*** Marriage and Religion

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
Yeah, I'm going there.

So I've been reading up on how California legalized same-sex marriage tonight, and how there's a huge interfaith campaign going on with Muslims, Christians, Mormons, etc. all rallying to have the same-sex marriage ruling thrown out.

I don't want this thread bashing religion, I guess it's a thread bashing people who use religion to carry out absurd agendas. It's the year 2008, how this type of intolerance can exist and breed in the U.S is beyond me. We're supposed to be the land of the free, yet these people are actively campaigning to have the rights of *** people removed.

Why do these people care? It doesn't affect them. They shouldn't care. Why do they care? Why?
 
New Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
2
Best answers
0
Yeah, I'm going there.

So I've been reading up on how California legalized same-sex marriage tonight, and how there's a huge interfaith campaign going on with Muslims, Christians, Mormons, etc. all rallying to have the same-sex marriage ruling thrown out.

I don't want this thread bashing religion, I guess it's a thread bashing people who use religion to carry out absurd agendas. It's the year 2008, how this type of intolerance can exist and breed in the U.S is beyond me. We're supposed to be the land of the free, yet these people are actively campaigning to have the rights of *** people removed.

Why do these people care? It doesn't affect them. They shouldn't care. Why do they care? Why?
Because, my friend, we're the land of ignorance. I agree with everything you say, but people insist, for whatever reason, to disallow anyone to have any form of opinion or preference other than their own.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
Better yet, people nowadays can't seem to form their own opinions and instead, blindly believe what they have been taught to believe, without ever questioning or second guessing these things.

I'll bet you half of the people protesting cannot give you a proper reason as to why same-sex marriage should not be allowed, other than "The Bible says so!" (or Koran.. whatever. Any book).

I really wish people would grow some damn spines and not be afraid to honestly tell someone how you feel about issues which are as divided as these are. Like you said, does it affect them in any way? No. Like you, I cannot fathom what the reasoning is behind hating homosexual individuals.

Like the late and great Bill Hicks once said,

What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I ****, what I take into my body – as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?
 
Pwns Mastasurf at TF2
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Messages
5,115
Best answers
0
As far as I'm concerned, there should be no legal "Marriage". What we're effectively seeing is a semantic debate. That and one group trying to push its morals on another group, in a field where there shouldn't even be an issue. As far as I'm concerned, the law should define the civil (state and federal rights) marriage as a civil or legal union. Legal rights are supposed to be universal, and ergo, religion has no role to play. That being said, while I don't agree with their actions, I am in favor of allowing religions and churches to marry those who they will and deny those who they will. (Man, there's some bad english in there I think...) Point being, we're looking at a divide between what is legal and what is faith/cultural.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
I have no problem with churches refusing to marry ***s (well, I do, but they should be allowed to refuse them.) The problem is that the states are telling ***s they can't marry. You have no idea how much that infuriates me. States are telling *** people they can't marry because of religion, and just because of religion.
 
Pwns Mastasurf at TF2
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Messages
5,115
Best answers
0
Right, that's exactly my point. State/Fed is for everyone, let churches do what they will. Hell, let them be racist if they want (though lets see what happens ;P )
 

guest

G
Guest
So the bible said same-sex relationships are an atroscity?

The bible also states that you may sell your daughter into slavery. What kind of a price would we get for my sister?
It also states that.. Oh stuff it, I'll just link you to the awesome clip I'm stealing these quotes from.

Anyway, what ever happened to "love thy enemy as you love thy self"? Seeing these wannabe Christians so full of hate, they can't even follow the teachings of their own religion, how can they call themselves Christians?
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
I have no problem with churches refusing to marry ***s (well, I do, but they should be allowed to refuse them.) The problem is that the states are telling ***s they can't marry. You have no idea how much that infuriates me. States are telling *** people they can't marry because of religion, and just because of religion.
I pretty much agree with this point of view. You shouldn't be married in a church if the church forbids *** marriage. However, I believe that the state has no business telling you what gender your partner should be. Partners are that, and should be recognized legally regardless of personal distaste.

As for the argument against ***s within the church, Leviticus also uses the same strong langauge to condemn people who eat shelfish.

Enjoy your lobster and crab, ****ers! It's an abomination before god.


As far as I know, there is scholarly work that speaks of pagan rites using anal sex between men for fertility magic. This is why the early jews forbade it.

Keep in mind, that even if it were an abomination against God, it's between God and the *** people. Golden Rule > 10 Commandments >>>>>>> the laws in Leviticus.
 
Force Pit Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
495
Best answers
0
I have no problem with churches refusing to marry ***s (well, I do, but they should be allowed to refuse them.) The problem is that the states are telling ***s they can't marry. You have no idea how much that infuriates me. States are telling *** people they can't marry because of religion, and just because of religion.
I'm sorry I have to disagree with you. You don't see straights get refused to marry. Why should ***'s be any different. Just because of their sex. This is a land of freedom, and equal opportunity. Not "The land of freedom and equal opportunity for straights".

I'll agree that the church should have the right to refuse, however, ***s should have the right to marry. Anyone who sees otherwise is blind.

@: Fortnox, that ***** got OWNED. Good watch, thank you.
 
New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
3
Best answers
0
I'm sorry I have to disagree with you. You don't see straights get refused to marry. Why should ***'s be any different. Just because of their sex. This is a land of freedom, and equal opportunity. Not "The land of freedom and equal opportunity for straights".
Well, here's the thing. If you 'force' a priest/minister/whatever to marry a *** couple, then you'd no longer be able to say "It's alright to be *** as long as it doesn't effect other people." Why? Because if that priest would agree to marrying the aforementioned *** couple, he'd be a sinner in his own eyes and the eyes of his fellow believers. And therefore, he would be affected in a negative way by the fact that those two people who he just married are ***.

I say, leave the church out of it entirely. Even if the *** couple happens to be religious. You can still get legally married without any intervention from the church.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
I'm sorry I have to disagree with you. You don't see straights get refused to marry. Why should ***'s be any different. Just because of their sex. This is a land of freedom, and equal opportunity. Not "The land of freedom and equal opportunity for straights".

I'll agree that the church should have the right to refuse, however, ***s should have the right to marry. Anyone who sees otherwise is blind.
How is that disagreeing with what I said? You pretty much restated exactly what I said :p
 
Force Pit Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
495
Best answers
0
How is that disagreeing with what I said? You pretty much restated exactly what I said :p
It's hard to explain =/

I, personally, don't think that churches should refuse *** marriages. However, because that's not fair and it isn't "freedom", I think they should have the right to refuse them, for the sake of freedom.

I'm not sure if you said that or not. To me you said churches should be able to refuse them. I don't believe that, internally. If, for example, a church refused a *** marriage, I'd be pissed, because I bet you a million dollars churches don't just go around refusing straight marriages. They'd lose a lot of money if they did that.
 
Pwns Mastasurf at TF2
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Messages
5,115
Best answers
0
Seems we're all trying to make the same point, really. civil institutions != religious institutions. It's why I say what the popular debate is is actually a semantic one.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Religious institutions shouldn't be able to perform the duties of a Civil institution anyway. If you want someone's blessing, go for it, but if marriage absolutely has to exist, leave it up to civil institutions. Pastor Jake the Snake isn't the one giving me tax breaks.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,185
Best answers
0
All the *** bashing reminds me of the black civil rights movement half a century ago. Telling *** people that they can't get married sounds very similar to telling black people that they can't sit there and they can't drink from that water fountain. As for civil partners, doesn't that sound a lot like 'separate but equal'? You know, the 'separate but equal' that was actually separate and unequal?

Maybe we will see a Stonewall Riot-esque resurgence in the near future.
 
Now with Kung-Fu action!
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2004
Messages
1,761
Best answers
0
"It is not good for man to be alone" Genesis 2:18.

It's all about interpretation.

Optional, the current situation does seem like a repeat of the early 1900's. Perhaps when Robot/Human marriage turns up, people will forget about this and turn on them.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top