Is Marriage Equality Scarier Than War? - Polidicks

It's sad that fundamentalist jackasses make all Christians look stupid.

[QUOTE]Is Marriage Equality Scarier Than War?[/QUOTE] no

[QUOTE=superfunkyjam;31203067]whywhywhy. because he's grossed out by what gay people do behind closed doors? THE DOORS ARE CLOSED, GET THE FUCK OVER YOUR BAD SELF.[/QUOTE] No, it's because, through his viewpoint, he commits a crime against God by marrying two homosexual people. Like, seriously, isn't there some other way to get "married" outside of religion? I don't understand why people who obviously don't believe in the religion, still wants to do something like getting married in the name of said religion. Wait, have I misunderstood this dilemma completely?

[QUOTE=RixxzIV;31213381]No, it's because, through his viewpoint, he commits a crime against God by marrying two homosexual people.[/QUOTE] And if he had half a brain he'd realize that Gay Marriage does not force ANYONE to actually conduct, or even participate in, an actual gay marriage.

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;31213430]And if he had half a brain he'd realize that Gay Marriage does not force ANYONE to actually conduct, or even participate in, an actual gay marriage.[/QUOTE] OOooohhhh, so there's nothing religious about it at all? Then the answer to my question in the post above yours is answered.

[QUOTE=RixxzIV;31213381]No, it's because, through his viewpoint, he commits a crime against God by marrying two homosexual people. Like, seriously, isn't there some other way to get "married" outside of religion? I don't understand why people who obviously don't believe in the religion, still wants to do something like getting married in the name of said religion. Wait, have I misunderstood this dilemma completely?[/QUOTE] Marriage isn't exactly set in stone to be religion exclusive.

[quote] As an ordained minister, will I now have to go against the law and subject myself to punishment for refusing to marry two people of the same sex? [/quote] Why do we need a minister to marry people? I honestly don't care if a minister refuses to "marry" people. I think it should simply be just a legal agreement with none of that fancy minister shit.

[QUOTE=J!NX;31213664]Marriage isn't exactly set in stone to be religion exclusive.[/QUOTE] S'all good, then. I'm fairly sure that's what the guy in the OP is worried about, that he'll be forced to commit a "crime" in order to keep his job/not get sued.

Why do they have to use the word "marriage"? If they just would have called it, say, a "civil union" and gave it the same legal status as marriage, there would have been very little religious based arguments to begin with.

[QUOTE=RixxzIV;31213847]S'all good, then. I'm fairly sure that's what the guy in the OP is worried about, that he'll be forced to commit a "crime" in order to keep his job/not get sued.[/QUOTE] he says that because he read the bible without actually reading the bible. It's the same thing a high schooler does with a book he's bored with but is forced to read it for school, so he just 'skims' 'for what he wants to read and reads only the 'cool parts'. Who the fuck cares about all those parts about acceptance and love and honestly? Anyways? Read the fun bits man! He's ignorant, foolish, misguided, childish and ludicrous for believing this. EDIT: I just realized, its not sin if gays are married because they are married and therefore they can no longer commit adultery with each other. Does this mean he condones sin for not wanting them to marry? They would commit 'sin' more that way!

[QUOTE=Ardosos;31214126]Why do they have to use the word "marriage"? If they just would have called it, say, a "civil union" and gave it the same legal status as marriage, there would have been very little religious based arguments to begin with.[/QUOTE] Or, or even better! Instead of being "married"... they can be "butt buddies"!

[QUOTE=Ardosos;31214126]Why do they have to use the word "marriage"? If they just would have called it, say, a "civil union" and gave it the same legal status as marriage, there would have been very little religious based arguments to begin with.[/QUOTE] That's like saying that toilets for blacks should be called Waste removal while for whites they're called toilets.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31214343]Or, or even better! Instead of being "married"... they can be "butt buddies"![/QUOTE] But what about lesbians?

Oh well lesbians are okay because they make you hard

[QUOTE=J!NX;31214247]he says that because he read the bible without actually reading the bible. It's the same thing a high schooler does with a book he's bored with but is forced to read it for school, so he just 'skims' 'for what he wants to read and reads only the 'cool parts'. Who the fuck cares about all those parts about acceptance and love and honestly? Anyways? Read the fun bits man! He's ignorant, foolish, misguided, childish and ludicrous for believing this. EDIT: I just realized, its not sin if gays are married because they are married and therefore they can no longer commit adultery with each other. Does this mean he condones sin for not wanting them to marry? They would commit 'sin' more that way![/QUOTE] Doesn't the bible say something along the lines of "A homosexual person shall never enter the presence of God" ? Then again, I'm incredibly confused on how I should see the bible. Some people say EVERYTHING's contextual and SHOULDN'T really be taken literally, while some people say that NOTHING'S contextual and that EVERYTHING should be taken literally, while some people say that SOME things are contextual and that SOME things shouldn't be taken literally. I'd guess most things are contextual, though, seeing as there's such a shitload of contradictions everywhere.

[QUOTE=Nikota;31214348]That's like saying that toilets for blacks should be called Waste removal while for whites they're called toilets.[/QUOTE] I fail to see how that is at all the same. Marriage is (to an extent) a part of Religion, and separation of church and state and all of that. Besides, with my idea, there would be far fewer arguments for the "sanctity" of marriage being violated.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;31215142]I fail to see how that is at all the same. Marriage is (to an extent) a part of Religion[/QUOTE] Marriage is the state of two people being consensually and contractually in a relationship that is recognized by law. Nothing more, nothing less. Marriage doesn't have to be in any way spiritual.

[QUOTE=Superginger;31218799]Marriage is the state of two people being consensually and contractually in a relationship that is recognized by law. Nothing more, nothing less. Marriage doesn't have to be in any way spiritual.[/QUOTE] but.... but.... [b]Marriage is a religious institution![/b] :suicide:

Wow obviously this guy needs to experience a natural disaster or a war first-hand before he goes around making shitting on a piece of paper and publishing it

[QUOTE=Ardosos;31214126]Why do they have to use the word "marriage"? If they just would have called it, say, a "civil union" and gave it the same legal status as marriage, there would have been very little religious based arguments to begin with.[/QUOTE] Been saying that for years. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS civil partnership. Civil Union is the way to avoid all of the religious arguments.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;31218876]Been saying that for years. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS civil partnership. Civil Union is the way to avoid all of the religious arguments.[/QUOTE] Yes, somebody gets it. Thank you, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.

The religious arguments shouldn't have a base to stand on anyway. There's supposed to be something called separation of church and state.

[QUOTE=Superginger;31219419]The religious arguments shouldn't have a base to stand on anyway. There's supposed to be something called separation of church and state.[/QUOTE] Um, you have that backwards. Religious arguments [I]alone[/I] should have a base to stand on because of separation of church and state. Marriage being a religious institution and all.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;31219456]Um, you have that backwards. Religious arguments [I]alone[/I] should have a base to stand on because of separation of church and state. Marriage being a religious institution and all.[/QUOTE] I guess I just don't agree that marriage is strictly a religious thing. I believe marriage is the contractual joining of two people, not necessarily the contractual joining of two people under god. And it just seems to me like civil unions are "You can have this, but because you're gay, you can't have what everyone else is having"

[QUOTE=Ardosos;31215142]I fail to see how that is at all the same. Marriage is (to an extent) a part of Religion, and separation of church and state and all of that. Besides, with my idea, there would be far fewer arguments for the "sanctity" of marriage being violated.[/QUOTE] No. marriage exists independent of religion. [editline]19th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Craigewan;31218876]Been saying that for years. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS civil partnership. Civil Union is the way to avoid all of the religious arguments.[/QUOTE] You saying marriage is solely religious doesn't make it so it also doesn't make a civil union equal to marriage.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31219661]No. marriage exists independent of religion. [/QUOTE] In the eyes of the law, but marriage is a creation of religion.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;31219886]In the eyes of the law, but marriage is a creation of religion.[/QUOTE] Not of abrahamic religions so it shouldn't be importance. The idea of bonding two people together isn't the result of any recent religion and it's insane to think that.

[QUOTE=Superginger;31219547]I guess I just don't agree that marriage is strictly a religious thing. I believe marriage is the contractual joining of two people, not necessarily the contractual joining of two people under god. And it just seems to me like civil unions are "You can have this, but because you're gay, you can't have what everyone else is having"[/QUOTE] There is a lot of history to this, and it can't really be dismissed that marriage started out as a religious institution, with time has controlled by religious authority and government, and is for the most part now just controlled by the government. A lot of the shift has to do with churches and governments being very close or being the same entity (many early religions were also a form of government). The definition of marriage is very muddy, especially in how it has changed with time. What makes it worse is that marriage or processes similar to marriage are spring up all over the world independent forms. You can argue from both sides with plenty of cultural evidence and this just shows how messy the issue is. I think both arguments have validity and I could care less about what one is right because I don't think there is one definition of marriage especially considering how words and concepts change with time. To bring up two points, why shouldn't the government only offer civil unions to straight and gay people? No marriage involved, straight people get civil unions just as well as gay people. A civil union is clearly just a legally recognized contract recognized by the government and can't be argued to stand for me. Second point is, if you really believe marriage is just a private contract, what gives the government authority to make any law about it? The courts have to uphold the contract just as any other contract, but should any law exist to limit who you can make private contracts with?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31219948]Not of abrahamic religions so it shouldn't be importance. The idea of bonding two people together isn't the result of any recent religion and it's insane to think that.[/QUOTE] Ah, but we aren't just talking of the bonding of two people, we are talking of marriage, which is an established and separate concept. If they used a different word, there would be no problem. But because they use the word marriage, they use all the connotations that come with it.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31219965]There is a lot of history to this, and it can't really be dismissed that marriage started out as a religious institution, with time has controlled by religious authority and government, and is for the most part now just controlled by the government. A lot of the shift has to do with churches and governments being very close or being the same entity. The definition of marriage is very muddy, especially in how it has changed with time. What makes it worse is that marriage or processes similar to marriage are spring up all over the world independent forms. To bring up two points, why shouldn't the government only offer civil unions to straight and gay people? No marriage involved, straight people get civil unions just as well as gay people. A civil union is clearly just a legally recognized contract recognized by the government and can't be argued to stand for me. Second point is, if you really believe marriage is just a private contract, what gives the government authority to make any law about it? The courts have to uphold the contract just as any other contract, but should any law exist to limit who you can make private contracts with?[/QUOTE] I agree with this. I'm not saying that straight people get marriage, and homosexuals get civil unions or anything. Both should get civil unions then the Church doesn't have anything to complain about anymore. They can say gays can't get "married" all they want, but they should get the same legal benefits a "marriage" would get. [editline]19th July 2011[/editline] Basically, just change the word in the law and the church can have their silly marriage.