Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[Troll King]

When I typed marriage into google, my top result was Wikipedia's entry followed by government websites describing the legal process.

At the very top of the Wikipedia entry, it says that "the sacrament or liturgical rite in Christianity" is listed in a separate entry for "Christian views of marriage". So even Wikipedia separates the religious concept of marriage from the main article on the subject.

[Vykromond]

Related searches: marriage problems

[genocidal]

1 problem of marrage

da bithc don't puttin out haha :wub: :fear:

[Liquid Blue]

Your argumentation is illogical and against all evidence. Just type marriage into google, the second link (after the russian bride website) links to http://www.christianitytoday.com/

wait what

Your argumentation is illogical and against all evidence.

ok

Just type marriage into google, the second link (after the russian bride website) links to http://www.christianitytoday.com/

wait what the fuck


you seriously didn't type that

did you

[Vykromond]

its adam aNd Eve nOT ADAM AND steve <_<

iok u unserstand me? :fear:

[Liquid Blue]

that argument is illogical and against all evidence

let me google it to prove you wrong

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372122/

first response, i win

[Epinephrine]

Of course, if you support gay marriage it is not possible to see a religious meaning. Thats why i said you are biased. People who oppose gay marriage - as biased as they might be - could see a religious reason.

I don't see a religious meaning to marriage because as a Chinese person, thousands of generations of my ancestors, over 1,000,000,000 people out there today, and a 4000 year old continuously running civilization which existed before any modern religion ever did tells me that marriage isn't religious because people who aren't religious, never had religion in their life, and could absolutely care less about organized religion get married all the time and have done so for thousands of years.

[Squeezer]

I don't see a religious meaning to marriage because as a Chinese person, thousands of generations of my ancestors, over 1,000,000,000 people out there today, and a 4000 year old continuously running civilization which existed before any modern religion ever did tells me that marriage isn't religious because people who aren't religious, never had religion in their life, and could absolutely care less about organized religion get married all the time and have done so for thousands of years.

why u gotta bring race to the gay topic?

[Zerzera]

I don't see a religious meaning to marriage because as a Chinese person, thousands of generations of my ancestors, over 1,000,000,000 people out there today, and a 4000 year old continuously running civilization which existed before any modern religion ever did tells me that marriage isn't religious because people who aren't religious, never had religion in their life, and could absolutely care less about organized religion get married all the time and have done so for thousands of years.

Ooooh shit, finally I get it. In the Netherlands gay people are allowed to be married because we don't call it a marriage! We call it huwelijk or if he means the ceremony we call it trouwerij or bruiloft. See, we don't use the word the church invented, because we don't speak English; the language of the church.

[Nycle]

I don't see a religious meaning to marriage because as a Chinese person, thousands of generations of my ancestors, over 1,000,000,000 people out there today, and a 4000 year old continuously running civilization which existed before any modern religion ever did tells me that marriage isn't religious because people who aren't religious, never had religion in their life, and could absolutely care less about organized religion get married all the time and have done so for thousands of years.

I don't see how this is relevant to the topic. Ok, we know that Chinese people haven't believed in some holy deity and get married all the time. But then again a society doesn't need to be religious to have a norm established that "marriage" is supposed to take place between members of the opposite sex. Last time I checked gay marriage wasn't legal in China, so what does an unreligious culture have to do with the topic of same-sex marriage we're discussing?

[Vykromond]

I don't see how this is relevant to the topic. Ok, we know that Chinese people haven't believed in some holy deity and get married all the time. But then again a society doesn't need to be religious to have a norm established that "marriage" is supposed to take place between members of the opposite sex. Last time I checked gay marriage wasn't legal in China, so what does an unreligious culture have to do with the topic of same-sex marriage we're discussing?

what

Fluffz said that gay marriage is wrong because marriage is defined through religion. Epinephrine contradicted this. Your point is completely different

[Epinephrine]

what

Fluffz said that gay marriage is wrong because marriage is defined through religion. Epinephrine contradicted this. Your point is completely different

What Vky said is true.

I don't see how this is relevant to the topic. Ok, we know that Chinese people haven't believed in some holy deity and get married all the time. But then again a society doesn't need to be religious to have a norm established that "marriage" is supposed to take place between members of the opposite sex. Last time I checked gay marriage wasn't legal in China, so what does an unreligious culture have to do with the topic of same-sex marriage we're discussing?

See, because the concept of marriage isn't actually a solely religious one (which basically everyone but fluffz agrees with), using religion as the only objection to gay marriage is silly. There is no gay marriage in China because of CULTURAL reasons. But culture can change very easily. Legislation in the USA allowed amazing advances in civil rights in the last 50 years for instance for women and blacks. Meanwhile religious rules generally don't change or are very hard to change, meaning if marriage were solely a religious concept, and religion defined marriage as only between a man and a women, you're going to have a hard time changing that in general.

So my point is, since marriage isn't actually a religious concept (it's a HUMAN sociological concept which religions have embraced), we shouldn't be bound by religious dogma and not allow gays to marry. Using that as an objection towards gay marriage in a democratic society (which I assume fluffz lives in) which separates religion and the state is not valid.

[Nycle]

What Vky said is true.



See, because the concept of marriage isn't actually a solely religious one (which basically everyone but fluffz agrees with), using religion as the only objection to gay marriage is silly. There is no gay marriage in China because of CULTURAL reasons. But culture can change very easily. Legislation in the USA allowed amazing advances in civil rights in the last 50 years for instance for women and blacks. Meanwhile religious rules generally don't change or are very hard to change, meaning if marriage were solely a religious concept, and religion defined marriage as only between a man and a women, you're going to have a hard time changing that in general.

So my point is, since marriage isn't actually a religious concept (it's a HUMAN sociological concept which religions have embraced), we shouldn't be bound by religious dogma and not allow gays to marry. Using that as an objection towards gay marriage in a democratic society (which I assume fluffz lives in) which separates religion and the state is not valid.

I totally agree with you in spirit, I just think you were drawing a really weird parallel. To clarify:

Fluffz: "Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because my religion (Christianity) says marriage is only meant for members of the opposite sex."

Epi: "People in China haven't known religion for thousands of years and get married all the time."

^ Ok, China isn't religious and they don't allow gay marriage. You succeeded to refute the argument of marriage being a solely religious concept, but I don't think Fluffz was necessarily trying to say that. He has been referring to the specific notion of marriage not being appropriate for members of the same sex throughout this entire topic, be it based on his religion or anything else for that matter. Your China story has nothing in it to refute that same-sex point.

Don't forget I'm pretty much on your side, and it could very well be just me who's too "overlooking". I just wanted to clarify why I think that specific reasoning was weird.

[DankNuggets]

Don't forget I'm pretty much on your side, and it could very well be just me who's too "overlooking". I just wanted to clarify why I think that specific reasoning was weird.

the problem is, once we (or epi or squeezer) refute one of his arguments, he comes up with another. If you refute that one, he'll argue a different point and not acknowledge the previous one. actually, it's the same thing everyone does here to keep arguing without conceding anything.

same old forum story, just different names

[Fluffz]

At the very top of the Wikipedia entry, it says that "the sacrament or liturgical rite in Christianity" is listed in a separate entry for "Christian views of marriage". So even Wikipedia separates the religious concept of marriage from the main article on the subject.

Just continue reading the main article on marriage and you will have a definition that includes a religious aspect. Since you all seem to think society alone defines marriage i can rest my case because wikipedia is more than anything else a mirror of societys views in todays world. In a few years the marriage article might have changed - and with it the "truth" - but thats a different story.

the concept of marriage isn't actually a solely religious one (which basically everyone but fluffz agrees with

You deliberately squeezed the word "solely" in there because you knew your argumentation would not make any sense without it. I never said marriage is defined only by religion. @Dank, id be happy if someone could start refuting my points as opposed to accusing me of things i never said.

Also the reasoning was indeed weird. You argue that marriage has no religious meaning because ppl get married in china too, right? Than you claim "religious reasons are not a valid objection" because we have separation of church and state, right? Since people get married in countries where state and religion are not separated (where religious reasons are a valid objection) your claim cant be true after you apply the same "logic". If you want take this as a proof that marriage has a religious meaning but i wont argue about this any longer.


You cant even tell me what you want without contradicting yourself.
We want equal marriage, but not as a religious concept.
We want equal marriage, but not where it contradicts social fairness.
We want equal marriage, but not where it contradicts the rules of law.
We want equal marriage, but only for the conform ideology.
We want equal marriage, but some meaning of marriage can remain unequal.
We want equal marriage, go find another word for whatever is not equal.

Wait, where exactly do our positions differ again? Oh, i know. You expect society to change towards your ideal while i only expect society to respect what is different.