punks united Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 sorry dude...i didn't know that there was a different name....what is the proper term Eric?? just so i can be politically correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycdplayerisbroke Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 haha i dont really mind we call ourselves mormons but LDS is the politcally correct term dont worry about it _____, i forget your name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punks united Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 Nikki and yeah i remember now isn't Latter Day Saints...they show those commercials promoting those videos and the book of mormon.... and is that the i'm guessing the drummer Fab of the strokes??on ur av?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Peedston Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 How is it a slang term Eric?? And Music Clover...check the definiton of marriage...The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. so does this include two men or two women no...so if they were to allow gay marriage they would have to allow for a man and a little boy to get married, a person and an animal...they would have to change the whole idea for everyone...so logically it makes sense. back when only white men could vote, you had to be white and a man to vote. if they somehow managed to change it so that blacks, women, etc., could also vote without allowing children and animals or whatever else to vote, you don't think they could do the same for marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Peedston Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 and yes i know it's different because there's no religious connotation to voting, but i think a big problem is that people can't seem to separate the religious practice of marriage from being legally married in the eyes of the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soleil Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 i used to be against same sex marriage. somehow it seems contrary to the whole survival of the fittest/species theory... if that makes any sense. now i known someone who is gay, and that makes me think.. but i think i am still somehow against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punks united Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 well the definiton of voting applies to everyone and the dfiniton of marriage applies to specifically a man and a woman so no it isn't the same... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Peedston Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 did you read what i said? the definition of voting, IN THE EYES OF THE GOVERNMENT, DID NOT always apply to everyone. it's only that way now because the constitution was changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Peedston Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 and if you look at the US constitution right now, there is nothing specifying a marriage as between a man and a woman, which is what Bush is proposing right now (he wouldn't have to propose it if it already said it, right?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycdplayerisbroke Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 and is that the i'm guessing the drummer Fab of the strokes??on ur av?? close but its albert from the strokes :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punks united Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 right but the i DID READ what u said but all government issues put asside....the TRUE definiton of marriage is between a man and a woman.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Peedston Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 but this thread was started to talk about government issues. in my mind, what you or i or anybody else perceives as the "true" definition of marriage is completely irrelevent. you may not believe in same sex marriages, but that doesn't give anybody the right to discriminate against gays. (besides, a TRUE marriage also lasts "until death do us part," right?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punks united Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 okay what does till death do us part have to do with anything?? besides this is about the government....and I do not discriminate against gays...i merely don't agree with it....and besides the definiton of marriageis not what i percieve it as well it is but u can look it up in the dictionary.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Peedston Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 the till death do us part thing has to do with the fact that i think you're interpreting it too literally. if a marriage can only be between a man and a woman because that's what the dictionary or the bible or whatever says, then what's to say that we can't interpret the "till death do us part" thing literally and make divorces illegal too? obviously, that's a ridiculous idea, and that's been outdated for centuries, but at one point, that's how it was. and i think that gay marriages will ultimately be the same way. and yes, if you look up "marriage" in a dictionary right now, you will see "a union between husband and wife," but i think the dictionary is outdated, and that if you look it up in 100 years, you won't see that distinction. (and i still think that the dictionary definition is something completely separate and distinct from the government definition, so it doesn't matter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycdplayerisbroke Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 did you know the spartan soldiers were gay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternly Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 the till death do us part thing has to do with the fact that i think you're interpreting it too literally. if a marriage can only be between a man and a woman because that's what the dictionary or the bible or whatever says' date=' then what's to say that we can't interpret the "till death do us part" thing literally and make divorces illegal too? obviously, that's a ridiculous idea, and that's been outdated for centuries, but at one point, that's how it was. and i think that gay marriages will ultimately be the same way.[/quote'] I know this has nothing to do with the issue about gays, but Divorce is ilegall here, and our lives go just like everyone's else life :D . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rf_ucsd Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 bah! polls say a large majority dont like the idea of gay marriages are you gay musiclover? no, I'm not gay, Eric. All the same, just because I am liberal in my thinking and I support gay rights doesn't make me out to be a gay, not that there's anything wrong with being one...but i'm not! as to your reasoning about majority supporting 'defense of marriage' or are against gay marriage....the point is, laws can't be made based upon what some arbitrary majority thinks. In 1800s, I'm sure a majority of people in America totally supported slavery....so does that make it okay? Laws should be made that are equitable to all humans....based on the principle that a secular government should not care what you do in your private home, which includes: whom you sleep with, whom you pray to, etc. Time has a strange way of tell us what is right and what is wrong. Some people thing that the "principle that a secular government should not care" is "what some arbitrary majority [or minority] thinks." Both sides of the argument seem to think that there is an underlying truth: that God's law is truth or civil liberty should be treated as truth. Truth is nothing more than acceptance of an event. If something is universally accepted it becomes truth or fact. Is God true? Who knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can know. So why do we try to act as if there is a right or a wrong beyond what we, as a society, agree to be governed by? Possible because we feel better when we live in a world where we can have certain "rights," but as it concerns government that just may not be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rf_ucsd Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 How is it a slang term Eric?? And Music Clover...check the definiton of marriage...The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. so does this include two men or two women no...so if they were to allow gay marriage they would have to allow for a man and a little boy to get married, a person and an animal...they would have to change the whole idea for everyone...so logically it makes sense. Clearly that is not the only definition of marriage, thus the debate. The argument that allowing a man to marry a man would lead to man/boy or man/animal is a little insulting. There are many accepted laws in the society which distinguish a person who is of age from a person who is now, let alone laws which govern treatment of animals. I don't use the word insulting flippantly there: How do you expect to carry on a real dialogue as long as you bring up weird scenarios like that? Logically, to me, it makes sense to allow consenting adults to engage in behaviours which they feel better their life provided they do not pose a potential risk to mine. This is a basic idea behind liberty. If there is anything this country was supposed to start for, it is this. The first Europeans to colonize this region of the continent came over to avoid religious persecution. But this policy infringes upon liberties: there's no way around that. The debate seems to be whether that infringement is worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rf_ucsd Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 okay what does till death do us part have to do with anything?? besides this is about the government....and I do not discriminate against gays...i merely don't agree with it....and besides the definiton of marriageis not what i percieve it as well it is but u can look it up in the dictionary.... Nikki: Words evolve. Clearly the idea of marriage can be applied to more than just a man and a woman. Whether that's ethical or moral is another debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rf_ucsd Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 the till death do us part thing has to do with the fact that i think you're interpreting it too literally. if a marriage can only be between a man and a woman because that's what the dictionary or the bible or whatever says' date=' then what's to say that we can't interpret the "till death do us part" thing literally and make divorces illegal too? obviously, that's a ridiculous idea, and that's been outdated for centuries, but at one point, that's how it was. and i think that gay marriages will ultimately be the same way.[/quote'] I know this has nothing to do with the issue about gays, but Divorce is ilegall here, and our lives go just like everyone's else life :D . I'm not so sure those people who would benefit by a divorce would agree with you. I can only image what inhibiting divorces does for rate of births out of wedlock, domestic violence and homocide, not to mention an overall inhibition on the quality of life for those people who would like the liberty being denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musiclover Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 ahh...i was waiting for someone to spring that man-dog relationship idea..how novel! :rolleyes: Eric, sorry, I didn't mean to use 'mormon' as a hurtful way or in a derogatory manner. I do know that properly, they're called The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints, but really, I thought it was just as well to use 'Mormon' and not mean harm. Sorry! As far as polygamy, I do realize that LDS outlawed it in late 1800s in order to conform with the common civil code of the U.S. However, there still are many cases of such polygamous relationships in Utah and it's border areas. One glaring example was showcased by ABC's 20/20 (or was it CBS ?) a few months ago, where even the government prosecutor agreed that people were turning a blind eye to such relationships unless a battered child came to the police... i'm sure it's a rare occurance though. and again, it is outlawed by the LDS. but my point in bring it up was to point out that even religion doesn't have one coherent idea of what a marriage is supposed to be. As to other issues brought up, I think Richard and Mr. Peed did a wonderful job of answering those! :-) wish I were here when this went down...could have contributed. and yes, actually, divorce was outlawed as late as 1990 in courtries like Chile; Argentina allowed legal divorce about that time as well. China too doesn't allow divorce to this day, AFAIK. so you see, you can't quote just one piece of bible and say gay marriages can't be allowed when the fact is 50% of all marriages in America end in divorce... not to mention that the 'marriage' we're talking about is a secular marriage, something in the eyes of government. it is so that health benefits, legal rites, succession, etc., can be carried on by those who wish to be gay couples. It is completely separate from any idea of 'marriage' in religious terms. Also, if you bring up religion in this matter, then why only talk of the bible? What about Koran, Bhagvad Gita, Dhammapada, etc? I'm sure all these other sacred books talk of how to live a righteous life! :idea2: Since when are we trying to push certain christian ideas down peoples throats? :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musiclover Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 remember, if you want to talk of u.s. government actions in terms of religion, then: religion DOES NOT EQUAL christianity religion = christianity, hinduism, buddhism, islam, atheism/humanism, jainism, sikhism, vodoo, zen, shinto, tao, judaism, etc... are u willing to come up with an idea of marriage that's the same in the eyes of all these religions? i bet you won't be able to. in which case, the only other option is, to talk of marriage in secular terms, as far as government is concerned. nobody is forcing you to marry another guy... (or girl) as the case may be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bart Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 agrees with bush on this one, but he has a agendga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musiclover Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 i used to be against same sex marriage. somehow it seems contrary to the whole survival of the fittest/species theory... if that makes any sense. now i known someone who is gay' date=' and that makes me think.. but i think i am still somehow against it.[/quote'] ummm...the last time i checked, humanity was not in any danger of getting extinct due to lack of reproduction. :/ :rolleyes: and, there are certain historical documents that relate to the theory (i don't know if it's indeed a fact) that about 10% of human population has always been gay. i wonder if this survival of fittest/species theory would be talked about when every other month some state education board threatens to redact the Darvinian theory and replace it with christian creationism... :rolleyes: lastly, if you do think only in scientific terms, then you would agree that to this point, there has been no other species on Earth to challenge the humans' superiority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musiclover Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 and yep, Eric, the Spartan soldiers were indeed gay, as was the high society of Athens. In fact, Spartan male children were forced to separate from their mothers and family home and instead were reared in some kind of soldier barracks, always getting prepared to fight in the city Phalanx. There was a wonderful PBS show on this 2 Sundays ago...at least in our region... but, these same men were never allowed to continue their gay relationships. The society of that time allowed gay relationships, but also demanded marriage with women in order to have procreation... 'cuz afterall, Athens was a city-state...didn't have a big population...it also had slaves who couldn't vote and were always feared for possible rebellion...so needed free men... but societies change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(1).thumb.png.4eba209dc40059c13694859b20e23ec1.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now