RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism"

RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (Full Version)

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

Message

dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 2:08:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I know a lot of people who feel very attached to the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, So we should reserve the word "marriage" to hetero unions because extending it to gay partnerships might make some people feel bad? [:)] How about sticking with what I actually say? [:)] (find the hidden clue) K. Joking aside, I may have misunderstood you. You mentioned knowing "a lot people who feel very attached" to a one-man-one-woman definition of marriage. If their feelings were not the point of bringing them up, what was?

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 2:16:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice If their feelings were not the point of bringing them up, what was? Well, reading the whole sentence, my guess would be to explain why I raised the point. I only raised the point in the first place because I know a lot of people who feel very attached to the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and most of them would not object at all to civil unions that would give gays the same legal rights and privileges. (The "point" being what I said at the link I referred you to.) K.

dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 2:37:07 PM)
quote: most of them would not object at all to civil unions that would give gays the same legal rights and privileges. Just not the same dignity/respect inherent in using the same noun.

GotSteel -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 5:41:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic its not like heteros have made the term married sacrilege. so much divorce makes a mockery of it:) Christians are more likely to get divorced than non theists, just some food for thought in the ban Christian marriage sub topic.

GotSteel -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 5:48:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr No, again, I believe it's not the atheists but the God-haters that are the ones pushing for the thread title. Actually the God part is irrelevant. God or no God we'd still be critical of your religion.

dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 6:09:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic its not like heteros have made the term married sacrilege. so much divorce makes a mockery of it:) Christians are more likely to get divorced than non theists, just some food for thought in the ban Christian marriage sub topic. That's interesting. In the U.S. or worldwide?

DaddySatyr -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 6:12:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren If hetero couples were so worried about the term married being reserved for straights, they would insist the word marriage be taken out of the law completely, leave marriage to the churches, government not recognize marriage, and instead anyone who wants to get the legal rights, gets a civil union, straight or gay. When I said exactly this, on another thread, I was called "Homophobe". I started off with: "The government shouldn't be involved in marriage, anyway" Sorry. It's been tried and the intolerance from the left still shone through.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 8:05:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren if it is just about the term marriage, why the second part of this? And where, precisely, have I ever said that it is "just about the term marriage" for everybody? I only raised the point in the first place because I know a lot of people who feel very attached to the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and most of them would not object at all to civil unions that would give gays the same legal rights and privileges. But since you're back to making an issue of the word marriage, let's indulge your claim about it being a codeword embedded with superiority/inferiority machinations. Because it occurs to me this then raises a question. After gay marriage becomes a done deal, as I think it most probably will, should people stop using the words "husband" and "wife" so that gay couples won't feel that their unions are being demeaned by these blatantly hetero "codewords" for traditional marriage partners? Thank you for your assistance in this sensitive and important matter. K. Nope, not at all, what people call their spouse is their own business. For the record, gay married people call each other their husband, and lesbian couples call their mates their wives (not all, some). Husband means male spouse, wife female one, and gay couples have embraced the terms in some cases, if a bit differently, if there are two wives or two husbands shrug. There is nothing particularly het normative about the terms, can be applied a lot of ways:)

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 8:14:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Because the whole separate church/state thing is comparatively new, and legal marriage far predates it. There's a long historic macroeconomic answer as well, but this thread is clouded enough as it is. Not as much as you think. The separation of church and state started coming about in the reformation, where nation states, tired of the domination of the church in their affairs, supported the break away protestants like Luther, and this started roughly in the 17th century or so (actually late 16th),and while it wasn't exactly a clean break, it was a start. As far as legal marriage goes, one thing that is a bald faced lie is that marriage is this ancient institution that in effect all couples partook of. The reality is that for a really long time, the only people who got married routinely were nobility and those with money, primarily because of making sure titles and property were inherited properly. It wasn't until roughly around 1600 that people started marrying in any numbers,when thanks to changing times more people had property and things for someone to inherit. Before that, most people simply paired off, had families and didn't bother with formally getting married, it is why common law marriage came into being. It is one of the reasons the whole argument about marriage being a sacred thing versus a civic thing is a bald faced lie, if the importance of it was in the sacred, why did so few people do it?Basically, since formal marriage came about (roughly 1100's), very few people bothered to use it until they had something to protect, which meant they felt it was important for its legal rights more than for the moral one.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 8:17:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic its not like heteros have made the term married sacrilege. so much divorce makes a mockery of it:) Christians are more likely to get divorced than non theists, just some food for thought in the ban Christian marriage sub topic. Yep, there is stats to back this up..there is a thing called the Barma report on religion, the guy who does it, George Barma is himself an evangelical, and one of the things he talked about in his report is that sadly the divorce rate among the evangelicals is higher than among the more secular and bemoans that fact. Classic example of hypocrisy, they worry about same sex marriage ruining marriage, yet can't keep their marriages going...

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 8:23:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren If hetero couples were so worried about the term married being reserved for straights, they would insist the word marriage be taken out of the law completely, leave marriage to the churches, government not recognize marriage, and instead anyone who wants to get the legal rights, gets a civil union, straight or gay. When I said exactly this, on another thread, I was called "Homophobe". I started off with: "The government shouldn't be involved in marriage, anyway" Sorry. It's been tried and the intolerance from the left still shone through. Did you say that marriage should not be a legal right, or did you say that marriage should not be extended to gays? If you said that the government should not be involved in marriage at all and if couples want legal rights that the law covers that under s different term, then you are not a homophobe, since by doing that there is no differentiation between straight and gay couples. I suspect those calling you a homophobe assumed you meant when you said the government shouldn't be involved in marriage, that they shouldn't be involved in deciding what it is, only respecting it (I am not saying that is what you said). I have heard people argue government shouldn't be in marriage, but what they mean is the traditional definition of marriage is sacred, that that is the only valid type of marriage, but they in turn said that the government should recognize marriages as long as they are traditional, rather than removing marriage from the law completely. In effect, they are saying the government has nothing to do with marriage except granting benefits, and of course only to straight people.....hopefully that is why someone called you a homophobe, because wanting government out of marriage is not homophobic if in the end gays and straights get exactly the same benefits under the same aspect of law, not seperate.

MrBukani -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 8:32:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Because the whole separate church/state thing is comparatively new, and legal marriage far predates it. There's a long historic macroeconomic answer as well, but this thread is clouded enough as it is. Not as much as you think. The separation of church and state started coming about in the reformation, where nation states, tired of the domination of the church in their affairs, supported the break away protestants like Luther, and this started roughly in the 17th century or so (actually late 16th),and while it wasn't exactly a clean break, it was a start. As far as legal marriage goes, one thing that is a bald faced lie is that marriage is this ancient institution that in effect all couples partook of. The reality is that for a really long time, the only people who got married routinely were nobility and those with money, primarily because of making sure titles and property were inherited properly. It wasn't until roughly around 1600 that people started marrying in any numbers,when thanks to changing times more people had property and things for someone to inherit. Before that, most people simply paired off, had families and didn't bother with formally getting married, it is why common law marriage came into being. It is one of the reasons the whole argument about marriage being a sacred thing versus a civic thing is a bald faced lie, if the importance of it was in the sacred, why did so few people do it?Basically, since formal marriage came about (roughly 1100's), very few people bothered to use it until they had something to protect, which meant they felt it was important for its legal rights more than for the moral one. Romans married and their were laws about it, just as much for the plebs as for the nobility. So I don't know what you're babblin about. Like marriage is a thing neo christians invented you make it seem. BULLCRACKER. About any people had rules about it so that states a law.

MercTech -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 8:37:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice If their feelings were not the point of bringing them up, what was? Well, reading the whole sentence, my guess would be to explain why I raised the point. I only raised the point in the first place because I know a lot of people who feel very attached to the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and most of them would not object at all to civil unions that would give gays the same legal rights and privileges. (The "point" being what I said at the link I referred you to.) K. Weighing in with a couple of cents worth: "Marriage" is considered a sacrament in many churches. And, many religions don't consider it a "marriage" unless it is done in a church, etc. Why not defuse the controversy with the fundies and simply consider all civil officiated unions "domestic partners" and leave "marriage" to the churches. Let the various congregations consider "marriage" only between one man and one woman and leave the legal definition of "civil union" to be whatever the local jurisdiction wants to.

kdsub -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 9:01:30 PM)
If it is a marriage to be outside a church why not call it a civil marriage? Butch

MrBukani -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 9:15:53 PM)
Who cares? If gays wanna bride and groom let em dress up.[:D] Kinda had it with the socalled battle for equal rights. I can think of more important equal rights. I've talked about equal rights with gays and they seem to care mostly about equal rights for themselves. Wich is kind of a contradiction.

tweakabelle -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 3:29:29 AM)
The most common objection I hear from some straight people against marriage equality is that it will somehow 'devalue' heterosexual marriage. Often these same people propose civil unions as a 'acceptable' formula that won't devalue their hetero marriages. I've never received a satisfactory answer when I ask precisely how will heterosexual marriage be devalued. So I am at a loss to understand this point of view. Perhaps someone can explain to me precisely how the institution of marriage between heterosexuals will be devalued by extending the same privelige to queers.

GotSteel -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 5:37:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Christians are more likely to get divorced than non theists, just some food for thought in the ban Christian marriage sub topic. Yep, there is stats to back this up..there is a thing called the Barma report on religion, the guy who does it, George Barma is himself an evangelical, and one of the things he talked about in his report is that sadly the divorce rate among the evangelicals is higher than among the more secular and bemoans that fact. Classic example of hypocrisy, they worry about same sex marriage ruining marriage, yet can't keep their marriages going... Yep, the pressure to get married so one isn't "living in sin" causes those who believe such things to get married faster and younger. The virgins until marriage crowd are the absolute worst in this regard. Brown University also found that "marriage dissolution" may well be contagious. Ergo there's a "rational based"(whatever the fuck that means) argument for banning Christian marriage in order to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Lucylastic -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 6:26:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice If their feelings were not the point of bringing them up, what was? Well, reading the whole sentence, my guess would be to explain why I raised the point. I only raised the point in the first place because I know a lot of people who feel very attached to the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and most of them would not object at all to civil unions that would give gays the same legal rights and privileges. (The "point" being what I said at the link I referred you to.) K. Weighing in with a couple of cents worth: "Marriage" is considered a sacrament in many churches. And, many religions don't consider it a "marriage" unless it is done in a church, etc. Why not defuse the controversy with the fundies and simply consider all civil officiated unions "domestic partners" and leave "marriage" to the churches. Let the various congregations consider "marriage" only between one man and one woman and leave the legal definition of "civil union" to be whatever the local jurisdiction wants to. my marriage is not any less relevant than a devout christian, a sometimes church goer(religous holidays and the occasional sunday, UNTIL they want to go get married and have to attend church for six months or whatever they "demand" just to get wed in a holy building cos its the only way to be accepted. its bloody hypocritical. I belonged to an anglican church from the age of 4 I even sang in the choir in my teens till I got sick of the sheer bullcrap amongst the congregation...see people who lived in the parish suddenly appear when someone got engaged, never to be seen again after the wedding. Both my sisters were married in church. both of them have been married twice, my youngest sister just left her second husband she was a devout born again christian from the age of 12. ( long nasty story) they thought their marriages were perfect simply because of the churches blessing. When I announced I was getting married at the registry office, they said, oh no, thats not good, you should get it blessed by god, it wont work, you wont feel really married until you get it done in a church. my long time vicar said the same thing.. That is such UTTER bollocks BUT My point is that it is the COUPLE, that make the marriage work, not how they started out. Couples wether they be male female or same sex, are the basis of marriage, NOT the church. The only reason marriage is a religious concern is because they have had the strangle hold on peoples lives for millenia with no one to challenge them. well yes its being challenged because its bullshit

evesgrden -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 6:45:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren If hetero couples were so worried about the term married being reserved for straights, they would insist the word marriage be taken out of the law completely, leave marriage to the churches, government not recognize marriage, and instead anyone who wants to get the legal rights, gets a civil union, straight or gay. When I said exactly this, on another thread, I was called "Homophobe". I started off with: "The government shouldn't be involved in marriage, anyway" Sorry. It's been tried and the intolerance from the left still shone through. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone give kudos to another for their point of view, and I said exactly the same thing 3 pages earlier. yes there's bias yes people will overlook, bypass, simply not read your post yes people will only respond to those they want to, or deliberately not acknowledge others for whatever reason welcome to the boards I mean forums. This thread for example, I popped in a couple of pages ago. Goodness knows anything I said might have been suggested days and days back. I know I haven't read what's preceded my own entries by more than a page or so. I don't think it's just about leftist intolerance; largely because I'm left of center and I think I'm pretty clear about things I won't tolerate. The fact that you're on the right is not a problem for me. Some of your posts I agree with some I don't. That happens when I read posts from the left too. No biggie to me. Half the time (or more) I don't comment. Intolerance from a person does not necessarily equate with intolerance from the half the country.. and that's if it was even intolerance to start with... vs even something personal. IMNSHO

GotSteel -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 7:21:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub If it is a marriage to be outside a church why not call it a civil marriage? Butch Because separate but equal isn't equal. Why call it civil marriage, what's the motivation?

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875