Yuna
Human
High Summoner
Posts: 100
|
Post by Yuna on May 11, 2012 16:42:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Adelina on May 11, 2012 17:19:19 GMT -6
This. The whole God's design argument being put out is really a moot point when you consider the Separation of Church and State that's in our own constitution which apparently people thought to be too long to read or just too complicated to fully understand. Oh wait, I forgot... There is no Separation of Church and State... That's just a myth created by the biased left-wing liberal media to poison our youth and push their unamerican socialist ideas on our nation. I'm sorry. The problem is that these God's design pushers will argue marriage as being a religious institution - which it was, originally. The only way this will stop being a problem, at least in a legal sense, is if the entire definition of marriage is changed, and only society can do that. And the problem with that, changing the definition of marriage, is what do you change the definition to? If the definition is changed to one person and one person instead of one man and one woman then why not three people or more? |
|
|
|
Post by Sincara on May 11, 2012 17:24:11 GMT -6
The problem is that these God's design pushers will argue marriage as being a religious institution - which it was, originally. The only way this will stop being a problem, at least in a legal sense, is if the entire definition of marriage is changed, and only society can do that. And the problem with that, changing the definition of marriage, is what do you change the definition to? If the definition is changed to one person and one person instead of one man and one woman then why not three people or more? Groan. |
|
|
|
Post by Sparda on May 11, 2012 17:25:28 GMT -6
The problem is that these God's design pushers will argue marriage as being a religious institution - which it was, originally. The only way this will stop being a problem, at least in a legal sense, is if the entire definition of marriage is changed, and only society can do that. And the problem with that, changing the definition of marriage, is what do you change the definition to? If the definition is changed to one person and one person instead of one man and one woman then why not three people or more? What reason would one have for such a complete change? It would never be accepted. Besides, I think that's a tad beside the point, which is that the argument stems from the religious stance that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. |
|
|
|
Post by Adelina on May 11, 2012 18:04:25 GMT -6
And the problem with that, changing the definition of marriage, is what do you change the definition to? If the definition is changed to one person and one person instead of one man and one woman then why not three people or more? What reason would one have for such a complete change? It would never be accepted. Besides, I think that's a tad beside the point, which is that the argument stems from the religious stance that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Because once you start meddling with the definition people are going to ask why marriage is only between two people. The traditionalists have an answer for this, it's because it takes a man and a woman to have children (and I know that's not the primary reason people get married anymore but still, it's an answer) and those who want the definition to change to incorporate same-sex couples never have an answer to that. And they also tend to be against exactly what I'm talking about even though they really don't have any reason to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Sparda on May 11, 2012 18:08:42 GMT -6
What reason would one have for such a complete change? It would never be accepted. Besides, I think that's a tad beside the point, which is that the argument stems from the religious stance that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Because once you start meddling with the definition people are going to ask why marriage is only between two people. The traditionalists have an answer for this, it's because it takes a man and a woman to have children (and I know that's not the primary reason people get married anymore but still, it's an answer) and those who want the definition to change to incorporate same-sex couples never have an answer to that. And they also tend to be against exactly what I'm talking about even though they really don't have any reason to be. Perhaps... Lines would have to be drawn somewhere. I do know this, though; that definition will change eventually, gradually, simply because society will come to attribute new semiotics to it. The same process is what caused the meaning of the very word gay to change over time. |
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on May 11, 2012 18:12:34 GMT -6
Marriage is a dying institution anyway. Just give couples who's been together for a certain amount of time a tax break and call it even.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sincara on May 11, 2012 18:19:53 GMT -6
Marriage is a dying institution anyway. Just give couples who's been together for a certain amount of time a tax break and call it even. You and I can finally agree on something. |
|
Hotaru
Alien
The Soldier of Silence
Posts: 67
|
Post by Hotaru on May 11, 2012 18:50:23 GMT -6
I'd argue that Marriage is a privilege, not a right. That said, there are far more same-sex couples worthy of the privilege than straight couples from what I seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariel on May 11, 2012 19:36:42 GMT -6
The problem is that these God's design pushers will argue marriage as being a religious institution - which it was, originally. The only way this will stop being a problem, at least in a legal sense, is if the entire definition of marriage is changed, and only society can do that. And the problem with that, changing the definition of marriage, is what do you change the definition to? If the definition is changed to one person and one person instead of one man and one woman then why not three people or more? Polygamy has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and there's also nothing wrong with polygamy. The point is that consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone should be able to make their own choices without the government, or other people's religions, telling them no. What's hard about that? |
|
|
|
Post by Kara on May 11, 2012 20:24:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Silver Eyes on May 11, 2012 21:55:11 GMT -6
Here's my two cents:
Personally, I have been making somewhat of a return to Christianity and I believe that my religion should not be forced on others. Okay, so parts of the Bible don't agree on this; so why should I impose what people don't want onto them? It's not fair. I find that fellow Christians don't take a step back to think "Ya know, I'd hate it if <insert religion here> was forced on me" but they really don't. It's kind of sad :/
|
|
|
|
Post by Queen Lori on May 11, 2012 22:09:39 GMT -6
This isn't about religion, not really. That's just a convenient tool people use so their homophobic views can carry more weight.
|
|
Tajna Rasha
Wraith
Founder of the DOA Wiki
The Ghost of Legion
Posts: 85 
|
Post by Tajna Rasha on May 11, 2012 23:01:49 GMT -6
Here's my two cents: Personally, I have been making somewhat of a return to Christianity and I believe that my religion should not be forced on others. Okay, so parts of the Bible don't agree on this; so why should I impose what people don't want onto them? It's not fair. I find that fellow Christians don't take a step back to think "Ya know, I'd hate it if <insert religion here> was forced on me" but they really don't. It's kind of sad :/ The underlying problem here is that fundamentalists think others are wrong, and they're right. People are brainwashed to like religion more than other human beings, and even their own children. Until there is a radical awakening (which most likely will never happen) or that generation of people die out (which they will) there will never be a resolution. There will always be that schism in the U.S. and it is good that the government is finally stepping up to take actions to legalize marriage as it will ensure the thinking gap narrows until hopefully it becomes non-existent. I suspect the next decade will show us where the country is headed in that regard. I really hope Obama carries on with this - and will be able to in a following term. |
|
|
|
Post by Silver Eyes on May 11, 2012 23:13:32 GMT -6
Here's my two cents: Personally, I have been making somewhat of a return to Christianity and I believe that my religion should not be forced on others. Okay, so parts of the Bible don't agree on this; so why should I impose what people don't want onto them? It's not fair. I find that fellow Christians don't take a step back to think "Ya know, I'd hate it if <insert religion here> was forced on me" but they really don't. It's kind of sad :/ The underlying problem here is that fundamentalists think others are wrong, and they're right. People are brainwashed to like religion more than other human beings, and even their own children. Until there is a radical awakening (which most likely will never happen) or that generation of people die out (which they will) there will never be a resolution. There will always be that schism in the U.S. and it is good that the government is finally stepping up to take actions to legalize marriage as it will ensure the thinking gap narrows until hopefully it becomes non-existent. I suspect the next decade will show us where the country is headed in that regard. I really hope Obama carries on with this - and will be able to in a following term. Totes glad to see the government doing something about this. I'm all liek: |
|
