What will become of marriage?

Why does my post embarass you, may I ask? Yes, I'm overly-opinionated, but why is it embarassing?

It embarrasses me so because you are commenting on things that ain't any of your bussiness in the first place. You seem to be dwelling on the illusion that marriage is a Christian institution, which it is not. You seem to be dwelling on the illusion that the rights and benefits that come with marriage are strictly Christian concepts, which they are not. Furthermore, you seem to be dwelling on the illusion that what other people choose to do with their lives somehow have something to do with you, which they do not.Tell me how I have taken your quote out of context? You specifically said that you personally don't believe interracial marriage is a good idea. You seem to be dwelling on the illusion that you have the right to judge others, which if you are truly a christian then you should know that you don't.I don't even know why I am responding to you, since you really sound like one of those I-know-all and my-opinion-is-all-that-matters Christians who never once give any consideration for human reason.Added by edit.Sorry, everyone, for the harsh tone. The guy sitting next to me is this close to popping some capillaries in his head.This message has been edited by GoodIntentions, 12-03-2004 05:53 PM

---

I personally think that inter-racial marriage isn't a good idea either, so don't use that one against me. -- Rosie Cotton

You have a couple of misapprehensions here:There are two forms of marriage: secular and religious.In many of the advanced, western democracies one assurances of freedom is the separation of church and state. If you want no rights whatsoever associated with marriage then the state can get right out of the marriage business; no laws at all. If you want rights associated with marriage then they must not be based on anyone's particular religion.In Canada we are very close to having full rights for same sex marriages. I have heard a number of people here say that we are forcing their church to accept this. The law proposed is very, very clear that this is not the case.I am not aware that there is any such threat in the US either. You may have your facts wrong.

quote:

---

To make any change in that, would lead to millions of problems.

---

...Such as? I wonder why it is that you think that changing marriage laws would cause millions of problems.

quote:

---

And the homosexuals can get married already. They just want everyone to accept their marriage as legal and binding, and they want all people to be willing to preform the marital ceremony.

---

No - they just want the government to accept their marriage as legally binding so that they can be on equal footing as hetero marriages legally. What you or anyone else thinks about this doesn't matter - you don't have to accept their marriage personally, as long as you don't infringe on their equality legally.

quote:

---

I personally do not want to accept their marriage as legal and binding, and two homosexuals will never be married in my eyes. Their connection will be null and void in my perspective, but they want the government to tell me that I have to see their marriage as there. My church will not marry gays and lesbians, but people want the government to tell them that they have to.

---

It seems that this is a pretty common misconception - no one is asking the government to force your church to marry homosexuals. Just because the government would recognize such marriages doesn't mean that churches would have to - that's the beauty of separate church and state.

quote:

---

I personally think that inter-racial marriage isn't a good idea either, so don't use that one against me. Not because I'm racist, because it is not good for the people involved. My great-great-grandfather married a Cherokee Indian (I'm of European descent other than that) and he was probably wrong to do so, because their children for a few generations were not accepted neither were they themselves. I read a historical fiction book called THE HITTITE WARRIOR. Within this book, there is a character who is half Israelite, and half Canaanite. He isn't accepted by the Israelites because of his Canaanite half, and is not accepted by the Canaanites, because of his Israelite half. This is what I think on that matter. Other than that, it isn't wrong.

---

I would argue that this is a sign that racism is wrong, in any form, rather than interracial marriage - don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you a racist. What I'm saying is that these problems stem from racism of the people involved, rather than the interracial marriage itself. In other words, your great-great-grandfather's marriage wasn't the problem; the problem was the racism of the society that did not accept him. The fact that the character was half-Canaanite, half-Israelite was not in itself the problem; the problem was that both societies involved rejected him on the basis of race.This is like saying that being black was wrong in early twentieth century America because so many people mistreated blacks. Being black in itself wasn't the problem, it was the racism of the abusers that was. In other words, I think you're trying to say that interracial marriage is not necessarily a good idea, not that it's morally wrong, based on your argument. Do you see what I'm saying? You're basing the idea that it's "wrong" on the way other people react to it, not the morality of the concept itself.

quote:

---

And yes, the dog thing was out-rageous, I admit it. It was supposed to be. I didn't know people would take me seriouly. I was trying to state the extreme to show you were it was going. Sort of like the stroy Harrison Bergerond, for those that have read it. I was taking gay marriage to the extreme.

---

But again, this is a slippery-slope fallacy. If same-sex marriage, a union between two consenting adults, is recognized, it doesn't make human/animal relationships any more viable. In other words, you're not "taking gay marriage to the extreme"; you're making a comparison that's invalid in the first place.

quote:

---

Who preforms the marriages? Churches! It used to be that all marriage was directly correlated with the church and in my opinion it is in violation of separation of church and state to change that.

---

And here's the problem - the government performs marriages as well. That's why, in a society of free religion, there is no legal basis for denying marriage to a group based on religious beliefs. If only churches performed marriages, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.{Edited to add the word "marriage" after "interracial" in one sentence.}This message has been edited by Morte, 12-03-2004 06:00 PM

I do not think that it is Christian institution. I do believe that Christianity is right, but I do not want to force those views on others. I think that I am wrong in many things, but I firmly believe that I am right in this specific instance. If I didn't believe I was right, why would I even bother defending the idea?Homosexuals can get married. But I don't have to accept their marriage. I am not judging them, the only person who has any right to judge, is God. I will accept the fact that they are people, but I will not accept what they do as being right.I will listen and respect opinions, but I don't have to agree an opinion to accept it.You are taking me out of context because you're implying that I'm a racist, which I'm not. I purely think that it is harmful what people can say to inter-racial marriage's children, and to help those children and protect them from emotional hurt, it might not be a good idea. It is fine other than that, and if the child can deal with it, it is absolutely fine, but you don't know that the child will be able to deal with that emotion. It's just simply hard on the child. As Morte has pointed out. That was exactly what I meant to imply, the marriage wasn't WRONG, it was A BAD IDEA.I will listen to human reason, but I just have to say, that losing your temper will not get you anywhere.The rights and benefits of marriage? The rights and benefits should have never gone into politics. Marriage is a holy thing, even to atheists. It's important, and should have stayed a purely religious thing, not Christian, but religious.This message has been edited by Rosie Cotton, 12-03-2004 06:09 PM

quote:

---

I don't even know why I am responding to you, since you really sound like one of those I-know-all and my-opinion-is-all-that-matters Christians who never once give any consideration for human reason.

---

I'm not so sure of that - [s]he seems much more willing to listen to and concede opposing points than most of the dogmatic, stick-to-your-guns types are.No, I think that this is more of a problem of being misinformed (such as believing that marriage is a solely religious institution or that legalizing same-sex marriage forces churches to recognize such marriages). And with the amount of misinformation about the issue being spread by so many, how can you blame anyone for that?

I blame people because they should have known better than to listen and believe everything their local preacher told them. I blame them because they should have looked for secondary sources. I blame them because, like Goodintentions said, they seem to think that it is their bussiness to be nosy in other people's bussiness (no offense ned ).

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

quote:

---

Marriage has everything to do with religion. Who preforms the marriages? Churches!

---

Um, no.First of all, you have, as many Christians in the US seem to easily do, forgotten that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world, and in fact there are many more non-Christians than Christians woldwide?People also get married in synagogues, mosques, temples, shrines, Druid stone circles, and in many other places.Secondly, you might get married in a religious ceremony but unless you have a valid marriage license, which is issued by the state, you will not be legally married. If you are not legally married, you cannot claim the benefits and are not bound to the responsibilities of a legal marriage.

You still have not answered my question so I'll change it a little for you.Can a heterosexual couple get married in the US without first getting a license from the State?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I blame people because they should have known better than to listen and believe everything their local preacher told them. I blame them because they should have looked for secondary sources. I blame them because, like Goodintentions said, they seem to think that it is their bussiness to be nosy in other people's bussiness

---

I can't argue against the first two, though you must recognize that not everyone will always be as informed as you would like them to be (I know little about abiogenesis theories, for example, which is why I tend to read but not comment in threads about them). The immense amount of misinformation out there makes it entirely possible that Rosie did try secondary sources. Propaganda doesn't occur in isolation. Furthermore, I think that the fact that Rosie is actually listening to our points rather than simply restating the same assertions (a la PG) is a sign that [s]he is trying to become more informed. I could be wrong, but I won't judge until we've seen a little more from Rosie as new information is presented.However, because of the misinformation, the third point isn't quite valid. You and I know that legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't force churches to recognize it, and therefore we can recognize that legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't attack churches or their principles. However, since [s]he believes that the government is trying to force his/her church to do something that it is vehemently opposed to, morally (which would also go against the principle of separation of church and state as well, were it true), from Rosie's point of view it is his/her business.I'm not trying to justify the misinformation, just saying that you should blame the misinformers, not the misinformed.{Edited to add "threads about" in regards to abiogenesis theories, and curse the Internet's lack of gender specificity. }This message has been edited by Morte, 12-03-2004 07:22 PM

[qs=Morte] However, since [s]he believes that the government is trying to force his/her church to do something that it is vehemently opposed to, morally (which would also go against the principle of separation of church and state as well, were it true), from Rosie's point of view it is his/her business.[/qs] I don't agree.Unless she's been living under a rock all her life, she should have known that you can get married in a court house with a judge. Unless she's been living under a rock all her life, she should have known that the government can't force the churches to recognize anything. Heck, unless she's been living under a rock all her life, she should have known that you are not officially married until you get a marriage licence from your state not your church.There are certain things in the world that are obvious. It's like posting messages on this board (which requires a computer and internet access) and claiming that computers are powered by invisible pink unicorns.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Schrafinator, "churches" refers to religious assemblies. Like in CHURCH and State, not churches as in Christian CHURCH.

In case you wondered, I have not been living under a rock all my life. And yes, the government can, as has, forced views on others.I know that you can get married in a Court House, but most people, whether religious or not, get married in a building of worship, since people got mad at my use of the term church.I know that you need a marriage lisence. A copy of my parent's marriage lincense hangs over their bed, and they were married in a religious building.Your pink unicorns thing is entirely unconnected, since my use hyperbole was attack in such a way, I don't really think you should use it either.I listen to your opinions "open-minded" people, but what do you want from me? I admit, maybe I was mis-informed about the thing that you say, but that doesn't mean I live under a rock. I was accused of thinking that I knew all earlier, but you, I don't think that you have been informed of everything on this Earth either. Just because you know something that I didn't know, doesn't make me a beneath-the-rock dweller.

I believe I was misinformed on that topic. But I do think that the state should have stayed out, no laws, no rights. However, I think that they have reached the point of no return and therefore, need to stick with the laws they have.

No, but what I knew that you didn't know should be already known by every thinking adult in this country, if not in the world.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!