Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in the LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion Thread
.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:53:59 PM
@Starship
Then how would you react to this: Marriage and has no governmental or legal standing and ceases to be recognized by the law in any fashion, and anyone, of any gender combination, participates in a civil union when joining their lives instead, this affording everyone the same rights.
(Note: I don't agree with this solution myself, but I want to know how Starship feels about it)
edited 30th Mar '12 9:45:38 AM by LMage
I'm not.
Far from me from assuming that. I'm just suggesting that it might behoove you* to think of this strategically. You don't need to be specifically for gay marriage, but I think we could agree that it might be kinder just to not get in their way when they ask for it. I think it's a little counterproductive, it hurts everyone, it helps nobody, it's just a waste of energy.
As for marriage being inherently sacred rather than worldly... well, I might be wrong, but let's check what Wikipedia has to say:
In the 12th century[where?] women were obligated to take the name of their husbands and starting in the second half of the 16th century[where?] parental consent along with the church's consent was required for marriage.[52]
With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[53][54] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.[55] This promise was known as the "verbum." If freely given and made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding;[53] if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would constitute a betrothal. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts. During the Middle Ages marriages were arranged, sometimes as early as birth, and these early pledges to marry were often used to ensure treaties between different royal families, nobles, and heirs of fiefdoms. The church resisted these imposed unions, and increased the number of causes for nullification of these arrangements.[52] As Christianity spread during the Roman period and the Middle Ages, the idea of free choice in selecting marriage partners increased and spread with it.[52]
The average age of marriage for most Northwestern Europeans from the late 13th century into the 16th century was around 25 years of age;[56][57] the bride and groom were roughly the same age, with most brides in their early twenties and most grooms two or three years older,[57] and a substantial number of women married for the first time in their thirties and forties, particularly in urban areas,[58] with the average age at first marriage rising and falling as circumstances dictated. In better times, more people could afford to marry earlier and thus fertility rose and conversely marriages were delayed or foregone when times were bad, thus restricting family size;[59] after the Black Death, the greater availability of profitable jobs allowed more people to marry young and have more children,[60] but the stabilization of the population in the sixteenth century meant less job opportunities and thus more people delaying marriages.[61]
As part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state, reflecting Martin Luther's view that marriage was a "worldly thing".[62] By the 17th century many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage. As of 2000, the average marriage age range was 25–44 years for men and 22–39 years for women. In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.[63]
As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1563 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."[64]
In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage"[64] for recognition.
In England and Wales, Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753 required a formal ceremony of marriage, thereby curtailing the practice of Fleet Marriage.[65] These were clandestine or irregular marriages performed at Fleet Prison, and at hundreds of other places. From the 1690s until the Marriage Act of 1753 as many as 300,000 clandestine marriages were performed at Fleet Prison alone.[66] The Act required a marriage ceremony to be officiated by an Anglican priest in the Anglican Church with two witnesses and registration. The Act did not apply to Jewish marriages or those of Quakers, whose marriages continued to be governed by their own customs.
In England and Wales, since 1837, civil marriages have been recognized as a legal alternative to church marriages under the Marriage Act 1836. In Germany, civil marriages were recognized in 1875. This law permitted a declaration of the marriage before an official clerk of the civil administration, when both spouses affirm their will to marry, to constitute a legally recognized valid and effective marriage, and allowed an optional private clerical marriage ceremony.
So, it looks like marriage is only a sacred institution because some priests said it was. Martin Luther, for one, would disagree: "marriage is a worldly thing". Additionally, there are many Christian gay people that would like to be married by the Church, and that their relationship be given the same sanctity, under God, as that of a man and a woman. Would you deny your fellow Christian men and women the right to have their love acknowledged by the ministers of the Lord, and the community of their fellow Christians?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.@Starship
You've said your reasons for opposing the legalization of gay marriage, I would like to hear your reasons for opposing the standardization of civil unions and the rendering of marriage as purely religious or social term, or rather what issues you take with it that don't make your ideal solution.
![]()
![]()
Didn't see that coming. But surely it's okay to be more restrictive than the tradition, and not the opposite!
Though that way we may end up like the Jews and their strange dietary laws...
edited 30th Mar '12 10:22:31 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.I take it you would deny women the right to speak in church for the same reasons, right?
Mind you, I don't think that the church should be forced to marry gays if they don't want to. I'm just using the exact same reasoning you're using to keep the church from marrying gays to keep women from speaking.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.@ Vericat: Starship's argument is based on what parts of Scripture are traditionally enforced in contemporary America.
Misrepresenting someone's argument will not convince them of anything.
edited 30th Mar '12 10:53:49 AM by inane242
The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.@inane
That's seems....hypocritical.
Either you accept every part Bible should be taken at face value and enforced, or you accept that the Bible is flawed and colored by cultural values of the people that wrote and thus those parts of it countermand to it's inherit message.
You can't pick and chose which pieces of scripture to use, the Bible is not a selective weapon.
![]()
Because if it is selective, then there's an outside source you're using to make that selection. If you do that, then you are open to an outside source countermanding a part of the Bible, which would mean that Christians should be open to that about homosexuality. They aren't - they treat it like no outside source could possibly influence what they think about what the Bible says; no matter what reasoning is used, the counter is always, "the Bible says so." Then that should apply to anything the Bible says.
edited 30th Mar '12 10:58:06 AM by Vericrat
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

Both British and American courts have ruled that Separate but equal is discrimination though.
What happened to Matthew Shephard was an abomination. So too was what happened to Trayvon Martin.
Both murders were the product of fear and paranoia.
But you're right, both crimes were different. One of them was pre-mediated whereas the other one wasn't Information about Martians murder is difficult to get hold of
What do you mean?
Also, about traditional marriages, do you mean that in America white folk can only marry white folk and black folk can only marry black folk whilst making interracial marriages illegal because that was the tradition in the USA until 1967. Traditional marriages in my country was just 2 people living together, now I'm fine with that to be honest.
edited 30th Mar '12 9:41:01 AM by whaleofyournightmare
Dutch Lesbian