Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Another Progressive Victory!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Another Progressive Victory! Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 12:40:54 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		So if its in the bible it should be the law? Polygamists will be thrilled.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 281
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 12:41:38 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Reading is fundamental


I know. You should try it some time.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 282
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 12:50:52 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
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....

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.

   

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 283
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 4:04:01 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 284
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 4:19:06 PM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


Both of these things are based on incomplete context, though, so I reject your rejection. 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?"


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.








_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 285
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 4:20:02 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 286
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 4:41:14 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 287
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 4:54:31 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 288
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 4:57:56 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

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

Very true. But not of its being exclusively religious.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 289
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 5:45:03 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 290
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 5:48:44 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		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....

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?




_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 291
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 5:57:38 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 292
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 6:04:43 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 293
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 8:08:35 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 294
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/22/2013 8:59:43 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by dcnovice -- 5/22/2013 9:23:38 PM >

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 295
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/23/2013 6:35:54 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
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!!!!

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 296
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/23/2013 6:37:52 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 297
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/24/2013 7:36:20 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		And yet another......

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 298
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/25/2013 8:00:45 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		http://www.collarchat.com/m_4452048/tm.htm

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 299
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 3/17/2014 5:54:56 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline 		..

< Message edited by GotSteel -- 3/17/2014 6:05:21 AM >

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Another Progressive Victory! Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094