California legalises Gay Marriage

[Mr Stabby]

you're trying to pigeon hole it into something you can defend regardless if it's answering my question or not ..you made a statement that marriage is a religious institution, I asked which religion and you try to narrow it down to christianity when that isnt the question being asked

Your question isn't clear. Do you mean in America, or in general, if you mean in general it makes no sense to ask a specific religion, your question makes no sense.

no source for your statement that:

Is it not fairly obviously that Christian marriage predates state civil marriage, so state marriage is clearly derived from it. You can look up British or whoever's laws yourself if you want to know when it happened, I think it's around the 1860's.

are you saying that p until the 20th century people believed god was the source of everything ..that's one hell of a monumental statement to prove ..but I'm going to have to ask for a source

There are all the religions for a start, where did they come from if atheism was so popular back then, I'd like to see a source of this widespread atheism.

btw no:

If you read what I wrote I was talking about plebeian atheism not philosophical atheism of a few intellectuals. The fact is every civilization before the industrial revolution took religion quite seriously.

and? the azrtecs also had a marriage ritual ..as did the hopi indians ..the bushmen of the kalahari had/have one too ..you're not suggesting that Christianity is the source of marriage because they're relatively young in comparison to most

Aztecs had religion, as did hoipi Indians, where is this secular marriage you were talking about. I never said Christianity invented marriage, they didn't event God or sin or prayer either but they are religious concepts.

religious institutions do not own the title of marriage:

Unless marriage is consider religious then yes they do.

notice how they call it a wedding and not a civil union despite the lack of ****ing jesus?

http://abbott-infotech.co.za/tribes in the kalahari.html

Is it secular and carried out by a secular state, I think even bushmen have religious beliefs and I bet there marriage ceremony has loads of religion in it.

so only christian marriages are marriages, all else are ..something else?

Where did I say that?

we're based on british traditions

Well you've strayed cause we don't agree with you.

I dont care one bit what Hilary or Obama support it's completely meaningless ..and are you saying that unless you're married by a minister it's a civil union? all married jews are not really married, they're in a civil unon?

Clearly hillary and Obama see a distinction, and If a Jew is married by a Rabbi in a synagogue it's a marriage, religion=! Christianity.

please, what the hell does that have to do with them? if it's not part of their traditions why would they care?

Marriage is part of their traditions.

yes they are ..a justice of the peace can and will use god in the ceremony ..in fact one of my friends who was married by a MINISTER even though there was no mention of god and neither tthe bride nor the groom were part of the minister's faith

If it was secular it's not a marriage

again there is only ONE reason why this is an issue: homophobia

That an the issue of whether marriage is religious or not. Which it is.

you're wrong, not a single person is forcing them to perform same sex marriages ..this is the misunderstand that the majority of christians believe in

What's wrong with civil partnerships then, marriage is a religious concept and for the state decide marriage is meddling in religion.

"separate but equal is still discrimination"

is a pretty good start

They are equal in law, but not in religion, and they aren't religiously equal.

 

[CptStern]

Your question isn't clear. Do you mean in America, or in general, if you mean in general it makes no sense to ask a specific religion, your question makes no sense.

you're muddying up the question ..it's as simple as this: you said marriage is exclusive to religion or that it's roots are religious and I asked for a source, which you have yet to provide

Is it not fairly obviously that Christian marriage predates state civil marriage, so state marriage is clearly derived from it. You can look up British or whoever's laws yourself if you want to know when it happened, I think it's around the 1860's.

that's not what im asking ..but for the sake of not steering it down a separate and more confusing path I'll let it go

IThere are all the religions for a start, where did they come from if atheism was so popular back then, I'd like to see a source of this widespread atheism.

I'd like to see a source for widespread atheism as well because it's you who are sugesting this, not I ..all I said was that atheism isnt a recent phenomenon



If you read what I wrote I was talking about plebeian atheism not philosophical atheism of a few intellectuals. The fact is every civilization before the industrial revolution took religion quite seriously.

plebeian atheism? point this out please

and whether people in the past took religion seriously isnt at issue here ..regardless if they did or not it doesnt disprove anything

Aztecs had religion, as did hoipi Indians, where is this secular marriage you were talking about. I never said Christianity invented marriage, they didn't event God or sin or prayer either but they are religious concepts.

I bet they were ...but you miss the overall point: there is consensus on marriage, which one is the correct one?

Unless marriage is consider religious then yes they do.

no they dont ..no one goes to vegas to be married in a drive thru Civil Unions R US ..they're married, regardless if it's Father Aloxious Gregori McDonnely or a guy dressed up as Elvis ..they're not "civil unionised"

Is it secular and carried out by a secular state, I think even bushmen have religious beliefs and I bet there marriage ceremony has loads of religion in it.

you dont know how religious it is or not ...bet it's different than a tradional marriage bet it's nothing like a western ceremony ..so does that make not a real marriage ..or it simply enough that you say the occasional "thank you lord" in order to validate it as a marriage and not a civil union?

Where did I say that?

I said:

" ..I dont need a priest to get married, much like a jew doesnt need a priest or a buddhist or a pastafarian ..I only need a priest if I'm to be married in their church"

you said:

" If your definition of marriage is the same as that of a secular civil union"

you were implying that marriage is only performed by religious institutions when I've already proven you wrong

Well you've strayed cause we don't agree with you.

so you're saying that unless your married in a church you're not married ..it's a civil union ..is this a recent thing because surely there are people who were married without a religious ceremony ..did they get a "Civil Union certificate" retroactively to those married after the law was put into play ...I dont think we've strayed as much as you've regressed

Clearly hillary and Obama see a distinction, and If a Jew is married by a Rabbi in a synagogue it's a marriage, religion=! Christianity.

a rabbi CAN marry me, I dont have to be jewish ..is it a marriage or not? my marriage, not a single mention of god, wasnt held in a church ..it's a civil union then? prepare to get a bloody lip from Mrs Stern cuz you're just invalidated her marriage ..and that of millions of people

Marriage is part of their traditions.

marriage is part of every single culture's traditions, your point is moot

If it was secular it's not a marriage

because you say so? dont make me laugh ..they have a marriage license it says claer as day MARRIAGE license

That an the issue of whether marriage is religious or not. Which it is.

and we're back to playing the back and forth game ..you have yet to provide any evidence that marriage is exclusively religious, please do so now

What's wrong with civil partnerships then, marriage is a religious concept and for the state decide marriage is meddling in religion.

I have a better idea ..marriage for everyone and if it's a religious marriage then it should be hyphanated:

Christian-Marriage or Pastafarian-Marriage ....you and those like you who wish to redefine marriage to suit their own agenda will ultimately fail because in the process you are willing to invalidate the marriages of millions of people for nothing more than your own moral outrage ...well that's too freakin bad

 

[Acepilotf14]

Universe - 8843902984650113 Everyone Else - 0

Also, I guess we lost that whole little challenge thing ALREADY?

 

[CptStern]

the challenger blew up in 1983, I dont see your point except that they needed more astronauts?

 

[Dan]

So... what exactly is your position Stern? Could you sum it up in point form or say it as directly as possible?

 

[CptStern]

So... what exactly is your position Stern? Could you sum it up in point form or say it as directly as possible?

...ummm for a time there, nasa did indeed stand for "Need Another Seven Astronauts"?

 

[Dan]

I meant about your long debate on marriage.

 

[CptStern]

you've read it right? it's all there in black and grey

 

[Dan]

I read it and that's why I asked, because it seemed kinda scattered, and then you got into a little quoting war. But without further information, I probably am going to have to disagree with you to the extent that I understood what you were taking a stand on.

 

[CptStern]

why dont you fill me in so we both know what my opinion is

 

[Dan]

you know better than I do

 

[ríomhaire]

Stern has lost the ability to actually answer the question asked because he's spent too much time in the Politics section. It happens to everyone who gets lost in here. Just look at Mr Stabby's posts.

 

[15357]

I don't understand the point of gay marriage, or its legalization (or illegalization, for that matter).


I mean, you're not gonna have babies, right?






Right?

 

[CptStern]

you know better than I do

ok I'll sum it up

in brief: marriage for all ..not civil union with special powers; marriage

I don't understand the point of gay marriage, or its legalization (or illegalization, for that matter).


I mean, you're not gonna have babies, right?






Right?

so in other words the only reason to get married is to have kids? so all those who are married and dont want kids they should get an annulment?

 

[Dan]

ok I'll sum it up
in brief: marriage for all ..not civil union with special powers; marriage

Why do you think that marriage is a matter for government?

 

[CptStern]

oh boy here we go again ...just read my posts in this thread

 

[Leto]

OMG, too many quotes *brain explodes*


But good for them, Churches can choose whether or not to unite homosexuals in marriage, but to make it illegal is seriously weird and they should not mix government laws with religion.

 

[kineaesth]

I'm not from America, so the politics of this is uninteresting.

I think this is a good choice.

 

[15357]

so in other words the only reason to get married is to have kids? so all those who are married and dont want kids they should get an annulment?

Oh.


6char.

 

[ríomhaire]

oh boy here we go again ...just read my posts in this thread

It's pretty laughable that you think that your posts make your points clear.

 

[CptStern]

It's pretty laughable that you think that your posts make your points clear.

not my fault you're too slow witted to keep up

 

[Vigilante]

Now to get the rest of the country to follow Cali's lead...

 

[Sulkdodds]

Stern makes his standpoint pretty clear, although I think he misunderstands what Dan's about?

The proposal was that marriage be an entirely religious tie, informal, faith/church-dependent and having no legal ramifications or benefits. 'Civil Unions' would be ubiquitous, state-instituted, equal and bear legal conditions and advantages. The point being that all married couples would also undergo civil unions, but that not all civil partners would undergo religious marriage. Civil union would be the act that confers legal status, not religious marriage.

Stern, if you got all this and just didn't agree with it, then sorry for misunderstanding your misunderstanding.

Personally I can see the logic in proposal but I anticipate problems with the way that 'marriage' is so bound up in culture and society and blah blah blah. With 'marriage' having been for a very long time a not specifically religious ceremony, and existing in so many different cultures (in an increasingly integrated, or at least close-together, world), it seems slightly dubious to award the name to the religious side of things, when it has been an act with secular and legal components for a very long time now. It's not a purely religious ceremony in the way that confirmation or baptism is.

If marriage has legal ramifications then the state can/must get involved in it; of course it didn't always get involved, because it didn't always exist.

 

[ríomhaire]

not my fault you're too slow witted to keep up

Well. You seem to want states to continue recognising marriage as a legal bond between two persons but also to have it open to everyone, including gays, and not bother with the whole civil union idea, but I can't find a single instance in this thread where you clearly state your views. You seem to be for the most part to be just arguing about whether or not marriage is a purely religious ceremony (and you're right; it's not) but you don't make your views on the whole idea of civil unions as opposed to marriage clear. In fact, I think as your argument Stabby continues your points become more and more unclear.

 

[CptStern]

Stern makes his standpoint pretty clear, although I think he misunderstands what Dan's about?

The proposal was that marriage be an entirely religious tie, informal, faith/church-dependent and having no legal ramifications or benefits. 'Civil Unions' would be ubiquitous, state-instituted, equal and bear legal conditions and advantages. The point being that all married couples would also undergo civil unions, but that not all civil partners would undergo religious marriage. Civil union would be the act that confers legal status, not religious marriage.

Stern, if you got all this and just didn't agree with it, then sorry for misunderstanding your misunderstanding.

ya I just didnt agree with it because:

...I anticipate problems with the way that 'marriage' is so bound up in culture and society and blah blah blah. With 'marriage' having been for a very long time a not specifically religious ceremony, and existing in so many different cultures (in an increasingly integrated, or at least close-together, world), it seems slightly dubious to award the name to the religious side of things, when it has been an act with secular and legal components for a very long time now. It's not a purely religious ceremony in the way that confirmation or baptism is.

thx for summarizing