do you believe in same-sex marriage

[actsnoblemartin]

I do not, I believe gays dont need to change the definition of marriage, they could have civil unions with all the same rights as marriage, and that would and should be a fair comprimise to all

your thoughts?

[Des]

Yes.

[Mr. P]

Nope

[Noir]

yeah, but it's not so much what I think as what they think.

If hey want to be married in the eyes of their god, and be bound by god, who are we to get in the way? I don't see who it hurts, it's a personal extange between two people who love eachother, wheather you see their love as normal or not.

[bullypulpit]

Civil unions...marriage...same thing.

[Noir]

But they are not the same, they are not able to marry in a chuch of their god with a priest/minister of their God. If someone does not have a problem with 2 people having a civil union then I don't see why having a marraige is so bad. Because this starts to bring about the notion that sinners should not marry, which ends with christains judging other christains.

[Des]

Civil unions...marriage...same thing.

If you're a man and woman, yeah. For example, my dh and I were married at the courthouse...not religious influence at all. For all intensive purposes it's a civil union...but we have a marriage certificate.

I think we should just do away with the government issuing marriage certificates, period.

[Psychoblues]

If a particular church/synagogue/mosque etc. has no problem with marrying them then who am I or you to say that they can't? There are only a few thousand religions on this planet and each of them is delineated by multitudes of denominations. I wouldn't attempt to tell any of them what to do or how to do within their own particular set of religious values and mores.

Marriage is a religious consideration that didn't even come into normal practice until the 1200's. It has since been imposed upon by various governments until it no longer is respected or recognised as the purely religious ritual that it actually is. Take my own situation, for instance. I divorced my 1st wife. My wife divorced her 1st husband. We both had kids. When my present wife and I decided to marry we approached a Baptist preacher to ask for use of his chapel and his services for our wedding. After telling us that he disagreed with marrying people that had been previously married he took our $700 and married us anyway. Astounding, isn't it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Psychoblues

[Yurt]

If a particular church/synagogue/mosque etc. has no problem with marrying them then who am I or you to say that they can't? There are only a few thousand religions on this planet and each of them is delineated by multitudes of denominations. I wouldn't attempt to tell any of them what to do or how to do within their own particular set of religious values and mores.

Marriage is a religious consideration that didn't even come into normal practice until the 1200's. It has since been imposed upon by various governments until it no longer is respected or recognised as the purely religious ritual that it actually is. Take my own situation, for instance. I divorced my 1st wife. My wife divorced her 1st husband. We both had kids. When my present wife and I decided to marry we approached a Baptist preacher to ask for use of his chapel and his services for our wedding. After telling us that he disagreed with marrying people that had been previously married he took our $700 and married us anyway. Astounding, isn't it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Psychoblues

what do you mean by 'normal'?

[Psychoblues]

You have a dictionary, dumbo?



what do you mean by 'normal'?

Is it hard for you to get to or what?

Psychoblues

[Yurt]

You have a dictionary, dumbo?




Is it hard for you to get to or what?

Psychoblues

you made the definition here, not the dictionary, normal marriage is not in the dictionary. there are a lot of people who disagree over what marriage is/means, so your 'normal' marriage is ....... interesting

do you mean btwn a man and a woman, non-religious, chinese, what?

[Psychoblues]

Do I need to read your question back to you, dumbo?



you made the definition here, not the dictionary, normal marriage is not in the dictionary. there are a lot of people who disagree over what marriage is/means, so your 'normal' marriage is ....... interesting

do you mean btwn a man and a woman, non-religious, chinese, what?

You asked about the word "normal". Are you still having problems with THAT word? If you don't have a dictionary I suggest you use the internet. It has some great features if you're savvy enough to separate the good stuff from the bullshit.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Yurt]

Do I need to read your question back to you, dumbo?




You asked about the word "normal". Are you still having problems with THAT word? If you don't have a dictionary I suggest you use the internet. It has some great features if you're savvy enough to separate the good stuff from the bullshit.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

there is a little thing called CONTEXT, i suggest you study it :poke:


Marriage is a religious consideration that didn't even come into normal practice until the 1200's. It has since been imposed upon by various governments until it no longer is respected or recognised as the purely religious ritual that it actually is. Take my own situation, for instance. I divorced my 1st wife. My wife divorced her 1st husband. We both had kids. When my present wife and I decided to marry we approached a Baptist preacher to ask for use of his chapel and his services for our wedding. After telling us that he disagreed with marrying people that had been previously married he took our $700 and married us anyway. Astounding, isn't it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Psychoblues


what do you mean by 'normal'?

[Psychoblues]

I fail to see how the context in which I used the word changes or confuses it's meaning, dumbo.



there is a little thing called CONTEXT, i suggest you study it :poke:

Did you find anything about "normal practice" as the context in which the offending word appears to be misleading or convoluting in any way? I even shared some facts that indicate more clearly that the word normal would not modify "marriage" but more directly reflect the word "practice" as I used it.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Yurt]

Marriage is a religious consideration that didn't even come into normal practice until the 1200's

psydeshow, you make no sense, so i guess i will have to dumb this down for you

are you saying that marriage was solely a religious practice before the 1200's? what do you mean by, before the 1200's marriage was not a normal practice, but until and after 1200 it became a 'normal' practice.

marriage has been around alot longer than 1200 and it was not solely religious....so, again, what exactly do you mean by 'normal' practice?

[Psychoblues]

I meant that marriage by any definition was not a widespread practice prior to about the 1200's, yuk.



psydeshow, you make no sense, so i guess i will have to dumb this down for you

are you saying that marriage was solely a religious practice before the 1200's? what do you mean by, before the 1200's marriage was not a normal practice, but until and after 1200 it became a 'normal' practice.

marriage has been around alot longer than 1200 and it was not solely religious....so, again, what exactly do you mean by 'normal' practice?

If you have other credible information concerning or opposing that observation I would be interested in seeing it. From what I presently understand, admittedly from only mild research, I have already shared with you.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Yurt]

I meant that marriage by any definition was not a widespread practice prior to about the 1200's, yuk.




If you have other credible information concerning or opposing that observation I would be interested in seeing it. From what I presently understand, admittedly from only mild research, I have already shared with you.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

from what i have read, marriage has been a very prominent, institution if you will, for thousands of years. i don't have all my sources from college and over the years, but i did a quick search on the net and i found that the chinese had marriage approximately 7000 years ago (wiki). also, just in western civilization, marriage had a strong purpose of uniting kingdoms, clans (germanic...), etc...before Christ walked the earth. here is a link for western civ:

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

i am sure if you dig a little deeper (that link aslo has non western civs for you), you will find that marriage existed in many cultures long before the 1200's.

[Psychoblues]

By what definition do you consider the "institution" of marriage to be, yuk? I am in reference to both the religious ritual and the legal/societal considerations and ramifications that derive from that ritual. Are you also referring to the same or do you have a more expanded version that you might share with me here?

BTW, thanks fo the link. I'm taking back some of that ol' shit I've been sayin' about you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:



:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Yurt]

By what definition do you consider the "institution" of marriage to be, yuk? I am in reference to both the religious ritual and the legal/societal considerations and ramifications that derive from that ritual. Are you also referring to the same or do you have a more expanded version that you might share with me here?

BTW, thanks fo the link. I'm taking back some of that ol' shit I've been sayin' about you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:



:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

oh noze :laugh2:

i am not sure of your question, are you asking me what my definition of marriage is or are you asking me what i meant by saying, institution if you will...?

the links i gave you regard both religious and non-religious. for me, i think you are asking, marriage as it stands in america is a legal contract if you walk down to city hall and sign the marriage documents. if you only get married in a church, then it is only religious. in some states, the marriage without the documents, overtime, could be considered a common law marriage, and imo, that is just another way of thet state stickign their nose into our private affairs when it does not belong there.

[Psychoblues]

Thanks, I think,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,



oh noze :laugh2:

i am not sure of your question, are you asking me what my definition of marriage is or are you asking me what i meant by saying, institution if you will...?

the links i gave you regard both religious and non-religious. for me, i think you are asking, marriage as it stands in america is a legal contract if you walk down to city hall and sign the marriage documents. if you only get married in a church, then it is only religious. in some states, the marriage without the documents, overtime, could be considered a common law marriage, and imo, that is just another way of thet state stickign their nose into our private affairs when it does not belong there.

I see you have already been to the member nomination thread in the announcements section and I thank you for your considerations. The real reason that I am saying this here is to encourage others that are reading here and may have missed the thread to go there, take a look and hopefully participate!!!!!!!!!!!!! I will repeat this in other threads as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:cheers2: to marriage by whatever definition one might imagine for it!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Des]

i am sure if you dig a little deeper (that link aslo has non western civs for you), you will find that marriage existed in many cultures long before the 1200's.

...and in many forms.

[Immanuel]

But they are not the same, they are not able to marry in a chuch of their god with a priest/minister of their God. If someone does not have a problem with 2 people having a civil union then I don't see why having a marraige is so bad. Because this starts to bring about the notion that sinners should not marry, which ends with christains judging other christains.

I have news for you. Most churches won't marry same sex couples and won't even when the state begins to allow them. There are some churches that will marry same sex couples. If such a couple wishes to get married in a church they will need to do so in a church that performs them.

The only thing that will change if the state adopts same sex marriage is that the state will recognize the union between two people of the same sex. The majority of the Christian Church will not suddenly begin to accept homosexuality as not being sinful.

Immie

[Kathianne]

I have news for you. Most churches won't marry same sex couples and won't even when the state begins to allow them. There are some churches that will marry same sex couples. If such a couple wishes to get married in a church they will need to do so in a church that performs them.

The only thing that will change if the state adopts same sex marriage is that the state will recognize the union between two people of the same sex. The majority of the Christian Church will not suddenly begin to accept homosexuality as not being sinful.

Immie

So settle for civil unions, the majority are behind that. Stop with the equivalency nonsense.

[manu1959]

I have news for you. Most churches won't marry same sex couples and won't even when the state begins to allow them. There are some churches that will marry same sex couples. If such a couple wishes to get married in a church they will need to do so in a church that performs them.

The only thing that will change if the state adopts same sex marriage is that the state will recognize the union between two people of the same sex. The majority of the Christian Church will not suddenly begin to accept homosexuality as not being sinful.

Immie

if the feds step in an "legalize" same sex marriage as a civil rights issue.....then the church will have to marry them or go to jail....just like if a white person wants to marry a black person......

[Missileman]

if the feds step in an "legalize" same sex marriage as a civil rights issue.....then the church will have to marry them or go to jail....just like if a white person wants to marry a black person......

Really? When has the government forced a Jewish Rabbi to perform a Baptist ceremony? Churches are not going to be forced to perform gay marriages...that's just stupid.

[Noir]

Really? When has the government forced a Jewish Rabbi to perform a Baptist ceremony? Churches are not going to be forced to perform gay marriages...that's just stupid.

They are not being asked to marry people of other religions, they are being asked to marry gay christains.

[Psychoblues]

Perhaps they are just 2 adults seeking marriage by whatever they and their clergyfolk are willing to perform, noir.



They are not being asked to marry people of other religions, they are being asked to marry gay christains.

I don't have a problem with that. I don't understand folk that do have a problem with that. Do you have a problem with that?

It's not like it's a "special" right, is it?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

They are not being asked to marry people of other religions, they are being asked to marry gay christains.

Neither is taking place, unless you can post a link to a lawsuit that says otherwise.

[Immanuel]

if the feds step in an "legalize" same sex marriage as a civil rights issue.....then the church will have to marry them or go to jail....just like if a white person wants to marry a black person......


Really? When has the government forced a Jewish Rabbi to perform a Baptist ceremony? Churches are not going to be forced to perform gay marriages...that's just stupid.


They are not being asked to marry people of other religions, they are being asked to marry gay christains.

Manu,

I must disagree with you for a couple of reasons.

One, I don't believe that the state mandates that churches perform inter-racial marriages in today's society nor do I believe the state ever has. It does not force the church to conduct inter-racial marriages. I'm sure if there was a biblical reason for not doing so, the church could choose not to perform such a marriage.

Two, this kind of thing is exactly what the Separation of Church and State attempts to prevent. The state cannot dictate to the church what it will do with in religious matters nor can the Church dictate to the state what it does in any matter.

Noir,

Many churches believe that homosexuality is a sin and that it is the responsibility of the church to bring the sinner to repentance. Did you know that there are still many churches that will not marry a man and a woman who are currently living together outside of matrimony? They will make them separate for a given amount of time presumably without sex for that time before marrying the couple.

Religiously, nothing will change when the state begins to recognize same sex marriage. The churches that will currently marry same sex couples will continue to do so. Those churches that are against same sex marriage will remain so and will still refuse to marry such couples. There may be a few demoninations that now sit on the fence that will begin to perform such marriages, but I doubt there will be many.

What will change will be the influx of "wedding chapel" marriages, justice of the peace marriages etc.

Immie