quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The marrying of say; pork and ginger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

I coulda swore the beef same sex partners had was the lack of equality in benefits and rights with married couples. Now, it's the wording that supposedly is the issue. But I can understand that, words are important and having a 'civil union' might make such couples feel, well they might feel somehow less than a complementary couple.

So I say let them call themselves married.

But what about us complementary couples who do not want to be married but cannot have a civil union (except in Illinois) to get the same rights as same sex couples unless we do get the paper and ring? We are the real victims here, we are the ones left out in the cold and cannot even add our opposite sex partner to our insurance unless we marry them. This is the real issue that needs to be resolved. I suppose if same sex couples can get married rather than only having a civil union then we complementary couples will just have to get married to have the same rights as same sex couples.

This is what we need to talk about. This same sex couple thing is so last year.

quote:


I believe the legal vehicle that is being sought here is called a corporation.

 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
At no point in time did I claim that it was in sole possession of Christianity. But, that it has been ensconced in Christianity for nigh on 2000 years,

This then is an admission that marriage existed before christianity stole it a. Thus if christians have only had this for "nigh on to 2000 years and the non christians have had it for longer than that it would seem quite obvious to the most casual observer that christianity's claim is spurious.

quote:

Why are you jumping from it being claimed a religious rite to it being claimed a Christian rite?

Jumping????[8|]I am responding directly to your claim that marriage has been ensconced in christianity for nigh on 2000 years?

quote:

quote:

If not, then DomKen's stating that marriage was part of the Greek pantheon (which was from 8-900 BC or so) isn't any more solid a claim of "ownership," is it? AND if you two are going to rely on a religious system predating Christianity to defend that marriage isn't a religious thing, well, I'm not sure that was such a grand attempt.

So then christianity is exactly the same as all preceeding religions?

quote:

]In being a religion, damn straight it is.

Pagans are the same as christians?[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I'm proposing a solution here, DC.

The solution proposed is that gays can't call their union a marrage.

quote:

Fucking read once in a while.

The solution proposed is that gays can't call their union a marrage unless it is sanctioned by a religion.

quote:

quote:

I don't have any issue with same-sex couples wedding than I do opposite sex couples.

Just with them calling it a marrage

quote:

See above.

quote:

quote:

You and I both agree that calling a same sex marriage a "marriage" is the sticking point.

Only for the jesus phreque...gays do not have a problem calling it marrage.

quote:

How is my proposal to call all marriages, same sex, opposite sex, etc., civil unions, and having all benefits be attached to civil unions, not get around that?

Because it restricts the word marrage to opposite sex marrage and denies it to same sex marrage.

quote:

Know what? Until you start reading my posts and responding to them according to what I've written (including earlier posts in the thread), or quit your fucking lying, we're done.

Flounce alert?

quote:

I have more important things to do than to counter your lies.

Because it restricts the word marrage to opposite sex couples who marry with the sanction of religion and denies it to same sex couples who do not have a religion sanction their union.
is the same as this statement
Because it restricts the word marrage to opposite sex marrage and denies it to same sex marrage.
Because most religions will not sanction gay marrage thus no sanction no marrage. To claim that some religion will marry them is obfuscatory pedantry at best.
Flounce time?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


I believe the legal vehicle that is being sought here is called a corporation.

 

 

Dammit! I was gonna answer tax Dodge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The marrying of say; pork and ginger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
At no point in time did I claim that it was in sole possession of Christianity. But, that it has been ensconced in Christianity for nigh on 2000 years,

This then is an admission that marriage existed before christianity stole it a. Thus if christians have only had this for "nigh on to 2000 years and the non christians have had it for longer than that it would seem quite obvious to the most casual observer that christianity's claim is spurious.

Why are you jumping from it being claimed a religious rite to it being claimed a Christian rite?

Jumping????[8|]I am responding directly to your claim that marriage has been ensconced in christianity for nigh on 2000 years?

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

If not, then DomKen's stating that marriage was part of the Greek pantheon (which was from 8-900 BC or so) isn't any more solid a claim of "ownership," is it? AND if you two are going to rely on a religious system predating Christianity to defend that marriage isn't a religious thing, well, I'm not sure that was such a grand attempt.

So then christianity is exactly the same as all preceeding religions?

In being a religion, damn straight it is.

Pagans are the same as christians?[8|]

quote:


And, it has been. But, that is not to say that it's only a Christian thing, just that Christians have had it as a religious rite for quite some time now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I'm proposing a solution here, DC.

The solution proposed is that gays can't call their union a marrage.

Fucking read once in a while.

The solution proposed is that gays can't call their union a marrage unless it is sanctioned by a religion.

quote:

quote:

I don't have any issue with same-sex couples wedding than I do opposite sex couples.

Just with them calling it a marrage

quote:

quote:

See above.

quote:

quote:

You and I both agree that calling a same sex marriage a "marriage" is the sticking point.

Only for the jesus phreque...gays do not have a problem calling it marrage.

quote:

How is my proposal to call all marriages, same sex, opposite sex, etc., civil unions, and having all benefits be attached to civil unions, not get around that?

Because it restricts the word marrage to opposite sex marrage and denies it to same sex marrage.

quote:

quote:

Know what? Until you start reading my posts and responding to them according to what I've written (including earlier posts in the thread), or quit your fucking lying, we're done.

Flounce alert?

quote:

quote:

I have more important things to do than to counter your lies.

Because it restricts the word marrage to opposite sex couples who marry with the sanction of religion and denies it to same sex couples who do not have a religion sanction their union.
is the same as this statement
Because it restricts the word marrage to opposite sex marrage and denies it to same sex marrage.
Because most religions will not sanction gay marrage thus no sanction no marrage. To claim that some religion will marry them is obfuscatory pedantry at best.
Flounce time?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
.

We are the real victims here, we are the ones left out in the cold and cannot even add our opposite sex partner to our insurance unless we marry them. This is the real issue that needs to be resolved. I suppose if same sex couples can get married rather than only having a civil union then we complementary couples will just have to get married to have the same rights as same sex couples.

This is what we need to talk about. This same sex couple thing is so last year.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

And, it has been. But, that is not to say that it's only a Christian thing, just that Christians have had it as a religious rite for quite some time now.

Not really, it started with the Catholic Church about the 4th century as one of the dispensations or indulgences under which they could make money, purely an endeavor designed to accumulate filthy lucre. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

And, it has been. But, that is not to say that it's only a Christian thing, just that Christians have had it as a religious rite for quite some time now.

Not really, it started with the Catholic Church about the 4th century as one of the dispensations or indulgences under which they could make money, purely an endeavor designed to accumulate filthy lucre. 

Except it was in the NT...

quote:

Because it restricts the word marrage to opposite sex couples who marry with the sanction of religion and denies it to same sex couples who do not have a religion sanction their union.
is the same as this statement
Because it restricts the word marrage to opposite sex marrage and denies it to same sex marrage.
Because most religions will not sanction gay marrage thus no sanction no marrage. To claim that some religion will marry them is obfuscatory pedantry at best.

quote:

Only partially true. Opposite sex weddings won't be marriages unless performed in a religious ceremony, either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Hey, it mentions whores too,  not connected with a religious ceremony.  Marriage is not really mentioned in the bible, because of what the word meant then, it has underwent a corruption.   That was the translation of the time.   'Marriages' were contracted between adults for their children.
The Jewish step on the glass and the walk down the aisle stuff is way after Jeebus cakked. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
By NT do you mean New Testament?
Only, nowhere in the very few mentions of marriage (11 or so) does it specify that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
All those rules And regs are in the OT