Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bohandas]

It doesn't matter if the government recognizes it! They shouldn't be recognizing ANY marriages, regardless of orientation! The fact that they recognize any form of marriage is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state!

[Willfor]

I think, really, the entire religious argument (debatably, all religious arguments), comes down to christians hating fun.

Yes. I, personally, hate fun, and that's why I'm a Christian.

I honestly think this is the entire reason for every anti-masturbation thing I've ever seen.  If there was EVER an act that would be healthy, enjoyable, and safe, it would be masturbation.

Actually, James Dobson of fucking Focus on the Family comes down in favor of masturbation. Though, the Focus on the Family perspective on it is different. It's debated within theological circles. There is actual scriptural justification for the thought in scripture, but in my opinion it is a weakly connected one. Though, that's simply my opinion.

[Max White]

It doesn't matter if the government recognizes it! They shouldn't be recognizing ANY marriages, regardless of orientation! The fact that they recognize any form of marriage is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state!

I'm going to disagree with you there. Religion does not hold the monopoly on romance, as I'm sure there are plenty of people who would want to choose a partner to spend their lives with without a deity to worship, and some of them may very well want to put aside a special day to celebrate that, I know I sure do and I am far from the religious type. Government recognising that is just a way that your loved one can take some level of custody over you, and visa versa, as you would want in today's legal system.
The problem comes from then not recognising all forms of marriage, regardless of religious views, sexuality, or otherwise. If two (Or hey, even more, who am I to judge?) people want to claim dependency on each other in the eyes of the state, they should allow that and have the option open to everybody.

[Bohandas]

I'm going to disagree with you there. Religion does not hold the monopoly on romance,

No, it holds a monopoly on marriage.
Marriage is at its core, a religious institution.

[Max White]

Like I said, I would love to get married one day, but I am not religious. Just because you can quote a cliché doesn't make you correct.

[Realmfighter]

Marriage is at its core, a religious institution.

Doesn't have to be.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It doesn't matter if the government recognizes it! They shouldn't be recognizing ANY marriages, regardless of orientation! The fact that they recognize any form of marriage is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state!

Marriage has been a civil institution as much as it has been a religious one for a long time. It makes sense, from a social standpoint, that it would develop independently in as many cultures as it did because of the strong ties it encourages. So I'd say there's no breach of the Separation of Church and State here, and this is coming from an atheist who believes that the national motto should be changed back back from In God We Trust to E Pluribus Unum, the Ten Commandments shouldn't be allowed on government buildings, circumcising minors should be an illegal act of mutilation, and that Halal and Kosher slaughtering practices should be banned.

I think, really, the entire religious argument (debatably, all religious arguments), comes down to christians hating fun.

Yes. I, personally, hate fun, and that's why I'm a Christian.

It doesn't necessarily mean you. You can't really deny that there are strong movements within the macrocosm of your religion that view pleasure as the addictive aspect that drives people to sin, and thus to commit evil, even if you don't personally believe that in your variant of Christianity (which you might or might not, since you never specified).

I honestly think this is the entire reason for every anti-masturbation thing I've ever seen.  If there was EVER an act that would be healthy, enjoyable, and safe, it would be masturbation.

Actually, James Dobson of fucking Focus on the Family comes down in favor of masturbation. Though, the Focus on the Family perspective on it is different. It's debated within theological circles. There is actual scriptural justification for the thought in scripture, but in my opinion it is a weakly connected one. Though, that's simply my opinion.

Well, it is a pretty weak connection. Onan's sin seems to be pretty clearly defying a direct order from Yahweh himself, rather than....well, he wasn't even actually masturbating, he withdrew to prevent getting his sister (yes, his sister, ick) pregnant. So if anything, that makes purposely trying to not have children a sin instead.

[Vester]

I'm going to disagree with you there. Religion does not hold the monopoly on romance,

Marriage is at its core, a religious institution.

wat

[Willfor]

It doesn't necessarily mean you. You can't really deny that there are strong movements within the macrocosm of your religion that view pleasure as the addictive aspect that drives people to sin, and thus to commit evil, even if you don't personally believe that in your variant of Christianity (which you might or might not, since you never specified).

When I do discussion points on Christianity on this forum, I don't like to present my own viewpoint, I like to present the opinions of different variants. It makes it easier to talk about it clinically, and not get too personally entwined with the thread. I think every self-defense mechanism against letting myself start drama on the internet is a good self-defense mechanism. I think it also helps me from getting preachy since I'm only presenting opinions, and not attempting to convince anyone of a solid truth.

Unfortunately, keeping my sarcasm in my pants is not as easy -- sarcasm is more deeply rooted in my being than religion. It was the preferred sense of humour of both my grandmother and (continues to be for) my father, and now it just ... flows out.

[MaximumZero]

There were two reasons I got married. 1) I wanted to profess my committed relationship to my now-wife. Until one of us dies. Or both. Or she gets fed up with me and kicks me out. But I'll be there until she no longer wants me to be. 2) I wanted to say, "Hey, society. This lady and I are a familial unit now. Treat us as one, please."

No, I didn't get married in a church. (Fun fact: It was a town hall that the wife and I rented.) No, we weren't married by a pastor, (We were married by a fellow who got a license to marry people so he could do so legally in Tolkien Elven at Ren Faires. He did not do so for us, but both the wife and I would have been totally cool with that.) We kissed, we danced, we took four hours of pictures, and I almost passed out because I didn't eat breakfast.

The wife and I don't have the perfect marriage. Money is tight (understatement of the century!). Our views on organized religion differ substantially. She's an extrovert, and I'm an introvert. I'm a fighter, and love sports, and she's about as athletic as a box of chocolates. She cries and throws things when she gets mad, and I give the cold shoulder and the silent treatment. We're different, but we are just as much in love as the day we married, the year we dated, and the year we were friends with benefits. Our relationship has grown, and we both had partners before one another. There comes a point where you have to say, "You know what? It's really no big deal," and move forward.

I hate to use the most generic quote in sports, but I think it fits here.

It is what it is.

[scriver]

No, it holds a monopoly on marriage.
Marriage is at its core, a religious institution.

People have already responded to this, but I simply have to share my own reasoning too: Marriage, or at least marriage in any culture I'm familiar with, is at it's core a legal issue, draped in layers of religion/tradition/culture. At it's core, traditionally, it' more about choosing which children will be your legal heirs than anything else.

I just know I'm going to catch flak for this, but I'm going to say it anyway.

I find absolutely nothing wrong with pre-marital sex. The biggest reason for this: compatibility. I would never, ever buy a car without giving it a thorough inspection and a test drive or two, and I'm only committing to that car for between 5-10 years. Furthermore, a lot of people don't even know what they like when they're inexperienced.

This is pretty much how I feel as well.

...I can't really understand why you thought you'd catch flak for it.

Unfortunately, keeping my sarcasm in my pants is not as easy -- sarcasm is more deeply rooted in my being than religion [...] and now it just ... flows out.

There's so much innuendo going through my head right now. I can't decide which to choose!

[Montague]

Yeah, I also don't believe the state should have anything to do with marriages, as a set package of legal bindings and legal statuses. People should decide what sort of legal entanglements and contracts they want to create between each other completely free from any traditional requirements like husband/ wife. People should just have to file their taxes individually. Marriages should not need to be legally recognized by the law.

Churches don't need to attach their religious requirements for morally-acceptable sex to government policy either. Let Catholic marriages and divorces be handled by a pastor or something and leave the state out of it.

[Duke 2.0]

circumcising minors should be an illegal act of mutilation,

Pretty much guarantees a female partner will be freaked out when the couple gets down and dirty.

 Marriage carries enough different views on how it works that a lot of these views are subjective as all hell. The western world seems to view it as two individuals showing commitment to eachother, and for a lot of other people it's the joining of two families. It can be a purely civil affair where each partner just wants the benefits of being able to rely on another person if they fall on hard times, and nothers view it as a hugely spiritual affair. There are those made in the flights of passion(With a 90% failure rate) and arranged ones(Less than 30% failure rate I think? It was probably lower last time I checked).

 I think one of the main reasons a government has a civil system for marriages is due to some statistic I forgot on how married couples help the economy more than individuals. I can see how having responsibility over the well-being of ones significant other would would people be more responsible with finances and employment. And to this end there really shouldn't be any restrictions, unless they find marriages with multiple partners or something is not as helpful or something I dunno.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

circumcising minors should be an illegal act of mutilation,

Pretty much guarantees a female partner will be freaked out when the couple gets down and dirty.

Are we going to have this thread again? Because this would mark the third time we've had a circumcision debate on the forum. Not that I particularly object, but it would be going off topic.

[Duke 2.0]

 It was more of a joke reply based off the number of times people have described their first and had a minor freakout about that skin flap.