SCOTUS decides on Prop 8 :D

**MaFioSo** · 03-31-13, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

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.

I think you have a good point but it 's difficult to say that people married because of religion. Marrying someone, or finding another and committing to them, is something that we naturally do. In the same way that we naturally think that killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, etc.

Yet one could make the argument that these ideologies are religious in nature. After all it does say thou shall not kill in the ten commandments. And you will find throughout history that almost every religion condemns the act of killing, stealing and lying. It doesn't mean that when people don't steal its because of their religion, it's because something in our minds tells us that it's not okay. In the same way that something in our minds tells us that we should eventually commit to spending our life with another. When this happens, whether the other person accepted or they were forced, bought, traded, etc. there is almost always some sort of ceremony and not necessarily a religious one. Again our minds tells us that when this commitment is made, there should be some type of celebration and others should be invited to acknowledge the commitment, therefore further validating it.

In our country, the acknowledgment of that commitment can ONLY be done so in the form of a marriage license. And why do people wan't this acknowledgment? Because it validates the commitment they have made to each other. It's like signing a contract, the contract is not valid if it cannot be validated or accepted by others. In this case that contract of commitment cannot be validated because the law says it can only be done through a man and a woman. So because it's not valid, it deteriorates the agreement you have made. If you and I agreed upon something and we both know that the courts will not recognize it, then we might be more likely not to follow through or take it serious.

Additionally, it's not like religions are being forced to accept or acknowledge these commitments. Catholics and Christians can always refuse to hold religious ceremonies for marriages they don't approve of. And as I said, although you have good points, I really think that committing to another for the rest of our life is something we naturally do, it was not something that was instilled upon us by any religion.

As I mentioned you can look at almost every religion and you will see the vast majority support a "marriage" ideology. The fact that so many different heritages and religions support this ideology despite them disagreeing on almost everything else, is evidence that it something we naturally do and was not instilled upon us by any religion.

**DJ Ms. White** · 03-31-13, 05:37 PM

Uh huh. And if you go back and look at what Deathgod and I posted earlier, we wouldn't mind that. However, I don't think the term, marriage, in its definition, is a solely Judeo-Christian thing. I honestly also don't care if someone says Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas. I say the latter to Christians and the former to...non-Christians who happen to also celebrate certain festivities around the same time.

Now as to

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.

What's ironic, is you calling out Morningfrost for a personal attack and then you turn around and make some attacks yourself, which is to say: Keep that shit out of my thread or any other.

**Warprosper** · 03-31-13, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

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.

It's not us who are using illogical fallacies here. It's you.

You say that marriage is a religious term and base it off of your empirical conclusions. What you aren't doing is basing this term from those who aren't religious. You make the same argument about holidays and Christmas. Let's look at the fallacy here. Christ + mas = Christmas. Hmm... Do you really think that Indian's believe in Jesus Christ, they still get married though, and they call it marriage. These issues are two separate topics, one celebrates the union of those in love and one celebrates the birth of a religious figurehead.

**Warprosper** · 03-31-13, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Warprosper

It's not us who are using illogical fallacies here. It's you.

You say that marriage is a religious term and base it off of your empirical conclusions. What you aren't doing is basing this term from those who aren't religious. You make the same argument about holidays and Christmas. Let's look at the fallacy here. Christ + mas = Christmas. Hmm... Do you really think that Indian's believe in Jesus Christ, they still get married though, and they call it marriage. These issues are two separate topics, one celebrates the union of those in love and one celebrates the birth of a religious figurehead.

In addition.... I got married, I'm not religious. Should my marriage be called a civil union instead?

**Ranger10** · 03-31-13, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by MaFioSo

I think you have a good point but it 's difficult to say that people married because of religion. Marrying someone, or finding another and committing to them, is something that we naturally do. In the same way that we naturally think that killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, etc.

Yet one could make the argument that these ideologies are religious in nature. After all it does say though shall not kill in the ten commandments. And you will find throughout history that almost every religion condemns the act of killing, stealing and lying. It doesn't mean that when people don't steal its because of their religion, it's because something in our minds tells us that it's not okay. In the same way that something in our minds tells us that we should eventually commit to spending our life with another. When this happen, whether the other person accepted or they were forced, bought, traded, etc. there is almost always some sort of ceremony and not necessarily a religious one. Again our minds tells us that when this commitment is made, there should be some type of celebration and others should be invited to acknowledge the commitment, therefore further validating it.

In our country, the acknowledgment of that commitment can ONLY be done so in the form of a marriage license. And why do people wan't this acknowledgment? Because it validates the commitment they have made to each other. It's like signing a contract, the contract is not valid if it cannot be validated or accepted by others. In this case that contract of commitment cannot be validated because the law says it can only be done through a man and a woman. So because it's not valid, it deteriorates the agreement you have made. If you and I agreed upon something and we both know that the courts will not recognize it, then we might be more likely not to follow through or take it serious.

Additionally, it's not like religions are being forced to accept or acknowledge these commitments. Catholics and Christians can always refuse to hold religious ceremonies for marriages they don't approve of. And as I said, although you have good points, I really think that committing to another for the rest of our life is something we naturally do, it was not something that was instilled upon us by any religion.

As I mentioned you can look at almost every religion and you will see the vast majority support a "marriage" ideology. The fact that so many different heritages and religions support this ideology despite them disagreeing on almost everything else, is evidence that it something we naturally do and should be allowed to do.

I think you bring up some excellent points. Allow me to expand on some of them. I tend to believe that marriage is a term created by religion for a couple of key reasons. The first is to prevent inbreeding. By creating an institution that helps people track who and where their progeny comes from, it's easier to prevent three-headed babies. Second, from an evolutionary point of view, having as many partners as possible ensures the succession of your line. So there had to be a way to get everyone to agree to a monogamous relationship. What is the one thing that has a societal wide impact on the thinking of a race of people? To me, the only thing strong enough would be religion. I will certainly admit that this is a logical based argument based on some strong evidence, but there may not be any direct evidence to support it.

But this comes back to my original point. If we can find a solution that preserves the religious overtones of the word 'marriage', yet still results in the absolute, unequivocal creation of a equal state of civil liberty, for anyone no matter what their religious beliefs, should we no seriously look at that as a viable alternative? I know many of you are making the argument that marriage is simply too ingrained in the minds of people to be changed now. Yet... Warprosper brings up a valuable point (though I doubt he meant to) when he suggested the definition for "all men are created equal" has been changed, adapted and modified to suit our current social climate.

If that's the case, and we can change how we define certain terms, then why are you all so opposed to enumerating the same rights that a marriage would adopt into a civil union instead? We'd be removing yet another "religious term" from state nomenclature, while making everyone truly equal, without infringing upon the beliefs of Christians everywhere. Win. Win. And Win.

Is this not a more reasonable solution?

**Ranger10** · 03-31-13, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Warprosper

In addition.... I got married, I'm not religious. Should my marriage be called a civil union instead?

Yes... I am a Christian, and so should mine. Your marriage is a contract between you, your wife, and your government. Yet it uses a religious derived term.

So create another one. Separate church from state. Do it here, or don't do it anywhere.

Look, I don't care if you, or any gay couple in this world calls themselves "married". I care that the State has any say in it whatsoever. What you choose to do with your church, in your state, in your bedroom is up to you. But the State (i.e. YOU and ME) should never have a say in what religious terms either of us use to describe our relationship.

**Ranger10** · 03-31-13, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

What's ironic, is you calling out Morningfrost for a personal attack and then you turn around and make some attacks yourself, which is to say: Keep that shit out of my thread or any other.

What personal attack? Highlight it and show me.

**Ranger10** · 03-31-13, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Warprosper

It's not us who are using illogical fallacies here. It's you.

You say that marriage is a religious term and base it off of your empirical conclusions. What you aren't doing is basing this term from those who aren't religious. You make the same argument about holidays and Christmas. Let's look at the fallacy here. Christ + mas = Christmas. Hmm... Do you really think that Indian's believe in Jesus Christ, they still get married though, and they call it marriage. These issues are two separate topics, one celebrates the union of those in love and one celebrates the birth of a religious figurehead.

So you'll be right beside me when I lead the charge to put prayer back into schools? I mean, its a term that was created long before marriage was, likely in those same ancient civilizations you think created marriage. It also doesn't hurt anyone else, or make you pray, or should offend you. Its also a term that can be changed over and over and over to suit whatever purpose is needed in modern culture. So if I want to make an amendment allowing anyone to pray in any state run facility, to any god of their choosing, you'll be right there to help me do it, even though you aren't religious?

**SgtRazor** · 03-31-13, 06:08 PM

It is completely disingenuous to claim prayer was taken out of schools. Prayer was not taken out of schools. Students are just as free to pray in school now as they have always been.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

**Ranger10** · 03-31-13, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by SgtRazor

It is completely disingenuous to claim prayer was taken out of schools. Prayer was not taken out of schools. Students are just as free to pray in school now as they have always been.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Well, kind of. Anyone who can bow their head, close their eyes, and sit quietly for a few minutes can 'pray'. But when the State endorses it, people throw their arms up in the air and complain. State endorsed prayer is very much dead. So why is State endorse marriage not?