PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Andromache

#1
I brought this to it's own thread so as to not hijack the book talk thread any further.

The man has a very traditional view of marriage, so what? I'm not sure I understand why disagreement on societal issues is grounds for disliking the man. I like both Richard Dawkins and Phillip Pullman (well, as much as one can without actually knowing them) and I would put money on them calling me a weak-minded fool because of my Christianity.
No, you're right, lesbians and gays are bad humans, and we should not allow them to be legally recognized for their sinning sinning ways by giving them access to legal rights enjoyed by godly married couples. Because god only loves people who love other people the way He wants them too. right. Carry on.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,645 1,234 23
#2
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Oi! What? Married gays =/= Affect on my life.

I would MUCH prefer to see happy, loving gay & lesbian couples adopt children and marry than let some of the people I know have natural ones. Some people I know are Christian heterosexuals and they shouldn't be allowed to raise a fish.
 
S

Silvanesti

#3
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Im glad you've finally seen the way. Now do three hail marys and two hello dollys.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,645 1,234 23
#4
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

And marriage is a LEGAL contract, not a religious one. So if your religion doesn't like gays that's fine. They don't have to accept them. But it's discrimination to not let them enjoy the full rights and benefits allowed the other members of society. If you think then that it should be called "civil unions", then every STRAIGHT couple who gets married by a justice of the peace should not be "married" either.

Take religion out of the equation and there's NO logical reason why gays/lesbians should be denied the right to marry.
 
S

Silvanesti

#5
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

and in all seriousness. I think that its anyones business. Doesn't hurt me, makes people happy, whats the big fucking deal.

If you dont like it too bad, they are not hurting your ability to do anything.
 
S

Silvanesti

#7
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

And marriage is a LEGAL contract, not a religious one. So if your religion doesn't like gays that's fine. They don't have to accept them. But it's discrimination to not let them enjoy the full rights and benefits allowed the other members of society. If you think then that it should be called "civil unions", then every STRAIGHT couple who gets married by a justice of the peace should not be "married" either.
Well i think it started as a religious ceremony, but now has very reall and important legal impact. So if you really care find a church so you can get 'married' and there are churches that accept gay weddings. go to the gov to get your legal marriage and all the legal stuff that goes with it.

edit:

I don't think i am explaining what I mean. What i am trying to say is, if you care about the religious aspect of it then great, go find a church or whatever. That doesn't really matter, the cerimony is just a show and has no impact. Marriage anymore is a legal thing and the gov should not pick and choose who get it.
 
Reactions
229 10 0
#8
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Oi! What? Married gays =/= Affect on my life.

I would MUCH prefer to see happy, loving gay & lesbian couples adopt children and marry than let some of the people I know have natural ones. Some people I know are Christian heterosexuals and they shouldn't be allowed to raise a fish.
you know what has an effect on my life? people using =/= as "not equal to" instead of != as it should be.

On the subject of marriage. It shouldn't be a term used by the state to begin with. Expand Civil Unions to cover any couple (Still have to say barring animals) and pass a law making any reference to marriage in the law to henceforth refer to the Civil Union. Then ban the future usage of Marriage in the making of laws, and problem solved. All Couples get the same legal rights, and marriage is left as a religious issue.
 
S

Silvanesti

#9
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

you know what has an effect on my life? people using =/= as "not equal to" instead of != as it should be.

On the subject of marriage. It shouldn't be a term used by the state to begin with. Expand Civil Unions to cover any couple (Still have to say barring animals) and pass a law making any reference to marriage in the law to henceforth refer to the Civil Union. Then ban the future usage of Marriage in the making of laws, and problem solved. All Couples get the same legal rights, and marriage is left as a religious issue.
This.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,645 1,234 23
#10
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Well i think it started as a religious ceremony, but now has very reall and important legal impact. So if you really care find a church so you can get 'married' and there are churches that accept gay weddings. go to the gov to get your legal marriage and all the legal stuff that goes with it.
But why should they have to do both when a ceremony in a church is legally binding? Gays/lesbians should be able to either go to a church that will perform the ceremony, justice of the peace or dangling from a fricking balloon if they want. Straight people do it and it's still all legal. Other than religion, give me a legitimate reason why gays should not marry and I may rethink my stance.

Been saying that for years. Never got an answer.
 
Reactions
250 24 3
#11
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

you know what has an effect on my life? people using =/= as "not equal to" instead of != as it should be.

Whatchoo talking about? Not equal to is <>!
 

ElJuski

Staff member
Reactions
33 0 0
#12
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Oh seperation of church and state...


"Don't tread on me!...me being middle class white and male! You know, normal! We can still tread on the faggots, muslims and darkies!"
 
Reactions
1,494 306 5
#13
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

It shouldn't be a term used by the state to begin with. Expand Civil Unions to cover any couple (Still have to say barring animals)
Humans are animals, but aside from that, I really don't know why that distinction has to be made. No where in the fight for gay marriage has anyone argued for anything other than consenting adults. That they're human should be readily implied.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,645 1,234 23
#15
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Let us first agree that =/= is nothing more than "equal divided by equal" (1?) and go from there.
It also could be computer forum shortcut for an equal sign with a slash through it.
 
A

Andromache

#16
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Oh seperation of church and state...


"Don't tread on me!...me being middle class white and male! You know, normal! We can still tread on the faggots, muslims and darkies!"
/facepalm...

i
 
S

Silvanesti

#17
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

But why should they have to do both when a ceremony in a church is legally binding? Gays/lesbians should be able to either go to a church that will perform the ceremony, justice of the peace or dangling from a fricking balloon if they want. Straight people do it and it's still all legal. Other than religion, give me a legitimate reason why gays should not marry and I may rethink my stance.

Been saying that for years. Never got an answer.
because a ceremony in a church is their own faith or choice or whatever. I do not think the government should tell churches that they have to allow gay marraige if they dont want to. It may be fucked up but I don't think that they should be forced to.

And I am saying this for straight or gay couples, they should do they celibration and cerimony where ever they want. But the paperwork is signed at the court.
 
A

Andromache

#19
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

no I did... it still applies.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,645 1,234 23
#20
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

because a ceremony in a church is their own faith or choice or whatever. I do not think the government should tell churches that they have to allow gay marraige if they dont want to. It may be fucked up but I don't think that they should be forced to.

And I am saying this for straight or gay couples, they should do they celibration and cerimony where ever they want. But the paperwork is signed at the court.
Nope. The paperwork is for the civil union part, not the marriage. So they go to the courthouse & sign the marriage certificate, but they are not married until the officiant does the deed. At that time he/she signs the marriage license as does the bride/groom and two witnesses - usually the best man/maid of honor. THEN it's legal. Priests/ministers are recognized under the law to be able to wed people so they are acting in a legal framework. This is what should be rescinded. The actual ceremony should be but is not usually superfluous to the process.
 
S

Silvanesti

#21
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

The actual ceremony should be but is not usually superfluous to the process.
And what I am saying is i think it should be totally superfluous, just a fun thing to do if you want to.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,790 1,665 33
#22
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

"Do you support gay marriage?"
"Well, first of all, I oppose ALL marriage." - Granddad, The Boondocks

I support the complete secularization of all legal ramifications of marriage and granting all rights and responsibilities therein to any two people, to be applied equally in all respects.

I believe the problem stems from the use of the word "marriage." So let's stop using the word. Churches can still perform their "marriages" for who they want to (and not for who they don't), and when you go to get your license it will say "License for Civil Union" at the top instead of "Marriage License," and the civil union will be as good and legally binding as all currently accepted legal aspects of marriage, whether or not you actually got dressed up, went to church, and shoved cake in your loved one's face till they gagged. Problem solved.

Of course, this, many a time, doesn't satisfy the militant. For them it's not about equality, it's about revenge. It's about "we'll show you stupid damn breeders, we're going to get MARRIED in YOUR church and crush YOUR VALUES like potato bugs under our birkenstocks and there's NOTHING YOU CAN DO about it! Where is your GOD NOW?!"
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,645 1,234 23
#24
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

If you can't tell, the fact that my gay friends can't get married pisses me off. They've been together longer than any married couple I know and yet if one falls sick the other can't visit him in the hospital. If one were to have an accident and die, the other would lose everything that was not in his or both of their names. No say in a living will, no say in any legal matters. How is this fair? How is this just?

It's easy to look down from our ivory towers of inscrutability and judge people who are not like us and whose shoes we can never really walk in. We can hide behind whatever bumper sticker mentality we want to justify the inequalities based on nothing more than our own fears.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,645 1,234 23
#26
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

"Do you support gay marriage?"
"Well, first of all, I oppose ALL marriage." - Granddad, The Boondocks

I support the complete secularization of all legal ramifications of marriage and granting all rights and responsibilities therein to any two people, to be applied equally in all respects.

I believe the problem stems from the use of the word "marriage." So let's stop using the word. Churches can still perform their "marriages" for who they want to (and not for who they don't), and when you go to get your license it will say "License for Civil Union" at the top instead of "Marriage License," and the civil union will be as good and legally binding as all currently accepted legal aspects of marriage, whether or not you actually got dressed up, went to church, and shoved cake in your loved one's face till they gagged. Problem solved.

Of course, this, many a time, doesn't satisfy the militant. For them it's not about equality, it's about revenge. It's about "we'll show you stupid damn breeders, we're going to get MARRIED in YOUR church and crush YOUR VALUES like potato bugs under our birkenstocks and there's NOTHING YOU CAN DO about it! Where is your GOD NOW?!"
Because there's NO militant idiots on the opposing side now in power trying to make constitutional amendments to suppress a specific class of people?
 
S

Silvanesti

#28
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

If you can't tell, the fact that my gay friends can't get married pisses me off. They've been together longer than any married couple I know and yet if one falls sick the other can't visit him in the hospital. If one were to have an accident and die, the other would lose everything that was not in his or both of their names. No say in a living will, no say in any legal matters. How is this fair? How is this just?
Its not, its incredibly fucked up. But everything you mentioned is a legal right (though, not a right, if you're gay). and the government should grant that to any couple regardless of gender.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
3,430 638 7
#29
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Because god only loves people who love other people the way He wants them too. right.
I find starting a discussion with a strawman argument to be in very poor form.
 

Espy

Staff member
Reactions
56 0 0
#30
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

No, you're right, lesbians and gays are bad humans, and we should not allow them to be legally recognized for their sinning sinning ways by giving them access to legal rights enjoyed by godly
...I don't think that's what Rob said or even implied.

For the record, I read a lot of authors I don't agree with/like personally but I enjoy their work, BUT I can see how someone could not be able to do that, particularly on some really big issue.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,790 1,665 33
#32
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Because there's NO militant idiots on the opposing side now in power trying to make constitutional amendments to suppress a specific class of people?
Nowhere in my post did I say any of that (and frankly, they're NOT "in power"). But since you brought it up, I'd have to say those people have been less damaging to the gay rights cause than the militant gays have been. Things were actually going pretty fast down the track to acceptance and equality until activists started stamping their feet and shouting NOW NOW NOW a couple years ago. That just gave the gay-haters a caricature to rally around and organize against.

Really, as often as not, protesting damages the protester's position as much if not more than that which they are protesting against, because often the protester on the street is a brainless twat, representative of the weakest and least resourceful minds of his or her subgroup. The better and brighter ones are bringing about change in other ways, sometimes even within the system itself, and possibly even in such a way that nobody notices the change until it's already become normal. Or at the very least, they have a day job.
 
S

SeraRelm

#33
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Just want equality, thanks.

*has less than two weeks*
 
Reactions
407 178 0
#34
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

The Ender book series is bad on its own, but in deciding that I don't give a crap about who wrote them. Tolkien could've been a church-raping&woman-burning child molester for all I care, his books are still the same.
 
Reactions
15 0 0
#35
Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I brought this to it's own thread so as to not hijack the book talk thread any further.

The man has a very traditional view of marriage, so what? I'm not sure I understand why disagreement on societal issues is grounds for disliking the man. I like both Richard Dawkins and Phillip Pullman (well, as much as one can without actually knowing them) and I would put money on them calling me a weak-minded fool because of my Christianity.
No, you're right, lesbians and gays are bad humans, and we should not allow them to be legally recognized for their sinning sinning ways by giving them access to legal rights enjoyed by godly married couples. Because god only loves people who love other people the way He wants them to. right. Carry on.
Holy shit. Where did that come from?

A) That is the most incredible strawman I have ever seen constructed, and in true Wizard of Oz style too: brainless. I didn't say anything that even a retarded monkey could possibly even twist into anti-gay-marriage. I can appreciate that what was said might inspire you to create a dialogue about it, but to structure it as a rebuttal to a post that takes no stance on the issue just makes it look dumb.

B) If you are not a zealot, and you are going to argue against a religious anti-gay-marriage zealot, for the love of God, do not do it on his ground. He is the zealot in the situation. If you say things like 'Because god only loves people who love other people the way ... ' then it means that he gets to judge the validity of your argument. Argue with things like 'we live in a secular society, and even though marriage might have religious roots, we would like to modify it for use in our modern age.' Any protests to this will put him in direct conflict with the entirety of civilization. Zealots are used to that, but it helps one sleep better to know that the bears at the zoo like their enclosures too.

C) This part is off topic, but it needs to be said, since I was so maliciously quoted in the OP, and I like people thinking that I'm a functional member of society (as opposed to a bigot.) My point wasn't that Orson Scott Card was right. My point wasn't even that Orson Scott Card was entitled to his view. My point was that it's a bit silly to radically alter your opinion from "like this person" to "dislike this person" based on only one of their opinions.

I again refer to my example with Philip Pullman: I think his criticism of organized religion is shortsighted and elitist. I think he is quite frankly wrong, in his opinion, and I would certainly argue with him about it. But I don't change my measure of his work based on it, or declare that I dislike him as a human being.

Now, you may continue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top