U.S. Supreme court overturns anti gay marriage laws.

[KaareKanin]

Never mind me, just passing through...

 

I read through, and it is a fairly interesting discussion. I've spotted a few things that I would like to chip in on. 

 

The most relevant to how the discussion has turned out:

The word marriage doesn't originate from the bible, it's an old french word from about 1300-ish. The practices of marriage seems to have been going on for longer than recorded history. So my thoughts are that if neither the word or concept of marriage is invented by christians (or indeed any religious group), then religious views should be taken out of it. 

 

Some thinks it's OK for same-sex couples to have the same rights (and everything else) as married mixed-sex couples, but that they should call it something else. (sometimes with the argument that it upsets religious people or contradicts the bible or whichever "holy text" one abides.) But if the word was adopted by religion, not invented by religion, then why should religion have anything to say about it?

 

That said, I personally don't get why the word marriage (in a legal sense) is important for any party.

 

And a point that was briefly touched upon in the start of the debate. 

It seems some think we're at the peak of progressive thinking when it comes to homosexuality or women rights etc. That simply isn't true. Only just now are the western world beginning to get at the same level of equality in society for women as they had about 1000 years ago in Scandinavia (this was swiftly changed when christianity was introduced by chopping off the right hand of everyone who wouldn't accept it). Even in medieval times women had some rights that would astound us today. I'm using Scandinavia, because that's what I know about, I'm not saying it is better than other places at the time or even earlier.

 

As for homosexuality. Ancient Greeks. The inventors of modern society. There was much man love going on back then. 'Nuff said.

 

That's my thoughts after reading through this thread. As you were :P

[beebskadoo]

Never mind me, just passing through...

 

I read through, and it is a fairly interesting discussion. I've spotted a few things that I would like to chip in on. 

 

The most relevant to how the discussion has turned out:

The word marriage doesn't originate from the bible, it's an old french word from about 1300-ish. The practices of marriage seems to have been going on for longer than recorded history. So my thoughts are that if neither the word or concept of marriage is invented by christians (or indeed any religious group), then religious views should be taken out of it. 

 

Some thinks it's OK for same-sex couples to have the same rights (and everything else) as married mixed-sex couples, but that they should call it something else. (sometimes with the argument that it upsets religious people or contradicts the bible or whichever "holy text" one abides.) But if the word was adopted by religion, not invented by religion, then why should religion have anything to say about it?

 

That said, I personally don't get why the word marriage (in a legal sense) is important for any party.

 

And a point that was briefly touched upon in the start of the debate. 

It seems some think we're at the peak of progressive thinking when it comes to homosexuality or women rights etc. That simply isn't true. Only just now are the western world beginning to get at the same level of equality in society for women as they had about 1000 years ago in Scandinavia (this was swiftly changed when christianity was introduced by chopping off the right hand of everyone who wouldn't accept it). Even in medieval times women had some rights that would astound us today. I'm using Scandinavia, because that's what I know about, I'm not saying it is better than other places at the time or even earlier.

 

As for homosexuality. Ancient Greeks. The inventors of modern society. There was much man love going on back then. 'Nuff said.

 

That's my thoughts after reading through this thread. As you were :P

Thank you for your comments and for stopping by. See I know a good deal about history and especially history of homosexual acceptance and of persecution. As for your comments about the Ancient Greeks, yes there were gay lovers and gay relations but only certain parts of Greece were accepting of these views. Similar to the US and each state. 

As for the religious thing, I have studied and know a bit about most religions (some more than others) but I had to stop myself from talking too much in depth about it due to forum policy. Which is slightly unfortunate because there are a lot of  different views just in this topic that I would have loved to hear.

[Vitalius]

Never mind me, just passing through...

 

I read through, and it is a fairly interesting discussion. I've spotted a few things that I would like to chip in on. 

 

The most relevant to how the discussion has turned out:

The word marriage doesn't originate from the bible, it's an old french word from about 1300-ish. The practices of marriage seems to have been going on for longer than recorded history. So my thoughts are that if neither the word or concept of marriage is invented by christians (or indeed any religious group), then religious views should be taken out of it. 

 

Some thinks it's OK for same-sex couples to have the same rights (and everything else) as married mixed-sex couples, but that they should call it something else. (sometimes with the argument that it upsets religious people or contradicts the bible or whichever "holy text" one abides.) But if the word was adopted by religion, not invented by religion, then why should religion have anything to say about it?

 

That said, I personally don't get why the word marriage (in a legal sense) is important for any party.

 

And a point that was briefly touched upon in the start of the debate. 

It seems some think we're at the peak of progressive thinking when it comes to homosexuality or women rights etc. That simply isn't true. Only just now are the western world beginning to get at the same level of equality in society for women as they had about 1000 years ago in Scandinavia (this was swiftly changed when christianity was introduced by chopping off the right hand of everyone who wouldn't accept it). Even in medieval times women had some rights that would astound us today. I'm using Scandinavia, because that's what I know about, I'm not saying it is better than other places at the time or even earlier.

 

As for homosexuality. Ancient Greeks. The inventors of modern society. There was much man love going on back then. 'Nuff said.

 

That's my thoughts after reading through this thread. As you were

  :P

Just wanted to say that I mentioned multiple times that what marriage was is irrelevant. 

I'm speaking specifically about today and how marriage is tied to religion in a large part of our society's eyes. Whether it's right or not doesn't matter, because it's how it is. 

I'm also not trying to advocate the "Christians are holier than though" attitude because it's a stupid and wrong one. Christians are human and have done evil things just the same as everyone else (*cough* crusades *cough*). 

But like I said, we are talking about today's society. The past means little to this discussion imo. :|

[eshbop]

I'm speaking specifically about today and how marriage is tied to religion in a large part of our society's eyes. Whether it's right or not doesn't matter, because it's how it is.

And we should appease this large part of society, despite the numerous accepted other changes to (religious) marriage (divorce, remarriage, maybe even the marriage of atheists and anti-theists for that matter), because? Is there no separation of church and state?

Would you be alright with it if just wasn't called marriage while still maintaining EVERY other aspect of a heterosexual marriage? Would that separate the religious aspect of it, even though it's still the same thing?

[Guest]

i dont care about people being gay but they DO NOT deserve to be treated like a married couple they are not the same and can never be the same stick your marriage idea up ur ass(who ever wants the right to be treated the same as a married couple)

 

marriage was made for a MAN and a WOMAN heterosexual not homosexual

thats the other reason why i detest these laws

 

go look at the meaning for all i care

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?newwindow=1&safe=off&q=marriage&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=NMnNUe6cD6Hl4QT-4YCgAg&ved=0CDAQkQ4&biw=1366&bih=667

 

my opinion nuf said

[Guest]

dumb ass government

[eshbop]

marriage was made for a MAN and a WOMAN heterosexual not homosexual

thats the other reason why i detest these laws

 

Call it something else, would you be happy then?

 

Why do I suspect the answer would still be no.

[bluepoodleguy]

Christians are right? By their own efforts Christians can claim no moral authority. The claim of Christians is revelation of divine will is mediated through their  theologically codified spirituality. The basic principle of applicability of revealed spirituality is it the same regardless of time or place. That a society accepts deviation from traditional morality at one point doesn't mean it is not to be condemned. Further the revelation of spirituality is historically progressive. Everything was not explained at once. The deeper understanding of right and wrong is incomplete in the beginning.

 

Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever.
Revised Standard Version

 

Matthew 13

Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:

“I will open my mouth in parables,I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”

New International Version

[Vitalius]

And we should appease this large part of society, despite the numerous accepted other changes to (religious) marriage (divorce, remarriage, maybe even the marriage of atheists and anti-theists for that matter), because? Is there no separation of church and state?

Would you be alright with it if just wasn't called marriage while still maintaining EVERY other aspect of a heterosexual marriage? Would that separate the religious aspect of it, even though it's still the same thing?

 

I already said yes to this.

i dont care about people being gay but they DO NOT deserve to be treated like a married couple they are not the same and can never be the same stick your marriage idea up ur ass(who ever wants the right to be treated the same as a married couple)

 

marriage was made for a MAN and a WOMAN heterosexual not homosexual

thats the other reason why i detest these laws

 

go look at the meaning for all i care

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?newwindow=1&safe=off&q=marriage&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=NMnNUe6cD6Hl4QT-4YCgAg&ved=0CDAQkQ4&biw=1366&bih=667

 

my opinion nuf said

Bro,

Chill. This has been almost entirely civil up until you posted this. Don't let it get to you so much that you curse and call people such unnecessary things (such as your next post calling the government a dumb ass).

:(

[FireFox]

Since I'm not homosexual I feel I shouldn't post here but since this day and age we all live in is the 21st century I'm for it, I'm not going to say people who are against it should change the views, it would be wrong for me to say that.

 

I had quite a few homosexual friends over the years both male and female and seeing the love they feel for each other, HELL YES I'm for it, we need to stop living in the 50's.

 

I had an arguement at the college I was studying for my qualification at about 4 years ago, some f**knut saying it was unnatural for same sex partners to marry, what I don't understand is, how can marriage be a natural thing (same sex or not), it's a thing we as a species have devised.

 

Love, regardless of same sex or not IS natural, I'll stop there because something caught my eye and I can't remember what I was going to type damnit

[beebskadoo]

i dont care about people being gay but they DO NOT deserve to be treated like a married couple they are not the same and can never be the same stick your marriage idea up ur ass(who ever wants the right to be treated the same as a married couple)

 

marriage was made for a MAN and a WOMAN heterosexual not homosexual

thats the other reason why i detest these laws

 

go look at the meaning for all i care

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?newwindow=1&safe=off&q=marriage&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=NMnNUe6cD6Hl4QT-4YCgAg&ved=0CDAQkQ4&biw=1366&bih=667

 

my opinion nuf said

Not being rude but 'stick your marriage idea up ur ass'

Is a tad bit harsh and it makes you sound silly.

[beebskadoo]

Christians are right? By their own efforts Christians can claim no moral authority. The claim of Christians is revelation of divine will is mediated through their  theologically codified spirituality. The basic principle of applicability of revealed spirituality is it the same regardless of time or place. That a society accepts deviation from traditional morality at one point doesn't mean it is not to be condemned. Further the revelation of spirituality is historically progressive. Everything was not explained at once. The deeper understanding of right and wrong is incomplete in the beginning.

 

Isaiah 40:8

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever.

Revised Standard Version

 

Matthew 13

Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:

“I will open my mouth in parables,I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”

New International Version

The mods have already stepped in and said easy with the religion. I don't want this to turn into a flame war so please keep it to a minimum because i don't want this thread locked :)

[FireFox]

Not being rude but 'stick your marriage idea up ur ass'

Is a tad bit harsh and it makes you sound silly.

I don't agree with what he said just there, his views do irritate me a little but come on guys, I'm sensing a little heat here.

 

EDIT: Shit not the guy I quoted, I meant the guy he quoted I don't agree with.

[eshbop]

Since I'm not homosexual I feel I shouldn't post here but since this day and age we all live in is the 21st century I'm for it, I'm not going to say people who are against it should change the views, it would be wrong for me to say that.

I don't know why you'd feel you need to be homosexual to voice an opinion on this.

 

I'm heterosexual and so are plenty of people that see it like us.

 

Agree with what your saying though.

[beebskadoo]

Call it something else, would you be happy then?

 

Why do I suspect the answer would still be no.

The reason No would be the answer is because these are the same types of people that were vehemently against interracial marriage. A bit narrow minded if you ask me. 

[beebskadoo]

I don't agree with what he said just there, his views do irritate me a little but come on guys, I'm sensing a little heat here.

 

EDIT: Shit not the guy I quoted, I meant the guy he quoted I don't agree with.

My articulation was a lot less abrasive than his was. I didn't call him a dumbass because i'm sure he is not. 

[FireFox]

My articulation was a lot less abrasive than his was. I didn't call him a dumbass because i'm sure he is not. 

 

I am aware of that, lets laugh and what not, be happy :)

[beebskadoo]

I don't know why you'd feel you need to be homosexual to voice an opinion on this.

 

I'm heterosexual and so are plenty of people that see it like us.

 

Agree with what your saying though.

As humans that are part of a society, we all have the right to voice opinions. I believe the opinions that hold water are the ones that can be backed up with facts not speculation or superstition. I'm more scientific with the approach than some are. 

To formulate a better society we need to have discussion, It is when discussion stops that society turns sour. :)

[beebskadoo]

I am aware of that, lets laugh and what not, be happy :)

I wasn't mad, I thought it was silly :)

[FireFox]

I wasn't mad, I thought it was silly :)

 

Cool :)

[NeoZeon]

What confuses me so much is how small government minded people cannot grasp that limiting social behavior is a form of regulation and thus increases the size of govt in our lives.

 

Just going by the average age of the forum (15, 16), you guys are just beginning to see the effects of discrimination, racism, and other things of that nature. Sure, you might have experienced them younger, but being able to intellectualize it is something else. Homosexuals, as individuals, pay just as much taxes as normal people, so in the eyes of citizenship they are just  that - normal people. To not grant them the same rights as everyone else would be akin to selling a white man a one thing for 10 dollars and selling a black man something significantly worse for 10 dollars just because he is black. 

 

This isn't a religious debate, its about not giving people what they deserve and not living up to the promise of the constitution. That is reflected in the Supreme Court's decision, whose main theme explained that the existence of DOMA was only to hurt Homosexuals and not protect the sanctity of marriage. 

[beebskadoo]

What confuses me so much is how small government minded people cannot grasp that limiting social behavior is a form of regulation and thus increases the size of govt in our lives.

 

Just going by the average age of the forum (15, 16), you guys are just beginning to see the effects of discrimination, racism, and other things of that nature. Sure, you might have experienced them younger, but being able to intellectualize it is something else. Homosexuals, as individuals, pay just as much taxes as normal people, so in the eyes of citizenship they are just  that - normal people. To not grant them the same rights as everyone else would be akin to selling a white man a one thing for 10 dollars and selling a black man something significantly worse for 10 dollars just because he is black. 

 

This isn't a religious debate, its about not giving people what they deserve and not living up to the promise of the constitution. That is reflected in the Supreme Court's decision, whose main theme explained that the existence of DOMA was only to hurt Homosexuals and not protect the sanctity of marriage. 

Well spoken. 

[eshbop]

Just going by the average age of the forum (15, 16)

Now I feel old.

[calarahil]

I'm not sure small government has anything really to do with this debate. I'm a small government minded person. I feel that there should be more of a freedom with the people and not with the government. I believe that the government shouldn't be overspending on things that will not actually grow the economy aka green jobs. I also believe that there are social programs that are abused food stamps among other things union pensions as another. However that doesn't have anything to do with this conversation people deserve respect. We need to learn as a society I feel to let people live there lives without pushing our views and our standpoints on them. That at the core is what I believe the American spirit is to get away from a society that would push us to believe in what they want us to believe.

[NeoZeon]

I'm not sure small government has anything really to do with this debate. I'm a small government minded person. I feel that there should be more of a freedom with the people and not with the government. I believe that the government shouldn't be overspending on things that will not actually grow the economy aka green jobs. I also believe that there are social programs that are abused food stamps among other things union pensions as another. However that doesn't have anything to do with this conversation people deserve respect. We need to learn as a society I feel to let people live there lives without pushing our views and our standpoints on them. That at the core is what I believe the American spirit is to get away from a society that would push us to believe in what they want us to believe.

 

It really does. DOMA is a government regulation on people who choose to spend their lives with others of the same sex the same way heterosexuals spend their lives. The more regulation you have, the more money you must spend to uphold it. Think how much time and money we have spent as a country restricting the rights of particular groups of people. People who we would call our fellow citizens, but do not treat them so.