Law Our Respect for Marriage Act: Signed into law 12/13/22

[Jack V Savage]

You think I take issue with you because you’re a democrat?

Well, because I don't blindly regurgitate GOP propaganda, yeah. Like in that other thread, there is just no question that the definition has not recently changed, but you asked me what I thought about it changing. I said it didn't, and you start attacking me. There's literally no way a decent, honest person can avoid getting ugly personal attacks from you guys (well, except by just not engaging at all). Many similar examples one can site. Just being honest draws personal attacks from hacks (many of whom purport to be Christians).

 

[Denter]

People are willing to die for many things they know aren't objectively true.

Just to clarify: You're not a believer yourself, are you?

Of course I am, just not a Christian.


Edit: do you think Yevgeniy Rodionov chose to not convert to Islam, and instead had his throat slit in some grimy basement, because he didn't actually believe in Orthodox Christianity? That seems like a remarkable position.

 

[Denter]

All options aren't on the table. What legal benefit would marrying yourself get you? Are you going to need a ring on both hands? Will you have to alternate hands jerking yourself off?

<45>

 

[Confucamus]

Just realized I never responded. Apologies.

Marriage is something they society hinges o. You’re right the divorce rates shot up in the 60s and that was t good for society.
I think some of it is clearly hedonistic. Look at pride parades for example.

Well sure, but many straight marriages could be hedonistic in origin as well. You think the 60 year old moneybags marrying the 22 year old stripper is an example of soulmates finally reaching eachother?

But why do gays have to get married? Why Mimic what straight people do? I find it odd

I don't really separate gay people from straight people in too many ways, other than who they're attracted to. I don't see it as one group mimicking another either, by wanting to be married. I respect your view on what marriage is, but my personal view on marriage is very different. I believe the "sacredness" of marriage is decided by the two (or more) people in it. Let me ask you, are you married? If so, do you feel that allowing gays to marry will somehow take away from the importance of your marriage or make it any less special?

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

Yeah. A civil marriage is fine. Has all the rights that marriage has without the religious aspect to it.

I don't think the government can compel churches etc to do a gay marriage, I'm not sure gay people would want to get married in a church anyway generally speaking.

 

[mommas homeboy]

Well, because I don't blindly regurgitate GOP propaganda, yeah. Like in that other thread, there is just no question that the definition has not recently changed, but you asked me what I thought about it changing. I said it didn't, and you start attacking me. There's literally no way a decent, honest person can avoid getting ugly personal attacks from you guys (well, except by just not engaging at all). Many similar examples one can site. Just being honest draws personal attacks from hacks (many of whom purport to be Christians).

You’re not honest though…that’s the problem. You just think you speak the truth and anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot. You’re a leftist hack and a self-righteous doofus. That’s speaking the truth.

 

[mommas homeboy]

There’s so much talk about gay marriage, and sexual orientation, and what’s moral or ethical. The bottom line is this:

A hole is a hole. No need to overthink it.

 

[fingercuffs]

I don't think the government can compel churches etc to do a gay marriage, I'm not sure gay people would want to get married in a church anyway generally speaking.

It should be down to the church, and if a same sex couple are religious and want to marry in a church they should be afforded the same human right to do so as a straight couple.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Of course I am, just not a Christian.


Edit: do you think Yevgeniy Rodionov chose to not convert to Islam, and instead had his throat slit in some grimy basement, because he didn't actually believe in Orthodox Christianity? That seems like a remarkable position.

Really? I would refuse to convert my religion under that kind of pressure, too (or at least that would be my strong inclination). I feel like you guys don't get people at all.

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

It should be down to the church, and if a same sex couple are religious and want to marry in a church they should be afforded the same human right to do so as a straight couple.

Yeah I mean you say "should" and fair enough, I don't think the law has the power to compel this to happen though.

 

[fingercuffs]

Yeah I mean you say "should" and fair enough, I don't think the law has the power to compel this to happen though.

I hope same sex couples ARE being allowed to get wed in churches here though, California's more forward thinking at least. The archbishop of San Francisco's a bit of a knob though so who knows.

 

[terrapin]

It should be down to the church, and if a same sex couple are religious and want to marry in a church they should be afforded the same human right to do so as a straight couple.

That just seems terribly unlikely cuffs because the New testament clearly condemns homosexual activity... it would just be cruel and wrong to force Christianity to marry gay couples.

Right or wrong I can't imagine anybody wanting to force a religion that believes something is deeply sinful to not only allow it but to give it its blessing. That is asking too much and going too far.

 

[fingercuffs]

That just seems terribly unlikely cuffs because the New testament clearly condemns homosexual activity... it would just be cruel and wrong to force Christianity to marry gay couples.

Right or wrong I can't imagine anybody wanting to force a religion that believes something is deeply sinful to not only allow it but to give it its blessing. That is asking too much and going too far.

Which is why I started the post by saying it should be down to the church, that is the exact opposite of forcing anything.

 

[terrapin]

Which is why I started the post by saying it should be down to the church, that is the exact opposite of forcing anything.

Sorry I did not mean to imply that you were trying to force anything. Still I don't know why you're even hoping for it it's a pretty serious part of Christianity and Paul goes into great detail condemning homosexuality I just don't see how it will ever fit.

And I've spent a lot of time trying to find a loophole around that prohibition and the more I looked the more I think that Paul really meant it and had reasons for his prohibition that apply today.

And that is not taking into account the longstanding prohibition against it from the judaic tradition who were surrounded by pagan cultures who freely allowed homosexuality.


As much as I wanted to find a loophole against the prohibition what I found when looking into it is that it is definitely an intentional built-in aspect of the tradition. I don't think a person can honestly reject that teaching if they are a member of the Christian tradition.

 

[Denter]

Really? I would refuse to convert my religion under that kind of pressure, too (or at least that would be my strong inclination). I feel like you guys don't get people at all.

That's fair, spite can be a powerful motivation for many.

 

[Deorum]

Man, what the hell is this thread.

It definitely doesn't have anything to do with Lead's OP and hasn't for quite a while. I have found some of it compelling in its own way, but it's juxtaposed with a feeling of just...drone, drone, drone the fuck on. It reminds me of why I'm so glad to be free of Christianity.

Paul goes into great detail condemning homosexuality.

Yeah, it's a big deal huh.

He has a lot of blood on his hands.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's fair, spite can be a powerful motivation for many.

Not even spite, IMO. Just like, an assertion of will and commitment to certain principles. But there could be lots of motivations. Genuine faith doesn't seem like a likely one (like that people are more scared of forsaking God than they are of the knife? That's way less plausible).

 

[terrapin]

Man, what the hell is this thread.

It reminds me of why I'm so glad to be free of Christianity.


Yeah, it's a big deal huh.

He has a lot of blood on his hands.

unfortunately i think it is a big deal for christians and as much as i tried to find a way around it i could not find one consistent with the vision that christianity holds for christians. i really wanted to and explored every avenue available to me.

i think it is unfair to say that paul has blood on his hands though. there is nothing he says that even remotely justifies harming any person from the lgbtq community and there is no evidence that he was personally scandalized by any of it either aside from members of his own community participating in it.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Well, I never do, but I get that you're in the same boat--unable to defend any claims and bitterly hateful of anyone who thinks for themselves and doesn't just blindly regurgitate GOP propaganda.

Dumb post... I've voted for Ross Perot one time, then he went nuts, Browne, Bednarik, etc. I'll bet you've voted for more Democrats for President that I have Republicans. You sound so stupid sometimes it hurts.

 

[fingercuffs]

Sorry I did not mean to imply that you were trying to force anything. Still I don't know why you're even hoping for it it's a pretty serious part of Christianity and Paul goes into great detail condemning homosexuality I just don't see how it will ever fit.

And I've spent a lot of time trying to find a loophole around that prohibition and the more I looked the more I think that Paul really meant it and had reasons for his prohibition that apply today.

And that is not taking into account the longstanding prohibition against it from the judaic tradition who were surrounded by pagan cultures who freely allowed homosexuality.


As much as I wanted to find a loophole against the prohibition what I found when looking into it is that it is definitely an intentional built-in aspect of the tradition. I don't think a person can honestly reject that teaching if they are a member of the Christian tradition.

Who's Paul?

Thankfully that is a matter between the vicar/priest and the couple wishing to get married. It doesn't affect you or I at all.