So, you tell me that an atheist can hold certain "ethics" above reproach, "sacred," if you will, but to Charlotte, only a religious person can accept something as sacred.
Well, Mr Semantics, I really don't see any point in having a discussion with you. You just say whatever gets you want you want.
How's that reading of Romans coming along, Mr Old Testament Scholar?
Marriage is only "sacred" if you believe in some kind of religion.
That's untrue and mighty egotistical, i.e. "I don't believe something is sacred, therefore it isn't." Maybe the sacredness of marriage is there for anyone to see - and your just missing it.
This argument will go nowhere inasmuch as it is always approached with emotion from the religious group and not reason. I am not being egotistical (here's that ad hominem again) when I say that a religious word is not meaningful to someone who does not believe in religion. How can a person think something is consecrated by God if he/she doesn't believe in God? Simple logic.
From Tom C "Well, Mr Semantics, I really don't see any point in having a discussion with you."
Well, you might have an interesting argument about religion if true, but since you clearly are a graduate of public schools, your reading comprehension is therefore poor.
And so, when I addressed your claim that "marriage is a relatively recent institution" by pointing out that there are ancient references to marriage, you only heard "Old Testament."
Your brain clearly stopped working at that point.
So, rather than considering the historical context of the reference, you went into a frothing rage at the mere mention of the Bible, and used it as an opportunity to spew your hate of religion, even though it was inappropriate to the discussion.
The fact is you know very little about the Bible, religion or the history of marriage.
Doesnâ€™t prevent you from talking about it.
But I caution you to the old expression: â€œIt is a wise man that says what he knows. It is a fool that says what he doesnâ€™t know.â€
If you don't believe in a religion or supreme big guy in the sky, you can't think or say anything is sacred. Its a religious term.
What, then, do you do about the Declaration of Independence, wherein it spoke of "sacred trust and honor"?
Fact is, your definition is partial. Add to your abbreviated definition "important" and "highly honored."
MA, I think we have "watcher" pegged.
I'm sure he's a nice guy, and might even be able to contribute to a discussion, but if all he has to offer here is regurgitaing mindless leftie drivel, then I suppose he's welcome to do that all day long, but he won't fool this crowd.
He just needs to sharpen his pencil a little bit.
Does anyone remember how the "let's change the definition" crowd started the debate?
THEY wanted to use religion to justify stealing an institution by using religion. Remember the press conferences?
Does anyone remember the steal marriage ope-ed in the newspaper? Headline - "The Church Should Lead The Way With Same-sex Marriage".
THEY made it about religion.
The reality is that people are free to do pretty much what they want. That does not give anyone the right to change marriage.
re: How can a person think something is consecrated by God if he/she doesn't believe in God?
Simple logic tells me life is full of moments when one day "common wisdom" does a 180-degree turn. Simple example: For decades it was common wisdom that there were no recordings of the legendary Thelonious Monk Quartet with John Coltrane. Then in 2005 a Smithsonian archivist happened upon a reel of tape - an impeccable recording of two sets of the legendary quartet at Carnegie Hall!
It's logical to question whether the atheist is right or wrong, isn't it? The atheist thinks he's right, but there's evidence to suggest he isn't. So, it seems logical, not emotional, to me that marriage can be sacred while atheists believe it isn't.
While I hesitate to interrupt this fascinating discussion of the definition of "sacred", I'm still curious to get a recap on Tom C's insight into the "social cost and damage" that gay marriage is going to inflict on society. I know several gay couples and just haven't figured out how letting them officially marry is going to negatively affect any of us. I can assure you it certainly won't weaken my marriage. Guess I'm missing the hidden dangers. Please enlighten me... (And, relating back to the topic of this thread, I have no worries about gay marriage leading to polygamy or bestiality or anything else. None of the homosexuals I know want to marry more than one person -- or their dog, for that matter.)
Editor - I posed a few questions a bit back - but you chose to ignore them, I suppose.
Bob e - you say that no one has the right to change marriage. The problem with that argument is that someone gave the government the right to change the definition of marriage - at least that's what we're arguing about. Some state governments HAVE changed the definition of marriage. And some cultures and religions have a different definition of marriage than you do. Some religions perform gay marriage ceremonies. Some religions perform polygamous marriages. I'll pose the same question to you that editor ignored. Do you consider those marriages sacred?
I watch this jousting back and forth, and the related attempts to find escape clauses and similar loopholes in
"accepted wisdom" to undermine what most experts agree is intuitive truth.
And then I ask, how many of you have held your newborn baby at just a few days old, and looked at that precious creation, and said "hey, it's just science at work."
It amazes me that millions can turn teary-eyed over trees, plants, and faerie shrimp, but somehow not see the larger wonder in the creation of human life and what leads to it. And conversely, the....well, I'll just stop there.
I see here in some respects a group of high school debaters who have never actually come to grips with the profundity of our existence.
I apologize for my inability to be more articulate; I don't want to spend hours choosing words.
What you believe is about to change. See? I haven't seen your questions. If you'll tell me what page I'll take a look at them.
Never mind. I found your question. I agree with you that two or more atheists might marry and that union might not be sacred. It's also possible for that to happen while God holds marriage as sacred.
Editor -page 2. I'm always open to change. Heck, I've already agreed with Michelle on this this thread.
Of course lost in all this is the question of why in the hell are conservatives so obsessed with having the Government legislate how people live their personal lives. I'm not "For gay marriage"....I'm against the government deciding how consenting adults live their private lives.
Oh I know I'm asking for a thousand angry posts declaring how many "studies" show that children need a mother & father in order to live a normal life. Please feel free to send them, because i need a good laugh.
50% of children concieved by a married man & woman end up in broken homes.
Add to that all children that are sexually abused in families made up of a husband & wife.
Add to that all children that are physically & mentally abused in families made up of a husband & wife.
Add to that all children that are exposed to alcohal & drug abuse in families made up of a husband & wife.
Add to that all children that are victims of domestic violence in families made up of a husband & wife.
In the end, children are either raised in a sane, caring environment by loving, responsible adults....or they are not.
The sad fact is that a horrifying number of children raised by a a husband & wife are not.
But somehow every OTHER method is unacceptable?????
All this whining about marrige is just the last dying gasps of thought control via predudice & ignorance from the church.
Be like us, or be ostrasized.
True liberty shall not exist until the last king is strangled with the intestines of the last priest.
In America, we got rid of the king, but we forgot to save his intestines!!!!
"We preach peace, forgiveness, tolerance and love. We practice vengeance, persecution, hatred and domination. My personal beliefs are supported and validated by my convictions. Oh, and never forget .... my religion is truth, yours is a lie."
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies." â€” From 'Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies' a study published in the (peer-reviewed) Journal of Society and Religion, 2008.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
"The last time we mixed religion and government people were burned at the stake."
"The first clergyman was the first rascal who met the first fool."
And my favorite:
"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." â€” Napoleon Bonaparte.
Marriage as of the moment is the union of one man and one woman. Marriage has been thus a long, long time. Changing marriage to something other than the union of one man and one woman destroys marriage. It's gone. Now, IMO, anyone who believes destroying the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexuality is going to end there is kidding themselves. I read a post such as yours and think, either IT is propagandizing or IT is not considering the whole of this issue seriously.
Bob e - you say that no one has the right to change marriage. Do you consider those marriages sacred?
I can see how my use of the word "right" may have been confusing. I was not referring to a legal right.
I have stayed out of the discussion of "sacred" because my opinion of "sacred" is not relevant to the public debate. But since you asked for my opinion, the answer is "no". It is my opinion that God does not recognize a union of two men or two women as marriage. He defined marriage as a man and a woman.
Editor - I agree with you that ending the definition - in the US - of marriage as one man - one woman changes the definition forever. I disagree that it destroys marriage. How does allowing two gay to marry destroy your marriage?? Whose marriage does it destroy? I believe that it expands the definition of marriage. You simply make an allegation with no backup - no proof - not even an explanation. Gay marriage is legal in some states. Can you show me or even explain to me how that destroyed marriage in those states?
I read a post such as yours and figure you don't take the issue seriously at all - at least on an intellectual level. How on earth can you make the claim that gay marriage destroys marriage with no back-up at all - except pure emotion? Again - gay marriage is legal. Tell me how it has "destroyed" marriage or eliminated marriage in those states? You can't and you won't. It's simply an irrational belief on your part. By the way - I'm as serious and probably as intelligent as you are and am perfectly capable of looking at this issue seriously. You, on the other hand, seem purely emotional about it.
Genderless marriage teaches children that either mothers or fathers are unimportant.
Genderless marriage proclaims that there is no significant difference between men and women.
Genderless marriage multiplies the current breakdown of the family instead of setting a higher standard.
A boy raised by two "married" lesbians is shown that his gender is meaningless. The same is true for a girl raised by two homosexual men pretending to be married.
Same sex marriage destroys marriage precisely by what you call "expanding" it's definition. Are you saying you believe the expansion will be limited to "two people?" Why should that be the case? If one man and one woman is the wrong definition of marriage, why is "two people" the right definition?
Let me nudge this back toward the polygamy lawsuit originally mentioned.
Same-sex marriage will not destroy real marriages. It will, however, require an asterisk to reside alongside each homosexual marriage in the record books. Kind of like hitting home runs while pumped on steroids. Everyone will know that the marriage is pretend, except perhaps the happy, delusional couple. Truth is constant.
Changing the definition of marriage is simply that, and nothing more. How could that possibly change or destroy my marriage? I'm still waiting for a real answer with specifics, not the "that's not what marriage was meant to be" answer.
Nicely stated Independant!
And as far as the argument that marriage has been one man/one woman "a long, long time". What does that have to do with anything? People have been killing each other for a long, long time too.
What Dan said on page1 I agree with. Also as in our gay rights law when you exlude something
or define something in a way to preclude some one I believe that statue will be open to a legal challenge
ror ne type of marriage meant to be excluded!
If that challenge opens the way for one type of marriage it is reasonable that another form would be enabled.
It has been answered but you choose to ignore what people say. But why should the burden be on everyone else? I think the burden should rest with those who insist on a new definition. Read the current statute that Senator Damon wants to repeal and tell us why the findings and purposes are suddenly irrelevant.
The real issue is moral approval.
Don't take my word for it.... http://www.365gay.com/features/082908-corvino/
"The alternative to avoiding or ignoring other peopleâ€™s disapproval is to try to reverse it. Reversing it means convincing them that same-sex relationships are not merely tolerable, but morally good. And thatâ€™s what we should aim to do. Not because we desperately need to be patted on the back, and not merely because their moral approval would make our lives easier. Ultimately, we should do it because morality mattersâ€”to us, to them, to everyone."
Equating marriage with killing people. Nice touch.
I'm a liberal Democrat who supports gay rights, and I am still astounded at the lies, misrepresentation and illogical arguments put forth by the folks who support gay marriage.
Changing the definition of marriage is simply that, and nothing more.
It is tinkering with the language, which is contributing to the decay of language. And the decay of language contributes to the decay of a society or culture. As George Orwell so eloquently stated, "If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."
The strategy appears to be to change the language, and then use the resulting chaos to mandate that the general public abide by an insane dictate that wrong is right, up is down, and sin is vice.
re: No, marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Wrong. Divorce notwithstanding, marriage remains defined as between one man, one woman. If not, what's the purpose of Sen. Damon's bill?
Those who had their posts deleted, please read this, from the first page, where the guidelines of this discussion were first posted:
This is not meant to be a religious discussion. Nor is it a discussion about whether homosexuals should or should not be married to one another. This is specifically to discuss the tactics involved in getting polygamy into the public arena, and about what comes next.
Drifting is one thing, but the constant repetition of exactly the same thing you always post about whether or not homosexuals should be married is the opposite of what was set out in the beginning of this thread.
Thank you for understanding.