UTGamers.com Forum Index

Gay Marriage Affects Domestic-Partner Benefits
Moderators:  UTG Mods
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ..., 13, 14, 15 Next
Forum index » General Public » Politics
Reply to topic
Author Message
CloakedKilla
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Posts: 8625
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: 19 Jul 2004 03:18:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phy wrote:

Not exactly. I'm saying that homosexuals shouldn't be able to use the term "marriage" to refer to a union recognized (at the very least) by the Government and by communities for the purpose of a show of being united and for the purpose of benefits. I have repeatedly said that I'm for homosexuals being able to receive benefits and proclaim their union to the world, they just need another word.


Yeah I know, that's what I meant. Wink




dude
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i'm crying
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i just put aftershave on my nuts
Phy
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 04 Jun 2002
Posts: 5456
Location: Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: 19 Jul 2004 03:52:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just wanted to be as clear as possible - my position has elements that are traditional and elements that are very liberal (depending on your vantage).

Johne (Phy) Cook | Overlord, Ray Gun Revival
{=TLA=}IronMug
Rampage
Rampage


Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Omaha, NE

PostPosted: 19 Jul 2004 06:33:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just a note, through what I've read to date, via internet, regarding marriage and it's origin. Most authors state that marriage, the term, the union, the institution was public for an incredibly long time before the church got involved. So, I guess I can't support the belief that the word "marriage" belongs exclusively to legitimate catholic unions of heterosexuals. I was willing to go there but upon more study, the data just doesn't support this conclusion and so "marriage" must belong to all, imo. The data truly suggests, unlike Phy has proposed, that the Catholic church "hi-jacked" the term, not same-sex proponents.

Raven-MOK
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 11 Mar 2002
Posts: 2888
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

PostPosted: 20 Jul 2004 12:05:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

{=TLA=}IronMug wrote:
I didn't know this but it appears that marriage was derived from a French term from the 14th Century (marier). http://www.sexscrolls.net/marriage.html



These French guys and gals, what religion did they practice? Buddhism? Hinduism? Islam? Judaism? Taoism? Wicca? Were they Pagans? Shinto? None of the above? Christianity, perhaps?

Each of these religions has their ceremony, I suppose. How many of them use the word "marriage" and how many have another word?
Phy
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 04 Jun 2002
Posts: 5456
Location: Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: 20 Jul 2004 12:22:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

{=TLA=}IronMug wrote:
Just a note, through what I've read to date, via internet, regarding marriage and it's origin. Most authors state that marriage, the term, the union, the institution was public for an incredibly long time before the church got involved. So, I guess I can't support the belief that the word "marriage" belongs exclusively to legitimate catholic unions of heterosexuals. I was willing to go there but upon more study, the data just doesn't support this conclusion and so "marriage" must belong to all, imo. The data truly suggests, unlike Phy has proposed, that the Catholic church "hi-jacked" the term, not same-sex proponents.
\

You're getting some things mixed up, however. A quick search of scripture shows the word "marriage" used in Genesis near the beginning of humanity. Granted, it wasn't the *English* word "marriage", but the concept which is today translated as "marriage" is there.

"In the first chapter of Genesis we read: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Since humans are created in the image of God as male and female, it follows that a man or a woman alone does not fully constitute the image of God. As Kasper notes:

The sexual difference clearly forms an essential part of humanity's created being. Humanity as such does not exist. It exists only as man and woman. It is only in togetherness that human existence can be fulfilled in the fully human sense. This mystery between man and woman is, in the Bible, the image and likeness of God's covenant with man and the reproduction of his love, faithfulness and creative power. In this way, an almost inestimable value is given to marriage.

It can also be argued that God's creation of humans in two sexes (with the result that man and woman can only truly constitute God's image together) reflects the fact that God, as a trinity, himself exists in constant close fellowship and community (though there is no explicit support for this view in the text of Genesis, which does not develop a trinitarian doctrine). Since God is not Deus solitarius but Deus triunus, Barth argues, he cannot be mirrored in a homo solitarius. It is therefore clear that man and woman were intended to reflect God's image together, and need each other for this purpose.

Genesis chapter two further elaborates on this relationship between man and woman: "The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called "woman", for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

You can read more about the concept of Christian marriage here:
http://www.cwmebwy.fsnet.co.uk/barry/christian_marriage.htm

Suggesting that the traditional view of marriage as a spiritual / religious institution (as well as a legal one) was hijacked is disenguous - you don't get much earlier than the creation of Man for an origin setting. (And before you say it, this assumes that you're able to accept that the Bibilical account holds any weight. I do. Based on your past writings, I know that you tend to give it less credence.)


Johne (Phy) Cook | Overlord, Ray Gun Revival
{=TLA=}IronMug
Rampage
Rampage


Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Omaha, NE

PostPosted: 20 Jul 2004 11:40:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

True, I'm into evolution. The Bible was written, including genesis about 500,000 years after the human species came into being, probably much earlier but that's about the age of our oldest finding. Religion obviously came much later than human development. So, to me, Genesis is the tallest tale in the book. How could they know what happened, unless of course god told them the story.

Unions happened since the beginning of man, not the Genesis version which I can't quite understand how anyone could believe such nonsense. They were natural, instictive relationships having nothing to do with the christian god. And a word, that means the English "marriage", existed long before the Bible was invented. How do I know this, well, you see, I was there. Wink It's common sense and the arguments about keeping the term "marriage" sacred for only hetersexual use are weak at best. A book, the bible, which so many people believe describe it all is a piece of fiction invented to tame an incredibly barbaric period so it's relevence in this debate, imo, is nil.

The union of two people, or more (polygamy) has always been a public institution to provide definition and purpose to our lives. The article I cited above goes into a few of the more obvious aspects of relationships but more importantly involves the government's role in this union.

Some of what I've written I know is offensive and I appologize but I just feel so strongly against religious law and how the truest evil in our world is indeed religion. Nothing separates people more and nothing kills more people. It's ludicrous to believe that Christianity is accurate with so many other religions telling a different story. How can we all be right, we can't. Anyway, for what it's worth...


CloakedKilla
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Posts: 8625
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: 20 Jul 2004 11:45:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

{=TLA=}IronMug wrote:
The Bible was written, including genesis about 500,000 years after the human species came into being, probably much earlier but that's about the age of our oldest finding.


The Homo sapien species is an estimated 140,000 years old. Wink




dude
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i'm crying
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i just put aftershave on my nuts
{=TLA=}IronMug
Rampage
Rampage


Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Omaha, NE

PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 12:10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oop, i was way off

HOMO HABILIS

The first Homo

2.2-1.6 million years ago

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html


CloakedKilla
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Posts: 8625
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 12:14:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah you said first human species, I was talking about the current one. Wink



dude
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i'm crying
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i just put aftershave on my nuts
operationHIT
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 2333

PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 12:26:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

{=TLA=}IronMug wrote:
oop, i was way off

HOMO HABILIS

The first Homo

2.2-1.6 million years ago

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html


I thought cloaked was the first Homo lips sealed *hides*


CloakedKilla
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Posts: 8625
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 12:26:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aww naw there were others before I was born. Razz



dude
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i'm crying
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i just put aftershave on my nuts
Phy
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 04 Jun 2002
Posts: 5456
Location: Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 12:28:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Throwing numbers like that is an interesting exercise in pure speculation. It could be 10,000 years old or a fittybajillion years old and it doesn't change my argument, that concept of marriage predates the Catholic Church by a very, very long time.

Johne (Phy) Cook | Overlord, Ray Gun Revival
CloakedKilla
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Posts: 8625
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 12:31:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But the concept of it only being of man and woman doesn't. The Church brought that.



dude
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i'm crying
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i just put aftershave on my nuts
Phy
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 04 Jun 2002
Posts: 5456
Location: Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 12:51:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CloakedKilla wrote:
But the concept of it only being of man and woman doesn't. The Church brought that.


I entirely disagree. The concept of marriage representing the union of one man and one woman is as old as the creation model. It is echoed throughout scripture (which predates the Catholic Church by many years).

The idea of marriage is a concept that covers many levels; practical (procreation and stability and sheer fun), legal, moral (I'd argue), societal, and spiritual. I contend that the joining of one man and one woman represents the one-ness of God, that we aren't completely whole as simply Man or Woman. As a hetero male, I need my wife's emotional tendancies to counterbalance my logical tendancies. Further, Genesis chapter two elaborates on this relationship between man and woman: "The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called "woman", for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Jesus re-emphasized that in the New Testament, thus providing harmony between the two portions of scripture and also predating the formation of the Catholic Church.


Johne (Phy) Cook | Overlord, Ray Gun Revival
CloakedKilla
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Posts: 8625
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 01:02:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And this is where I'll politely mention separation of church and state.



dude
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i'm crying
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i just put aftershave on my nuts
Display posts from previous:   
Forum index » General Public » Politics

Page 5 of 15 [212 Posts]
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ..., 13, 14, 15 Next
All times are GMT
Reply to topic
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group