People "protecting marriage": where are you on Monday nights?

[Kathryn]

Actually, it's just the opposite. I care about having equal rights. I don't care about your respect and I don't care about what you call my marriage, as long I have the legal rights. But you won't be happy till I think your view is "tolerant, respectful and kind."


That's all our British Israelite friend was doing when he shared his opinion of your first marriage and your decision to have four biracial children. Why would you get offended just because he shared his personal beliefs on a debate forum like this?

And the thing is, Kathryn, I'm not really offended by your sharing your view. It's not like I didn't know there were people like you out there; I've got people like you in my own family. But just as you have the right to share your view here, so I've got the right to share my opinion of your view, and I'm certainly under no obligation to pretend your view is respectful or free of prejudice.

Well, it's nice to know you're not ticked off. Neither am I - and never was (except at the suggestion by mball that I was copping out when I said I was bored - when in reality I WAS bored, and full of Thera Flu, and sick with strep throat, and just wanting to sort of wrap things up for the night - but it's a new day and I'm over that).

Smoke - really, if you think that I am MAD about this whole redefinition of marriage thing, you're way off base. When I say I don't care - I mean it. I DON'T CARE. This issue, though a large one for you, is so far down my list of burning issues that it's almost negligible. In fact, I spend way too much time even discussing it here on this forum - but sheeze, if you want to be a part of this forum, you just gotta understand that the topic of gay rights is ever present.

Besides that, like most people here, I have an opinion on just about everything and it's hard to resist giving it. Some people watch "Lost" or "the Bachelor" or "American Idol." I play here. I know I don't have to respond to every post about gay rights - and I don't. But my purpose for being here is to exchange ideas and viewpoints - so that's what I'm doing.

It would be nice if you appreciated the fact that I hold no animosity toward you and your lifestyle - but that's up to you entirely and whether you do so or not doesn't impact my life in any way.

As for that British Israelite who was posting racial and religious views that opposed mine - I wasn't offended, I was entertained. This is a DEBATE forum - I was DEBATING him. It's what I do here.

By the way, I have people like you in my family too.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I don't know how you missed my point so entirely. Let me make it simple: I believe that all legal unions of all people - gay or straight - should be legal contracts called civil unions.

I believe that the federal government should stay out of Christmas. Let employers call it whatever they want to call it - let people say Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas or whatever.

Voila - no discrimination.

yes, as already pointed out though

small elves from Zimbabwe will invade the nations capital...

before this occurs...

 

[Kathryn]

yes, as already pointed out though

small elves from Zimbabwe will invade the nations capital...

before this occurs...

True, and that's a shame on both counts, because small elves from Zimbabwe invading the nation's capital would make for pretty interesting late night news.

More interesting than this current debate for SURE. Bring on the Zimbabwein elves!

Big question is though - are elves human and can we marry them?

 

[Magic Man]

I believe that the federal government should stay out of Christmas. Let employers call it whatever they want to call it - let people say Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas or whatever.

Wait, what did I miss? When did the government start telling people they can't say "Merry Christmas"?

 

[Kathryn]

You didn't miss anything, mball - this was in response to a post by someone else, and Christmas was mentioned.

I know you don't like me talking to anyone else, but honestly - you've got to quit being so possessive. You're smothering me!

 

[Muffled]

So my wife's currently engaged in her weekly habit of watching The Bachelor, but something just occurred to me:

There are plenty of religious groups that have made lots of noise about "protecting the sanctity of marriage" when it suited them. However, consider something like The Bachelor: it effectively turns marriage into the prize on a game show.

I've done Google searches to see if I could find any church or other organization that's spoken out against this show and I couldn't find any. The "protect marriage" crowd is conspicuously silent on treating marriage as a commodity that can be competed for in the name of ratings.

Those of you who belong to the groups who say that they have an interest in "protecting marriage": why has your group stayed silent about this?

I think it is a non-issue. Eve's marriage to Adam was an arranged marriage.

Doubtless "sanctity of marriage" is not a prhase used in the Bible. So it is more than likely referring to a conglomerate of Biblical principles. Which principle did you have in mind to discuss?

Obviously that goes against some romantic notion in our society that people have to be "in love" to get married. My daughter got married as a matter of convenience. It was no less a marriage than any other marriage. The marriage didn't work out but not because of a lack of romantic love but because the husband beat her. (My daughter has a thing for the bad boys)

 

[Magic Man]

You didn't miss anything, mball - this was in response to a post by someone else, and Christmas was mentioned.

I know you don't like me talking to anyone else, but honestly - you've got to quit being so possessive. You're smothering me!

Way to miss the point. What I was asking is how I missed it when the government started telling people they can't say "Merry Christmas". I've been paying attention for many years, and I don't recall that ever happening. I know that many businesses choose to cover their bases and say "Happy holidays", but I missed the part where the government told them they had to do that.

 

[Storm]

Storm, please PLEASE develop a sense of humor!

I have a great sense of humor. OTOH, if you think that shouting at people for something they have no control over is funny, maybe you should work on yours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it is a non-issue. Eve's marriage to Adam was an arranged marriage.

Was Eve's marriage to Adam the prize on a game show?

Doubtless "sanctity of marriage" is not a prhase used in the Bible. So it is more than likely referring to a conglomerate of Biblical principles. Which principle did you have in mind to discuss?

None.

I'm talking about the stated position of groups who say they're interested in "protecting marriage". Whether they're inspired by the Bible is irrelevant to this conversation. I'm not asking whether their stated position is consistent with the Bible, I'm asking whether their stated position is consistent with their actions.

Obviously that goes against some romantic notion in our society that people have to be "in love" to get married.

I didn't mention love so far. To this point, the only thing I've tried to imply is that marriage is a thing of great value, and that "protect marriage" groups have said the same thing.

My daughter got married as a matter of convenience. It was no less a marriage than any other marriage. The marriage didn't work out but not because of a lack of romantic love but because the husband beat her. (My daughter has a thing for the bad boys)

I don't know the circumstances of your daughter's marriage, so I won't comment on it, but in a general sense, I do think there are marriages of convenience that cheapen the idea of marriage (though I can also imagine circumstances where certain marriages of convenience would be the best or most virtuous option).

 

[Kathryn]

I have a great sense of humor. OTOH, if you think that shouting at people for something they have no control over is funny, maybe you should work on yours.

Well, so you say -as we all know, humor is very subjective. I'll just have to take your word for it, I guess.

In fact, now's your chance to shine, Storm! I'm about half cocked on Thera Flu and Nyquil and come to think of it, I'm finding more and more humor in your posts! Keep typing!

 

[AxisMundi]

The vast, vast majority of civilizations throughout history have defined marriage as between the two genders - not same gender. You can find a few scattered examples over the course of thousands and thousands of years that may be same gender, but they were rarely defined as actual marriages.

It's nothing personal - I didn't write the history, or define the term. But words have meanings. The law is made of words with defined meanings. When a meaning changes, the ramifications can be very far reaching. So it's best to tread carefully.

The history of marriage does not belong to any one group - you're right. It's nearly universally been limited however to a union between the two genders - since the beginning of time.

Sorry - but that's true.

I am not opposed to ANY people loving each other and being together - enriching each other's lives in whatever way they see fit. I don't have to agree with someone's moral choices in order to respect their right to those choices.

I think that's what ticks me off - it's not enough to be tolerant, respectful, and kind. Sheeze, the way the responses have been in here, you would think I was Phyliss Shafley or whatever her name was. I'm not trying to impede anyone's right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness and I wouldn't willingly stand by and allow anyone around me to do that to someone else either.

But I'm sticking by my own personal beliefs and in a debate forum like this, I feel free to share them - as others do. Would I go next door to my gay neighbor's house and tell him I don't agree with his lifestyle? No - that would be rude - and weird. However, if he was rude enough to pry and put me on the spot for my opinion, I guess I'd have to be honest with him.

I don't think he'll do that though. He's a really nice guy and a great neighbor - and we enjoy each other's friendship too much to be so confrontational with each other.

Same-gendered marriages were present among the people who inhabited this continent before Europeans hit these shores. So we have an example of a culture merely a few centuries old, less when one considers the time line of the subjugation of the 1st Nations peoples.

Marriage has also been a sociological "definition" as well. Religious marriage ceremonies didn't even enter the picture until the 1500's, and then only within the Roman Catholic religion.

There has also never been one concrete definition of marriage either. In some cultures it was arranged, in others we see multiple wifes (and yes, the wifes were married to each other as well as their husband), etc.

At one time in this country, within my memory, marriage was defined as "between one man and one women... of the same race".

Marriage, both the term and practice, is a fluid evolution, differing between different cultures and religions across time and geographical areas, and sometimes within cultures as well.

Love is a matter of the heart, after all, and not the genitalia. There is no rational reason to deny Equality of Marriage to a minority of US citizens merely because some people adhere to a religion that claims homosexuality as a sin. The US isn't, nor has ever been, a theopolitical Nation.

 

[AxisMundi]

While were at it, being non-religious and gay, should my ability to perform legal marriages be taken away?

And why shouldn't those religions that excepts gays for the normal people they are be permitted to conduct religious, and legally binding, marriages for same-gendered couples?

"Religious freedom and equality" apparently only pertains to a select few in this country.

 

[AxisMundi]

I don't know how you missed my point so entirely. Let me make it simple: I believe that all legal unions of all people - gay or straight - should be legal contracts called civil unions.

I believe that the federal government should stay out of Christmas. Let employers call it whatever they want to call it - let people say Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas or whatever.

Voila - no discrimination.

So why not have legal unions called "marriages", like we do now?

Why dismantle and destroy a g'ment institution in place for centuries?

Marriage is, first and foremost in the US, a g'ment institution that some citizens prefer to enact utilizing religious wedding cerimonies.

 

[McBell]

So why not have legal unions called "marriages", like we do now?

Why dismantle and destroy a g'ment institution in place for centuries?

Marriage is, first and foremost in the US, a g'ment institution that some citizens prefer to enact utilizing religious wedding cerimonies.

Well, the problem is that religionists seem to think that religion somehow owns the word 'marriage'.

 

[Smoke]

Well, the problem is that religionists seem to think that religion somehow owns the word 'marriage'.

Well, we have a solution at hand, and it's even already in use. All they have to do is avail themselves of it. We call civil marriages marriages, just like we always have, and those who need to feel that their marriage is holier, more sanctified, and more special than other people's marriages can call their marriage Holy Matrimony.

There. Problem solved.

 

[Sunstone]

Homosexual marriage will interfer with my right as an American male to marry a Hollywood sex goddess. As proof my assertation, I submit this logic:

1. As an American male, I have a natural right, established in the Declaration of Independence under the pursuit of happiness clause, to marry a Hollywood sex goddess.

2. No Hollywood sex goddess has consented to married me, despite my many felt and ferverent prayers to the Almighty.

3. The reason no Hollywood sex goddess has married me is because the Homosexual Lobby has been insisting on marriage by consent and is harshly opposed to traditional, arranged marriages.

4. It is clear the Almighty did not intend lack of consent to stand in the way of my marriage, or He would not have authored the Declaration of Independence.

5. Argo, Homosexuals are standing between me and Angelina Jolie's impassioned lips.

 

[AxisMundi]

Well, the problem is that religionists seem to think that religion somehow owns the word 'marriage'.

Quite agreed.

So now we have the "civil unions" ,created by those same religionists, perhaps because they know their stranglehold on society is fading and they have no real legal standing to discriminate against a US minority.

And if that fails, we have religionists calling for the elimination of marriage alltogether, a sort of "you guys don't play nice (you're not letting me win), so I'm taking my football and going home" child-like mentality.

 

[McBell]

So now we have the "civil unions" ,created by those same religionists, perhaps because they know their stranglehold on society is fading and they have no real legal standing to discriminate against a US minority.

This argument fails for two reasons.
One, separate but equal has never once worked.
Two, do they really expect the whole country to just start changing the names of things willy nilly in order to fulfill some unsubstantiated trumped up claim to a word?

And if that fails, we have religionists calling for the elimination of marriage alltogether, a sort of "you guys don't play nice (you're not letting me win), so I'm taking my football and going home" child-like mentality.

The religionists are just going to be flat out disappointed if they try this route.
Marriage is just to big a business for the government to merely do away with.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wait, what did I miss? When did the government start telling people they can't say "Merry Christmas"?

It was a comparison I made. Since some people insist that a "civil union" is essentially the same thing, I suggested that only Christians can celebrate Christmas, and say Merry Christmas. Everyone else can still celebrate this holiday in the same fashion, it just has to be a winter holiday, as only the religious Christian crowd can celebrate Christmas.

 

[gnomon]

So my wife's currently engaged in her weekly habit of watching The Bachelor, but something just occurred to me:

There are plenty of religious groups that have made lots of noise about "protecting the sanctity of marriage" when it suited them. However, consider something like The Bachelor: it effectively turns marriage into the prize on a game show.

I've done Google searches to see if I could find any church or other organization that's spoken out against this show and I couldn't find any. The "protect marriage" crowd is conspicuously silent on treating marriage as a commodity that can be competed for in the name of ratings.

Those of you who belong to the groups who say that they have an interest in "protecting marriage": why has your group stayed silent about this?

They are silent because religious believers, aside from those such as the WBC and 700 Club, have no desire in protecting marriage.

Opposition to gay marriage in this country is solely about forcing an acceptance of religious bigotry.