Raven722 said:
Cobretti2 said:
Raven722 said:
Adinnieken said:
Raven722 said:
First, the term and concept of marriage is not exclusive to Christianity and was around long before it. So they don't own any rights to it nor should they be awarded such a thing. Then you also have to consider that being an atheist or of any religion besides Christianity is a sin as well. So are you going to start telling everyone in the nation that is not Christian that they cannot refer to it as being 'married'? Why not? You would have already prevented homosexuals from doing it. Why not go further and make sure those other heathens can't do it, too? It's ridiculous. It's just a compromise to help make Christian Americans feel like they're even more special in this world than they already believe they are and make it feel like they didn't really lose the argument.
|
I think you're missing the point. If religions want marriage to be a sacred institution, let it be so. Whether the term is civil unions or some other term, use it to describe a civil union, which is what a marriage is outside of sans religion.
|
I'm not missing the point at all. My point is that your point is absurd. It's not simply about how the term is used. It's an extension of the bigotry that Christians show others. It doesn't begin and end with homosexuals and marriage. They should not be awarded anything. Marriage is NOT a religious concept or term. It did not begin as, nor is it, THEIR sacred institution. Christians want you to think that it is. The only reason to call it anything other than marriage is because religious bigots can't stand the idea that they are not, in some way, denying people something if those people don't follow the rules that these Christians have chosen for themselves. They want a term and concept which predates their religion to be legally recognized as a Christian idea. If they don't like it then THEY can be the ones who choose a new term. Not force everyone else to accept the term as theirs when it never was to begin with. Besides, this is ultimately about striking down homosexuality. They don't bother trying to protest non-religious straight marriages which should be considered just as blasphemous to them if they think what they're trying to uphold is some kind of Christian born value or idea that only Christians should be allowed to engage in. This is much less about the ownership of a term and much more about trying to shaft a particular group of people that Christians don't like with every chance they try to give themselves.
|
Nice to see a reply that totally dismisses what these people believe in order to please another group.
Yes marriage may not have started out as a relgious term but they took it up many years ago to signify a sacret bond between man and woman when msot athiasts couldn't give a fuck about marriage. Same could be said for white people who invaded america and took the land from the Indians. I don't see Americans handing over their land back just because it wasn't theirs to begin with.
Also you are asking people to change their ways of thinking that has been in place for centuries. After all same could be said about people and guns in America. Where I live guns are stupid and pointless yet in America it is part of the culture. Look at all the uproar Obama had when he wanted to change a guns policy.
So why is it so hard for people to compramise and accept everyone has different beliefs? Like what is the main goal of getting the term marriage for gay people apart from pissing other people off?
|
Because marriage doesn't belong to Christianity, period. Many other religions and theological stances have been using the term and concept for ages. Before Christianity ever came to be. Should we now tell them they can't use it, not even just in the US but around the world, because Christians cried about it? Don't even talk to me about compromise when many of these Christians want nothing of the sort. The whole point of calling it something different is to deny the idea in some way, shape, or form to the gay community for being able to be considered married. So that's no better than what you're suggesting because they had no problem with it really when it was non-Christian straight couples. They even want to deny them the same kind of benefits that you get for being able to say you're married. There are significant differences between a piece of land where people live and an ideal and you know that. Having people change their ways of thinking that has been in place for centuries? How terrible. Because surely Christians have never been guilty of such a thing nor do they continue to be, right? I suppose we should have been more careful about slavery and women's rights because that was asking people to change their centuries-old ways of thinking.
|
What are these so called benefits? I here everyone talk about this but they never define them.
They are already recognised as couples, and thus are subject to the same benefits and paying the same taxes etc as straight couples.
Comparing gay marriages to slavary is like comparing apples and oranges. One is a humane issue the other is trivial just like guns it would seem in america.
