Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[Deity Dude]

Re: Re: Re: Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

Originally posted by Aeson

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

How many dictionaries did you go to to find that.

Dictionary.com has 10 definitions as follows

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

[Aeson]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

Originally posted by Deity Dude
How many dictionaries did you go to to find that.

The first one. "Marriage definition" in Google returned M&W as the first site for me.

[Theben]

Hmm, no one answering my question, as usual.

The arguments seem to be "since marriage was x, it should be x." Even though it either never was or only recently was x and ignoring the fact that social institutions change. But no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry now.

[MrFun]

Re: Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

Originally posted by Theben

If it isn't religion-based, what possible argument can there be against disallowing marriage to gays, at least as far as the legal definition and rights are concerned?

I would answer, but you would already know my answer. My answer to your question would be, "No there are no sound, just, secular arguments for legalizing discrimination on basis of sexual orientation in regard to the civil right of marriage."

[chequita guevara]

There is no rational explanation for the refusal to recognize marriage between people of the same gender. Therefore, no rational explanation will defeat it. You will only be able to defeat it on an emotional level, by showing those who oppose it the real human harm that their opposition creates.

In the long run, gay marriage will be legal. Opposition to gay marriage is mainly from old people while support grows the younger that people get. Ultimately, the majority of those who oppose it will die and and justice will finally be done. I just hope I see it in my lifetime.

[Blaupanzer]

Marraige as practiced in the west has almost nothing to do with biblical definitions which, for example, included the obligation of brothers to engage in marital relations with the wife of their brother if that brother died. Any resulting children would be considered children of the dead brother. Imagine running into that in a mainline church. "Women whose husbands have died must submit to sex from his brothers AND children born to a man's wife many years after his death are still his children in the eyes of the church." RIGHT!

The word "marriage" was coined in the 14th Century and was defined and performed in the parts of the world that used that word by the Church (almost universally the Roman Catholic Church as the Reformation wasn't underway even in precursor in these areas). For the church, not only gays, but witches and atheists, were not permitted to marry. (In fact, admission to any of these conditions could get one burned at the stake.) Initially only people of property bothered to go through the ceremony as this action created a record as to who had agreed to what. The ceremony, always with a man and a woman became more widespread in the following years but was subect to the definition of Christian churches until the end of the 18th century. Since then, marraige has become more and more a state sponsored pact. The state will perform the ceremony for atheists. In fact, the state has nothing to lose in marrying any two humans to each other. Laws in most of the west ban marraiges from including more than two partners. Bottom line: the church's definition of marraige prevailed for 500 years, but came to an end about 120 years ago.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is no rational explanation for the refusal to recognize marriage between people of the same gender.

Plenty of reasons.

1. Men and women aren't the same and pretending that they are interchangeable parts hurts both men and women. Trying to square a circle just doesn't work.

2. Marriage between a man and a woman is the most effective way to ensure that children are born and that they are raised by both parents. All other arrangements are far less effective. Encouraging an arrangement that is less effective is suicidal for the west. I'm sure that all the communists will fare quite well under radical islam.

In the long run, gay marriage will be legal. Opposition to gay marriage is mainly from old people while support grows the younger that people get.

No, all of you baby boomer dinosaurs are going to finally die off, and we can get busy fixing up the big turd you've left us.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marraige as practiced in the west has almost nothing to do with biblical definitions which, for example, included the obligation of brothers to engage in marital relations with the wife of their brother if that brother died.

This is a terrible argument. First off, Christ is very clear in Matthew, that marriage is to be for life which is a change from the Old Testament, because as he said, your hearts were hard. Secondly, he affirms that it is between a man and a woman, just as God created them men and women.

The question I have for you, is if gay marriage is right, why are there two sexes?

The word "marriage" was coined in the 14th Century and was defined and performed in the parts of the world that used that word by the Church (almost universally the Roman Catholic Church as the Reformation wasn't underway even in precursor in these areas).

No, hardly. Are you saying that Holy Matrimony is different from marriage, just because the terms are not the exact same word?

Matrimonium (Lat) = Matrimony (ENG) = marriage.

the church's definition of marraige prevailed for 500 years, but came to an end about 120 years ago.

The church's definition goes back 2000 years, and the Latin definition goes back much longer then that.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Plenty of reasons.

1. Men and women aren't the same and pretending that they are interchangeable parts hurts both men and women. Trying to square a circle just doesn't work.

It only hurts a little at first.

Beyond that, the physical intricacies of same-sex relations are completely and entirely not your business (until you cease being a repressed homo), and it is certainly not the business of the state. So this is entirely invalid as some sort of rationale for a state to deny recognition. It's patently stupid, in fact.

Your other argument fails because providing gay marriage benefits has zero effect on whether or not heterosexuals get married and sire children. If you decide not to get married because gays suddenly can, it's most likely a convenient excuse to not marry a chick because you're ****ing gay.

[Kidlicious]

Ben knows all about gay sex.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Plenty of reasons.

1. Men and women aren't the same and pretending that they are interchangeable parts hurts both men and women. Trying to square a circle just doesn't work.

God wouldn't have put the prostate where it is if he didn't intend for something to enter and stimulate it.



Not only does it work, but it is fantastic.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris,

So men are absolutely interchangeable with women?

Beyond that, the physical intricacies of same-sex relations are completely and entirely not your business (until you cease being a repressed homo), and it is certainly not the business of the state. So this is entirely invalid as some sort of rationale for a state to deny recognition. It's patently stupid, in fact.

Wow, you completely missed the point of my post. All I am saying is that men and women are fundamentally different from each other.

Your other argument fails because providing gay marriage benefits has zero effect on whether or not heterosexuals get married and sire children.

The state has an interest in self-preservation. Promoting suicidal ideologies doesn't really help in those goals. I don't see why the state would want to encourage them at the expense of their own survival. Yes, liberties are important, but it's pretty pointless to argue about your natural rights to a society that rejects the concept of natural rights altogether.

If gay people were truly logical they would understand that their own well being depends on retaining traditional marriage, not tearing it down.

If you decide not to get married because gays suddenly can, it's most likely a convenient excuse to not marry a chick because you're ****ing gay.

Oh I'll get married as soon as I can. Why should I fight for a nation that has no respect for my ideals? If Canada and the US want to destroy themselves, they can go right ahead and do so. I don't have to lift a finger to hold back the tide.

[MrFun]

BK, for making idiotic "arguments," you should be satisfied with having gotten a serious response from Boris.

He pwned you - again - but take it as a learning experience.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Wow, you completely missed the point of my post. All I am saying is that men and women are fundamentally different from each other.

Men work, women cook?

If gay people were truly logical they would understand that their own well being depends on retaining traditional marriage, not tearing it down.

Nope, a truly logical person would see that:
1) Kids cost money. A lot of money.
2) Gay couples make a tremendous amount of money with very little expenses compare to a heterosexual family
3) Gay people know what the other partner wants

Logically, out of pure self-interesting, being gay is the way to be.

It is anything but logical to commit yourself to a PMSy, bloody woman with irrational actions and emotionally needy *****iness. It is anything but logical to create little beings that suck your funds dry while waking you up in the middle of the night.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow, the swarm is out in force.

3 people have posted and none of them have actually rebutted a point that I actually made.

I see how you 'win' an argument.