Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

[Blessedj01]

No it doesn't. Marriage predates the Jewish religion and was a custom in all cultures.

I respect your opinion but I don't agree. It doesn't. It wasn't marriage as we know it and it wasn't marriage in the sense that it is described in the Bible. The first marriage was between Adam and Eve, then we see marriage codified by Moses. Prior to that, "marriage" was a man-made concept just like a civil union.

If you wish to advocate for that then by all means do so. It does not change the fact that currently marriage is ensconced in secular law and we must either change that or allow homosexuals to be married.

Or, homosexuals can simply have a civil union. Problem solved isn't it?

 

[Blessedj01]

I take it you are YEC and Biblical literalist then? Because that is the only way I can see that you can think that marriage did not exist prior to the time of Moses.

Not sure, but I would call those "marriages" before Moses the first civil unions. Aside from Adam and Eve, and Moses and Abraham, none of those other "marriages" recognized the spiritual significance of Jesus as God.

They would have been secular civil unions, or "marriages" with other gods as witnesses.

Then what do you call it when two Hindu believers get married? Two Buddhists?

The same situation as homosexuals who don't believe in God wanting to be married. It's not a marriage, it's something else. But it's not God's marriage. If anything, it's a marriage in the eyes of God that the people do not recognize to be such.

Why should anyone do that when a perfectly logical institution already exists?

Why would you not just apply that answer to civil unions?

 

[Blessedj01]

The term "marriage" is not used exclusively for the jewish and derived concept. Cultures before Judaism and outside of Judaism have this institution, which is also referred to (in the english language) as "marriage". The term "marriage" itself comes from Latin, not Hebrew.

That is not something that Jews or Christians can claim as their exclusive property.

If you don't believe in marriage, go and have a "divinely inspired union between man and subordinate woman".

No, they have a similar institution but it is not the same. I know that the term marriage is fairly modern, but it has it's roots in the Christian tradition which has it's root's in the Jewish tradition.

If it's not Jewish or Christian property, why do people want to it inside Jewish and Christian churches who don't want to perform it?

If you don't believe in marriage, go and have a "divinely inspired union between man and subordinate woman"

That is what marriage is, but why do you need to call the woman subordinate? That's your own personal prejudice.

 

[Aldebaran]

Except that most US states do not have civil unions and civil unions in the US don't provide the exact same legal benefits, due to the fact that the federal government has no legal recognition of that relationship.

Then I guess it's not about "being able to love the person you want" anymore, it's now about getting special recognition.

 

[Cute Tink]

If it's not Jewish or Christian property, why do people want to it inside Jewish and Christian churches who don't want to perform it?

I don't know what areas of the world you are familiar with, but since I am more familiar with the US, I will stick to that portion.

I am not aware of many who want ceremonies in Jewish or Christian churches if the church doesn't want them there. A religious ceremony is not required in the US. I do not foresee any court in the US backing the idea that someone can force a church to conduct a ceremony they do not agree with.

 

[AirPo]

If it's not Jewish or Christian property, why do people want to it inside Jewish and Christian churches who don't want to perform it?

They don't.

 

[Aldebaran]

If you wish to advocate for that then by all means do so. It does not change the fact that currently marriage is ensconced in secular law and we must either change that or allow homosexuals to be married.

It had to be changed in the first place to allow homosexuals to be married. In fact, judges had to overturn bans that were put in place by the voters themselves through referendums. So it doesn't sound to me like "society" is the entity that wanted this homosexual marriage thing to happen.

 

[Cute Tink]

Then I guess it's not about "being able to love the person you want" anymore, it's now about getting special recognition.

It's about getting the same recognition, not special. There is nothing "special" about getting the exact same thing as everyone else.

 

[Belk]

I respect your opinion but I don't agree. It doesn't. It wasn't marriage as we know it and it wasn't marriage in the sense that it is described in the Bible. The first marriage was between Adam and Eve, then we see marriage codified by Moses. Prior to that, "marriage" was a man-made concept just like a civil union.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Or, homosexuals can simply have a civil union. Problem solved isn't it?

In your country, not in mine.

 

[Cute Tink]

It had to be changed in the first place to allow homosexuals to be married. In fact, judges had to overturn bans that were put in place by the voters themselves through referendums. So it doesn't sound to me like "society" is the entity that wanted this homosexual marriage thing to happen.

FYI, it is being overturned by judges because the majority cannot vote away the rights and sometimes even the privileges of the minority just because "eww".

 

[Freodin]

No, they have a similar institution but it is not the same. I know that the term marriage is fairly modern, but it has it's roots in the Christian tradition which has it's root's in the Jewish tradition.

And it has its roots in a lot of other traditions, which you want to file under "civil union".

If it's not Jewish or Christian property, why do people want to it inside Jewish and Christian churches who don't want to perform it?

There are Jews and Christians who want to have same sex marriages in their churches, and there are churches that offer these services.
And there are others who couldn't care less about Jewish or Christian or whatever churches... they just want to get married.
The judicial set for "marriage" is the state, the secular state... not the church.

You might find that deplorable from a theological point of view, but that is the status quo.

That is what marriage is, but why do you need to call the woman subordinate? That's your own personal prejudice.

Not mine... but some christians do think this way. Do you think that have a wrong view of "marriage" and should rather have a... whatever you want to call it, but not "marriage", because that term belongs to your own personal religion exclusively?

Well, it doesn't.

Every "marriage" that is recognized by the state is already a "civil union". To make up a new category that is equal to a secular marriage except for the name is an unnecessary pampering for people like you who seem to place more value in words than human beings.

 

[Queller]

None of that matters. It doesn't make sense to want something that originally began in a religious, biblical context, if you reject that context, when you can get those same rights legally in another form.

The problem with your argument is that marriage did not begin in a biblical context. Many cultures developed the idea of marriage independently.

It's kind of like me demanding that I can go on a haj to mecca when I'm not a Muslim.

You're correct but not for the reason you think you are. Not everyone can go on a haj because a haj is only something that Muslims do. Just like receiving Communion is something only Christians do (as far as I am aware). Marriage however, is something that many cultures have had for thousands of years, long before the spread of Christianity or Judaism.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's about getting the same recognition, not special. There is nothing "special" about getting the exact same thing as everyone else.

You want the same thing as a man and woman who get married. If you're a woman who wants to "marry" another woman, then you're talking about a different situation, but want the same recognition.

 

[Aldebaran]

Really?

Here is the Webster's definition below. Do you often cherry pick parts of definitions that suit you?

: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not
: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing

Discrimination - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Ok, so which of these 3 do you want to use? It's best to get that out of the way before demanding an answer. Otherwise, it just invites arguments and misunderstanding.

 

[Queller]

I respect your opinion but I don't agree. It doesn't. It wasn't marriage as we know it and it wasn't marriage in the sense that it is described in the Bible. The first marriage was between Adam and Eve, then we see marriage codified by Moses. Prior to that, "marriage" was a man-made concept just like a civil union.

If you want to refer to a specific subset of marriage called "marriage as codified by Moses" you are welcome to. However, there are many other versions of marriage that are equally valid in the eyes of the law.

Or, homosexuals can simply have a civil union. Problem solved isn't it?

Not even remotely. Civil unions do not provide the same legal protections as marriage nor does the federal government recognize civil unions in any state. Therefore they aren't equal.

 

[Blessedj01]

You can say whatever you want and approach it from any angle you want. You can talk about gay Christians, gay Jews, or gay leprechauns if you want to.

It won't change the fact that God instituted marriage and that our modern day marriage has it's basic root in the tradition codified by Moses.

If you want to believe something different, that's up to you.

Personally if I was gay I'd just get a civil union. At least in my country, civil unions were on paper EXACTLY the same as marriages except for name. I wouldn't want anything to do with the 'horrible God of the Bible.'

...then again we all want everything these days don't we. Even that which is not ours to claim. That's all i'm gonna say.

 

[Belk]

It had to be changed in the first place to allow homosexuals to be married. In fact, judges had to overturn bans that were put in place by the voters themselves through referendums. So it doesn't sound to me like "society" is the entity that wanted this homosexual marriage thing to happen.

Society is not an entity and I made no mention of them. Was there a reason you wished to bring them up?

 

[Aldebaran]

Marriage however, is something that many cultures have had for thousands of years, long before the spread of Christianity or Judaism.

But just like Christmas, it doesn't have the same meaning. To Christians, it celebrates the birth of Christ. To secularists, it celebrates commercialism. In other words, the name is the same but the meaning is different.

 

[Cute Tink]

You want the same thing as a man and woman who get married. If you're a woman who wants to "marry" another woman, then you're talking about a different situation, but want the same recognition.

Just like there are atheists who get married - a different situation, but same recognition. Allowed though.

You notice what you did though? You just admitted nobody is trying for "special", just the same. Can I expect you to not pull out the "they want special" argument anymore?

 

[Queller]

Not sure, but I would call those "marriages" before Moses the first civil unions. Aside from Adam and Eve, and Moses and Abraham, none of those other "marriages" recognized the spiritual significance of Jesus as God.

They would have been secular civil unions, or "marriages" with other gods as witnesses.

OK, so they were marriages. You have been arguing that they weren't marriages.

The same situation as homosexuals who don't believe in God wanting to be married. It's not a marriage, it's something else. But it's not God's marriage. If anything, it's a marriage in the eyes of God that the people do not recognize to be such.

And yet is is still a marriage, even by your definition.

Why would you not just apply that answer to civil unions?

Because civil unions do not provide the same legal protections as marriage nor does the federal government recognize civil unions in any state. Therefore they aren't equal.