Thread: SCOTUS decides on Prop 8 :D

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I fail to see how anything you said here is even remotely related to the op.

apples and oranges.

I already did.

Look man if you wan to keep trolling, then that's your prerogative. But don't you dare tell me to Stay on OP when I call you out on it.

As seen in this post.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Your face is a smiling female? Not what i expected from someone named sgtrazor. Although there are plenty of female sgt's to.

Just lock this up as it cannot be brought back to life with this diatribe.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

I already did.

Look man if you wan to keep trolling, then that's your prerogative. But don't you dare tell me to Stay on OP when I call you out on it.

As seen in this post.


Just lock this up as it cannot be brought back to life with this diatribe.

There is some good discussion happening here, maybe you want to participate? Or do you just want this thing locked?

Originally Posted by SgtRazor

It seems folly to me to claim marriage as your own. Many cultures totally unrelated to Christianity incorporate marriage into them. Marriage as a practice, I believe, has its origins as a pagan practice if I recall correctly. You are totally within your rights not to perform a marriage in your church if it violates your church's belief in what marriage is, and nobody is claiming otherwise. I sincerely doubt, and I'm sure you do too, that an Atheist wants to get married in <Insert town name here> First Baptist Church. So as a Christian, you can consider it an attack all day. But Hindus, Buddhists, yes Atheists, et al could care less about what you consider to be marriage, as they each have their own take on the institution.

Let's face it. Christianity does not lay ownership to the idea of marriage. It wasn't even until the Middle Ages that it was considered one of the Seven Sacraments. Unless you want the states to start handing out Civil Union certificates to all couples, regardless of gender/religion and wiping the term marriage from the books completely (which is definitely a respectable stance and worth its own discussion), then you've got to accept that "marriage" as a term and practice is far broader in definition that the biblical one.

The point is that the federal government has no right to define marriage. And marriage is a religious institution. Period. I talked about my view as a Christian, but marriage applies in many faiths. If they want to define civil unions for the purposes of conveying special rights and privileges I'm fine with that. But it should not be called marriage. By the way making the pagan reference is silly because paganism is a religion too!

I for one would think that atheists and other non-religious people would be wholeheartedly in support of civil unions being added to the mix because it would allow them to keep religion completely out of it.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

They want MARRIAGE, which is really a religious union. So for me as a Christian, I see that as a direct attack on my own values because they are clearly more interested in destroying the sacrament of marriage than they are in gaining equal protection under the law.

I agree with most of what you said but this part bothers me a lot.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It has not been for a VERY long time. I have had a Common Law Marriage. A 100% legal issue. Nothing religious about it. For a VERY long time you have been able to be married by a justice of the peace. A legal move not a religious one.

My point is Marriage is already a legal issue not a religious one. This doesn't change that fact at all, just expands who is covered by the issue.

I have no problem if a church declines to marry two people for what ever reason (Catholic vs divorce comes to mind) but that does not stop them from getting the exact same thing legally and it is still called and legally defined as marriage.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

The point is that the federal government has no right to define marriage. And marriage is a religious institution. Period. I talked about my view as a Christian, but marriage applies in many faiths. If they want to define civil unions for the purposes of conveying special rights and privileges I'm fine with that. But it should not be called marriage. By the way making the pagan reference is silly because paganism is a religion too!

I for one would think that atheists and other non-religious people would be wholeheartedly in support of civil unions being added to the mix because it would allow them to keep religion completely out of it.

Why can't it be called marriage? Because it goes against what you believe? Who are you to decide what the true definition of marriage is? What makes your bible correct? Are you saying that everyone who doesn't agree with the bible is wrong? You're allowed to believe in something, just as others are allowed, but your belief is attempting to demean others by saying you're not worthy of using our sacred word, "Marriage."

To me that's not a belief. That's nonacceptance, and it's disgraceful.

Originally Posted by Glitch

I agree with most of what you said but this part bothers me a lot.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It has not been for a VERY long time. I have had a Common Law Marriage. A 100% legal issue. Nothing religious about it. For a VERY long time you have been able to be married by a justice of the peace. A legal move not a religious one.

My point is Marriage is already a legal issue not a religious one. This doesn't change that fact at all, just expands who is covered by the issue.

I have no problem if a church declines to marry two people for what ever reason (Catholic vs divorce comes to mind) but that does not stop them from getting the exact same thing legally and it is still called and legally defined as marriage.

It's funny you should mention common law and then say that it is a purely legal thing. The very root of common law stems from religious values. Thus the marriage tradition as recognized in common law comes from religious values at its roots. Maybe you're surprised to hear that, I don't know, but you aren't going to escape religion's impact on the world by simply denying it.

I understand what you're saying, in that this is a complicated issue because of how the law has always looked at marriage. That's because when common law and other systems of law were created...

1. The law generally didn't confer special rights and privileges on married people, and...

2. Those alive when the foundations of common law were created didn't think two dudes or two women would be seeking to be recognized as married under the law, because there was no reason BUT a religious reason to do so.

Once special rights and privileges became associated with marriage, everything started getting screwed up. As I said, if the state wants to add recognition of civil unions to be equal to marriage, that is a MUCH better solution than to attack the institution of marriage itself. Strangely though, your average gay activist group has no interest in doing that. Why do you think that is again?

Originally Posted by Warprosper

Why can't it be called marriage? Because it goes against what you believe? Who are you to decide what the true definition of marriage is? What makes your bible correct? Are you saying that everyone who doesn't agree with the bible is wrong? You're allowed to believe in something, just as others are allowed, but your belief is attempting to demean others by saying you're not worthy of using our sacred word, "Marriage."

To me that's not a belief. That's nonacceptance, and it's disgraceful.

Who are you to decide it? Who are you to demean my beliefs and be intolerant of my beliefs? Especially when there is a solution that would not? That infringes on my religious rights, plain and simple. I mean hell, if we can re-route an entire pipeline to protect a freaking woodpecker, surely we can protect the rights of everyone? Right?