Conquer Club

Here is my definition of "marriage".

Marriage--is a religious ritual defined by religious institutions and has nothing to do with the State. This religious ritual can allow "marriage" as it sees fit and is unobtrusive to the State and the functions of the State. The State, in no way should infringe on a religion by "defining" what members of the State deem to be an appropriate "marriage", as "marriage" is defined by the religious entities that a citizen may belong to. Therefor, the State shall not recognize any definition of "marriage" into its laws, as "marriage" is a religious ritual that is defined by religious institutions and NOT the State. The separation of Church and State must fall in line when it comes to the definition of what a "marriage" can and can not be (as is allowed by the individuals private religious beliefs). The State legally cannot define "marriage" as it crosses the line between Church and State, and therefore must recognize such bonds as being only Civil Unions that would allow individuals (married by said definition or unmarried do to personal beliefs) the continued benefits of previous unions without dictating any said definition that intrudes upon the lines of Church and State. A person is allowed one Civil Union partner that allows for that individuals rights towards life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; any other such definition that obscures the lines of Church and State must not be recognized by the State.

Whether or not you agree with gay marriage, doesn't make gay people not want to get married to each other. And if you are secure in your heterosexual lifestyle, then why in the hell does it matter to you if someone wants to marry someone else of the same sex?

Marriage is a religious thing, that is, what ever your religion deems to be okay to marry...have at it, as long as the marriage doesn't interfere with another persons right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! (Trees, dogs, shrimp) However, the government should only allow a Civil Union partnership...it should not define or get involved with religious/moral definitions of what is considered a marriage or not.

North Carolina and other sicko states can consider there "marriage definition" against the law.

an arbitrary agreement between two people that has (or shouldn't have) no legal, moral or any other significant effect other than people going "oh, they've been married for x number of years"

A spiritual bond between a man and a woman that supersedes and completes any physical sexual attraction.

-SG7 ( )

Given that marriage can occur without religion, and that participants in a marriage need not be religious, and further that officials able to marry people need not hold religious office, marriage doesn't seem to be a religious thing. Especially if people can be married without any of the parties getting married, or the official preceding being religious.

Opposition to gay people getting married, seems to be a religious thing. And not even by consensus, lest I offend the many religious folk who also think this opposition in their name is BS.

Warning: Image may be offensive and possibly cause extreme hatred

Symmetry wrote:Given that marriage can occur without religion, and that participants in a marriage need not be religious, and further that officials able to marry people need not hold religious office, marriage doesn't seem to be a religious thing. Especially if people can be married without any of the parties getting married, or the official preceding being religious.

Opposition to gay people getting married, seems to be a religious thing. And not even by consensus, lest I offend the many religious folk who also think this opposition in their name is BS.

Do you think there's a point to marraige other than for religious reasons and legal reasons? I think I remember you said in the other thread that gays also want to get married because of love but if it wasn't for the legal reasons (and the fact taht my future wife will more than likely want to get married) I see zero importance on it.

Like I said before, it's just an arbritrary agreement to stay together that's hardly honored (my parents got a divorce, for example).

Phatscotty wrote:Warning: Image may be offensive and possibly cause extreme hatred

On this site that's an understatement.

beezer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Warning: Image may be offensive and possibly cause extreme hatred

On this site that's an understatement.

Yeah, like marriage belongs exclusively to the poor, hunted Christians.

If you define marriage as a religious rite, then the (U.S.) gov't has no authority to legislate laws regarding it. If you define marriage as a non-religious item, then religious groups have no authority is determining the specifics of a union.

Get over it.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Yeah, like marriage belongs exclusively to the poor, hunted Christians.

If you define marriage as a religious rite, then the (U.S.) gov't has no authority to legislate laws regarding it. If you define marriage as a non-religious item, then religious groups have no authority is determining the specifics of a union.

Get over it.

-TG

STOP PERSECUTING THE HELPLESS WHITE HETEROSEXUAL MIDDLE CLASS CHRISTIANS LIVING IN A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY.

you monster.

and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Tyranny of the Minority

Phatscotty wrote:and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Tyranny of the Minority

wat

Phatscotty wrote:and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Tyranny of the Minority

Indeed, how dare they take your fundamental right to dictate how other people live their lives. THE CADS.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Tyranny of the Minority

Indeed, how dare they take your fundamental right to dictate how other people live their lives. THE CADS.

how does my dic-tate?

Two people soon to be divorced

I agree the government should get out of the marriage business. They should stop issuing marriage certificates. They should only issue legal documents for partnerships/unions. Churches etc can issue marriage certificates. Thus if a gay couple wants to get married, all they need to do is a find a church that will marry them.

If you get married in the church, the government should not recognize it for legal aspects. Only once you have filled out the proper government documents in triplicate do you gain the legal rights of a partnership between two people.

We need to stop placating religious zealots. We need to stand up to their tolerance, hate, ignorance and backwards thinking ways. We cannot allow them to drag us down to their level, but must instead use knowledge and education as weapons to destroy their ignorance, fear and hate, bringing them up to our level of lightened individuals.

Jippd wrote:Two people soon to be divorced

Jippd wins a chicken dinner. Send it to him in the mail, CreepersWiener.


--Andy

bedub1 wrote:I agree the government should get out of the marriage business. They should stop issuing marriage certificates. They should only issue legal documents for partnerships/unions. Churches etc can issue marriage certificates. Thus if a gay couple wants to get married, all they need to do is a find a church that will marry them.

If you get married in the church, the government should not recognize it for legal aspects. Only once you have filled out the proper government documents in triplicate do you gain the legal rights of a partnership between two people.

We need to stop placating religious zealots. We need to stand up to their tolerance, hate, ignorance and backwards thinking ways. We cannot allow them to drag us down to their level, but must instead use knowledge and education as weapons to destroy their ignorance, fear and hate, bringing them up to our level of lightened individuals.

Can you explain the point of this photograph a little but more? What are the results of mixing the races? Does a race really not have the right to preserve it's own race? Also, how many states was it illegal for interracial marriage? just some questions.

btw I agree the government should get out of the marriage business. Look what has happened to marriage since the government got in. Just like the public school system, just like the banking system, just like tuition, just like real estate, can't wait to see the health care system.

Restore America = shrink the government.

Phatscotty wrote:Can you explain the point of this photograph a little but more? What are the results of mixing the races?

In the south, parts of Europe, mixed race individuals are called "mulatto" or "mixed". Biologically, mixing the gene pool in generally considered positive, though humans mostly try not to view themselves as just biology.

Phatscotty wrote:Does a race really not have the right to preserve it's own race?

Wrong question. Does a group of people have the right to control what its members do? That is the question. You have the right to marry whom you please. I don't think you have the right to decide who someone else should marry, except in cases where real harm is involved.
(talked about voluntary polygamy in other threads, not getting into that here).

Phatscotty wrote:Also, how many states was it illegal for interracial marriage? just some questions.

Here is the Wikkipeadia article on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-misce ... ted_States

The short answer is that when slavery became firmly associated with race, most states had "whites cannot marry blacks" marriage rules. Many prohibited marriage between whites and native Americans.

Of course, the most famous are the southern states, particularly Mississippi , that continued the rules until the civil rights era revoked them. Virginia is the state with the lawsuit that essentially legalized interracial marriage in all states.

Phatscotty wrote:btw I agree the government should get out of the marriage business. Look what has happened to marriage since the government got in. Just like the public school system, just like the banking system, just like tuition, just like real estate, can't wait to see the health care system.

Restore America = shrink the government.

Yeah, let's just go back to 1892.... or perhaps 1926. Lack of regulation did wonders then, didn't it.

Just look how stupid this lady looks in that photo:

Marriage is a social construct. It is used to give your relationship a certain sense of legitimacy. It is also in most cases used as a contract between the parties of a relationship, about things both parties commit and agree to within the bounds of said relationship.

Therefore, marriage should be allowed between any number of consenting adults of any gender. Any opposition to this ideal is plain bigotry which spews forth from religions wanting to impose their moralities on other people.

Phatscotty wrote: Does a race really not have the right to preserve it's own race?

Phatscotty is a RACIST.

natty dread wrote:Marriage is a social construct. It is used to give your relationship a certain sense of legitimacy. It is also in most cases used as a contract between the parties of a relationship, about things both parties commit and agree to within the bounds of said relationship.

Therefore, marriage should be allowed between any number of consenting adults of any gender. Any opposition to this ideal is plain bigotry which spews forth from religions wanting to impose their moralities on other people.

I agree. If two couples want to get married and live in the same house, raise their children together, share joint expenses, I believe they should be allowed to.

bedub1 wrote:

natty dread wrote:Marriage is a social construct. It is used to give your relationship a certain sense of legitimacy. It is also in most cases used as a contract between the parties of a relationship, about things both parties commit and agree to within the bounds of said relationship.

Therefore, marriage should be allowed between any number of consenting adults of any gender. Any opposition to this ideal is plain bigotry which spews forth from religions wanting to impose their moralities on other people.

I agree. If two couples want to get married and live in the same house, raise their children together, share joint expenses, I believe they should be allowed to.

Couples? Why only "couples"? You don't think 2 guys and a girl should get married, or 3 girls and 2 guys, or 3 guys, or... why only limit it to couples? Or am I misunderstanding your meaning here? To me a "couple" seems to refer exclusively to a 2-person unit. Maybe you'd like to clarify if that isn't what you meant?

I really don't care who gets married. I just used 2 couples as an example. For all we know they are 2 gay men and 2 gay women, not 2 straight couples.

I also don't have a problem with children "marrying" their parents. In the US we shove our parents in old-folks homes. It's my understanding that other countries the children allow their parents to live with them when they get too old. The grandparents help take care of the grandchildren. This creates a much stronger family unit.

I don't even have a problem with relatives getting married. If they are too closely related to each other I recommend against having children together as the chance for deformities increases dramatically. It is also beneficial to bring in external genes to strengthen the individuals.

natty dread wrote:Marriage is a social construct. It is used to give your relationship a certain sense of legitimacy. It is also in most cases used as a contract between the parties of a relationship, about things both parties commit and agree to within the bounds of said relationship.

Therefore, marriage should be allowed between any number of consenting adults of any gender. Any opposition to this ideal is plain bigotry which spews forth from religions wanting to impose their moralities on other people.

Phatscotty wrote: Does a race really not have the right to preserve it's own race?

Phatscotty is a RACIST.

You make Europeans look bad

Phatscotty wrote:You make Europeans look bad

Oh BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRN.

Ouch, Phatscotty. How will I ever recover from the SICK BURNS you administer with pinpoint accuracy towards my person?

Everyone, clear out the ER! There's a victim with 3rd degree SICK BURNS coming through. It's me. The victim is me.

- Doctor, can you save the patient? The nurse asks.

- I don't know, Nurse. I don't know, answers the Doctor. - I have never seen SICK BURNS like this in my entire career. We need to perform the most extensive SKIN GRAFT ever conceived in the entire field of medical profession. It may also be we have to do an ASS TRANSPLANT, seeing as how the victim got his ASS HANDED TO HIM.

- We have a prime ASS DONOR coming through on a medical helicopter, an Intern interjects.

- Shut up, Intern! snaps the Doctor. - You speak only when spoken to!

The Intern lowers his eyes in shame. - Yes sir, he responds sheepishly. - I'm sorry sir. I was out of line, sir.

Boy, I sure hope they manage to salvage my Ass in the ALL TAINTS ASSHOLE HOSPITAL. Will they succeed? Find out in the next episode of "SCOTTY DELIVERS SICK BURNS"!