SCOTUS decides on Prop 8 :D

**Ranger10** · 03-31-13, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

It's different solely because you believe marriage is a religious reference. I don't. You may also be surprised by how much of a minority your belief that marriage is a religious reference is.

~Morningfrost

Then people either don't know, or aren't honest with themselves.

What you're suggesting is that the term marriage was created in an atheistic vacuum... which is wasn't. Even IF the ancient Greeks, Romans, Mesopotamia's or Sumerians are the originators of the idea of marriage, they were still cultures deeply rooted in religions traditions. So either way, it was created under a religious template. And by supporting its application in our government now, you are supporting combining church and state. So what's it going to be? Complete separation of church and state, or do I get to point back to this thread every time one of you make an argument that they should be separate?

The fact that this simple logical conclusion escapes you, tells me no matter what evidence, I or anyone shows here, you will still choose not to believe it because it would make your world view wrong. That's not debating. That sounds more like... well... religion.

**i8pptuakamonstercam** · 03-31-13, 04:56 PM

All this talk, about who about who "owns" what word or where a word comes from, has got me thinking about the word gay itself. Did not the word gay have a completely different meaning (which I guess you could still use), but now every time someone says the word gay they automatically think of homosexuals. I just thought it was kind of funny, now carry on you guys :3

**Ranger10** · 03-31-13, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by i8pptuakamonstercam

All this talk, about who about who "owns" what word or where a word comes from, has got me thinking about the word gay itself. Did not the word gay have a completely different meaning (which I guess you could still use), but now every time someone says the word gay they automatically think of homosexuals. I just thought it was kind of funny, now carry on you guys :3

Indeed. And yet now... when someone wants to be called "happy" they certainly don't use the word "gay". Of course, if gay was a term created with religious overtones, and defined to meet a specific criteria, then I'm sure any homosexual out there would fight tooth and nail to keep that term synonymous with same sex relationships. The term "gay", does not refer to the idea of having sex with a donkey. We have a different name for it, its either beastiality, or Xavism, your choice. And people are sort of okay with that. Live and let be.

But the whole idea of where the term and concept of marriage comes from was a debate that has raged for 10 pages now. It was not my original purpose for posting. I suggested a course of action where everyone could be truly and completely equal, and instead it was attacked as being discriminatory. So for ten pages now, I've had to defend the basis for my conclusion when I would have much rather celebrated the unification of civil liberties for all people both gay or straight, instead of this mindless drudgery.

**Warprosper** · 03-31-13, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Were they slaves? Oh, right. Nevermind.

Uh... Yea..

**DJ Ms. White** · 03-31-13, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Were they slaves? Oh, right. Nevermind.

They had next to no rights, so yes...slaves and baby factories.

**Ranger10** · 03-31-13, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

They had next to no rights, so yes...slaves and baby factories.

How does this idea, or your previous one, have anything to do with the application of equal civil liberties or removing a religious term from governmental law? If all you're going to do is snipe little tidbits from my comments to create additional rabbits we have to chase, then are you contributing to this conversation, or simply trolling?

**Warprosper** · 03-31-13, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Indeed. And yet now... when someone wants to be called "happy" they certainly don't use the word "gay". Of course, if gay was a term created with religious overtones, and defined to meet a specific criteria, then I'm sure any homosexual out there would fight tooth and nail to keep that term synonymous with same sex relationships. The term "gay", does not refer to the idea of having sex with a donkey. We have a different name for it, its either beastiality, or Xavism, your choice. And people are sort of okay with that. Live and let be.

But the whole idea of where the term and concept of marriage comes from was a debate that has raged for 10 pages now. It was not my original purpose for posting. I suggested a course of action where everyone could be truly and completely equal, and instead it was attacked as being discriminatory. So for ten pages now, I've had to defend the basis for my conclusion when I would have much rather celebrated the unification of civil liberties for all people both gay or straight, instead of this mindless drudgery.

Did you know that when the phrase "All men are created equal" was created, it was only intended for white men?

We now encapsulate everyone into this clause. Men, in this case today, equals women too, and children, and blacks, and purples, and lavenders, and peach creams, and any other color you can think of..

So again, What's your definition of marriage? Man and Woman? You think that women shouldn't be able to vote, work, own homes, etc...?

**Ranger10** · 03-31-13, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Warprosper

Did you know that when the phrase "All men are created equal" was created, it was only intended for white men?

We now encapsulate everyone into this clause. Men, in this case today, equals women too, and children, and blacks, and purples, and lavenders, and peach creams, and any other color you can think of..

So again, What's your definition of marriage? Man and Woman? You think that women shouldn't be able to vote, work, own homes, etc...?

The definition is irrelevant. It's a religious term, and should therefore be removed from State nomenclature. Can we not use the term Civil Unions to mean the exact same thing? Why can't we change THAT word (phrase) to create a new meaning?

**DJ Ms. White** · 03-31-13, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

How does this idea, or your previous one, have anything to do with the application of equal civil liberties or removing a religious term from governmental law? If all you're going to do is snipe little tidbits from my comments to create additional rabbits we have to chase, then are you contributing to this conversation, or simply trolling?

It goes back to the claim that marriage coined in the middle ages was modern. I was showing that was quite false; it's quite false until about the 1980s when women reached a slightly more equal footing. But if you don't want to talk about marriage, the word/the concept...then what has been your point the last dozen pages? Of course, even if you hadn't come along, the topic, being about Prep 8, would still have been, ultimately, marriage.

**Ranger10** · 03-31-13, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

It goes back to the claim that marriage coined in the middle ages was modern. I was showing that was quite false; it's quite false until about the 1980s when women reached a slightly more equal footing. But if you don't want to talk about marriage, the word/the concept...then what has been your point the last dozen pages? Of course, even if you hadn't come along, the topic, being about Prep 8, would still have been, ultimately, marriage.

My point has been the removal of the term altogether from any State language. Like how you would like to remove Christmas, and replace it with Happy Holidays.

Yet, when I show the same kind of logic that atheists in these forums have been using for years now, the defense is... "Well... it was different, or this term doesn't mean the same thing when _________ happened." Its so incredibly hilarious to watch as each of you, who is apparently upset at my suggestion to make everyone equal, fumble over your own logical fallacies to create new and ever inventive ways to ignore your own logic based reasoning when it suits your purpose.

Yet, if I started a thread in which I felt prayer should be put back into schools... each and every one of you would attack me for pushing religious ideas into a state setting. So I ask you how this is any different, and so far, I've gotten about 5 different reasons, none of which makes any sense when held to the same standards in similar threads on these very forums, from the very same people. It's comical.