Same-sex Marriage.

[saitenyo]

Sweet jesus, can you not wall-o-text? Urgh.

Pardon? I spaced out my answers with paragraphs to make them readable, and this reply of yours is almost as long as mine so I'm not sure what your problem is? I was trying to explain things clearly and in detail to avoid confusion. I really think it's unnecessary to resort to making this discussion personal by complaining about how I write my replies.

"Which is what anyone should be prepared to do if they want their opinions listened to and respected publicly."

Idc if they're not respected.

Fair enough. But may I ask what the point of sharing your opinion is if you don't care what anyone thinks of it? You asked why it was necessary for me to share mine, so let me pose that same question to you now.

" Anyone who votes influences the law on marriage, so yes, I do think speaking my mind is going to help because every person whose mind I can change is one less person keeping these changes from happening."

You're not going to change someone's mind when their mind is already made up.

That's a very depressing and defeatist attitude. If everyone thought like this, we'd never see any progress. If this were true, women would still be considered the property of men, slavery would still be legal, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. History and my own personal experience in these sorts of discussions provide countless examples of just how incorrect this claim of yours is. There are plenty of reasons people may hold certain prejudices that may be difficult to change, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, and it's certainly no reason not to try. I have personally seen plenty of people's minds changed in discussions like these, especially since these sorts of opinions are often the product of ignorance and lack of understanding. So I'm going to keep on trying.

I didn't mention the change of words, stop jumping to conclusions.

You said you agreed with Simba's argument that wanting a ceremonial marriage is an attack on Christianity. Did you actually read the argument that you were agreeing with? He was making the "why can't they call it something else?" argument. If you're agreeing with him, then what you're agreeing with is the notion that "marriage" is a term that should be reserved for Christian unions. You also said: "Change is a decision, it's not something out of the control of people, so using that as an argument is kinda silly because you're implying that things must change. And last time I checked, marriage wasn't just a word. We have verbs adjective nouns etc to describe what a word applies to."
It sounded to me like you're speaking in defense of marriage as a Christian-specific term. Did I misunderstand?

And feeling that a specific group/ethnicity/whatever is entitled to marriage doesn't reek of entitlement?

No. I am referring to the scenario of an already privileged group feeling that they deserve to retain their special privileges where others do not deserve the same treatment. Feeling that a specific group that is current barred from having the same rights and privileges as others deserves the same fair treatment is not even remotely the same thing. I am not saying gay couples deserve special treatment, I am saying that they deserve the same freedoms as any other couple, which they do not currently have.

You can feel something is afoot without knowing the motive behind it. And what the f*ck reason would I have to be prejudiced on the issue, I'm bi myself. I'm just not a slave to this issue because I think too many supporters of it are whining instead of making the best of what is currently to be had. Jeez, if you love enough why be desperate for marriage? love is love, its simple. Also I'm offended you assume that my beliefs are led by some illogical prejudice. there are two sides to every coin.

Well my apologies then. I sure never would have guessed you were bi considering how adamantly you're fighting against a cause which affects people of your orientation and the fact that you were defending someone who was claiming gay marriage is an attack on Christianity. :/ It may not be important to you but it is actually important to others, and just because it's not something that you care about does not mean you should go around trivializing the feelings of those that do and agreeing with such absurd concepts as separate but equal.

It is still extremely narrowminded of you to assume that everyone must think exactly as you do. Marriage means different things to different people. I've grown up in a culture where marriage is romanticized and treated as a symbolic act of lifelong monogamy. It doesn't matter to me whether or not it has any real bearing on my love for my significant other, I still want it. It's symbolically important to me. It means something to me from a cultural perspective. Whether or not someone wants a marriage is a personal choice and frankly, it's none of your business why someone might want one since it does not affect you. So you don't care about marriage, good for you. But you could at least show a little sensitivity and respect to people who do and acknowledge that they should be allowed to make their own personal choices about what is important in their own lives.

You didnt really answer that one and im kinda confused, and it was very very long.

Ok, in simple terms: Making up another word specifically for gay marriages is silly and unconstitutional because 1-It probably won't catch on because people are already used to using the word "marriage" to refer to legal unions between couples. And 2-Religion has no right to dictate government policy, and so far I have not heard any argument other than religious ones for why gay couples should not be allowed to call their union a "marriage."

It sounds to me like much of this has been a misunderstanding, because you claimed to agree with an argument you apparently don't actually support. If it has been a misunderstanding, I apologize. I genuinely have no idea what your opinion on this is at this point, as I approached this from the understanding that you were agreeing with Simba's "gay marriage is an attack on Christianity" argument. Perhaps now would be a good time to clarify why you said you agreed with him?

[Sadiki]

First I want to say my eyes hurt after reading through the posts here and my brain is pretty scrambled

Anyways I want to point out on little thing on the claim that same sex marriage should be called something else than marriage. After all Bible was not originally translated in English, there for I don't think it's right to claim word marriage is or should be related to religion. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Also what comes gays attacking Christianity, I believe I read somewhere that same sex marriages were decently common in ancient Greece and Rome and by considering, Christianity begun in that area, it's more than likely that Christianity in fact put end to that, so yeah who was attacking who? And also to claim word marriage is only for Christianity it would also mean me and Audra in example are not married. As there is still nothing religious in our marriage.

So as short, as I said before. Religions don't have to allow marriages between same sex. If it's against the teachings, then it's acceptable, but that should not have anything to do with legally being able to marry. I still think it's the stupidest thing when religions have any saying on what happens in politics. I seriously laugh when god is brought in discussion in presidential elections in USA. Because it should have nothing to do with electing. It's just used to manipulate people. Seriously, learn to divide those to subjects. But yeah I'm going a bit off subject here. Anyways if religion states that marriage is between man and woman then that is how it is... in that religion. But if the law states that gay marriage is allowed, then legally person should be allowed to get married as long as it doesn't require religious agenda.

[Juniper]

Anyways I want to point out on little thing on the claim that same sex marriage should be called something else than marriage. After all Bible was not originally translated in English, there for I don't think it's right to claim word marriage is or should be related to religion. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Also what comes gays attacking Christianity, I believe I read somewhere that same sex marriages were decently common in ancient Greece and Rome and by considering, Christianity begun in that area, it's more than likely that Christianity in fact put end to that, so yeah who was attacking who? And also to claim word marriage is only for Christianity it would also mean me and Audra in example are not married. As there is still nothing religious in our marriage.

Just wanted to chime in and say that casual homosexual relationships were relatively common in Roman culture, but the concept of a "Gay marriage" as we know it is very much a last-few-hundred-years sorta thing. If faced with this decision, most Roman citizens would probably ask why the two men or two women would even want to be married as they would not be providing offspring for the family lineage. Marriage was defined within the Roman empire around the time of Christianity as being between a man and a woman (in some areas, especially areas with a high jewish population, multiple women). Marrying strictly out of love is also a relatively new concept -- political, economic, and social factors also determined one's future spouse, and often the two people being married did not have the final say in their own marriage. The concept of marriage existed long before Christianity. The concept of a gay marriage in ancient culture is, in my opinion, a total anachronism.

[Sadiki]

Well yeah I do agree that Wikipedia is not the most accurate, but I found what I said from there. here is the link History of same-sex unions

Oh and I think I forgot to mention earlier that I do also believe there isn't such a thing as 100% hetero or homosexual, all people are more or less bisexuals, even if one is 99,9999...% hetero or homosexual, it's still not 100%. I believe under right circumstances anything is possible

[Juniper]

Well yeah I do agree that Wikipedia is not the most accurate, but I found what I said from there. here is the link History of same-sex unions

I'm aware of the sources it references, and same-sex relationships did exist, but I don't consider them similar to today's "Gay marriage" debate*. One of the subjects that I pour a lot of my time into is the history of the early Christian church and its development within Roman and eastern society. I feel that wikipedia is not fairly representing the situation -- Jewish provinces outlawed homosexual relationships with the punishment of death, as described in the Torah and ratified by their Talmud more than a hundred years before Christianity even began. Many pagan sects had stricter sexuality laws than either Jewish populations or Christian populations. This very much predates Christianity, and there were always strong cultural clashes when dealing with homosexual relationships between Rome and its client states.


*Those are not meant to be condescending quotations.

[saitenyo]

I think Pnt makes a good point (which is actually the one I was trying to make earlier regarding the importance of symbolic marriage to even the nonreligious) in that the purpose of marriage has very much changed in our culture. It's no longer about property or politics. It's not even about starting a family or following a religious guideline to everyone. To many people it means different, or multiple things.

To me it's about starting a family and about love. And while obviously love can exist without marriage, the cultural symbolism of marriage as a monogamous union of love is still important to me, which is why I, as a nonreligious person, still want a secular marriage ceremony, not just a signed piece of paper for legal benefits. It won't be in a church, but it won't be in a courthouse either. It will be somewhere meaningful to me, the ceremony will be about the bonds of love, and I very much look forward to it. I know not everyone feels the same, but I would be very upset if someone told me I couldn't have that ceremony simply because someone else didn't agree with me on what marriage should be about, or because my marriage offended them somehow.

[Sadiki]

I'm well aware of marriage being way different than it used to be, but what I was trying to say is that it's not so unheard of to have same sex couple being accepted by society. Also when I talk about legal benefits of marriage, it's because that alone should be big enough reason for allowing people to get married, no matter what the race, sex or religion is. If the religion you're part of doesn't allow it, you should still be able to legally marry even if it's not performed by the religious group you're part of.

What comes to my view of marriage. Well it's mostly a status. After all I don't love my wife more than I already did before we got married neither are we even sure if we want kids. We got married in court, simple wedding, 2 necessary witnesses. Marriage was pretty much the only option for us to be together, if it wasn't for that I don't know if we would have gotten married just yet, but it's not like we really regret it. We're just as happy as we were before that, but as benefit we will be actually able to live together. Yes our case is not very typical, but still I think just because there is cases like ours and because of the wide variates of benefits in marriage I think for that sole reason, marriages should be legalized everywhere in the world. but then again it's just me

[Shadow]

this is going to sound offensive for all the wrong reasons but im just trying to prove a point here.


Ask any religious person about same sex marriage and the reply will most likley be.

"its wrong" for whatever reason.

Ask any homophobic person, and the reply most likley will be

"its wrong" for whatever reason.


Ask any Atheist, Agnostic, light or non believer, as well as non homophobic people and the reply will most likely be.

"Dont care"


of course there are exceptions. im just trying to make a point.

[Azerane]

Jeez, if you love enough why be desperate for marriage? love is love, its simple.

I do understand what you're saying in that regard in terms of 'why do I need a piece of paper to prove my love for someone' but to me it's not about that at all. For me, I want to marry the person that I love so much, as a way to show them how much that I care, and how much I truly want to be with them for the rest of my life and share my future with them. It's becoming a family with them (not necessarily with kids in mind), having the two of you. I'm not desperate for marriage, but I certainly want to be married, it just fits.

[shadowland]

this is going to sound offensive for all the wrong reasons but im just trying to prove a point here.


Ask any religious person

Ask any homophobic person

Ask any Atheist, Agnostic, light or non believe

of course there are exceptions. im just trying to make a point.

>Ask any

>Of course there are exceptions

>Ask any


lol

[saitenyo]

I do understand what you're saying in that regard in terms of 'why do I need a piece of paper to prove my love for someone' but to me it's not about that at all. For me, I want to marry the person that I love so much, as a way to show them how much that I care, and how much I truly want to be with them for the rest of my life and share my future with them. It's becoming a family with them (not necessarily with kids in mind), having the two of you. I'm not desperate for marriage, but I certainly want to be married, it just fits.

^This yes. Very much so.

[Revo]

Yeah I wouldn't generalize quite like Shadow did, although he did admit to be generalizing. The connection between a person's religion and their stance of gay marriage is solely based on what their religion tells them about it. And there even many Christian denominations whose official stance on gay marriage is not negative, even without getting into other religions.. Not to mention that there are self preclaimed atheist homophobes and lots of religious gay people aswell, who don't really fit into these generalizations ..

But Shadowland, since you still seem to be around in this thread, would you mind addressing the things I asked you in post #56? I'm afraid that post might've easily gotten overlooked because this thread was pretty crowded at the time and lots of posts were made very fast. Anyway, I would like to hear your thoughts .

[Shadow]

>Ask any

>Of course there are exceptions

>Ask any


lol

whats so funny about my statement? care to elaborate, i simply made sure not to draw everyone over one line.

[Simba]

*sigh* I shouldn't have posted in this thread, too much emotions being thrown around and why most forums will delete threads like this. Sorry

[Revo]

*sigh* I shouldn't have posted in this thread, too much emotions being thrown around and why most forums will delete threads like this. Sorry

No need to apologize, you just asked a question and presented your opinion. If somebody gets emotional over that, that's their problem. A debate thread is not the place to get emotional. In my view there has been relatively little of that here . I'm quite thankful for your post actually, livened up the thread quite a bit. Everybody just needs to remember to let the ideas and arguments do the arguing instead of the people.
The point of debate threads is not to convert anyone into any particular belief. Because those things practically never happen within the span of one discourse if at all. It's about discussion plus sharing and comparing views. You are quite welcome to have the right to your opinion, even if it's an unpopular one .

[Juniper]

And there even many Christian denominations whose official stance on gay marriage is not negative, even without getting into other religions..

There are not many that allow homosexual marriages within the church, and most have been excommunicated by all major branches of Christianity (Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxies, Anglican, and Protestant) as heretical. See the liberal split of the Presbyterian denomination. Personally, I believe that Shadow's generalizations are pretty valid, I just don't see what his point is. For what it's worth, the only issue that I take with such generalizations is that the official stance of most branches of Christianity is that these rules apply within the church and that Christians are not to judge those outside of the church according to these rules. In practice, people being people may become a bit too zealous and try to enforce their rules on people who do not follow their religion -- I do not think that this is good.

[Revo]

There are not many that allow homosexual marriages within the church, and most have been excommunicated by all major branches of Christianity (Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxies, Anglican, and Protestant) as heretical.

The fact that major christian branches don't recognize some smaller ones as Christian doesn't make a difference to me as an outsider. They all say they are Christian, and are pointing at each other saying they're not. For me as a person outside the faith, if a person claims to be Christian, I must regard them as such. I'm not in any position to say otherwise, seeing as how there are as many definitions of "Christian" as there are Christians themselves. I don't have any valid reasons to disregard the minor denominations as any more invalid as the major ones.
But I do believe I am getting a bit off-topic.

[Juniper]

The fact that major christian branches don't recognize some smaller ones as Christian doesn't make a difference to me as an outsider. They all say they are Christian, and are pointing at each other saying they're not. For me as a person outside the faith, if a person claims to be Christian, I must regard them as such. I'm not in any position to say otherwise, seeing as how there are as many definitions of "Christian" as there are Christians themselves. I don't have any valid reasons to disregard the minor denominations as any more invalid as the major ones.
But I do believe I am getting a bit off-topic.

Wasn't expecting you to recognize a difference, I was just making clear that the denominations that do allow homosexual marriage within the church are an exceedingly small proportion and are not recognized by the majority of Christianity -- so their actions do no reflect the majority of Christians. Whether that's good or bad is debatable. Even the Catholics and Protestants now typically recognize each other as Christian -- perhaps mistaken in doctrine or episcopate succession, but still Christian.

[Revo]

Wasn't expecting you to recognize a difference, I was just making clear that the denominations that do allow homosexual marriage within the church are an exceedingly small proportion and are not recognized by the majority of Christianity -- so their actions do no reflect the majority of Christians. Whether that's good or bad is debatable. Even the Catholics and Protestants now typically recognize each other as Christian -- perhaps mistaken in doctrine or episcopate succession, but still Christian.

Fair enough, I submit your point.

[Sadiki]

so their actions do no reflect the majority of Christians. Whether that's good or bad is debatable.

Well I'm not sure if it really need to be debated, except inside of the churches as it's not really important for the rest of the people if gay marriage is right or wrong in the eyes of god.

Then again I'm getting kind of confused in this thread as I think using religion to back up their opinion on why something should not be allowed is rather wrong as.. and I know I keep repeating myself, but politics and religion should be kept as far from one another as possible. One is based on personal belief where other is based decisions made for people of the nation. I mean is it really ok for a Christian or Muslim or Jewish or anyone else in that matter that something is wrong, because like said we should not be judging someone else believes, so why should those ethics be used on rules that apply to everyone living in that nation.

Even thought I'm well aware that for a lot of highly religious people, their believes creates most of the morals what is allowed and what is not, which would logically lead to them being against gay marriage if their religion says so, but I don't think it's really valid argument on why it shouldn't be allowed as it effects everyone.