Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 175 Replies latest social current

  • LisaRose

    TakeOffTheCrown4 hours agoI cannot believe any of you were ever baptized. What are you going to endorse next? Bestiality. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man marrying a man; or a woman marrying a woman.
    Endorse this type of behavior on an internet forum if you desire. But keep this in mind, Jehovah knows who you are.

    I was baptized in May, 1969 at age 14. I prayed every day to Jehovah for wisdom and knowledge and guidance. I faithfully followed the Watchtower rules, staying in a bad marriage and trying to be a good Christian wife for 28 years, to the point that my health broke down and life no longer seemed worth living. At that point I concluded Jehovah either did not exist or didn't care about me and that following the advice of the Watchtower had been a big mistake. So your "Jehovah knows who you are" made me laugh, I've already been through worse than dying at Armageddon ever could be.

    So, back to your comments on same sex marriage. There is no correlation between bestiality and homosexuality, except in the imagination of those who don't know anything about either. It's the old "slippery slope" logical falacy, that permitting one type of behavior that is condemned in the bible means you necessarily will eventually allow all other things condemned in the bible. This is not rational. A certain percentage of humans are only attracted to their same sex, It's a fact. It's a fact that they will never be having happy in marriage to someone of the opposite sex. It's a fact that they can be happy, fulfilled and committed to someone of their own sex. Why this is of any concern to you I cannot imagine. You are free to only marry per your religion, no one is forcing you into a same sex marriage. Gay people just want what you already have, the right to marry the person they love and have the same legal protections afforded heterosexual couples.

    Yes, the bible condemns homosexuality, as well as a hundred other things. The problem is using the bible to arbitrate morality in the first place. The bible allows rape, as less long as the rapist compensates the father for his financial loss, the woman having no say in the matter. Slavery was acceptable in the bible, and Jesus did not condemn the practice. Men and children were slaughtered in war, women were taken as concubines, but hey, it's all OK because Jehovah said so.

    So, no, I don't accept the bible as a guide to morality. I find the "consenting adults" rule to be good enough for me. This is a higher level of morality than was used in the bible, since there is no rape and no slavery allowed under the consenting adults rule. Animals are not consenting adults, so no bestiality. Children are not consenting adults, so no pedophiles (you do know the Watchtower has a problem with pedophiles, right?).

    So go back to the Kingdom Hall where you can live in happy ignorance, talking about how degenerate the world is and how happy you are that Jehovah will soon annihilate all those wicked gay people and others who don't believe as you do. The thought of the horrible death of millions of men, women and children doesn't bother you, because of course you are such a moral person.

  • kaik

    I cannot believe any of you were ever baptized. What are you going to endorse next? Bestiality. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man marrying a man; or a woman marrying a woman.

    Endorse this type of behavior on an internet forum if you desire. But keep this in mind, Jehovah knows who you are.

    And I cannot believe you are so stupid that you compare consensual relationship between two loving adults with bestiality. Any case you do not define what relationship between two adults are. Nobody asked you for your permission.

  • garyneal
    For instance, we can't make you less judgemental or ignorant.

    Exhibit A, Miss Viviane. Can you be any less hateful or vitriolic?

  • garyneal

    Since no one addressed the concerns of getting government out of marriage, I will give my two cents on the topic. Viviane, feel free to spew hate or vitriol at me if you disagree.

    I think it absolutely is the business of government to ensure that all people are given the rights they are entitled to.

    Yes, but if government IE the state is not involved in the institution of marriage and instead protects the freedoms of individuals to marry who they want then it is indeed doing the job of ensuring rights people are entitled to. Now, having said that I suppose it would only be fair to limit marriage to two (or more) consenting adults.

    By saying that government should stay out of it, the default position for that is...what? that religion should concern themselves with the legalities of marriage?

    Marriage would be little more than a contract between two (or more) consenting adults. The contract would spell out mostly the financial obligations as well as child custody in the event the marriage contract is dissolved. It would be enforced the same way any other contract is enforced.

    As far as the religious ceremony, that would be up to the adherents of said religion. If a Catholic wishes to be "married" in a Catholic church then of course he or she should adhere to the church's teachings. However, that is for the individual to decide and has no bearing on the marriage contract that the partners enter into voluntarily.

    If it isn't the business of government...then tell me, whose business is it? Who is going to stand up for the rights of the minority??

    How would the minority have their rights trampled on given this arrangement?

    Who would decide child custody cases and divorce disputes over property?

    This is spelled out in the contract and enforced like any other contract.

  • The Rebel
    The Rebel

    In my opinion it's all about projection and image. If we see people who have a sweet humanity, we will root for them. So I think the answer lies with the entertainment industry. If we are constantly bombarded with narcissist heroes like James Bond and the Bronson hero then people are presented with a very shallow image of masculinity. And I believe this effects a persons outlook on how they view masculinity and femininity.

    Another example we have a royal wedding and n T.V, its like a Walt Disney fantazy of how the perfect wedding should be.

    I generally believe the T.V is what holds the power of education.

    So let's have formal gay marriages complete with male bridesmaids on our T.V screens. Let's have these ceremonies seen not as something to be scorned by the world, but rather:-

    A) A marriage that enhances a persons character.

    B) A marriage that involves courage and moral choice, rather than to deny the feelings of love that exist between two people.

    So to conclude folks, I believe the entertainment industry holds the power to achieve a significant breakthrough in people's attitude on this subject.

    The Rebel.

  • kaik

    garyneal, Government was always involved in marriage since 1791 because it was considered civil contract as well. For that reason county courts in USA were required to collect information in their jurisdiction regarding marriage. I had civic marriage in USA and no religious. My spouse is Jewish (orthodox), and we did not want any rabbi to get involved in it. Government has as much right to get involved in the marriage as it is desirable and necessary for tax purposes, census data, alimony, inheritance, and benefits.

    Currently slight majority of Americans are not associated with any church and good portion of population does not belong to any religious organization. Therefore, state, county, and federal government plays a crucial role in giving people to right to marry and with it all the associated benefits. Removing government from marriage business in secular society is impossible and undesirable.

  • garyneal
    Removing government from marriage business in secular society is impossible and undesirable.

    Forgive me kaik but I am not sure how it is impossible and undesirable. If two (or more) people decide to enter into a contract akin to a "marriage" why does the state need to be involved? What associated benefits would incur? How about the ability to file a joint tax return, is that a benefit? If so, then why do we need that? Can't the parties file separately?

    Tax purposes? Census Data? Why?

    Alimony, inheritance? Can't these also be spelled out in the contract? Why do we need the state for that?

    Benefits? You mean like domestic partner(s) benefits? Doesn't some private insurers and employers already extend benefits for domestic partners? I know not all do but more and more do.

  • kaik

    Marriage is a complex contract. Government is involved since 1791. Marriage is legal binding document. It simplify issues like inheritance, property ownership, taxes, and identify a family unit under one census code. Government is therefore necessary. I do not pay taxes to any religious institution, I am secular and I do not give money to any religious institution. I pay taxes; local, state, and federal. Therefore, it is a government business. I want that my marriage is upheld by the government in the case one of the spouses die. Every sane, industrial country in the world recognized that marriage is a civil contract and belongs under government involvement.

    I have not talked about domestic partner benefit. Since federal government decided to make marriage equal among sexes between two adult, domestic partnership is no more valid. Any case, if two same-sex couple could not file join taxes, having inheritance of common property or even claim SS benefits, it is discrimination as SCOTUS had ruled. Therefore, marriage between same sex or opposite sex is the government business. I do not care what any religious organization had to say about my marriage. I know that some orthodox Jewish synagogue would not validate my marriage to Jew, but I did not get married in synagogue, and I do not claim any Jewish benefits either.

  • nicolaou

    Everyone needs to chill out and get their gay on! I'd love to share some naked, soapy selfies with Junction Guy and TOTC if you guys are up for it . . .

  • kaik

    Religious marriage is still government contract. If you have a reverend, priest, rabbi, druid, imam performing marriage in USA, it is still a government contract. Even the retarded bible preacher who is officiant and hip hop in front of crucifix and screams "O praise Him" and perform marriage, is still doing government contract. For many who are not affiliated with any religious group, marriage can be performed at any court in USA. I do not need any religious officiant conduct my marriage. Marriage is valid in the front of law regardless if it was conducted by religious or secular officiant. Therefore, it is government business. It is ridiculous to claim that only religious ceremony is valid marriage license. It does not work that way. Even prior last SCOTUS ruling, gay couple could get married by many gay-friendly churches. On the other hand, many heterosexual marriage could not be conducted by people of mixed faith by religious officiant. For that reason, marriage became a secular contract between two people and the government. SCOTUS included this contract for SSM in 14 states which discriminated gay and lesbian people from possibility to enter into this contract.

Share this