyone else has said will topple what I have in store for you...

As a final thought, here's my proposal... (This pretty much is what most here are already saying. <img src=smilies/upeyes.gif>)
1. Since marriage itself is regulated by the government, allow the same sex marriage. But, since churches are all high and mighty, they won't. Well, what's wrong with city hall anyway?
2. The church wants to keep whining and bitching about same sex being "married?" Fine, whatever, call it "civial union." (That's pretty much what marriage is anyway.)
3. Equal benefits for both sides. Would be nice, but this government can't even get the health care system working. So, no dice... <img src=smilies/banghead.gif>
4. Once and for all, stop harrasing the ones that want this to go through like they are renegades. (Wasn't McCarthy a renegade....? (Think back to the 1950's)) Is it so much to ask for people wanting equal treatment? That IS what this country stands for, isn't it? One word, yes...or no...

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade</P>
__________________
Lenophis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:29 AM.

Contact Us - Zophar's Domain - Archive - Top

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