Too bad Sirhangover, looks like you're going to have to pay another visit to the Doc if you plan on marrying that circus midget! ------------------ Don't you have anything better to do?
i promised myself i wouldn't post on this subject. Rimbaud -- you're not exactly true. There is plenty of Scripture that provides for marriage as a unity between man, woman and God. I'm not saying you have to believe this..but Paul wrote a fair amount on marriage. You'll also see it in Song of Solomon. Jesus himself compared his union with the church as a marriage. If you don't believe in these passages or in God, that's fine. But I think it's incorrect to suggest that religion's role in marriage is as limited as you do in your post. ------------------
MadMax, I'm a Christian, but what about marriages in other religions? Muslims, Buddists, Hindus? Does what God said in the Bible apply to them as well? If you are a Christian most likely you would think so, but I'm sure to them it sure doesn't. The actual marriage certificate you get at city hall or whereever sure doesn't have anything to do with religion. In fact, you don't have to be married in a church to be considered legally married. In most states there's a "common law marriage" that makes two people legally married, even if they don't own a marriage certificate. Heck, in Texas you can be considered married after staying together one night and proclaiming each other as spouse. (At least it used to be one night) So, sure when you get married in a church or synagogue or where ever, religion does play a major role. But, when you go down and just get a marriage certificate it doesn't. On another note... Do you think God recognizes marriages that do not happen in a Church? I'm not talking about two stranded people on a deserted island. I'm talking about people who can but don't get married in a church. ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem. DREAMer's Rocket Page
Max, Scripture can say all it wants, I am talking about the practical application of marriage. Even if I concede that marriage was a religious thing 2000 years ago, it can then be argued that 1500 of the 2000 years that followed, marriage existed mostly as a financial arrangement. Thus, in historical perspective, my original argument holds true. Understand, I am not attacking anyone's religious beleifs, just pointing out the man-made paramaters. ------------------ Talking to a dead hare about art
The practical aspect of marriage is that 2 people are agreeing that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. The religious aspect is that these 2 people make a promise before God that they will spend their lives together helping each other to live his way. What beats the heck out of me is why people get upset that the church won't marry them when they don't even want to live their lives the way God wants them to live. ------------------
I'm a bit confused about this; What if life involves loving young children and "sharing" your life with them. Assume that you find a 12 year old who wants to "share" with you. Do we now have any right to judge them? ------------------
The difference with children is that they cannot give consent on their own. If someone desires a child, they are making that decision for themselves and the child and that is manipulation. Adults have the capacity to decide for themselves and, therefore, should be allowed to choose their partners as long as that partner is also an adult and can choose on their own. These are two completely different subjects. By the way, why is it that everyone brings up child molestation when talking on the subject of homosexuality? I have had a number of gay and lesbian friends and I don't know a single one that thinks child molestation is an ok thing. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
One other thing about homosexuality and misconception. Recently, I saw a public access show with Gary Polland, the Harris County Republican Party Chairman. He is very conservative and had several callers call him on gay issues because he has been pretty outspoken against them. At one point, he seemed to get caught in this loop where between every few sentences he would say, "As long as no one is having sex in the streets." The first time he said it, I thought it was odd, but he kept repeating it every few sentences. It was like in Seinfeld when they kept saying, "Not that there's anything wrong with that." Finally, the host said, "Gary, when was the last time you saw anyone having sex on the streets?" Judge Eckels, who was also on the show, lauging said, "Yeah, Gary. When was that?" I was laughing so hard, it hurt. This is typical of the misconceptions with gays. I just don't get it. Usually, sex on the streets is more a problem with straight people or am I just thinking of Martis Gras? ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Can I suggest that there are two aspects to getting married -- the legal and the religious. The wedding ceremony has long been a part of getting married. It is traditional, and a part of pretty much all religions. IMHO the ceremony is the most important part of the process, the symbolic / emotional part. But every belief system is different -- and they all have different standards. That's OK. The legal aspect of the marriage, the marriage license, is designed to provide a consistent legal agreement. It gives a defined legal status to the union, which provides specific legal rights, and responsibilities. It is designed to be independent of any religious belief -- which is why it can be administered by judges and other non-religious officials. In fact it doesn't require any ceremony beyond everyone signing it. Which makes me wonder why we continue to be so tied up in providing these couples the legal tool of marriage. Personally, I don't think homosexuality is right, but who am I to judge someone else's beliefs? They can have a religious ceremony in certain faiths, or a secular one. Why not a defined legal status? It would eliminate a lot of problems that have occurred due to the fact that such relationships now have no legal status. Companies that have implemented benefits for "life partners" struggle with this constantly. Others would implement such benefits, but don't because there isn't that defined legal relationship. It would also simplify property disputes and other problems that now occur with death of partners and separation / division of assets. Plus, isn't the point that these people only want to add a public, legal, expression of their commitment? Not recognizing these relationships is not going to change the beliefs of the people in them. They can still live together, and function as a married couple. Allowing them to have a marriage license only acknowledges the relationship. ------------------ Stay Cool...
Gary Polland is a rat b*stard. He tried to coerce a judge to overturn a ruling exonarating 2 adult men who were arrested by Harris County deputies for having sex IN their own home, not "in the streets". Plus he was the head of the opposition to the arena deal last Novemeber.
Jeff, Your post on sex in the streets reminded me of something a Minister of Youth once said (though he didn't intend it in this context. ) He pointed out that while sex is an important part of a marriage, it is a relatively small part. If you think about the time that a couple spends together, very little of it is spent having sex. (Most couples, anyway. ) The relationship has to be based on much more than sex, otherwise it will fail. I would think this principle would apply to any couple, gay or straight. Homosexuals, unfortunately, are often defined by people only by their sexual behavior -- which really isn't right. I would think, that just as in heterosexual marriages, that their relationships are based on much more than this one small aspect of their lives. ------------------ Stay Cool...
I'm sorry, I didn't want to give the impression that gay and lesbian people think that child molestation is good. I was just questioning the soundness of the first "theory" put forth. I'd just like to ask another question; Child molestation is illegal right? Gay marriage is illegal right? So how come it is that you can support a gay marriage, but not a child molester? I mean both things are illegal - the question is; Where do people get their values of what's right and wrong?? **please note, I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone here, I'm just inquisitive about thought patterns. ------------------
DrN -- try not to get offensive, I too am curious about these things. If consent is the issue, why can't two people that are brother and sister get married, if they're both consenting adults? I'm trying to figure out what should constitute a marriage. I'm not anti-gay, like I've said before, I have gay friends, I'm just trying to look at this from other angles besides "it's just wrong", or, the other extreme "any 2 people should be able to marry if they love each other". It seems to me that wherever the idea of marriage originated, that that is where we should look to decide what a legitimate marriage is (if that's possible). It's an interesting issue, and I honestly don't know which side I'm on yet. ------------------ "The only problem is I always think of the guitar player from Dokken when I hear his name." -Traj, on the possibility of George Lynch joining the Rockets.
TheFreak; I really hope I wasn't being offensive!!! I was just trying to figure out what the arguments were for either side and discover what rationale was behind them. Sorry if I seemed offensive, I'm honestly not trying to be, I'm just curious and I'd like to know what people base their opinions on ------------------
Dr: Your logic doesn't really follow. You don't have to support both child molestation and gay marriages. That would be like saying I support the legalization of mar1juana and murder. They are two completely separate issues and deserve completely different treatment. I guess what it comes down to is what is socially accepted. Gay marriages still aren't socially accepted so we have laws against them. Child molestation, hopefully, will never be socially accepted - at least not in the US. Right and wrong, to me, are subjective issues based on your beliefs and your ideals. Laws are designed to give people boundries and prevent chaos. What is right has more to do with belief and ideology. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
DrN -- sorry, I meant "defensive", not "offensive". ------------------ "The only problem is I always think of the guitar player from Dokken when I hear his name." -Traj, on the possibility of George Lynch joining the Rockets.
Sorry... my logic may have been twisted - I merely wanted to find out why it was ok to sanction some illegal things and not others and I used a rather extreme example of an unacceptable act to compare with. But it still brings me to a basic flaw in this thinking - what if some people believe that shoplifting is ok (considering they are very hungry/needy) and others believe that it's not ok. It still doesn't make shoplifting ok and if we start basing our moral decisions on what we "feel" is right or wrong then things could get kinda scary!! ------------------
Only thing that threw me was The guy . . . Change into a Lesbian. I mean. . . It is a new one on me. Not that it is wrong or anything Seems if you like women . . . and you are a man . . . then it should be no problems. but {s}he decided to become a woman and then find a woman. As a sociology major i kind would like to know the thought process. . . It seems so . . . Fasinating Rocket River I'm not being sarcastic or anything just . . interested ------------------
rimbaud -- i'm only commenting on your statement about the origins of marriage. I see now what you're talking about, though I might disagree with you that for 2000 years the covenant of marriage had nothing to do with religion. The very idea of a marital commitment springs from religion. These are covenants made by individuals who may or may not have been moved by their religious backgrounds into marriage. But to say that religion was not a part of marriage at all for some 2000 years may be an overstatement. DREAMer -- you're absolutely right. There are other religions and I'm only commenting on Christianity. My point was simply that, even if Christianity were the only religion on the face of the planet, religion certainly wasn't totally excluded from the concept of marriage. But as it stands I'm certain that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc all have something to say about marriage...and have for generations. Unfortunately, I'm not wise enough to know what Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists say about the origins of marriage. But I know Jews have the Book of Genesis within the Torah (someone please correct me if I'm wrong)..and it talks about leaving one's family to "cleave" to one's spouse. So there is some history and tradition there to the idea of marriage within the confines of theological thought. ------------------
The difference between being gay and shoplifting or child molestation is the concept of mutual consent. How does 2 people of the same gender being in a committed relationship affect you in a negative way or in any way at all? Muslims and Jews feel it is morally wrong to eat pork. You don't see them trying to stop anyone else from eating it.
