Another indication of TX's Retardation

[Fishteacher73]

Last week in the wonderful armpit of the world known as TX.....

They pass a ban on gay marriages and "defined" marriage as only between a man and a woman.

 

God must really like the backwater morality of TX.... ID is just around the bend... Maybe public stonings are next.

[Edge]

What's wrong with it? They did the right thing in my opinion. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

[cwes99_03]

While that has been the traditional definition of marriage for centuries, nay millenia, it still doesn't fit into the laws of the United States, and I have a feeling ( a sinking one in my gut ) that same-sex marriage will be the next big supreme court decision 5-4 in favor. Then within a short time, more and more freedom will come into play until everyone has a right to do just about anything as long as they aren't physically, mentally, or emotionally harming another person.

[Edge]

While that has been the traditional definition of marriage for centuries, nay millenia, it still doesn't fit into the laws of the United States, and I have a feeling ( a sinking one in my gut ) that same-sex marriage will be the next big supreme court decision 5-4 in favor. Then within a short time, more and more freedom will come into play until everyone has a right to do just about anything as long as they aren't physically, mentally, or emotionally harming another person.

Yup, that's the main argument against same sex marriage. I think that in order to avoid trouble, the government should only give civil unions to heteresexual and homosexual couples. Marriage should be left to the church.

[Tormod]

I assume then also that by this same logic, marriage performed in other cultures are not acceptable to you? What about Moslem or Hindu marriages?

 

Marriage is not something the church has a monopoly on. It existed long before the Christian church was born.

[cwes99_03]

Well, not exactly, but yes in the same right. The institute it is held by most if not all christians was set up by the Judeo/Christian God when he created the first man and woman. Threfore you could say that anyone who worships this God in the way that he has shown he wants to be worshipped is a member of the first church to institute weddings. If you instead force your opinion that Christianity itself was not born until the death of Jesus and has no roots any earlier, then you would be correct. As a Christian though, I use the entire Bible to understand this God.

[rockytriton]

Yup, that's the main argument against same sex marriage. I think that in order to avoid trouble, the government should only give civil unions to heteresexual and homosexual couples. Marriage should be left to the church.

 

So you think this is bad????

 

Then within a short time, more and more freedom will come into play until everyone has a right to do just about anything as long as they aren't physically, mentally, or emotionally harming another person.

 

I don't understand what is wrong with this. I guess you aren't for a free country. Maybe you should move to cuba.

[Edge]

I assume then also that by this same logic, marriage performed in other cultures are not acceptable to you? What about Moslem or Hindu marriages?

 

Marriage is not something the church has a monopoly on. It existed long before the Christian church was born.

If they marry by their religion's laws then it's OK to me. The state should not be messing with it.

[rockytriton]

what if they have no religion or have no laws about it in their religion?

[rockytriton]

I'd like to play around with something like "Don't stop believin'" in D or maybe "Faithfully" one whole step down.

[Tormod]

The institute it is held by most if not all christians was set up by the Judeo/Christian God when he created the first man and woman.

 

....

 

If you instead force your opinion that Christianity itself was not born until the death of Jesus and has no roots any earlier, then you would be correct. As a Christian though, I use the entire Bible to understand this God.

 

Then as a Christian you are claiming that marriage only belongs to the Christian religion, based on your personal interpretation of the history of mankind.

 

However, how do you explain that people of non-Christian culture had marriage rituals, yet knew nothing about Christianity?

 

The current Christian marriage ritual did not exist even at the time of Jesus, and is a very modern thing. At most it is a few hundred years old.

 

However, the religious aspect of this thread really belongs in the theology forum.

[C1ay]

God must really like the backwater morality of TX.... ID is just around the bend... Maybe public stonings are next.

Has anyone suggested a proposition to prohibit belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster yet?

[Tormod]

If they marry by their religion's laws then it's OK to me. The state should not be messing with it.

 

Messing with what exactly? If a religion denies marriage to certain groups of people, then by definition it is discriminating.

 

Why should the state then not be allowed to offer the same services to the ones whom the church does not like?

[Tormod]

Has anyone suggested a proposition to prohibit belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster yet?

 

It should be illegal! :confused:

[Edge]

what if they have no religion or have no laws about it in their religion?

Well:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 

It's in your constitution. If that were the case, then we should also legalize polygamic marriages and the such.

 

Messing with what exactly? If a religion denies marriage to certain groups of people, then by definition it is discriminating.

 

Why should the state then not be allowed to offer the same services to the ones whom the church does not like?

They can offer civil unions, all couples would get the same benefits. Marriage is a religious institution, leave it to the churches of each religion to decide. Where's the separation between church and state on that? So, the church does not give me help then the government should... :confused:

 

Notice that I said religious institution, I never said it was necessarily christian because it's not.

[CraigD]

The interpretation of what constitutes marriage by various private and government agencies is a complicated matter. Just a few significant interactions of the term with various agencies:

• Federal and state income taxes – for the majority of wage earners, marriage results in lower taxes. In essence, the federal and state governments pay people to be married.
  
• Insurance, most notably health and automobile, is usually lower for a married couple than an unmarried one. This is complicated by state regulations that may ecercise control over what rates an insurer may charge married and unmarried people within its jurisdiction.
  
• In the event of death, one’s spouse has special rights to ones property that an unmarried partner lacks
  

So the definition of marriage has far more than religious significance.

 

Another important concept concerning marriage in the US is that of state reciprocity – currently (at least until recently), marriages performed in any state in the US are honored in any other state in the US. This has not always been the case: as late as the 1970s, some states refused to honor other states marriages of whites and blacks. Now, with NY and VT having passed laws explicitly extending the legal rights of marriage to same-sex couples, and TX having apparently explicitly prohibited these same rights, this may, once again, no longer be true.

 

The real fight over same sex marriage may not be a legislative or religious one, but one involving federal and state tax regulators, insurers, and property courts.

[rockytriton]

I'd like to play around with something like "Don't stop believin'" in D or maybe "Faithfully" one whole step down.

 

Ha, sorry about this post guys, I was wonder where it went, it was supposed to go on my band's forum.