I do not understand

louie.mirags

louie.mirags

Active member
Can somebody who is anti-gay marriage and/or anti-abortion (even early on) explain to me why? How can gay people getting married possibly bother you? What am I missing?
 
I am not upset at all. Where do you get that from? I am bored at work and I should have not read yahoo news, much less the comments... Some of those antigay people are furious. The antiabortion crowd is worse.. you would think somebody was trying to kill their babies.

 
cuz im an ass backwards conservative catholic who thinks marriage is between jesus, me, my wife and the hot latino maid.
 
The way I see it is the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Marriage is a religion thing, state needs to do It's damn job(protect our rights) that's it. Since the state is already involved in so much shit it shouldn't be gays should be able to be married too.

Preferably the state would leave things alone it has no business in though. People could be married by their respective churches and gays could pledge themselves to each other/do their own thing.
 
PNlTK.gif
 
I'm completely for marriage rights for gays, but IMO it's more of the states say than the church. I get that marriage is a religious thing, however different religions have significantly different views on the matter. Also with separation if church and state, with the amount of legal changes that come with marriage (taxes, income, basically anything where you are involved with your spouse, shit even gaining nationality for immigrants, the church should stay out and it should be left up to the state.

IMO the church shouldn't be involved with anything g political. Separation I church and state was implemented for a reason, and I would way rather have decisions like this left up to elected officials than religious conservatives that are often out of touch with the demands of society, and thinking only with what satisfies their pious religious beliefs
 
And I'm saying that getting married shouldn't change any legal things.

That fact that it does means that gays should be able to get those benefits also.

However marriage was a religious thing and the state needs to fuck off.

The state shouldn't be involved in religious things like marriage.
 
If you think the state needs to be involved in everyone's lives constantly then you are missing out what the U.S. used to be all about.
 
But getting married has become a legal thing that isn't always associated with the church. So are you saying that non religious people shouldn't be allowed to get married because they are not part of a church? I'm just saying that it has become just as much a legal thing as a religious thing in out society, and at this point te state has created benefits/etc for married couples, so it should be their decision about gay marriage, because ultimately it is a social thing everybody that is part of that state, verses the smaller population that is religious

Basically religion has influenced social norms, but once they become normal in society, extending to the reaches of non religious people and to the political system, the church should lose any control of the matter because it affects more than just its followers, and the church shouldn't have control of the political aspects of society
 
I'm not saying the state needs to be involved in everybody's life's. however marriage has become a legal thing that extends beyond religious beliefs. So then the decision should be left up to society and the democratic government that it has created and controls

If the church doesn't want to accept a gay marriage as legit, they are free to do so. However, in the eyes of the state, which ultimately has control over it, if they are rightfully married than that's the way it should be.
 
I agree with you, yes. Currently gays/non religious people should be able to get married.

Ideally the state wouldn't meddle in everything though and gay people could be gay and religious people could get married if they wanted to(this wouldn't earn them tax breaks or other legal bs though) they would just be bound in the eye(s) of their respective god(s).
 
I get what you're saying, and in a perfect society that's how it would be. It's jus that out society has already advanced past that and basically implemented things that we can't undo, so there is no way it is now possible to make it like you are saying
 
How about this: as much as I have my problems with the government and how much they can get involved in people's life's, I hate the church so much more and think that the church should not affect, in any way, the people outside of it
 
There is a way, by making more people aware that they also don't like the way our government is going.

Every year the government gets more involved in your daily life.

And yes currently I'm all for the gays getting married.

Have a good night/day/life I'm too tired right now, maybe later we can exchange ideals.
 
This right here. Religion's cool though until the point when you start preaching on street corners and being a dick. But the institution of religion is THE BIGGEST FUCKING WASTE OF EVERYTHING THAT EVER HAS BEEN AND IS A TOTAL LEECH ON SOCIETY.

Things we can blame on the institution of religion: Gays not being allowed to marry, holy wars, annoying people telling me I'm going to hell
 
but you see factually, its the other way around, marriage is a religious institution and has been since the beginning of whenever marriage was invented.

What people are angry about is that the religious institution is going to be forced into their church (which it very well could)

frankly i dont understand why people see marriage as a basic human right because it was something invented by people.

although that being said god forbid we allow to men to get tax deductions.
 
I don't understand why people watch the rodeo or eat meat everyday. The world is full of shit that makes no sense. Just try to do the right thing.
 
.....sorry but no. Catholicism is the least liberal religion there is next to nothing. I can assure you, my family is catholic and everyone we know who is catholic is conservative.
 
Especially because catholics believe strongly against homosexuality, marrying outside race and religion, strict moral codes and are strongly against abortion.
 
yes, no, no and yes.

if you read into anything the sides social issues that they are vocal about you would find that they are for the government helping out in the most way possible, giving as much money as possible, and most preists are an advocate for national healthcare, welfare, and other stupid social programs.
 
Some of my family members are catholics (they go to church every week) and they are not against homosexuality or marrying outside of race/religion. Some of them think abortion is wrong but as far as I know they are still pro-choice.
 
What are you talking about? Marriage is certainly not just a religious institution, and the part theology played in the early inception of marriage is incredibly miniscule, if not nonexistent. Monogomous unions, the predecessor of marriage, pre-date established religion and recorded history, arising around the dawn of man, and ten's of thousands of years before the three Abrahamic religions - arguably the three most prevalent religions in our society. Now marriage as the institution we know today - ceremonial and legal - came to be in an archaic age, through clans/tribes marrying off daughters to rival clans/tribes to form or strengthen alliances. Again, devoid of religion and thousands of years before Judeo-Christian beliefs surfaced. Marriage is also evident in primitive Amazonian, African and Asian tribes that have had no contact with the developed world. In the religious aspect, marriage encompasses all of them, whether they by polytheistic or monotheistic. Marriage transcends belief systems: it is commonplace in all, yet been exercised independently from religion for thousands of years. So to state/believe that the church is the final, and only, authority on marriage - a union with origins completely unrelated to their institution - is "Christofascism"
 
Bollocks, you obviously haven't got a clue about marriage and its origins or its status in society. You need to read --ski--'s post and get learned.
 
Bollocks, you obviously haven't got a clue about marriage and its origins or its status in society. You need to read --ski--'s post and get learned.
 
Triple post but this deserves quoting for the retards that seem to think marriage is primarily a religious rather than a societal manifestation.
 
I was kidding obviously because person I was quoting was acting like that would be a negative thing if I were gay... relax brah
 
I got learned a bit, thanks ski. However, I still think the state needs to back off. So marriages first was used by rival clans n people's making alliances.
 
Didn't mean to post that yet, mobile and finger slipped. I Think I'm just out of place and need to be in medieval Iceland.
 
How and why would the state back off from a state sanctioned social contract that's enshrined in law?

If anything religion needs to back off and just worry about religious ceremonies for those people that want them.
 
you're wrong go back to your kitchen.

marriage has always been done under a priest or some religious authority and was never recognized by a country for tax exempts until the 1900's or so in America.
 
That is simply not true - the earliest recorded marriages were not religious, they were a way of transferring property rights over women, forging alliances between different families and communities, and for producing and protecting bloodlines.

Religion didn't become involved for hundreds of years and the church didn't even recognise marriage as a sacrament until thousands of years after the first recorded marriages. In ancient Rome, just to name one of many examples, marriage was a civil affair governed by law, not religion.

It's impossible to take anything you say seriously if you're just going to shout demonstrably false nonsense from a position of complete ignorance.
 
You seem to have missed the point completely.

Of course people doing something in a church, with a priest, is religious - but only because they're doing it in a fucking church! That doesn't mean the thing they're actually doing is inherently religious because, as the history of marriage proves, it's not.

If you don't understand something read up on it.
 
Ding ding ding this right here.

Marriage is defined as "being in a union with another person contractually recognized by law." So thus the state must have to recognize it. Religion only came into play way after marriage had been established.

Also who says what religion has say on the matter? Christianity tries to make their problem, but remember that the religion started 2000 years ago, and marriage was around before that, and was a part of Jewish culture as well. And Jewish culture adapted it from nomadic tribes as their religion was forming, so it predates the oldest remaining religion
 
Its not ignorant... because its true.

I would love it if you could prove to me that a marriage ceremony was not done with some rabbi, tribe religious leader or something else, its has always been a religious ceremony whether or not it had economical benefits.
 
You're a fucking idiot.

If you do any basic reading on the subject you'll realise how wrong you are. You seem content remaining in your made up little bubble though.
 
You have no evidence, no counter argument, no understanding of history. You're happy to just sit there and claim fiction as fact, even though the quickest google search would confirm you're wrong.

It's one thing to be stupid but its downright weird to wear it like a badge of honour like you seem to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top