RE: Another Progressive Victory! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DomKen -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 12:40:54 PM)

So if its in the bible it should be the law? Polygamists will be thrilled.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 12:41:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Reading is fundamental


I know. You should try it some time.



mnottertail -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 12:50:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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. 


And, as we all know, if it's in the NT, it's gotta be followed by the Jews.... [8|]

Again, I'm not saying that marriage is owned by Christian religions. Not by any means. Pointing out that other religious were involved in marriages well before Christianity isn't disputing the religious ceremony, now, is it?



It is not owned by religion period, even in the bible. Religious 'ceremonies' were way after the cakking of Jeebus.

Parents made marriage contracts for their children (civil) At the appropriate time dowry was brought and the girl was paid for (civil)
then they might throw a wedding feast so the town knew they were together as a couple, and to get some more filthy lucre from the neighbors and friends.   Now, this is not to say that the rabbi might have shown up and gotten a little pissed up, and being more of a public speaker than most in those days he may have told a joke or two. But marriage as a 'religious' ceremony conferring and magical asswipe on anyone or a tradition in and of itself where people contracted with consent of their own, was on or after the 4th century or so.

   



GotSteel -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 4:04:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
He's not advocating for an end to marriage, he wants it such that only religious people are allowed to have marriages.


She's not exactly wrong, nor is she exactly right. The same is true for your response.

I'm not calling for a striking of the word "marriage" from the human lexicon, and have no problem with it having meaning. My proposal would take all the legal meaning away from the term "marriage" and move it to "civil union."

Your response is, technically, true, in that a "marriage" would only be used to indicate that the civil union was performed as a religious wedding ceremony. As DC noted, his church will perform same-sex marriages, so a same-sex couple can have a marriage. Also, as I have stated more than once, a wedding performed in a civil service will not be called a "marriage" - regardless of the gender(s) of those involved - which would include opposite sex couples going down to the Justice of the Peace, for example.


A couple of things, as someone who isn't religious I find this segregationist bigotry incredibly offenseive and secondly it has no chance of happening. The deeply religious will generally be against it because it allows for the possibility of gay marriage and makes our country work less like their religion does. The non religious will generally be against it because it labels us as second class citizens and everyone in between will generally be against it because the solution to bigotry isn't more bigotry.



BitaTruble -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 4:19:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


Both of these things are based on incomplete context, though, so I reject your rejection. [8D] lol


No worries, your rejection does not equal my acceptance. I don't believe I was out of context. You asked for something very specific and I provided it. You asked for that so that discourse could continue if I recall correctly. Since discourse has continued, I would say that my two examples did exactly what they were supposed to so in that regard, they were pretty spot on as far as examples go and the context they offered clearly worked as discourse is continuing!




quote:

But, here's the thing. Why do same sex couples want to get married?


Irrelevant. That's 'not' the thing. It doesn't matter why.

quote:

And, I have to add, did you really just discriminate by stating it would be "the guy on his knee?" [:D]


Nah, wouldn't do that. Feel free to exchange guy with gal/person or any other label. I'm a bi-switch so really don't care who is on their knee or about their gender. Even if I wasn't a bi-switch, I still wouldn't care who was on their knee or what gender the nether regions may suggest.. I just need to hear the word 'yes' and I'm good to go. [:)]

quote:

Like I said before, it's good to see you back on the boards.


Thanks. [:)]

quote:

Edited to add: I agree that same sex couples should enjoy the same benefits of marriage, and am really trying to offer a solution that promotes that.

I get that. You actually don't appear to have a dog in this fight and are seeking compromise of some sort.

For me, this is really simple. There are two people who want to enter into a legal contract. The reasons for it or what the contract stipulates are moot to the point. There is a meeting of the minds. Both parties want to engage in the contract.

They want that contract to be called a marriage contract.

Why should they have to compromise on that?

Why are they even asked to do so?

Honestly, the whole thing stumps me but, that's okay. I'm not worried. The old generation is dying off and the new generation, if my four grandsons are any indication of the future, doesn't give a foggity fudge about gay/lesbian etc and are a live and let live sort of generation with their own sexual orientation being important, I'm sure, but not much worried about what anyone else is doing. I'm confident in their ability to discern what is right from what is wrong.

So that is, what.. 12 down now.. 38 to go?

We're going to get there.. not sure when, but like I said, it's inevitable.









thompsonx -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 4:20:02 PM)

quote:

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.

Reading is fundamental


ROFLMFAO[8|]



dcnovice -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 4:41:14 PM)

FR

Re marriage in the Christian (aka "New") Testament:

It is indeed mentioned. Jesus performed his first miracle at a wedding, but the story doesn't actually say whether it was a religious, social, or legal ceremony. In a passage beloved of antigay folks, Jesus also refers to a man leaving his family and marrying, but he doesn't specify what, if any, ritual this entailed. St. Paul says it's better to marry than to burn, and he also specifies that a bishop should be a "husband of one wife," which suggests there was some polygamy among early Christians.

A striking omission, given the traditional Catholic definition of a sacrament as "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace," is any passage in which Jesus institutes or even endorses religious marriage.



dcnovice -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 4:54:31 PM)

quote:

The marrying of say; pork and ginger.

I'm sorry, Ron, but mixing good pork with ginger is an abomination unto the Lord--or at least unto Julia Child.



dcnovice -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 4:57:56 PM)

quote:

here is a long history of marriage being a religious rite.

Very true. But not of its being exclusively religious.



Powergamz1 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 5:45:03 PM)

Well, we can be certain that it wasn't a Christian wedding [;)]


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Re marriage in the Christian (aka "New") Testament:

It is indeed mentioned. Jesus performed his first miracle at a wedding, but the story doesn't actually say whether it was a religious, social, or legal ceremony. In a passage beloved of antigay folks, Jesus also refers to a man leaving his family and marrying, but he doesn't specify what, if any, ritual this entailed. St. Paul says it's better to marry than to burn, and he also specifies that a bishop should be a "husband of one wife," which suggests there was some polygamy among early Christians.

A striking omission, given the traditional Catholic definition of a sacrament as "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace," is any passage in which Jesus institutes or even endorses religious marriage.




Powergamz1 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 5:48:44 PM)

What it is, is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle... or as the Old Testament would say, 'bearing false witness'.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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. 


And, as we all know, if it's in the NT, it's gotta be followed by the Jews.... [8|]

Again, I'm not saying that marriage is owned by Christian religions. Not by any means. Pointing out that other religious were involved in marriages well before Christianity isn't disputing the religious ceremony, now, is it?





thompsonx -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 5:57:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

here is a long history of marriage being a religious rite.

Very true. But not of its being exclusively religious.


There is a long history of gay (and not so gay) sex in the bible so does that mean that gay sex is a religious ritual?



dcnovice -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 6:04:43 PM)

quote:

There is a long history of gay (and not so gay) sex in the bible so does that mean that gay sex is a religious ritual?

Well, people often do say, "Oh God, Oh God!" as they come. [:)]



Powergamz1 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 8:08:35 PM)

And sometimes after they wake up in Las Vegas and find out they are married...



quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

There is a long history of gay (and not so gay) sex in the bible so does that mean that gay sex is a religious ritual?

Well, people often do say, "Oh God, Oh God!" as they come. [:)]




dcnovice -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 8:59:43 PM)

quote:

And sometimes after they wake up in Las Vegas and find out they are married...

Then follows another "Oh God!"--in quite a different intonation.



mnottertail -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/23/2013 6:35:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

The marrying of say; pork and ginger.

I'm sorry, Ron, but mixing good pork with ginger is an abomination unto the Lord--or at least unto Julia Child.


But ambrosia to the heathen Chinee!!!!!  Nei Ha!!!!



mnottertail -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/23/2013 6:37:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

There is a long history of gay (and not so gay) sex in the bible so does that mean that gay sex is a religious ritual?

Well, people often do say, "Oh God, Oh God!" as they come. [:)]


That is so judgemental and so OT.  I say oh, jeezus, oh jeezus.   I don't know if he hears my prayers.  I am not in orgasm still now, so I think he is ignoring me.



Owner59 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/24/2013 7:36:20 AM)

And yet another......



Owner59 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/25/2013 8:00:45 PM)

http://www.collarchat.com/m_4452048/tm.htm



GotSteel -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (3/17/2014 5:54:56 AM)

..



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625