Defense of Marriage Act takes a major blow

[knapplc]

This is why we need to change the definition.

 

Marriage = bonding of man and woman by their religion of choice.

Civil Union = legal bonding of two consenting people of legal age, with state- and federal-level rights pertaining to taxation and inheritance, among other legal ramifications.

 

If gays want to "get married," they can take it up with their church. If they want to be United, they can get United just like heteros.

 

Simple solution.

[HUSKER 37]

You're missing the point. I am not telling people what is right and wrong. I am saying that if marriage is no longer solely between a man and a woman, what else is left? What else would people like to change? I don't know about your upbringing and your religious affiliation or whatnot, but for a lot (if not most) of Christians, your parents teach you that getting married and having children is the purpose of life. At least, that's what I was taught. My parents forgot about the part of being happy, but that's another story.

 

I am not passing judgement. I am saying that if marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, what else is open to interpretation?

 

 

The dreaded Black Unis!!!

[strigori]

You're missing the point. I am not telling people what is right and wrong. I am saying that if marriage is no longer solely between a man and a woman, what else is left? What else would people like to change? I don't know about your upbringing and your religious affiliation or whatnot, but for a lot (if not most) of Christians, your parents teach you that getting married and having children is the purpose of life. At least, that's what I was taught. My parents forgot about the part of being happy, but that's another story.

 

I am not passing judgement. I am saying that if marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, what else is open to interpretation?

And you seem to have missed that this country is not a theocracy.

 

I also fail to see your point. What else is left of what? Please don't tell me you are one of those people who thinks farm animals is next.

[bennychico11]

You're missing the point. I am not telling people what is right and wrong. I am saying that if marriage is no longer solely between a man and a woman, what else is left? What else would people like to change? I don't know about your upbringing and your religious affiliation or whatnot, but for a lot (if not most) of Christians, your parents teach you that getting married and having children is the purpose of life. At least, that's what I was taught. My parents forgot about the part of being happy, but that's another story.

 

I am not passing judgement. I am saying that if marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, what else is open to interpretation?

 

What else is left?! Yes, once gay marriage is legalized the whole world will just collapse. Societies will break down, children will be left homeless in the street, women will be raped and villages plundered. Straight people's marriages won't matter any more...your love for your wife will be pointless! You'll be stripped of your vows, your marriage certificate and all the rights you have as a married couple will be spit upon! Stupid straight people, you thought marriage was about love, commitment...a dedicated, partnership between two people for the rest of their lives? HA! Gay people are here to give you a wake up call!

 

Seriously, man. You really think as a straight person your marriage will be anything less than it already is? That someone else getting married actually affects your marriage somehow? This is just ridiculous. I get so tired of people spouting off about the sanctity and tradtions of marriage...and somehow, gay people are going to ruin this for the everyone else.

Marriage is an institution that is different in every culture, every country, every religion, every society...and has changed many many times over thousands and thousands of years. From underage or child marriages, arranged marriages, interracial marriages, common-law marraiges, polygamous marriages, civil marriages, interfaith marriages, etc.

 

Marriage wasn't even originally a religious institution. I think it was somewhere around the tenth century when the Christian church actually decided to play a part in it. The church was actually against marriage for sometime. They believed that marriage and family actually got in the way of your path to salvation. Reamining unmarried and celibate was more holy.

Marriage was originally a property arrangement. Women were chattle. It was contract between the man and the woman's father. Many times they were arranged between neighboring tribes as a show of good faith or so that the two tribes would gain something from intermarrying the two. Whether it be goods, military support, etc. Your Old Testament is filled with this stuff. Abraham, for one, used his wife to sleep with both the Egyptian Pharaoh and the King Abimelech to gain political power and gain riches. His wife also then encouraged Abraham to have sex with his second wife (his Egyptian slave) because she was unable to provide him with an heir herself.

In ancient Greece, marriage was not expected to fulfill one’s longing for a soul mate. The ideal marriage was actually between an adult man and a young boy. For women, a woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative even if she has to divorce her husband first.

In Rome you were penalized if you weren't married before a certain age. Roman men also could marry off their wife to someone else if it would be a good career move for them.

Same sex marriages were actually common and not outlawed until around 300CE

12-16th Century Europe...marriages were usually arranged by someone else. If you were upperclass, you certainly did not marry for love. You were told by your family who you were to marry.

 

Is this part of the traditional marriage values you want to keep sacred? Or, like most people, are you just picking and choosing which values you want to agree with? Because, if you are, then don't use that "sacred, traditional" marriage crap anymore. Your marriage isn't any more traditional or sacred than anyone elses. Everyone should have the right to love and marry who they want to. And two people of the same sex aren't hurting anyone by wanting to have those same rights.

[JJ Husker]

Married 27 years ago today....maybe we should've just had a civil union instead of "holy matrimony" in a church.

 

I'm just amazed and glad that I found something to agree with strigori and bham. Doesn't happen often.

[lo country]

I cannot figure out why people still hold onto the outdated concept of "holy matrimony." What's holy about it? Some seventy percent of all black babies are born to teenage girls who are not married, and some forty percent of white babies are born to unwed mothers. It's getting to the point where only well-educated, older people (straight and gay) get married. Bottom line - if it's so holy, why do people skip the legal ceremony?

 

I think what you're describing is a function of economic status / conditions rather than race. While I'm not sure of the need to inject race into the discussion, I think I agree with your underlying point about marriage regardless. There's nothing holy or traditional about our 21st century definition of marriage. It is an arrangement that has evolved greatly over the centuries, and probably never more than it has in the last 100. Until relatively recently, marriage was an exchange of property from the father of the bride to the groom, and nothing more. Marriage ceased to be the purview of the church the moment that the government began recognizing, licensing, regulating and granting special rights to those who are married. Two males or two females marrying does absolutely nothing to diminish the value or quality of the marriage between my wife and myself, or that of anyone else. Religion, in this case, is merely one of the few remaining shelters for bigots who want to inject their sense of right and wrong into everyone else's affairs.

 

And your free thinking, socialist, marxist or whatever academia you cling to under the pretext of intellectualism is free of these prejudices.

 

Your comments are continually biased, offensive and as bigoted as those you seem to dislike so much. IMO, your views are no different than other zealots who see no correct cause or views, but their own.

[bhamHusker]

...Religion, in this case, is merely one of the few remaining shelters for bigots who want to inject their sense of right and wrong into everyone else's affairs.

 

And your free thinking, socialist, marxist or whatever academia you cling to under the pretext of intellectualism is free of these prejudices.

 

Your comments are continually biased, offensive and as bigoted as those you seem to dislike so much. IMO, your views are no different than other zealots who see no correct cause or views, but their own.

I would say that you're overlooking one very important distinction, however.

 

While I might personally have little but contempt for religious and superstitious beliefs, I fully endorse everyone's right and ability to believe what they want to believe. I'm not using my beliefs (or lack thereof) to justify treating religious folks as second class citizens or to strip them of rights that everyone else enjoys. I simply reject religious dogma as a legitimate justification for any matter of policy because, simply put, someone's right to believe what they want stops the moment that they start trying to impose those beliefs on others. I seriously bristle at the idea of laws being enacted or policies being adopted because some holy man's latest interpretation of some raggedy old scriptures says it is God's ( or [Horus|Vishnu|Allah|Satan|Jesus|Thor|Mithra|Zeus]'s) divine will. A rather large segment of religious zealots, however, eagerly use their personal beliefs to justify bigotry, whether it's to oppose equal rights for gays in the present, or for blacks 5 decades ago, or the abolition of slavery a century and a half ago. They wield their faith as a weapon to oppress and disenfranchise - the most extreme of them even call for killing gays in the name of their imaginary gods. Opposition to equal human rights for homosexuals is opposed almost entirely for religious reasons. While not all or even most religious believers are bigots, every last one of the homophobes who seek to, in the name of their faith, deprive gays of the same rights that you or I enjoy are nothing but bigots cowering behind a shield of faith.

 

Regarding the bolded portion of my previous post that you quoted, are you not interested in offering an actual rebuttal to my claim or are you only interested in "shooting the messenger" because you don't like being confronted with an ugly truth? Given that opposition to equal rights for gays is almost universally grounded in religious dogma, I'd be very interested to see how, exactly, what I said is wrong.

[lo country]

...Religion, in this case, is merely one of the few remaining shelters for bigots who want to inject their sense of right and wrong into everyone else's affairs.

 

And your free thinking, socialist, marxist or whatever academia you cling to under the pretext of intellectualism is free of these prejudices.

 

Your comments are continually biased, offensive and as bigoted as those you seem to dislike so much. IMO, your views are no different than other zealots who see no correct cause or views, but their own.

I would say that you're overlooking one very important distinction, however.

 

While I might personally have little but contempt for religious and superstitious beliefs, I fully endorse everyone's right and ability to believe what they want to believe. I'm not using my beliefs (or lack thereof) to justify treating religious folks as second class citizens or to strip them of rights that everyone else enjoys. I simply reject religious dogma as a legitimate justification for any matter of policy because, simply put, someone's right to believe what they want stops the moment that they start trying to impose those beliefs on others. I seriously bristle at the idea of laws being enacted or policies being adopted because some holy man's latest interpretation of some raggedy old scriptures says it is God's ( or [Horus|Vishnu|Allah|Satan|Jesus|Thor|Mithra|Zeus]'s) divine will. A rather large segment of religious zealots, however, eagerly use their personal beliefs to justify bigotry, whether it's to oppose equal rights for gays in the present, or for blacks 5 decades ago, or the abolition of slavery a century and a half ago. They wield their faith as a weapon to oppress and disenfranchise - the most extreme of them even call for killing gays in the name of their imaginary gods. Opposition to equal human rights for homosexuals is opposed almost entirely for religious reasons. While not all or even most religious believers are bigots, every last one of the homophobes who seek to, in the name of their faith, deprive gays of the same rights that you or I enjoy are nothing but bigots cowering behind a shield of faith.

 

Regarding the bolded portion of my previous post that you quoted, are you not interested in offering an actual rebuttal to my claim or are you only interested in "shooting the messenger" because you don't like being confronted with an ugly truth? Given that opposition to equal rights for gays is almost universally grounded in religious dogma, I'd be very interested to see how, exactly, what I said is wrong.

 

I'll bite. The "ugly truth" is simply based upon your perceived belief system. Nothing more nothing less. Just as my belief system is based on faith. Nothing more nothing less.

 

Just as you have used examples of the distortion of faith, you also fail to recognize the contributions of numerous Christians throughout history who have used their belief system to better 3rd world countries, provide food, medical care and other humanitarian relief in the name of Jesus. Statistically, I would think more have been physically saved in the name of Jesus than killed.

 

You and I are probably at opposite ends of the spectrum. I have no issue with that. I do have issue when you use comments that are akin to stereotypes, prejudice and bigotry. Your comments above such as some "holy mans latest interpretation of some raggedy scripture" are no different than a racist saying something along the lines of "those people". If you could state your comments without the back handed insults, it would come across as an actual attempt to have dialogue, but it simply, at least to me, seems as those the comments are only made to incite.

 

I would also guess, and I could be wrong, that you have had a negative contact with Christians. If so, Christians are not perfect. I do not call myself one. I am a Christ follower. Completely different in my opinion. The Christians condemning homosexuality saying they should not be treated equally under the law or should be killed are wrong. (although I would like to state that they have "more rights" than a hetro-sexual couple in some cases ie life partners in some companies get benefits life time boyfriend/girl friends don't, EEO protection, hate crime protection etc...) The issue, with marriage as an example, comes down to believing it is a sin or not. IMO, the sin is no different than lying, cheating, surfing the net at work instead of doing your job etc...... Christians like to quantify and qualify sin vs sin. God doesn't rank or judge. He cannot look upon any of it. Big or little. I try to look at it the same way. In God's eyes, my sins are no greater or worse than another's. Many Christian's have issue with this. They like to think they are "better" as their "sins" are not as grievous under society's eyes. It is not my job to judge, but it is my duty to follow Christ to the best of my ability. I also think as a believer that the country should not make laws contrary to the BIble just as you think that religion shouldn't enter into the equation when it comes to making laws. The reality is that laws are introduced based upon peoples beliefs, experiences etc.....There is no way to take that out. It is like the old adage "your right to throw punches ends at my nose". How can you create a law that some how doesn't involve reactions in another pro or con? The Bible doesn't say to treat them differently. Man interprets it to mean that. You (people) need to read the Bible for themselves, learn and study it and not rely on others to interpret and explain it to them. That leads to issues IMO.

[bhamHusker]

I'll bite. The "ugly truth" is simply based upon your perceived belief system. Nothing more nothing less. Just as my belief system is based on faith. Nothing more nothing less.

 

Just as you have used examples of the distortion of faith, you also fail to recognize the contributions of numerous Christians throughout history who have used their belief system to better 3rd world countries, provide food, medical care and other humanitarian relief in the name of Jesus. Statistically, I would think more have been physically saved in the name of Jesus than killed.

No, the ugly truth is that virtually all of the opposition to equal rights for homosexuals is on religious grounds. You will not find more than an insignificantly tiny portion of the opposition to be non-religious in its basis. That is not an opinion based on my beliefs, that's a fact.

 

I haven't cited examples of charity performed in the name of religion, whether that religion is Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other because it's not at all relevant. I fully recognize that charity is performed in the name of any number of delusions, and that's a fine thing, but good deeds do not mitigate the harm done by these institutions. Humanitarian relief (with plenty of religious strings attached) doesn't buy one the ability to oppress a class of citizens because of a few sentences in a very old book of dubious origin.

 

You and I are probably at opposite ends of the spectrum. I have no issue with that. I do have issue when you use comments that are akin to stereotypes, prejudice and bigotry. Your comments above such as some "holy mans latest interpretation of some raggedy scripture" are no different than a racist saying something along the lines of "those people". If you could state your comments without the back handed insults, it would come across as an actual attempt to have dialogue, but it simply, at least to me, seems as those the comments are only made to incite.

I respect your right to believe in whatever god you want, whether I think it's absolute fantasy or not. I will relentlessly defend your right to practice your religion accordingly up until the point where that practice tramples on the rights of others. I do not, however, have any obligation to be respectful of any religion's fables any more than you are required to believe that it's perfectly reasonable to believe and on equal footing with Christianity to worship an invisible magical kitten named Tiggles who has all encompassing power over the universe. I'm not going to give false deference to what I believe are idiotic ideas just to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of believers. Being irreverent or even blasphemous to a religion that I don't believe in is not anywhere in the same arena as racism.

 

I would also guess, and I could be wrong, that you have had a negative contact with Christians. If so, Christians are not perfect. I do not call myself one. I am a Christ follower. Completely different in my opinion. The Christians condemning homosexuality saying they should not be treated equally under the law or should be killed are wrong. (although I would like to state that they have "more rights" than a hetro-sexual couple in some cases ie life partners in some companies get benefits life time boyfriend/girl friends don't, EEO protection, hate crime protection etc...) The issue, with marriage as an example, comes down to believing it is a sin or not. IMO, the sin is no different than lying, cheating, surfing the net at work instead of doing your job etc...... Christians like to quantify and qualify sin vs sin. God doesn't rank or judge. He cannot look upon any of it. Big or little. I try to look at it the same way. In God's eyes, my sins are no greater or worse than another's. Many Christian's have issue with this. They like to think they are "better" as their "sins" are not as grievous under society's eyes. It is not my job to judge, but it is my duty to follow Christ to the best of my ability. I also think as a believer that the country should not make laws contrary to the BIble just as you think that religion shouldn't enter into the equation when it comes to making laws. The reality is that laws are introduced based upon peoples beliefs, experiences etc.....There is no way to take that out. It is like the old adage "your right to throw punches ends at my nose". How can you create a law that some how doesn't involve reactions in another pro or con? The Bible doesn't say to treat them differently. Man interprets it to mean that. You (people) need to read the Bible for themselves, learn and study it and not rely on others to interpret and explain it to them. That leads to issues IMO.

You guessed wrong. I've lived over half my life in the heart of the Bible Belt. I grew up in a religious household, attended church regularly as a youngster, and attended a private religious school for most of my pre-college life. I've never had a particularly "negative" experience with Christians, or any members of other religions (except annoying Mormon and Baptist door knockers). I simply have never bought into it; I cannot force myself to believe in something for which there isn't the tiniest bit of actual evidence. Regardless of my beliefs, most of my friends, coworkers and family are religious (not just Christian) people. I've read the Bible in its entirety twice (KJV & NIV) - it's a big part of why I am not a Christian, in fact. Further, it's not just Christianity that I have a problem with. I hold ALL religion in equally low esteem. Christianity simply happens to be the religion with which I'm confronted most often since we live in a country with a Christian majority (not a Christian nation).

 

I fundamentally disagree with your belief that it's acceptable, let alone desirable, to make laws from a religious perspective (in the same way that I suspect you would oppose making laws in accordance with Islam or Hinduism). Ours is a secular nation, and our laws must be grounded in secular reasoning, not religious fables. President Obama, a Christian, said something that I really agree with on this subject. I'll paraphrase since I can't remember it word for word: We can oppose things because of our religious beliefs, but if we want to enact laws accordingly, we have to have a reason beyond our faith alone.

 

As for the bolded part of the quote, the assertion that gays somehow have more rights is just laughable. First of all, you're comparing apples and kiwi fruits. A company that opts to extend benefits to the partners of gay couples is making a choice to do so, it's not a right. Secondly, In most states there are no workplace protections for homosexuals. They can be fired simply for being gay. In the states that protect them from being discriminated against in the workplace because of their sexuality, it is not an extra right - it's the same right that heteros enjoy. Hate crime laws aren't "extra rights" (or more accurately, protections). They're the same protections that apply to ANY offense that is motivated by hostility towards a race, gender, faith, nationality or sexuality - gay or straight.

[Excel]

Let's get away from the religious arguments for just a moment and take heart in this court's ruling.

 

Anyone that has a fundamental grasp of our Constitution can see that DOMA violates the Fourteenth Amendment and arguably the Fifth and Tenth as well. That so many politicians, pundits and members of the general public can support the act one moment and the next talk about their allegiance to the Constitution is both mind boggling and depressing.

 

You don't get to make laws that treat one group differently from others, no matter how much you dislike them. Not in this country. I thought we learned this lesson a while ago.

[Lil' Red]

The issue, with marriage as an example, comes down to believing it is a sin or not.

 

No, the issue with gay marriage comes down to whether or not you believe in equality.

[carlfense]

The issue, with marriage as an example, comes down to believing it is a sin or not.

 

No, the issue with gay marriage comes down to whether or not you believe in equality.

+1.