[QUOTE=Ardosos;31220000]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]
But marriage is associated into government, from whence it came, it no longer remains. Marriage should either be given to everyone as an equal right, or it should be entirely replaced by civil unions and marriage becomes solely a religious ceremony. Otherwise, you're not valuing rights, and giving it a different name wouldn't make it okay.
damnit cupcake.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;31220035]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.[/QUOTE]
That actually sounds like a good idea.
[editline]19th July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31220043]But marriage is associated into government, from whence it came, it no longer remains. Marriage should either be given to everyone as an equal right, or it should be entirely replaced by civil unions and marriage becomes solely a religious ceremony. Otherwise, you're not valuing rights, and giving it a different name wouldn't make it okay.[/QUOTE]
Frankly, I'd prefer the second option. It makes sense.
[QUOTE=RixxzIV;31214651]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]
Theres like, one quote saying gays are bad, then 8 others saying "Who gives a damn" "meh" or "So what?". Forgot which bible, as people seem to enjoy making 100 different versions.
I personally think you should use it as a guide, but never actually put faith or truly take that shit literally. it was meant to be a message on how to live your life, as an honest, loving, equal as everyone else person. Any time it says something silly, its probably because it was edited. (I don't think you'll ever find a purely unedited copy, sadly)
If I ever read the bible I want the real deal. Not that I'm going to believe in that crap.
[QUOTE=J!NX;31220771]If I ever read the bible I want the real deal. Not that I'm going to believe in that crap.[/QUOTE]
I suggest reading the Bible. Don't read it in the way a cynic does, or like you need to put your faith into it. Read it just like you'd read any other book. In one of my college classes we read many famous religious books considered to be Bibles to different cultures, yet when the class read the Christian Bible the class read it in a completely different way, the type of discussion was completely different. This annoyed me, so in the essay I wrote to the class (we'd post essays on a forum it was an assignment to read essays other people posted) I wrote this.
[quote]First off, I'd like to address one thing about this text. We should treat it like any other text when reading and deciphering it. We should take what it says and use it to make arguments about what the text is saying. Discussing whether the events really happened or not does not add to the discussion and has no impact on the meaning of the text. Why is the focus of these discussions on whether Jesus really healed the sick or walked on water? This wasn't the case with other texts. Like in the Odyssey, nobody was saying “there is no evidence to show that Cyclops ever existed”. The focus of the discussion was never about the implausibilities or if events did or didn't happen, the discussions was about the text. Just accept what the book throws at you and try to interpret it.
Interpreting the Bible should be done in the same fashion as any other book we've read during Honors classes. When my last semester class read The Torah, during the discussion there was a great amount of tension, and no one wanted to say anything wrong, and this is likely because it has an affiliation with the Bible. My main point is that students treat texts like these different when they shouldn't.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Ardosos;31219886]In the eyes of the law, but marriage is a creation of religion.[/QUOTE]
If you read up basic ancient history you'll notice marriage existed long before the birth of christ.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;31221204]If you read up basic ancient history you'll notice marriage existed long before the birth of christ.[/QUOTE]
The word, or the concept?
The concept
[editline]19th July 2011[/editline]
I mean marriage can just mean a union between two people, it doesn't have to have a romantic connotations at all. It's only recently with those damn evangelicals has the whole "woman and man only" marriage come up.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;31221204]If you read up basic ancient history you'll notice marriage existed long before the birth of christ.[/QUOTE]
It is was a big practice among Jews and they've been around for a very long time. Christians certainly got marriage, and a good chuck of their Bible from the Jews. You can likely note some other culture before the Jews that had a form of marriage that wasn't religious. The issue with these arguments is that you assume that the first to come up with a principle is right, and that words and practices can't change with time. To go beyond that, you have to assume that through huge language gaps we can determine that this culture had a clear definition that can easily be equated to our own words. Really I think the whole debate about what marriage is doesn't matter, and historical evidence doesn't matter. What makes most sense is to define what marriage means in the present time.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;31221302]I mean marriage can just mean a union between two people, it doesn't have to have a romantic connotations at all. It's only recently with those damn evangelicals has the whole "woman and man only" marriage come up.[/QUOTE]
It really only came into being during the late 60's with the neocons pushing family values that never existed. It's interesting because prior the the 1950's, homosexuality was rather accepted in America, especially during the 20's. But after WWII gays got associated with communism for whatever reason.
[QUOTE=Pepin;31221348]It is was a big practice among Jews and they've been around for a very long time. Christians certainly got marriage, and a good chuck of their Bible from the Jews. You can likely note some other culture before the Jews that had a form of marriage that wasn't religious. The issue with these arguments is that you assume that the first to come up with a principle is right, and that words and practices can't change with time. To go beyond that, you have to assume that through huge language gaps we can determine that this culture had a clear definition that can easily be equated to our own words. Really I think the whole debate about what marriage is doesn't matter, and historical evidence doesn't matter. What makes most sense is to define what marriage means in the present time.[/QUOTE]
The Ancient Chinese(and all asian countries it influenced) had marriage. Ancient egypt, Greece and Rome all did. I'll wager the ancient Mesopotamian cultures did because what they had as a civilization undoubtedly bled into the Abrahamic religions.
But yeah you're right, the here and now matters more than the past. I just like context.
Of course marriage is a religious institution! Have you ever heard of two atheists getting married?
That's what I thought.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;31221658]Have you ever heard of two atheists getting married?
[/QUOTE]
yeah
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;31221658] Have you ever heard of two atheists getting married?[/QUOTE]
My parents!
[editline]19th July 2011[/editline]
Also two sets of aunts and uncles!
No, but marriage itself is
as long as marriage has any legal benefits then it should be for everyone.
[QUOTE=Pepin;31221150]I suggest reading the Bible. Don't read it in the way a cynic does, or like you need to put your faith into it. Read it just like you'd read any other book. In one of my college classes we read many famous religious books considered to be Bibles to different cultures, yet when the class read the Christian Bible the class read it in a completely different way, the type of discussion was completely different. This annoyed me, so in the essay I wrote to the class (we'd post essays on a forum it was an assignment to read essays other people posted) I wrote this.[/QUOTE]
Your very wise. and I agree, read the bible as a message (the text) without reading the bible in literal form. You shouldn't argue about the image of a movie, you should argue its message.
I love it when Fundamentalists take things from the Old Testament and believe them completely literally... Forgetting that it's basically a bunch of people's views at the time and wasn't written by or with the consent of God. That's like saying that The Three Bears was written by Goldilocks.
I love it when people take things from fictional books literally
[QUOTE=Sanius;31222058]I love it when people take things from fictional books literally[/QUOTE]
Scientology :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
