Dubstepforum.com

garethom wrote:

Terpit wrote:Calling it marriage just seems like a kick in teeth to Christianity or whatever. Not that I really care either way.

oh well.

honestly think the arguments against gay marriage are the stupidest arguments I've ever come across in my life.

I'm only arguing against the word 'marriage', there should be an legal equivalent. Im not saying anything against homosexuals.

Terpit wrote:

garethom wrote:

Terpit wrote:Calling it marriage just seems like a kick in teeth to Christianity or whatever. Not that I really care either way.

oh well.

honestly think the arguments against gay marriage are the stupidest arguments I've ever come across in my life.

I'm only arguing against the word 'marriage', there should be an legal equivalent. Im not saying anything against homosexuals.

Yeah, wasn't a dig at you, just saying "seems like a kick in teeth to christianity or whatever."

Just saying, oh well. That's a shame. They can operate their way, let everybody else operate their way. I'm not cool with forcing churches to perform same sex marriages if they're not cool with it, but everywhere else shouldn't have to stick to their rules.

What is wrong with calling it marriage? If two people are in love then they're entitled to call it whatever they want imo.

kant once said that marriage is a contract between two individuals that creates a mutual possession, requiring sexual exclusivity and emotional support. family is two or more individuals bound together by love and respect.

you don't have to be heterossexual nor christian to marry someone and form a family.

If you read what I posted you'll see why I said that.

Hircine wrote:kant once said that marriage is a contract between two individuals that creates a mutual possession, requiring sexual exclusivity and emotional support. family is two or more individuals bound together by love and respect.

you don't have to be heterossexual nor christian to marry someone and form a family.

Two or more?

I just think that the word marriage is a religious term, and should be respected as that. As I said before, several times if I remember correctly, there should be a legal equivalent.

It's common for two heterosexuals to be married in a registry office with no religious aspect to the ceremony. Isn't that similarly a kick in the teeth to "christianity or whatever".

If there's no religious requirement to marriage why should any churches views on homosexuality have any bearing on whether gays can marry.

Terpit wrote:

Hircine wrote:kant once said that marriage is a contract between two individuals that creates a mutual possession, requiring sexual exclusivity and emotional support. family is two or more individuals bound together by love and respect.

you don't have to be heterossexual nor christian to marry someone and form a family.

Two or more?

I just think that the word marriage is a religious term, and should be respected as that. As I said before, several times if I remember correctly, there should be a legal equivalent.

I agree with that, while marriages may not be strictly christian, they're usually done in churches with some mention of god in the ceremony, etc. etc. So if Christians truly believe that gay marriage is wrong because of religion and not because they're flaming homophobes then creating a strictly legal alternative would be the easiest way to make everyone happy. At least let them have the tax benefits and all that. Hell, if something like that existed I would probably choose it over regular marriage if that day ever comes.
I guess that would leave out the gay Christians though, so maybe it's not the best way to solve this. Teaching tolerance and acceptance in school would probably be a way easier solution, but I'm sure people would flip out over that too.

Terpit wrote:Ok I gave up reading that, mish, just saying that marriage nowadays as far as I'm concerned is a religious ceremony.

Deff with all these atheists getting married.

Terpit wrote:Calling it marriage just seems like a kick in teeth to Christianity or whatever. Not that I really care either way.

Christians don't have a patent on marriage.

scspkr99 wrote:It's common for two heterosexuals to be married in a registry office with no religious aspect to the ceremony. Isn't that similarly a kick in the teeth to "christianity or whatever".

If there's no religious requirement to marriage why should any churches views on homosexuality have any bearing on whether gays can marry.

Yeah that's what I'm on about, forgot the name, registry office. Nothing wrong with that at all in my opinion, I didn't realize that was considered 'marriage', I thought it was just the legal equivalent.

And regarding the last bit of what you posted, if the marriage takes place in a church, they have every right to be annoyed.

hudson wrote:

Terpit wrote:

Hircine wrote:kant once said that marriage is a contract between two individuals that creates a mutual possession, requiring sexual exclusivity and emotional support. family is two or more individuals bound together by love and respect.

you don't have to be heterossexual nor christian to marry someone and form a family.

Two or more?

I just think that the word marriage is a religious term, and should be respected as that. As I said before, several times if I remember correctly, there should be a legal equivalent.

I agree with that, while marriages may not be strictly christian, they're usually done in churches with some mention of god in the ceremony, etc. etc. So if Christians truly believe that gay marriage is wrong because of religion and not because they're flaming homophobes then creating a strictly legal alternative would be the easiest way to make everyone happy. At least let them have the tax benefits and all that. Hell, if something like that existed I would probably choose it over regular marriage if that day ever comes.
I guess that would leave out the gay Christians though, so maybe it's not the best way to solve this. Teaching tolerance and acceptance in school would probably be a way easier solution, but I'm sure people would flip out over that too.

When muslims are trying to force non-muslims to respect their islamic law to not 'draw pictures of Muhammed', it's the end of the world. But christians can use government force to push their definition of marriage on the masses?

Marriage. Is just. A word. When a couple in the jungles of New Guinea, who may not be too aware of christianity, are getting married, are we going to let christians impose their definition of marriage on them through law as well? Jesus Christ.

People don't have the right not to be offended. So no, we're not going to push laws so people don't get offended.

Genevieve wrote:

Terpit wrote:Ok I gave up reading that, mish, just saying that marriage nowadays as far as I'm concerned is a religious ceremony.

Deff with all these atheists getting married.

Terpit wrote:Calling it marriage just seems like a kick in teeth to Christianity or whatever. Not that I really care either way.

Christians don't have a patent on marriage.

IMO they have the right to say what is allowed to happen in a church and what isn't. And yeah atheists get married in churches I'm sure but that's a far less obvious and visible 'sin'.
Inot necessarily Christians, but I'd say that (IMO) large religions do have a patent on marriage.

I'm not talking about getting married in church. Registry office weddings are still marriages. The actual church ceremony has little bearing on the legality of being married. The marriage is only complete when the bride and groom sign the register, the same register that people getting married in a registry office sign.

There's an argument that the church should be able to discriminate as to who gets married on their premises but if we consider that boarding houses have been found to have acted illegally by refusing to accomodate gay couples it's only a matter of time before such discriminatory practices are brought to an end.

so who here thinks marriage is a strictly limited, henceforth unique concept of religion?

Terpit wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

Terpit wrote:Ok I gave up reading that, mish, just saying that marriage nowadays as far as I'm concerned is a religious ceremony.

Deff with all these atheists getting married.

Terpit wrote:Calling it marriage just seems like a kick in teeth to Christianity or whatever. Not that I really care either way.

Christians don't have a patent on marriage.

IMO they have the right to say what is allowed to happen in a church and what isn't. And yeah atheists get married in churches I'm sure but that's a far less obvious and visible 'sin'.
Inot necessarily Christians, but I'd say that (IMO) large religions do have a patent on marriage.

Sure they do, a church is a private institution. But if a pastor decides to marry two gay dudes... then why involve the government? To keep some christians who are against it happy?

It's so silly to involve layers and layers of government bureacracy to keep some grapes from going sour.

noam wrote:so who here thinks marriage is a strictly limited, henceforth unique concept of religion?

I think the term 'marriage' is exclusive to religion.not the concept at all, whichiswhy I think there should be a legal equivalent.

Genevieve wrote:

Terpit wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

Terpit wrote:Ok I gave up reading that, mish, just saying that marriage nowadays as far as I'm concerned is a religious ceremony.

Deff with all these atheists getting married.

Terpit wrote:Calling it marriage just seems like a kick in teeth to Christianity or whatever. Not that I really care either way.

Christians don't have a patent on marriage.

IMO they have the right to say what is allowed to happen in a church and what isn't. And yeah atheists get married in churches I'm sure but that's a far less obvious and visible 'sin'.
Inot necessarily Christians, but I'd say that (IMO) large religions do have a patent on marriage.

Sure they do, a church is a private institution. But if a pastor decides to marry two gay dudes... then why involve the government? To keep some christians who are against it happy?

It's so silly to involve layers and layers of government bureacracy to keep some grapes from going sour.

I've expressed my view,don't really wanna argue about it anymore, as entertaining as it can be.

Im pretty sure the term 'marriage' or at least the true meaning of it was around long before christianity put its unique brand on it.

Terpit, what country are you from?