Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
So, What Is The Official Definition Of Marriage?  
User currently offlinezrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3128 posts, RR: 9
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 3559 times:

Conservatives claim that the gay agenda is redefining marriage. But based on what definition?


14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3501 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 3554 times:

Marriage, is a man and woman who is coming together in the eyes of God, to because a single body in Gods eyes.

User currently offlinezrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3128 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 3553 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 1):
Marriage, is a man and woman who is coming together in the eyes of God, to because a single body in Gods eyes.

But where is that defined?



14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21525 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 3542 times:

Are we talking about from a religious or legal perspective?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1346 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 3542 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 1):

Marriage, is a man and woman who is coming together in the eyes of God, to because a single body in Gods eyes.

So... Some hideous multtigendered and headed smash-monster; got it.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 2):

But where is that defined?

Somewhere ridiculous, no doubt.


But in real life, marriage already has several legal definitions, along with the requisite esoteric garbage. While I do not believe for a second that the GLBT crowd wants to redefine that, I also can't understand why they would ever want in either. But I do believe they should have that right (or no one should at all), what with them being human beings and all... I can't believe some people still oppose that.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 3531 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
Are we talking about from a religious or legal perspective?

Well I think that is exactly the question the OP is asking. Religious marriage and legal marriage are two pretty different ideas. So does YOUR definition of marriage lean more to the religious (man + woman = reproduction --> makes God happy) or to the legal side (two people registering their relationship with the government to enjoy shared benefits and recognition)?

I personally lean more towards the legal definition, but just because I don't like the idea of only allowing a certain segment of the population to partake.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 1):
Marriage, is a man and woman who is coming together in the eyes of God, to because a single body in Gods eyes.

Wouldn't it make more sense for two men or two women to become a single body? It would certainly make business easier since they have part commonality   



Flying refined.
User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39700 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 3531 times:

Marriage is finding a woman that hates you and you buy her a house.



Smart man + smart woman = romance
Smart man + dumb woman = affair
Dumb man + smart woman = marriage
Dumb man + dumb woman = pregnancy

Hope this helps.   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 3523 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 1):

Marriage, is a man and woman who is coming together in the eyes of God, to because a single body in Gods eyes.

Just like Brittany Spears and Kim Kardashian.

Its really lovely..



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinePacNWJet From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 963 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 3521 times:

"Official" definition of marriage? I'm not sure there is such a thing, but the Oxford English Dictionary, commonly recognized as the definitive dictionary of the English language, defines "marriage" as follows:

1.a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.
1.b. in or into wedlock (now arch.); to give (join, etc.) as husband or wife.
1.c. A vow or contract of marriage.
1.d. A particular instance of matrimony between a husband and wife; a matrimonial alliance.
1.e. With modifying word, as group, communal, etc.: a system understood to exist in some cultures, religious groups, etc., by which each of the men in a small community is regarded as married to each of the women.
2.a. The action, or an act, of getting married; the procedure by which two people become husband and wife.
2.b. A wedding ceremony; wedding festivities.
2.c. In phrases denoting the means or custom by which a spouse is acquired, as marriage by capture, marriage by exchange, marriage by purchase.
3. A dowry
4. A person viewed as a prospective husband or wife; a (good or bad) match. Also: a spouse (rare). Obs.


There are figurative senses of the word as well such as:

5.a. An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things.
5.b. Cards. In bezique, pinochle, and related games: the holding of a king and queen of the same suit in a hand, which scores points when declared.
5.c. (An act of) industrial or commercial union; a merger.
5.d. An antique assembled from components differing in provenance, date, etc.; the assembling of such an object.


Hope this helps.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5421 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3500 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 5):
Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
Are we talking about from a religious or legal perspective?

Well I think that is exactly the question the OP is asking. Religious marriage and legal marriage are two pretty different ideas. So does YOUR definition of marriage lean more to the religious (man + woman = reproduction --> makes God happy) or to the legal side (two people registering their relationship with the government to enjoy shared benefits and recognition)?

I personally lean more towards the legal definition, but just because I don't like the idea of only allowing a certain segment of the population to partake.

But actually you are wrong in limiting marriage in a religious sense. Because religious marriage comes in a great number of forms of which many are not recognized legally. I mean just a simple selection that we are all familiar with includes:

A man and a woman.
One man and multiple women.
Arranged marriages.
Marriages between two children.
Between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman.

I am also sure there are religions that have one woman married to multiple men (and it not would surprise me that there is a religion where multiple woman marry multiple men.

And on the gross side (what US society considers unacceptable) there are the religions that allow adult men to marry young (even prepubescent) girls, and even those that allow marriage to animals.

So it it the legal definition that is limited not the religious.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
Smart man + smart woman = romance

And then in my case it became:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
= marriage
Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
= pregnancy

 

Tugg

[Edited 2012-05-27 22:37:37]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5364 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3484 times:

I personally only believe in the biblical definition of marriage. The question is, which one to choose...hrm...

http://www.janetober.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/biblical_marriage_chart.jpg



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlinekpitrrat From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3469 times:

There was something written called the United States Constitution. I believe the writers built in the ability to create things called amendments....

The first one goes....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Soooooooooo? Is that our decision to make?

BTW While registered independent I am rather Conservative in my views and Roman Catholic, just to throw that out there. But really, I do not think this is something that legislature should even waste our tax dollars discussing. IMO this is a religious discussion even though they do not specifically say so or point to a religion. If it is that big of an issue it should be addressed as "should marriage between two men or two women be legal." Not what "constitutes" marriage I think NC dropped the ball.

What happened to separation between church and state?

Then again, there are states rights as well.

[Edited 2012-05-27 22:51:12]

User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3635 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3438 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 11):

Having the government recognize same-sex marriages does not infringe on the free exercise of religion. Churches already can refuse to marry a couple for various religious reasons. I've mentioned this in the NC thread, but my cousin's wife originally wanted to get married in the chapel at the private high school she attended. She was denied because she nor my cousin are Catholic.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3431 times:

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 11):

Exactly. Marriage should not be a matter of federal law. Nor should it be state law. Marriage licenses should not be issued by any government. Legal domestic partnership licenses should be granted based on a set of standards to be met and obligations to fulfilled. Marriage ceremonies are just that. Ceremonies. They aren't actually legal. The legal part is swearing an oath and signing a contract. There is no reason an officiant is needed for that contract. A witness who can swear to their knowledge that the contract is in good faith and notary should be sufficient.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3407 times:

In Australia laws regulating marriage are the responsibility of the federal Parliament under powers granted by the Constitution. The prevailing law is the Marriages Act 1961. The right of churches and civil celebrants to conduct marriages is also contained in the Marriage Act and no marriage is recognised in law until the necessary papers have been signed and an entry made in the Registry. The Churches may follow whatever rituals they wish but it is the signing of the legal documentation that makes the marriage valid in law.

The Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 2004 amended the Marriage Act 1961 to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman; and clarify that same-sex marriages entered into under the law of another country will not be recognised in Australia; and the Family Law Act 1975 to prevent intercountry adoptions by same sex couples under multilateral or bilateral agreements or arrangements. Previously there was no reference to the gender of either person. The definition given is " means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." The people who wrote that obviously hadn't heard of the Family Law Act 1975, which covers divorce.


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
Marriage is finding a woman that hates you and you buy her a house.

Excelent!

Fred


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13040 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3365 times:

The 'official' definition is mostly evolved from religious and cultural customs adopted by governments as understood or common law. Depending on the country, marriage was (or in some countries today still is) generally under the control of faith groups, they were the only ones to keep records and recognized to have the ability and authority to officiate marriage.

As secular governance throughout the world developed and as faith groups lost their power, there was a need for governments taking over the authority of marriage including setting rules and recording of them. Governments would adopt the religious and cultural norms, including minimum ages of parties, banning marriages of persons too closely related to each other, that the persons were not already married, banning multiple partners including the posting in public records of their intent of marriage to make sure the persons were not in a current marriage and only of one man and one women.

Over the last 40 or so years our cultures have changed, those of the same gender and want to make the commitment of each other want full marriage rights along with it's legal rights and benefits. Many states never specifically stated but only implied in various laws that the parties had to be of one male and one female. In recent years, politicians seeking a cheap way to get votes of the religious, supported laws specifying that marriage is of one man and one woman. In some states like NY State in the USA as well as in a growing number of countries, they accepted by law same gender marriage due to different political pressures but also realizing the deeper moral conflict of banning same gender marriage.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7830 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

I think marriage is anything a church or party planner wants it to be, and legally, we should do away with legal marriage and allow people to set inheritance to whoever they want. Set inheritance to your wife, gay husband, multiple friends (even if you don't want to 'marry' some of them,) parents (obviously who you're not marrying,) etc. I'm sure the politicians would not go for that, but it would allow the greatest freedom in granting inheritance, choosing your definition of marriage, who you marry, and what venue you marry at (church or someplace secular.) Obviously, religious intuitions can do what they want which would keep freedom of religion, but they have 0 legal bearing.

Speaking realistically, I don't know why there is a big push to define it in stone based off what it has "always been like." The current definition of marriage that some are trying to get set it stone has only been around a few decades--between a man and woman with no regards to religion, race, etc. Go back to the "way it's always been..." does that mean no interracial marriage? Or marriage to 14 year old girls? Go back even further... multiple wives, slaves, etc? Christians need to really focus on what Jesus said, not what they think he said... (hint: nothing against gay marriage!)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3324 times:

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
But based on what definition?

The far right would have everyone believe the United States and our Constitution is based on Biblical law. However, that is not true.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 7):
Just like Brittany Spears and Kim Kardashian.

And Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 17):
I don't know why there is a big push to define it in stone based off what it has "always been like."

The far right wants wedge issues. Abortion, gays, guns.... these are issues the far right would have everyone believe are the most important issues in our country.

Our Constitution (14th Amendment, IIRC) says there will be no discrimination for people who want to sign legal documents. If two consenting adults are married and, after some time, want a divorce, do they ONLY go to the priest/rabbi/minister/cleric who officiated their marriage for the divorce? No. They go to the government who origionally approved of the legal documents.

This is a legal issue, not a religious one. If the far right wing wants a theocracy, move to Iran or Saudi Arabia.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8406 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3297 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 17):
I think marriage is anything a church or party planner wants it to be, a

Lately I think it is whatever two (or more) people -- ALONE -- decide it is. The people's feelings and spirit are all that matters! The state can take note of it or fail to. It does not change the fact.


User currently onlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2760 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3259 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Marriage is what the man uses to bring us down. Kidding. It is between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. I think this day in age people forget the second half. Who cares if it is between Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve. If they love each other let them get married. It doesn't destroy the basis of marriage or whatever wackies like to say it does. And frankly as a Catholic and Republican it is embarrassing that we still have to talk about this. Stop trying to twist every bible verse into making gay marriage sound wrong. It doesn't affect me or even bug me.
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7830 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3242 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 17):
I think marriage is anything a church or party planner wants it to be, a

Lately I think it is whatever two (or more) people -- ALONE -- decide it is. The people's feelings and spirit are all that matters! The state can take note of it or fail to. It does not change the fact.

That is what I meant. A person can choose their own definition and marry whatever or whoever... they can find a religious institution that agrees or if not, throw their own party. If we take the state out of marriage and just let people set their own inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc, people can marry their dog and their won't be any huge implications... it would just be a guy saying he's married to his dog. Anyone can say that today. He wouldn't be going to the courthouse to put his dog on the marriage license because the state wouldn't need to be involved. Probably too libertarian for most people.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 20):
And frankly as a Catholic

Actually Catholics are increasingly supporting gay marriage and support it even more than Protestants

http://www.pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage...udes-Toward-Same-Sex-Marriage.aspx

Just waiting on the bishops to change their minds  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2718 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3221 times:

Marriage is the union of a person with a penis joining with a person with a vagina. Nature designed one part to fit into the other part with the physiology so as to enable conception to take place. (It's also a lot of fun). Marriage is the legal, political and ethical answer used to describe these unions whether or not they produce offspring.

If two people with the same physical parts want to form a union, fine.... but you can't call it marriage. Call it a civil union if you must.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2321 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3214 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):

Yes.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 10):

YES!


In biblical and very much Christian times, you could sell your daughter for some goats. So we already have redefined marriage.

Leviticus 18:22 says, depending on the translation: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman: that is detestable."

Yes, that is right. The Bible is right. And now it depends on the historical and societal circumstances of the Bible! We simply cannot take its message earnest without understanding the difference between then and now.

In ancient Greece men had their sexual relations almost exclusively with other men. Sleeping with a woman was a kind of lowly sex, and only served the purpose of procreation. So they fulfilled Leviticus 18:22 because homosexual activities clearly had a different meaning than heterosexual relations.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5364 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3210 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 22):
Marriage is the union of a person with a penis joining with a person with a vagina. Nature designed one part to fit into the other part with the physiology so as to enable conception to take place. (It's also a lot of fun). Marriage is the legal, political and ethical answer used to describe these unions whether or not they produce offspring.

Speaking from experience, that one part fits into other parts as well, and doing so is also a lot of fun. Meanwhile I had no idea that conception was the whole point for a marriage to occur. Better get on divorcing all those childless couples posthaste and telling anybody who's a single parent for whatever reason to get married ASAP. Perhaps we could combine my earlier chart with this and make all single parents wards of the government and auction them off to the highest bidder - might help fill our national coffers a little.

Sarcasm aside...no. Especially considering the Bible was used to justify antimiscegenation laws and the like not 50 years ago, I'll pass. Let gay couples call it whatever they want to. My marriage won't be effected in the least if Fred and John or Mary and Sue get married.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2301 posts, RR: 10
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3219 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 22):
If two people with the same physical parts want to form a union, fine.... but you can't call it marriage. Call it a civil union if you must.

As long as they have exactly the same legal rights as a "married" couple.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3221 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting photopilot (Reply 22):
Marriage is the union of a person with a penis joining with a person with a vagina. Nature designed one part to fit into the other part with the physiology so as to enable conception to take place. (It's also a lot of fun).

How do you feel about fellatio? I mean, was the mouth of a women design to.. well you?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5567 posts, RR: 6
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3215 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 22):
but you can't call it marriage

I can call it pasta if I want to. It's just a word that describes a romantic union that carries special legal privileges.


Quoting photopilot (Reply 22):
Marriage is the union of a person with a penis joining with a person with a vagina.

Ah, so you're OK with transgender people getting married?

Quoting photopilot (Reply 22):
Nature designed

Oh, you had a conversation with her?

Quoting photopilot (Reply 22):
Marriage is the legal, political and ethical answer

Exactly; which means the definition is whatever we want it to be.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineBananaboy From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 1574 posts, RR: 23
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3187 times:

I believe it needs to be defined at the federal level. In my case, I am civil partnered (in the UK) to a US citizen, and the UK has granted, after the required time period and exorbitant fees, full UK citizenship to my partner. It's a shame that the US is not as enlightened as the UK in this regard. I dread the day where his family require our extended presence due to ill health and I cannot stay and plan a life in the US with him.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 14):
In Australia laws regulating marriage are the responsibility of the federal Parliament under powers granted by the Constitution. The prevailing law is the Marriages Act 1961. The right of churches and civil celebrants to conduct marriages is also contained in the Marriage Act and no marriage is recognised in law until the necessary papers have been signed and an entry made in the Registry. The Churches may follow whatever rituals they wish but it is the signing of the legal documentation that makes the marriage valid in law.

It's interesting that, although Australia does not currently allow same-sex civil unions or marriages, their immigration policy allows for same-sex couples via the "de-facto" status. It's this clause that has allowed me to be living here since 2010. The government seems to be making the statement that although they don't necessarily agree with same-sex unions / marriages as the way forward for their country, they nonetheless accept that other countries have different views and are not excluding that foreign talent from moving to Australia to help fuel economic growth. I don't believe that the US has this policy, either.


Mark



All my life, I've been kissing, your top lip 'cause your bottom one's missing
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day ago) and read 3170 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 23):
Leviticus

also says to never ever eat pork, never ever wear cotton-poly blends, women who marry their dececed husband's brother are to be stoned, women who are not married but have relations are to be stoned, and never ever have women at "that time of the month" in camp. Yet, I see no right-wing fanatics holding to any of those laws. I guess we can pick and choose our way through the Bible.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2321 posts, RR: 13
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 29):
Yet, I see no right-wing fanatics holding to any of those laws. I guess we can pick and choose our way through the Bible.

That's another matter that is equally bad – having a mindset and selecting only those biblical passages that support your view. But most of the Bible-thumpers don't even ask about the history and sociology of the very (biblical) time they should be interested in!

Even when it is targeted at a somewhat Jewish audience (because most of the biblical rules are found in the old testament), I heavily recommend "The Year of Living Biblically" by A. J. Jacobs. Though funnily written, he wades through the very thicket of finding the right way to live according to the Bible.

I want to see the faces of some people when they learn about Romans 13, which says you have to respect authority because it was placed there by God.

Go on President Obama, you can enforce gay marriage by presidential decree! Big grin


David

[Edited 2012-05-28 23:22:36]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 3111 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting photopilot (Reply 22):
Nature designed

eeerrrrrrr.... no. Nature evolved.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 29):
I guess we can pick and choose our way through the Bible.

People like to do that though, does it work with all the fiction books or just a few?

Fred


User currently offlineSW733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6301 posts, RR: 9
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 3096 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 26):

How do you feel about fellatio? I mean, was the mouth of a women design to.. well you?

Ohhhh SNAP! Agreed.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5567 posts, RR: 6
Reply 33, posted (2 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 3045 times:

Quoting Bananaboy (Reply 28):
I believe it needs to be defined at the federal level.

It's not so much what the definition is, but that the definition needs to adhere to the 14th Amendment.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 31):
People like to do that though, does it work with all the fiction books or just a few?

You should have witnessed the Harry Potter shipping wars.  Wow!



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21525 posts, RR: 55
Reply 34, posted (2 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 3013 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 22):
Nature designed one part to fit into the other part with the physiology so as to enable conception to take place. (It's also a lot of fun). Marriage is the legal, political and ethical answer used to describe these unions whether or not they produce offspring.

Why should someone who doesn't plan on having kids be able to marry someone else? If the critical element of marriage is conception, why should we call such unions marriages?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 35, posted (2 years 2 months ago) and read 3008 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 34):
Why should someone who doesn't plan on having kids be able to marry someone else? If the critical element of marriage is conception, why should we call such unions marriages?

It should also be illegal, by the same definition, for any woman beyond child bearing years to marry. Or any woman who is barren to ever marry. Yet, they do. All the time.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5421 posts, RR: 8
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2988 times:

Quoting ha763 (Reply 12):
Having the government recognize same-sex marriages does not infringe on the free exercise of religion. Churches already can refuse to marry a couple for various religious reasons.

I keep pointing this out but also ermember that a large number of religions recognize and perform same-sex marriages. If there really is a "freedom of religion" aspect, why is it not that denying it is is unfair to those religions that recognize it? The basic core of a society is the commitment two people make to each other.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 22):
Marriage is the union of a person with a penis joining with a person with a vagina. Nature designed one part to fit into the other part with the physiology so as to enable conception to take place. (It's also a lot of fun).

As othes have noted, it is at least good to see that you are supportive of trans-gender rights to marriage. Gotta take those small steps when you can I guess!

Now regarding conception.... marriage has NOTHING to do with conception. Conception was occurring LONG before marriage. Why does it have really anything to do with conception? The primary benefit of marriage/unions/bonding/whatever is that it means there is someone there to "back up" the other. You know, "in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer" etc? This is particularly good when children are involved because children take a lot of time and resources, but those that have committed to each other do not have to have been married before having offspring.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 22):
If two people with the same physical parts want to form a union, fine.... but you can't call it marriage. Call it a civil union if you must.

Sorry but that it dumb. Put simply it is meaningless to change the name because all those religions that do recognize it will perform it and EVERYONE will call it marriage. And don't get me started on the "separate but equal" aspect.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 37, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2988 times:

This option comes up periodically and apparently just makes too much sense to be adopted:

- Dissociate "marriage" from any type of government sanctioning.

- The government can recognize a civil union between any 2 (or more?) people with equivalent rights and privileges regardless of sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc.

- Any religion can recognize and celebrate a "marriage" however they want according to their own terms. It can be between a man and a woman, two men, etc.

Everyone is now engaged in "civil unions" (or come up with a new word if you like) in the eyes of the government. The terminology is the same, so all of the "separate but equal" concerns over "marriage" vs "civil unions" disappear.

Most disagreements I've heard against the above proposal seem to come down to two
(1) The socially conservative crowd "needs" to have their religious beliefs vindicated by the government (which I am against for a number of reasons).
(2) The same sex marriage crowd isn't content to have equivalent legal standing and are really after societal acceptance (which is something beyond anyone's control to legislate).

To pick a dissociated analogy, it would be as if we wrote laws only to address the operation of "cars" on the road. As time passed, new "trucks", "vans", "station wagons", etc arrived on the market and rightly should be granted access to the roadways. We now consider this class of products to be "motor vehicles" and legislate accordingly*. Now, when "roadsters", "crossovers", etc arrive we have no problems or needless debate over legal recognition. Perhaps this requires recognizing that the initial legal recognition was "imperfect" by considering only "cars". Likewise, we could probably look back (given the current US debate) and think about whether or not we should have written laws that only really foresaw "man + woman" marriage (or at least consider in hindsight if it was the best way to construct the law).

Whether or not one wants to consider religion as the "owner" of marriage is an interesting question, but I also feel is one that doesn't necessarily need to be answered (if it ever could answer it) to embrace the above concept. Find whatever extra-governmental outfit you want and call your union a "marriage", "life long party", "mistake", "dick dance", etc (kind of like the bogus "buy a star" outfits!). Of course, we also see that many religions do recognize gay marriage, it's not as if the civil union concept prohibits "gay marriage".

* - Yeah, I recognize that some classes of vehicles are treated differently. I didn't say it was a perfect analogy. At the same time (depending one's thoughts on this topic), it could further validate the analogy if one believes that large trucks are different from cars or if polygamy is a different concept than 1+1 marriage.


Edit: Just to be clear, I guess it's apparent that I (as a basically non-religious person) consider "marriage" to have a religious (or at least a "man + woman") meaning more than anything. By no means am I touting this as the "official" definition, but I think that recent US events have reasonably validated the assertion.

[Edited 2012-05-29 22:11:09]


Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2321 posts, RR: 13
Reply 38, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2936 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 35):
It should also be illegal, by the same definition, for any woman beyond child bearing years to marry. Or any woman who is barren to ever marry. Yet, they do. All the time.

Funny that the Code of Canon Law allows Roman Catholics to marry if they are able to have sex. Being able to conceive a child is not a requisite.   

Quote:
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. (omitted here)

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

Perhaps this influences our thinking about marriage even when we look at other Christian denominations like evangelicals.


Separing marriages into a religious and a state-governed affair is just an implementation of separing church and state, required by the constitution.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3867 posts, RR: 14
Reply 39, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2916 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
Are we talking about from a religious or legal perspective?

This is the crux of the debate right here--marriage is a religious term that became adopted for civil use--which naturally leads to religious groups protesting when a secular marriage recognized by the govt does not meet their own religious definitions.

Quoting ha763 (Reply 12):
Having the government recognize same-sex marriages does not infringe on the free exercise of religion. Churches already can refuse to marry a couple for various religious reasons

Exactly. If a religious organization does not want to marry a couple for whatever reason, that's fine--as long as the government itself doesn't discriminate. You can be married in the eyes of a religion, but if you don't have your marriage license, you aren't married in the eyes of the government (except in certain states with common-law marriage).


User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2718 posts, RR: 18
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2866 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 33):
It's not so much what the definition is, but that the definition needs to adhere to the 14th Amendment.

Hmmm..... seems to me that "marriage" has been around a hell of a lot longer than the 14th Amendment.

Quoting Molykote (Reply 37):
The same sex marriage crowd isn't content to have equivalent legal standing and are really after societal acceptance (which is something beyond anyone's control to legislate).

Absolutely correct. Why bother creating your own institutions/ceremonies/rituals to celebrate a homo union when you can just piggy-back on the coat-tails of and already defined institution.... namely marriage.

Quoting Molykote (Reply 37):
Yeah, I recognize that some classes of vehicles are treated differently. I didn't say it was a perfect analogy. At the same time (depending one's thoughts on this topic), it could further validate the analogy if one believes that large trucks are different from cars or if polygamy is a different concept than 1+1 marriage.

Yup, but the queer crowd wants to drive a Mac Truck down the road and call it a car despite the fact the two are entirely different, each has a unique purpose, and neither can do the job of the other.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5421 posts, RR: 8
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2865 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 39):
This is the crux of the debate right here--marriage is a religious term that became adopted for civil use--which naturally leads to religious groups protesting when a secular marriage recognized by the govt does not meet their own religious definitions.

Sure but it doesn't ultimately matter. Words for various meaning are adopted around the world for things. I had an exorcism done on my plumbing last week, and you know what? it worked! The demons are gone.  
.
Quoting photopilot (Reply 40):
Hmmm..... seems to me that "marriage" has been around a hell of a lot longer than the 14th Amendment.

So? "No marriage" has been around a lot longer than that. It was around before marriage, religion, or society. So by your logic Marriage is meaningless and should be abolished?

Quoting photopilot (Reply 40):
Absolutely correct. Why bother creating your own institutions/ceremonies/rituals to celebrate a homo union when you can just piggy-back on the coat-tails of and already defined institution.... namely marriage.

But you continue to fail to recognize that plenty of religions recognize and perform and honor same-sex marriages and have done so for thousands of years. In fact before "the church" corrupted the term, many differing types of marriages were offered and performed by religions and in churches.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 40):
Yup, but the queer crowd wants to drive a Mac Truck down the road and call it a car despite the fact the two are entirely different, each has a unique purpose, and neither can do the job of the other.

You still veer into oncoming traffic with your utterly ludicrous arguments. If I may point out the obvious, humans are not motor vehicles.... it was a

Quoting Molykote (Reply 37):
a dissociated analogy


The entire purpose of the analogy was to highlight the fact that one can use a Mack truck or a car and still transport two people to the church (or the judges chambers) to get married. In other words, to point out the similarities between to different objects and not their differences which don't impact their ability to just go down the road.

Tugg

[Edited 2012-05-30 13:18:07]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinezrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3128 posts, RR: 9
Reply 42, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2850 times:

I was just studying the Book of Ruth. Seems that when Boaz marries Ruth, he does so by acquiring her as a legal transaction. I suppose that is the sanctity of biblical marriage, right?


14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5421 posts, RR: 8
Reply 43, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2849 times:

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 42):
I was just studying the Book of Ruth. Seems that when Boaz marries Ruth, he does so by acquiring her as a legal transaction. I suppose that is the sanctity of biblical marriage, right?

So she is holy owned?   

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5567 posts, RR: 6
Reply 44, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2823 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 40):
Hmmm..... seems to me that "marriage" has been around a hell of a lot longer than the 14th Amendment.

So was slavery.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 40):
Absolutely correct. Why bother creating your own institutions/ceremonies/rituals to celebrate a homo union when you can just piggy-back on the coat-tails of and already defined institution.... namely marriage.

I fail to see the point of this rant. Who cares? Does it affect your ability to do... anything?

Quoting photopilot (Reply 40):
Yup, but the queer crowd wants to drive a Mac Truck down the road and call it a car despite the fact the two are entirely different

Both have engines, both have tires, both have steering wheels, gears, take motor oil, etc.... Again, no point...



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7830 posts, RR: 52
Reply 45, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2816 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 40):
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 33):
It's not so much what the definition is, but that the definition needs to adhere to the 14th Amendment.

Hmmm..... seems to me that "marriage" has been around a hell of a lot longer than the 14th Amendment.

So were you against interracial marriage back in the day?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21525 posts, RR: 55
Reply 46, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2810 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 40):
Hmmm..... seems to me that "marriage" has been around a hell of a lot longer than the 14th Amendment.

So has the divine right of governance by birth - that's older than the Constitution itself, by a long shot. But the Constitution invalidated that by saying "we're not going to do things this way anymore".

Quoting photopilot (Reply 40):
Absolutely correct. Why bother creating your own institutions/ceremonies/rituals to celebrate a homo union when you can just piggy-back on the coat-tails of and already defined institution.... namely marriage.

Because separate isn't equal.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 40):
Yup, but the queer crowd wants to drive a Mac Truck down the road and call it a car despite the fact the two are entirely different, each has a unique purpose, and neither can do the job of the other.

Do you have any backing for the claim that the sole purpose of marriage is for the ability to procreate? We know that people procreate without being married, and we know that people marry and do not procreate. So that seems to be a very arbitrary definition to come up with.

I also looked up the traditional Catholic marriage vows:

I, ____, take you, ____, to be my (husband/wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.

Not seeing anything about having sex there.   

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5421 posts, RR: 8
Reply 47, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2810 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 46):
Not seeing anything about having sex there.

Interesting point there.

Why is marriage an issue when it is SEX that is the issue and one can most certainly get married and not have sex. There are people that state that it is OK to be "homosexual", just not to act out on the resultant sexual urges.... in fact the biblical condemnations refer to the sexual aspect of it (or if the "lay together" is interpreted strictly then maybe that too).

So with that, two people of the same sex should still be able to get married if they wish with no problem. They just commit to no sex and not laying together/sleeping in separate beds. I actually know of quite a few marriages that are just like that.... (and honestly I know two gay couples like this, they love each other and don't have sex. They have separate beds too. That is not what their relationship is about, it is about love and being with the one person that values you above all others. It may seem weird, even - dare I say it - unnatural, but I say to each their own.)

If a couple actually committed to that, would those with religious issues about it still reject it? And if so WHY?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2321 posts, RR: 13
Reply 48, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 46):
Not seeing anything about having sex there.

See my post #38, it says otherwise. 


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12340 posts, RR: 25
Reply 49, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 39):
This is the crux of the debate right here--marriage is a religious term that became adopted for civil use--which naturally leads to religious groups protesting when a secular marriage recognized by the govt does not meet their own religious definitions.

In the US, where our Constitution and heritage demands separation of church and state, the religious have no grounds for such complaints.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 48):
See my post #38, it says otherwise.

Actually the Canons you quoted refer to intercourse, and that term as used here refers to a specific sex act, indeed the one that can lead to procreation (and recreation too!).



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2733 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting photopilot (Reply 40):
Absolutely correct. Why bother creating your own institutions/ceremonies/rituals to celebrate a homo union when you can just piggy-back on the coat-tails of and already defined institution.... namely marriage.

So you are wondering why homosexuals can't use the process of marriage to get married? That would be the same reason that homosexuals don't have to take a different driving test or have a different passport, it simply isn't needed.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 40):
Hmmm..... seems to me that "marriage" has been around a hell of a lot longer than the 14th Amendment.

Hmm, seems that marriage is also older than the country of cuba so I'm afraid by that logic you are not allowed to be wed either.

Fred

[Edited 2012-05-31 05:51:00]

User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 51, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

I think the important thing is that two people are happy together. Who cares what gender they are?

The thing that gets me is people are against it say "Gay people shouldn't marry; it's wrong and destroys the sanctity of marriage" yet there are people *cough*Kim Kardashian etc*cough* who got married and then divorce 6 weeks later. That to me is more destructive to marriage than letting two men or two women marry.

Which would you rather have? A loving gay couple who could raise children into functional human beings who contribute to society, or a male/female couple who create a broken home that produces deadbeat kids who live on social security?

I'm not even religious but I think the argument against gay marriage is stupid. It doesn't change YOUR life whatsoever. It comes down to purely selfish reasons - if you live your life by a book that has no proof of anything then you can't say "God wants this" because you don't know that.

The Old Testament said rape was OK but we don't go around seeing people raping other people and being let off for it.

People pick and choose what they want to believe to suit their agenda, and that annoys me. It's like you want some sort of proof so what you believe isn't as controversial if the Bible says it.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 52, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2680 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 38):
Funny that the Code of Canon Law allows Roman Catholics to marry if they are able to have sex. Being able to conceive a child is not a requisite

Catholics are the new flavor of religion for the right-wing extremists. Those same right-wing extremists are making the claim that, because two men or two women can not bear children, that is the best reason gays can not marry.

I am not Catholic, so I do not follow Canon Law. I am Protestant. I follow Constitutional law and fit my Protestant law into that. Which is very easy, since one has NOTHING to do with the other.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7830 posts, RR: 52
Reply 53, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 52):
Catholics are the new flavor of religion for the right-wing extremists. Those same right-wing extremists are making the claim that, because two men or two women can not bear children, that is the best reason gays can not marry.

Again, look at percentages of Catholics vs Protestants supporting gay marriage...

http://www.pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage...udes-Toward-Same-Sex-Marriage.aspx



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5567 posts, RR: 6
Reply 54, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2624 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 51):
People pick and choose what they want to believe to suit their agenda

There are two arguments against gay marriage: religious and social. I quickly point to the 1st Amendment's establishment clause for the first argument, and ask how it affects the person against it for the second one.

Of course then they pull the persecution card:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 51):
It's like you want some sort of proof so what you believe isn't as controversial if the Bible says it.

I tried telling that to someone once, and they accused me of being "insensitive" and "intolerant" of their religious beliefs. They just don't seem to understand that nobody is forcing them to get married.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 55, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 54):
There are two arguments against gay marriage: religious and social. I quickly point to the 1st Amendment's establishment clause for the first argument, and ask how it affects the person against it for the second one.

Of course then they pull the persecution card:

I'm not entirely sure what the 1st Amendment is - I'm not American but I gather it's to protect free speech and freedom of religion?
I understand people use religion to justify things - it's their way of proving to themselves its OK, personally. A kid said to me my mother died when I was 7 because I'd sinned and because I was bisexual, I deserved it. I still wish I'd beat him to within an inch of his life for that - shock, fortunately for him, got the better of me because I'd have put him in Intensive Care.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 54):

I tried telling that to someone once, and they accused me of being "insensitive" and "intolerant" of their religious beliefs. They just don't seem to understand that nobody is forcing them to get married.

Is it not insensitive and intolerant of somebody towards an atheist if they argue their corner and will not accept another view point exists?

Nobody forces them to get married - exactly. But at least they have the choice. I read of a story in the news of a gay couple who had been together for years, and one was in the hospital, but because they weren't married, the partner was just "another guy". He died not having said goodbye, which I find incredibly sad. Nobody should be put through that.

I give up on overly religious people. They let it go to their head (and I'm not normally like this) but it just ruins their character for me. I can't tolerate having it forced down my throat.

If gay people want to get married - let them. Society as we know it will not collapse because homosexual marriage is legal, and it won't affect your life. You getting married sure as hell doesn't affect their lives.

I will repeat what I posted earlier - I would like some honest answers from those who believe gay marriage is wrong as to which they would choose and why. Be interesting to see what the viewpoint is towards it.

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 51):
Which would you rather have? A loving gay couple who could raise children into functional human beings who contribute to society, or a male/female couple who create a broken home that produces deadbeat kids who live on social security?


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5567 posts, RR: 6
Reply 56, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2581 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 55):
I'm not entirely sure what the 1st Amendment is - I'm not American but I gather it's to protect free speech and freedom of religion?
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The issue in this case is the first clause: it says that people are free to exercise their religion, but that Congress cannot make a law that establishes a national religion.

Also, we have the 14th Amendment, which says that the States must not deny equal protection under the law. People try to debate that (saying that any man can marry any woman), but numerous civil rights laws and court decisions have said discrimination based on sex is not allowed.

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 55):
Is it not insensitive and intolerant of somebody towards an atheist if they argue their corner and will not accept another view point exists?

Logic often fails with such people.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3635 posts, RR: 5
Reply 57, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2541 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 52):
Catholics are the new flavor of religion for the right-wing extremists.

Really? The most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage tend to be non-Catholic Christians. Sure, the Catholic Church is against same-sex marriage, but it was the Morman Church that poured millions into California to get Prop 8 passed by the voters. The ones calling for the killing of gays are Evangelical Christians.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19411 posts, RR: 58
Reply 58, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2533 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 9):

I am also sure there are religions that have one woman married to multiple men (and it not would surprise me that there is a religion where multiple woman marry multiple men.

Polyandry is REALLY rare and typically all the men are brothers.

Quoting ha763 (Reply 57):
Really? The most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage tend to be non-Catholic Christians.

I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Rick Santorum, a Catholic.

That said, it is true that Catholics (as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church) tend to be more likely to support same-sex marriage than, say, Baptists.

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 51):

People pick and choose what they want to believe to suit their agenda, and that annoys me. It's like you want some sort of proof so what you believe isn't as controversial if the Bible says it.

"I mistrust those who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice how it always coincides with their own desires" -Susan B. Anthony

In the case of the above quote, the Bible (Gen 3:16) was being used to try to ban anesthesia for women during childbirth.

During the celebrated Loving v Virginia case that legalized interracial marriage in the USA, the initial judge in Virginia who ruled against the couple, Leon Bazile, proclaimed in his decision: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

It is my opinion that when any public official, elected or appointed, attempts to insert religious law into civil law, it should be treated as sedition.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2321 posts, RR: 13
Reply 59, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2496 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 49):
Actually the Canons you quoted refer to intercourse, and that term as used here refers to a specific sex act, indeed the one that can lead to procreation (and recreation too!).

If a married couple can't conceive children, it is said then, that it was God's plan to adopt children. As homosexual couples can't conceive children short of outside help, then I read it as an encouragement to seek adoption rights. The very much stronger message of the Bible is, IMHO, to love and to forgive. It would require a very, very selective and literal reading of the biblical message to deny somebody the right to marry.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 53):
Again, look at percentages of Catholics vs Protestants supporting gay marriage...

I live in a country which is nearly split 50:50 among Catholics and Protestants. And only a smallish fraction (~ 5-10%) of the Protestants belong to various "splinter" groups (Mormons, Methodists, Baptists... which pose the majority in the US). These minor religious groups are much more vociferous against gay marriage than the big churches, so the gay/lesbion marriage debate is... quite calm and civilized here.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5364 posts, RR: 53
Reply 60, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 59):
It would require a very, very selective and literal reading of the biblical message to deny somebody the right to marry.

Unfortunately though, it's happened before to deny interracial couples the right to marry and it's happening now to gay couples. It took Loving v. Virginia to give somebody like me the right to marry my wife - what'll it take for all the wonderful loving gay couples we know to have the right to marry?



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 61, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2440 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 37):

THIS.

I said the same thing, you said it better.

We see the problems when religious marriage and law are too intermingled in many Islamic nations, where rape victims are forced to marry their rapist, sexual performance is a basis for divorce, etc. These same kinds of instances appear in the Bible, not just the Koran, but societies founded on the Bible have moved past those stories (but not all of the Biblical hangups, don't get me wrong), although a "non-consumated" marriage can still be annulled, and once you do the nasty, you have to get divorced (at least in most states).

One thing neglected in this whole debate is that marriage was/is an important a way to impart legitimacy for children, so that society need not take care of those children. As long as someone can be blamed/held accountable, then he is responsible for the children (and that includes the child of his wife who sleeps around). Marriage allowed for the passing on of farms, homesteads and businesses as well.

Now that the government seems to think they own all children, and very few people are passing on farms, businesses or homesteads, it's less important.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFlyboyOz From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 1985 posts, RR: 25
Reply 62, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2435 times:

The definition of marriage is ....

Can I recommand you to read that good books?

- The 5 love languages
I think you have seen it everywhere. The author is a marriage counsellor. It's good for us to learn to understand each other and build up the relationship.
http://www.5lovelanguages.com



- Meaning of marraige by Timothy Keller.
I havent read that book but I have heard that book is not just theological or "here's the biblical view of marriage." They have been written by counselors or theologians or people like that.

...is love.

Hope you will enjoy reading that book.

Also the movies:-
- License to Wed (comedy)
- Couples Retreat (comedy)
All romantic movies.... lol

[Edited 2012-06-01 17:23:23]


The Spirit of AustraliAN - Longreach
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 63, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2428 times:

Quoting FlyboyOz (Reply 62):
- License to Wed (comedy)
- Couples Retreat (comedy)

Hardly the best movies about Marriage.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFlyboyOz From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 1985 posts, RR: 25
Reply 64, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2428 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 63):
Hardly the best movies about Marriage.

True... but it has some minor detail about the "true" meaning of marraige. It also happens in real life as well and I felt the same way too.



The Spirit of AustraliAN - Longreach
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19411 posts, RR: 58
Reply 65, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2417 times:

Quoting FlyboyOz (Reply 62):
...is love.

Partly. Love gets you a lot. Being able to be good partners (to work together on challenges and issues, or even day-to-day tasks) is also necessary.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2321 posts, RR: 13
Reply 66, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2386 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 65):
Partly. Love gets you a lot. Being able to be good partners (to work together on challenges and issues, or even day-to-day tasks) is also necessary.

Yes. Making holidays and lying on the beach under an umbrella and sipping a cool drink is for others a proof that you're a happy couple.

For other people.

Finding a way together through the tough times is the real proof.

And to forgive. And to leave freedoms to the other significant part. Have a real interest into who your partner is and what he/she is doing. Do not interpret her or his behaviour too much and draw your conclusions from that. You can always ask. Never expect too much. Especially if done unconsciously. Always be honest to yourself and to her or him.

Blah blah blah and it could go on, and take it with a heap of salt... Big grin

I think many children of divorced couples (like me) can tell some stories here. And I suggest revisiting failed relationships sometimes, from both points of view. Accident reports make a good weekend read. When is the AF447 one available?


David

[Edited 2012-06-02 00:25:27]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineFlyboyOz From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 1985 posts, RR: 25
Reply 67, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2364 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 65):
Partly. Love gets you a lot. Being able to be good partners (to work together on challenges and issues, or even day-to-day tasks) is also necessary.

Well... Yes, part of it. It sounds like you are talking to your sibling and even your colleagues as a team. It's like an agreement. However, the meaning of marriage is a person who is really in love with his/her partner so badly. He is willing to sacrifice himself for his wife's good. He can do whatever what his wife wants and wants to spend lots of time with her. He can help her all the time without asking her for help. His wife is also doing the same things to her husband as well and also know that he is always looking out for her good and always willing to put her interest ahead of his. This is what we mean by love.



The Spirit of AustraliAN - Longreach
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19411 posts, RR: 58
Reply 68, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 66):
Accident reports make a good weekend read. When is the AF447 one available?

The book or the movie?  
Quoting FlyboyOz (Reply 67):
Well... Yes, part of it. It sounds like you are talking to your sibling and even your colleagues as a team.

Yes, but more. For us, we got a good run into the "In sickness and in health" right up front when I ruptured my Achilles tendon. A few months later, he performed an "unconventional dismount" on his bike (over the handlebars) and dislocated/fractured his shoulder. We happily took care of each-other during those times. We've been in dire financial straits together, and now we enjoy relative wealth together. We've supported each-other through tough times (losing a loved pet, losing family members) and enjoyed each-other in good times.

That marriage vow you take is no joke. We've only been together three years and yet we proved right up front that we were up to the task. At this point the sort of heart-fluttering love where I'd smile whenever he walked into the room is long-gone. My husband is someone with whom I feel absolutely safe. I can be who I am without being the least bit self-conscious and he feels the same. I can't imagine life without him and I can barely remember my life before him. That's love.


User currently offlineMudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1167 posts, RR: 5
Reply 69, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

Marriage is over-rated, marriage is no longer what it once was, people don't respect married men or women. I understand the need for wanted spousal benefits, and whatever, but wait until gay marriage becomes legal and the lawyers get a hold of the potential divorces. I could care less who is able to marry, if we could go back to the days when people actually stayed married til death did them part.
I would like to see the statistics 10 yrs into gay marriage, and see what the divorce rate would be, compared to the current one?
Just to make sure may statement was clear, I am a straight Christian, and it in no way offends me if to people that love each other, want to get married, regardless of same sex or not. Laws should not dictate happiness. If other Christians want to bash me for this, and say it is wrong, I say there is only one person in the world, that can judge me, and it is not you!
Live and let live, and love thy neighbor!
Stay Safe!


User currently offlineFlyboyOz From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 1985 posts, RR: 25
Reply 70, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2288 times:

That's right doclighting... interesting story.

Anyways... I forgot one more movie - this is the best one I've ever seen. It makes me feel soo moved. That movie has got a good example of the definiation of marriage. It's called "Up" (from the Disney movie)


It has got a good example of the role model of husband and wife. It is not only about the adventure to South America but also about the adventure of marriage!



The Spirit of AustraliAN - Longreach
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5567 posts, RR: 6
Reply 71, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2278 times:

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 69):
if we could go back to the days when people actually stayed married til death did them part.

What days were those?

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 69):
I would like to see the statistics 10 yrs into gay marriage, and see what the divorce rate would be

It would probably rise significantly, than return to modern levels. What would happen is, especially amongst the younger crowd, to go out and get married just so they can be in the party. Then, the hangover phase where many of them finally realize that's it's not all peaches and cream.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3635 posts, RR: 5
Reply 72, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2248 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 69):
I would like to see the statistics 10 yrs into gay marriage, and see what the divorce rate would be, compared to the current one?

Are there any statistics or studies for same-sex marriage and divorce in Massachusetts? It has been almost 10 years since they started allowing same-sex marriages. It would be interesting to see the comparison with the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages.


User currently offlineBananaboy From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 1574 posts, RR: 23
Reply 73, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2240 times:

Quoting ha763 (Reply 72):
Are there any statistics or studies for same-sex marriage and divorce in Massachusetts? It has been almost 10 years since they started allowing same-sex marriages. It would be interesting to see the comparison with the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages.

The rate of dissolutions of civil partnerships in the UK at least is around half that of the rate of divorce for heterosexual couples. Lesbian couples seem to be more inclined to separate than gay male couples.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...iage-gay-rights-civil-partnerships

http://bit.ly/rpHSr5

There is a PDF report from the ONS.
http://bit.ly/pnwSmi

Couldn't find anything easily with details about MA.

Mark



All my life, I've been kissing, your top lip 'cause your bottom one's missing
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12340 posts, RR: 25
Reply 74, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2212 times:

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 69):
the lawyers get a hold of the potential divorces.
Quoting Bananaboy (Reply 73):
Lesbian couples seem to be more inclined to separate than gay male couples.

It must be pretty ugly figuring out who gets the cats!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2321 posts, RR: 13
Reply 75, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2206 times:

Quoting FlyboyOz (Reply 70):
That movie has got a good example of the definiation of marriage. It's called "Up" (from the Disney movie)

It has got a good example of the role model of husband and wife. It is not only about the adventure to South America but also about the adventure of marriage!

     

Wow, that movie? Have you actually seen it? It tells you that you can only live free and happy after your wife has died and you turn to a boy scout for comfort.    

David

[Edited 2012-06-03 08:03:20]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 76, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2199 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 68):
That marriage vow you take is no joke.

*cough*Newt Gingrich*cough*

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 53):
Again, look at percentages of Catholics vs Protestants supporting gay marriage...
Quoting ha763 (Reply 57):
The most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage tend to be non-Catholic Christians

But, during this election cycle, it has been those candidates aligned with the Catholic Church who are screaming out against gay marriage and other right-wing extremist candidates support them.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19411 posts, RR: 58
Reply 77, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2187 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 75):
Have you actually seen it? It tells you that you can only live free and happy after your wife has died and you turn to a boy scout for comfort.

And a dog! Let's not forget the dog! *SQUIRREL!!!*

But there is a lesson to be learned from Dug: he who loves without discrimination will be happiest.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 76):

*cough*Newt Gingrich*cough*

I am always stunned by hypocrites like him. What kind of arrogance does it take...?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7830 posts, RR: 52
Reply 78, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2173 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 76):
But, during this election cycle, it has been those candidates aligned with the Catholic Church who are screaming out against gay marriage and other right-wing extremist candidates support them.

Ah, I see. I thought you were talking about Catholics in general. Yeah, not too proud of Santorum. But his problem isn't that he's Catholic... I wonder what it is lol

Quoting seb146 (Reply 76):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 68):
That marriage vow you take is no joke.

*cough*Newt Gingrich*cough*

But he made mistakes in the past but is beyond them! (sarcasm)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19411 posts, RR: 58
Reply 79, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2168 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 78):
But his problem isn't that he's Catholic... I wonder what it is lol

That we can count the number of times he's been laid in his life by how many kids he has?   

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 78):
But he made mistakes in the past but is beyond them! (sarcasm)

Yes, because he's probably too old and...ehm... "feeble" to cheat anymore.



User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21525 posts, RR: 55
Reply 80, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2156 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 77):
What kind of arrogance does it take...?

This is the man who wanted to build a moon colony, you know....

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19411 posts, RR: 58
Reply 81, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2151 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 80):
This is the man who wanted to build a moon colony, you know....

Yes, but that's awesome. So I can give him a pass on that.  


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 82, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2116 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 78):
Ah, I see. I thought you were talking about Catholics in general.

Here is the problem:

I know not ALL Catholics/Presbityrians/Methodists/Baptists/Pentacostals or what have you are like this. There is no way for me to accurately say "this only applies to the screaming ones in the media at this second." I have always been proud of my church because we welcome anyone. Period.

Example: When the Rajneesh compound was broken up over the salmonilla poisoning scandal (long story), our church welcomed the homeless that were bussed in from St. Louis and Chicago, fed them, and even helped some of them reach closer to home or even get them home. Other churches turned them away. I know there were individual Mormons, Catholics and Methodists that helped even when their churches did nothing.

Apropos of nothing but this is why I stick by my church.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5364 posts, RR: 53
Reply 83, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2074 times:

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 69):
I could care less who is able to marry, if we could go back to the days when people actually stayed married til death did them part.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 71):

What days were those?

Exactly what I was thinking - what days were those? Humans have a way of idealizing the past when it comes to marriage without really thinking through how the institution has changed. Keep in mind at one point it was more a political alliance/property transaction than it was an institution to provide for the care and comfort of one's spouse and/or children. Heck, one of the reasons why people were inclined to stay married "til death did them part" was because society generally turned a blind eye to extramarital affairs up until the last 100 years or so.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is The Best Form Of Touring Car Racing? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 13:57:04 by UTA_flyinghigh
So What Does The World Think Of My Music? posted Mon Feb 6 2006 05:39:06 by Korg747
What Is The General Opinion Of Sweden Here? posted Mon Feb 7 2005 20:50:55 by SDLSimme
So What Is The Preoccupation With Death Lately? posted Sat Dec 27 2003 10:19:43 by L-188
What Is The Airspeed Velocity Of A Unladen Swallow posted Sat Nov 10 2001 18:56:45 by Ihadapheo
What Is The Definition Of Mean Spirited? posted Mon Jul 26 2004 03:56:52 by Matt D
What Is The Meaning Of Your Screen Name? posted Sat Oct 30 2010 17:53:19 by UAL747
What Is The Future Of The GOP? posted Sat Jun 6 2009 12:19:33 by Falcon84
What Is The Purpose Of Widescreen? posted Tue May 12 2009 14:08:12 by 747srule
What Is The Name Of This Music? posted Sat Mar 14 2009 14:51:33 by Dragon-wings