God and Gay Marriage

Quote: FrGamble

First of all God is real.

Proof?

Quote:

Secondly even a collective figment of imagination is better than you just waving a wand claiming that human beings have rights.

Claiming rights are inherent and a natural part of any human being, is as outrageous as claiming fingerprints are inherent and a natural part of any human being. Or intestines, or a spinal column, or hair, or eyes, or any other part that comes included with every single human birth.

Of course you'll claim some kind of imaginary entity "gave" us all these things. But then you may also believe Jehovah decides when you'll move your bowels, too.

I will certainly not even entertain the notion that same sex couples ought to wait for decades in order to achieve a patch of recognition, uncertainty and non-recognition of, at best, separate and not equal unions, just because your dead idol disapproves, or your figment does, of using the word marriage.

Really, you Christians should get over your obsession that you are entitled by divine right to dictate and impose law on the rest of us.

Quote: FrGamble

I forget that you have Evenbob blocked and so probably cannot see his posts.

You're not so far from joining him.

Quote:

Christian theocracy is dead, but Christian theology will be the salvation and source of hope, joy, and love for our society as it resurrects us from our moral and spiritual confusion and malaise.

You know, an apology would be perhaps close to sincere if it wasn't accompanied by Catholic supremacy propaganda.

Quote: Nareed

Claiming rights are inherent and a natural part of any human being, is as outrageous as claiming fingerprints are inherent and a natural part of any human being. Or intestines, or a spinal column, or hair, or eyes, or any other part that comes included with every single human birth.

Proof?

Quote:

I will certainly not even entertain the notion that same sex couples ought to wait for decades in order to achieve a patch of recognition, uncertainty and non-recognition of, at best, separate and not equal unions, just because your dead idol disapproves, or your figment does, of using the word marriage.

Just a reminder that Evenbob and you have brought the Lord into this discussion. I am talking about equal unions recognized by the state. In fact because of all the baggage the word marriage carries with it, why doesn't the state just get out of the marriage business all together and call every legally binding committed relationship between two consenting adults a union and recognize them with equal rights?

Quote: Nareed

You know, an apology would be perhaps close to sincere if it wasn't accompanied by Catholic supremacy propaganda.

Hmm...an apology that would be nice.

Quote: FrGamble

Proof?

Of what?

Quote:

Just a reminder that Evenbob and you have brought the Lord into this discussion.

No, you did, by claiming rights are gifts from "God."

Quote:

I am talking about equal unions recognized by the state.

In what fantasy world do you think leaving things up to the states on fundamental question of rights would yield equality? It didn't happen with women's suffrage, it didn't happen with segregation, it didn't happen with equal rights for African Americans, it didn't happen with reproductive rights, it hasn't happened with legal drugs. In every case but the last one, Federal action of some sort was required.

If you choose to be blind to history, that's you privilege. But don't expect me, or any sensible people, to even pretend to humor you in this regard. The only possible result would be a patchwork of equality, inequality and ambiguity. Nor would it work for your cherished obsession over the word marriage, as certainly some states would have instituted same sex marriages rather than separate but not equal civil unions.

Is that much misery, confusion, expense, endless litigation and legal uncertainty worth it to preserve your preferred meaning of a word?

"I love humanity. It's people I can't stand." Charles Shultz satirizing in a comic strip.

Quote:

In fact because of all the baggage the word marriage carries with it, why doesn't the state just get out of the marriage business all together and call every legally binding committed relationship between two consenting adults a union and recognize them with equal rights?

Because that's a libertarian wet dream, which has as much connection to actual reality as other wet dreams do.

And because marriage, as much as it pains you to hear it, is a civil matter. There is so much civil law, so much in the way of benefits, perks and rights tied up in marriage, that getting the government "out" of it is as realistic as getting government "out" of law.

Marriage was around long before the time of Jesus. Did Jesus redefine marriage?

Marriage was a civil thing, not a religious thing. Apparently priests weren't required for a marriage until the 1500's
Cite: http://rationalreasons.blogspot.ca/2005/05/brief-history-of-marriage.html?m=1
People got married according to the civil laws for the time and the place that they lived.


There have always been more than the kind of marriage as "defined by Jesus," marriage pre-existed Jesus, and the church wasn't even involved in marriage for quite some time.

Quote: Nareed

In what fantasy world do you think leaving things up to the states on fundamental question of rights would yield equality? It didn't happen with women's suffrage, it didn't happen with segregation, it didn't happen with equal rights for African Americans, it didn't happen with reproductive rights, it hasn't happened with legal drugs. In every case but the last one, Federal action of some sort was required.

I'm fine with federal action. My use of the word "state" in the singular was meant to refer to a country's government or the federal government.

Quote:

separate but not equal civil unions.

Can you explain why you say this?

Quote:

And because marriage, as much as it pains you to hear it, is a civil matter. There is so much civil law, so much in the way of benefits, perks and rights tied up in marriage, that getting the government "out" of it is as realistic as getting government "out" of law.

The legal contract between two adults committing themselves to each other is indeed a civil matter and it does not pain me in the least to recognize that. I am not suggesting that the government gets out of the important matter of encouraging, supporting, and protecting the special unions of human beings who commit themselves to each other. What I am trying to do is make everyone happy, which is the surest way to fail. You think I am hung up on the word marriage and I think you are. So why doesn't the government recognize all homosexual or heterosexual couples as unions? In the law where you see the word marriage replace it with union, grant the same rights, etc. Wouldn't that negate your, "separate but not equal" argument because all we are really talking about here is a word. A word that has meant the joining of opposite-sex human beings since the beginning of history. Why change that definition and not just leave the word marriage out of the government's discussion all together. Could we all get along with that?

Quote: FrGamble

. Why change that definition and not just leave the word marriage out of the government's discussion all together. Could we all get along with that?

You mean why do we keep getting closer and
closer to the point where society will see no
difference between Gay and straight. That's
what the Church is really worried about, that's
why you're obsessed with not calling it marriage.

I saw the guys who play the Gay couple on Modern
Family on a talk show. When they mentioned
that they have an adopted daughter on the TV
show, the audience clapped. They said that's
nice, but we look forward to the day when a Gay
couple says they have an adopted child and nobody
has any reaction at all.

That's what Gays want, to be excepted everywhere for
who they are. And it's coming, even in the Church.
It's inevitable.

Quote: Dalex64

There have always been more than the kind of marriage as "defined by Jesus," marriage pre-existed Jesus, and the church wasn't even involved in marriage for quite some time.

Very true, it has been the bedrock and foundation of society since the very beginning. It is natural and universal. Throughout history and all around the world it has always meant the complimentary union of men and women. Earlier in this thread Mosca brought up some possible rare exceptions but the more you look into it the more it becomes clear they were something different than an outlier of same-sex marriage.

Quote: FrGamble

I'm fine with federal action.

If you were, you wouldn't be ranting about the Federal action undertaken by the court last week.

Quote:

You think I am hung up on the word marriage and I think you are.

I'm perfectly fine with the use of the word marriage to denote the union of any two people.

Quote:

So why doesn't the government recognize all homosexual or heterosexual couples as unions?

Because no government is going to undergo a massive and very expensive effort that will end up with things exactly as they are, just to ease your annoyance.