All marriages should be civil unions. Everybody should have to go to a judge and form their partnership and then if they want to have some sort of church or marriage ceremony they can do that. Somehow tieing marriage to the church is a falsehood marriage is a state sanctioned Union between two people. I don't care if it's two guys two girls a guy and a girl or more than two people as long as everybody's consenting and of age it really shouldn't matter what anybody thinks the government should acknowledge if they want to form a partnership and make it legal.
Homosexuality
Posts
Total:
125
-->
@zedvictor4
Marriage is for the purpose of keeping a family together so they can raise kids. If you don't want kids and are willing to have sex outside of marriage, marrying is pointless for you.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Complete lie having children is not a requirement for marriage you can be married and never have a child with another person, falsehood. Marriage is a union of two people in their assets.
-->
@blamonkey
If atheists can get married
I don't know how atheists marry; Jews use a synagogue, Christians use a church, Muslims use a mosque, I'm sure Hindus have a way. Atheists could use a civil union just like the gays.
A court provides a marriage license to all couples, gay or otherwise, which acknowledges the marriage in the eyes of the law. Getting married without all the faff and B.S. does not reduce a marriage to a "civil union."
I don't know the difference between a civil union and a secular marriage.
You can support gay marriage and believe that private religious organizations should be able to refuse their services to gay people.
This is my position, but I think religious organizations should not only be allowed to refuse marriage services to gay people, but they SHOULD encourage gay people to get civil unions.
I'd be curious to know if you would extend this religious exemption to doctors, but that's already being done.
I wouldn't; gay people need doctors just like straight people. But medicine isn't a religious practice; religious marriages are.
A "good Christian" marriage used to involve a practice known as coverture in the early days of the American republic, which legally mandated husbands to subsume the rights and obligations of their wives. This meant that wives were unable to draw pay, husbands were obligated to defray their wives' debts, and husbands could legally beat their wives.
I don't think husbands should be allowed to beat their wives, but I don't think we have to worry about this being legalized.
I would argue that marriage isn't sacred, but it should serve a purpose; to bind people together so they can raise kids. If you are fine with having sex outside of marriage and you don't want kids, marriage would be a waste of money for you. Currently, marriages are too expensive, but I digress.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you don't want kids, why would you marry? Your only going to lose assets from the marraige if your the rich person in the marraige.
-->
@SkepticalOne
My marriage license didn't come from a church. Did yours?
I don't want to get married.
You're welcome to speak for your own church, but some churches - CHRISTIAN churches - marry gay folks.
This violates their religion. Churches shouldn't do things that violate their own religion.
-->
@TheUnderdog
My marriage license didn't come from a church. Did yours?I don't want to get married.
Not the point - marriage licenses are not from a church. Churches attempting to define marriage for government is not what freedom of religion is about.
You're welcome to speak for your own church, but some churches - CHRISTIAN churches - marry gay folks.This violates their religion. Churches shouldn't do things that violate their own religion.
Churches which support gay humans don't think they are violating their own religion, your opinion notwithstanding.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Churches which support gay humans don't think they are violating their own religion
But the bible opposes homosexuality in half a dozen verses.
-->
@TheUnderdog
People marry for all kinds of reasons and some don't involve children. Some can't have them some are too old. What a ridiculous assumption all marriage is to pop out kids and there is not love or companionship involved. Do you save all that for a mistress?
-->
@TheUnderdog
But the bible opposes homosexuality in half a dozen verses.
The Bible is a literary Rorschach - it says what people want it to say. Suffice to say, I prefer to leave 'the Bible says' conversations to believers.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
People marry for all kinds of reasons and some don't involve children.
Why would you marry if you don't want kids? Why not just have a boyfriend or girlfriend if you like sex?
-->
@Theweakeredge
You see, me personally, I view white people as the most dangerous people
Why? if you dont mind me asking are you white?
-->
@Mesmer
So your primary argument is that marriage actually doesn't help? Also, you're missing another point, it doesn't say that married same-sex couples underperform, it says that same-sex parent's children BENEFIT from not being married.... soooo... You know, you're wrong in both instances. You can't have and eat your cake bud, is it true that marriage is the best way to raise a child or not? Is it true that gay people raise children as well as straight people or not? You have to pick one at least, otherwise you've been running a hypocritical thing dude. You see, you jumped on the first instance of my "hypocricy" without thinking that through. Even if you were completely correct here, you would still be doubting your own conclusion. But ya know, you're wrong about the other thing too. You see, when you're actually correct about things you can have as many cakes as you like. I enjoy them very much.
Also..... hahahahah! No, marriage is a right. Civially. That's not a debatable claim, that's a fact, you see "Homosexual" marriage is marriage that happens between two citizens, you are making a distinction that does not exist legally. Unless you're saying that gay marrige isn't legal? Oh, no that's right it is, that's what I mean. It is indeed a civil right for gay people to get right, has been since Obama. So no, it is not "begging the question." No, what you just described was a non-sequitur, your concluding that my conclusion does not follow my argument, or that my argument isn't cogent, that one of my premises aren't valid - which is not the same thing as a "begging the question". You need to do some review work my friend, if you were my student I'd be quite dissapointed.
So essentially you're ADMITTING to being a homophobic asshole? No, straight marriages aren't better than homosexual marriages by virtue of fact, even if I were to concede that heterosexual marriages lead to healthier children being raised (which isn't something I'm concedeing to) that would still not neccessarily mean that straight marriages are better because marriage's sole purpose is not to RAISE children. Your entire praxis is based on the axiom that marriage is for raising children, a falsehood, even when procreation was neccessary (HINT HINT - we're fucking overpopulating). Further, even if you were correct that biologic is the best, that does not lead to the conclusion that therefore remarrying or divorce should not be allowed, or that adoption as an institution should never happen. Your entire argument, when taken to it's logical conclusion, is not a very good future.
As for the rest of your passive aggressive shit, if you can't take it don't spew it honey, and you also misread. Didn't say I wouldn't read it per say (I've already read it), I'm saying that I'm not digging through your links and homework. You haven't actually argued against either of my sources.... so if we're counting on that I'm the only one with any sources, all you have is a source to your previous argument without any actual explanation as to how it applies, while I do sometimes merely link sources, it's merely to substantiate a qualifer claim, "X has raised 30%", etc, etc. All you gotta do is present it to me and I'll show you where you're wrong :), ooooh no I get it. You're scared I'll dissect it like I did your other bullshit with MLK?
-->
@Conway
A church not "the church", and no actually, most of the traditions of marriage in Europe (and later America) were taken from paganism.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Ehhh incorrect, it says that men who lie with children go to hell, still doesn't matter though, cuz' again - the bible says that you ought not to judge those who sin, as you are JUST as guitly. You've responded without interacting with my argument, get on that first.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yuup. And why? White people tend to be more arrogant, are more likely to be armed than other race, and are the most fundamentalist religious group.
-->
@Theweakeredge
it says that men who lie with children go to hell
I don't know how that interpretation of the bible fits. It was clearly referring to homosexuality.
I don't judge gay people, just like I don't judge atheists, but their activity is sinful and that should be known. There is a difference between calling something sinful and judging. Sins are what God deems immoral. Something worthy of judgement is what the individual deems is immoral. You think certain things are immoral that I think are moral and vice versa. I don't think homosexuality is immoral, but it's sinful.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wrong - that translation is more accurate than the "Man lie with man." Furthermore, christians have no right to apply what they believe to be "sinful" to other people. That's just how it is, sorry bud, as I said - Chrisitians do not have the right to discriminate - but not all christians even agree with you! You're going based on your own intepretation that therefore the entire church should be allowed to discriminate??? DO you not understand what kind of precedent that sets? Jesus. If you can't understand that then this conversation is over.
-->
@TheUnderdog
it says that men who lie with children go to hellI don't know how that interpretation of the bible fits. It was clearly referring to homosexuality.
He's not wrong. Older translations of the Bible do not condemn homosexuality, but rather pederasty. It wasn't until the last 100 years or so that the word 'homosexuality' started appearing in the Bible.
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you're a straight person and you want to spend the rest of your life with another straight person, why can't you just get a civil union instead of a marriage?
-->
@SkepticalOne
Older translations of the Bible do not condemn homosexuality, but rather pederasty.
What should happen to a man that lies with another man as one lies with a woman?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What should happen to a man that lies with another man as one lies with a woman?
Nothing.
-->
@Theweakeredge
White people tend to be more arrogant
no they arent
are more likely to be armed than other race,
true, but they use those arms less frequently than any other race, in fact According to the FBI, African-Americans accounted for 55.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019, with whites 41.1%, and "Other" 3.0% in cases where the race was known. [1]
on the topic of guns, blacks are more likely to be involved in gun related offenses
and are the most fundamentalist religious group.
actually, blacks are more socially right wing
"African Americans remain less likely than white Americans to support same-sex marriage, as has been the case for several years."
why are you a self-loathing white?
-->
@TheUnderdog
But the bible opposes homosexuality in half a dozen verses
I actually recommend reading the following.
The author of the post, despite having since deleted their account, is acknowledged as one of the highest quality contributors to the academic biblical subreddits. That doesn't mean you should take it at face value, but I think you should take a serious read.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You see, me personally, I view white people as the most dangerous people
This is objectively wrong. Per the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2019 "There were 5.3 times as many violent incidents committed by black offenders against
white victims (472,570) as were committed by white
offenders against black victims (89,980)." Since white people outnumber black people in the US around 6-1 this ratio should be reverse. If white people were the most dangerous people, as you allege, the ratio should actually be 7+ white on black crimes for every black on white crime, the reality is the exact opposite.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Funny. My marriage license didn't come from a church. Did yours?The fact is the government licenses marriages, so they should be available to everyone regardless of how dogmatic religious folks feel about it.
Yes it is a lot harder to justify banning same sex marriage when the government gets involved and gives people so many economic advantages due to it. I'm a Catholic and pretty okay with the status quo where a church can refuse to marry a gay couple
-->
@Dr.Franklin
true, but they use those arms less frequently than any other race, in fact According to the FBI, African-Americans accounted for 55.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019, with whites 41.1%, and "Other" 3.0% in cases where the race was known. [1]
Agree with everything you said. Also want to point out that amazingly the FBI STILL doesn't disaggregate Hispanic people from White people in their statistics so a large chunk of that 41.1% is Hispanic. Once you adjust for age Hispanics don't have a much higher rate of violent crime than white people do so it isn't the majority of the 41%, perhaps a quarter, but still.
And the suggestion that white people are the most arrogant is just laughable. I've never seen a more self loathing group of people in my life. This kind of rhetoric scares me to death
-->
@SkepticalOne
What should happen to a man that lies with another man as one lies with a woman?Nothing.
I agree with that. Does Leviticus 20:13 agree with us?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I see why you wear that Klan Robe in your profile picture.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What should happen to a man that lies with another man as one lies with a woman?Nothing.I agree with that. Does Leviticus 20:13 agree with us?
That is a possibility. To quote a section from this post (Reddit post from a grad student of Theology):
"Most scholars have little problems translating this part of the verse. If the author left the verse as is and cut out מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה and a couple other elements of the verse, this would be a clear condemnation of homosexuality universally speaking among males. But this universal interpretation is probably blocked by the phrase מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה, which must add some sort of different element or nuance to the statement "with a male you will not lie." Why else would the author add the phrase "מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה" ("lying downs of a woman" or "on the beds of a woman") if this was not the case?"