RE: Same-sex marriage

RE: Same-sex marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

quietkitten -> RE: Same-sex marriage (6/11/2005 10:26:11 AM)
I am in complete agreement with you perverseangelic. Far too many people say "It is WRONG because it says so in the bible" A simple addition of ... "in my opinion" would change the sentence completely. If someone believes in the bible and takes everything written within as absolute truth.. no problem, however, when they tell others that they MUST believe the same things because they are written in the bible... well then I have a problem with them.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Same-sex marriage (6/11/2005 10:57:03 AM)
Scooter, for the most part I agree with you here, but as we've already established marriage is not a contract. It's a legal state. (Think about it, you can't just sue your spouse for breach of contract if you don't think she is living up to her responsibilities. And, no, filing for divorce isn't suing for breach of contract.) Anyway, THAT'S why the religious types think their opinions are relevant. The law takes marriage as an institution that affects all members of society, not simply the two people who choose to get married. So the problem is sticky. When Born-Again types ask whether the next step is to allow people to marry animals, it sounds insane to most of the rest of us, but it seems like a perfectly normal progression to anyone who is convinced that marriage is a union between one man and one woman in the eyes of god. Lam quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash quote: The OP is about personal opinions on same sex marriage. If its against your belief system, then say so, and move on. Thank you DA, that is precisely the point. Hijacking the thread to have a discussion on the validity or lack-there-of a book that was pieced together from the writings by various authors has no bearing what so ever on this discussion. Yes, opinions would be appreciated by all..but base them on facts, not beliefs. I'm not going to get into a theological discussion here..because this is not the place. You want to do that..start your own thread, some of us would like to hear clear cut and honest thoughts on the subject at hand. It is about Same Sex Marraige. Contary to what seems to be popular opinion....marraige and religion have nothing to do with each other...it is a contract between 2 or more human beings...it does not require some ordained anything to bless, approve or in any way shape or form be involved. If your belief system sways your opinion and makes you think it's OK to discriminate, to cheat others out of their rights...fine...but personally I think you need to take a step back and think about that. Now let's get back to the aim of the OP.

ScooterTrash -> RE: Same-sex marriage (6/11/2005 11:17:53 AM)
OK..Perhaps semantics LAM..but I swear I have lost more in a divorce than when I have been sued..lmao. Wish I COULD have sued for breach of contract, should have been something about having to have a clear path through the house in there somewhere..lol. I did notice the mention of "two people" in your comment however. I would have to say that "non humans" should be excluded simply due to biological differences if nothing else. However, I don't know that limiting marraige to TWO of any sex would be off limits in my mind. I know we aren't dicussing that aspect, but I have heard a politician use that as a reason to not allow same sex marraige when I attended an ACLU event. He claimed that if we allowed same sex marraige, next we would be looking at poly marraiges....of course my response was..."and the problem would be?" I think their thinking is similar to the old argument against controlled substances..you know..mothers milk leads to canabus..lol.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Same-sex marriage (6/11/2005 2:21:20 PM)
It's not just semantics. If it were just semantics, the difference wouldn't be consequential--and it is. (Besides, haven't YOU argued on other threads against misusing words?) Anyway, this is why I said, about fourteen pages ago, that the best solution of all would be just to abolish marriage altogether. Of course it's never going to happen--well, at least not in our lifetimes. Lam

suberic101 -> RE: Same-sex marriage (6/11/2005 11:50:34 PM)
Did I ever say that it was a holy book for everyone? I already aknowledged the fact that not everyone accepts the authority of scripture, in a previous post. What I'm complaining about is the fact that people post threads where they know someone is going to attempt to use scripture, and then accuse them of intolerance- which instantly comes out to be hipocritical. So, LAM, how can you say that someones opinion is irrelevant, and yours is relevant? Who gave you the position to say that? Yourself? No one has said your opinions are irrelavent, they simply stated a different opinion and used what they base the worldview on to back it up, much in the way you do. Is that wrong? Your world view is relevant, but theres is not? Sounds definately intolerant. Another thing, how can we base human interaction off of the animal kingdom? One could point to the fact that animals do not get the same pleasure out of sex that humans do, and also that the function of sex is to procreate- and that would then mean only one thing- that humans were only intended to have sex purely for procreation. But, obviously, unless you live in a hole somewhere, that is not the case is it?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Same-sex marriage (6/12/2005 12:01:08 AM)
What on earth are you talking about? I never said anyone's opinion was irrelevant. The closest thing I said was that religious types think their opinion is relevant because marriage--contrary to all the confident assertions on here--is not a contract. That's a far cry from what you're alleging. By the way, it's "definitely," not "definately." Also, I find it easier to read people's writing when they know how to use the apostrophe. quote: ORIGINAL: suberic101 So, LAM, how can you say that someones opinion is irrelevant, and yours is relevant? Who gave you the position to say that? Yourself? No one has said your opinions are irrelavent, they simply stated a different opinion and used what they base the worldview on to back it up, much in the way you do. Is that wrong? Your world view is relevant, but theres is not? Sounds definately intolerant.

suberic101 -> RE: Same-sex marriage (6/12/2005 2:49:23 AM)
I used one in the second sentence:)

ScooterTrash -> RE: Same-sex marriage (6/12/2005 5:37:37 AM)
Whatever LAM..I think we just like to disagree, but in a way I think we are on the same page. It either needs open to all or done away with.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Same-sex marriage (6/12/2005 6:53:20 AM)
quote: marraige and religion have nothing to do with each other...it is a contract between 2 or more human beings...it does not require some ordained anything to bless, approve or in any way shape or form be involved I believe I made this point on page 7. As for highjacking, I agree with you that religion has no place in this discussion. I've been trying to say that for pages but it seems that my efforts were in vain. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Same-sex marriage (6/12/2005 6:57:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash Whatever LAM..I think we just like to disagree, but in a way I think we are on the same page. It either needs open to all or done away with. And I'm in agreement as well. But as LaM mentions, it won't happen in this lifetime. So in the meantime, I think everyone should have the same rights to marry or not to marry. - LA

knees2you -> RE: Same-sex marriage (6/12/2005 7:33:36 AM)
Yes Will not happen in this life time~~[:D] Thanks, Ant[;)]

fillepink -> RE: Same-sex marriage (6/12/2005 7:56:16 AM)
actually, i have a degree in tax law but have no doubt that if i did the research, i would find some law or regulation now provides that, contrary to the law since 1912, state law status as "married" does not control for federal tax purposes if the couple is gay. myself, i believe that gay couples should be permitted to marry. i am less inclined to permit poly unions to be legitimised by the state, but any two adults, not otherwise married, should be permitted to marry...i see no obstacle to this that makes any sense. elevating another to his dignity never diminished me in any way. i am opposed to offering gay couples a new legal status to be known as "civil unions". creating a "shadow" body of law under a new concept to be known as a "civil union" is going to wreck legal havoc. it will require a entirely new body of case law and legislation concerning everything from probate and inheritance to divorce and equitable distribution. i think it wastes everyone's time and creates too many possibilities for unintended consequences...so i feel all couples should travel under existing marital and family law. those who oppose "granting" gay couples the right to marry but who would "tolerate" civil unions baffle me..what is the difference in semantics that upsets you so much? your hair-splitting will severely burden the courts and legislatures -- frankly i have better things for them to work on. [image]local://upfiles/72910/5D577EC30AE447A899A45996974E7C28.jpg[/image]

DomGuy4uBoy -> RE: Same-sex marriage (2/10/2006 7:47:11 AM)
I am a Hindu, A Buddhist, A Christian, and A Jew -- And so are all of YOU! quote: --Mahatma Gahndi [:@] quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin quote: ORIGINAL: youngnwilling I personally can not consider myself a practicing member of an organization which condemns homosexuallity and then has an all gay male choir sing at Sunday mass (happened locally). I don't give a shit about gay men singing in church, but don't let them sing, and then condemn what they do and who they are in the homliy the next week. I could go on with other example of how they are all hypocrits, but I think my point has gotten across. Not really. Being a homosexual male is not condemned. Acting on it is. I can see if they want to have a homosexual choir. Why not? They are not any less human than anyone else. However, that notwithstanding, I can not stand organized religion either. I have no use for it at all. I guess it is great if Y/you are up to twisting what the Bible has to say all out of shape in such a way as to make approaching God prohibitive. Edit: Yikes!! I am saying all these things and CM is telling Me I am a deviant... lol. [sm=lol.gif] That must have just changed.

Page: << < prev 12 13 14 15 [16]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875