Marriage, at its conception, was a religious institution. The word "marriage" has evolved substantially in the last few centuries and has taken on a much more social and civil dimension. Atheists and non-Christians are entitled to participate in this instituition and we can't take that away.
Emphasis added.
As per troutman's post above, the marriage pre-dates Christianity by centuries if not millenia. Even in cultures that weren't exposed to Western Abrahamic religions until the last 500 years or so, marriage still exists. I'm not sure why so many people seem to think that marriage is exclusively a religious (and specifically Christian) institution when it clearly isn't.
I agree that unions which are really no different then 'marriage' per say have existed longer then organized religion itself but I think religion gravitates towards the term 'marriage' as they feel it applies specifically to them. Really what's the difference between marriage, union, common law relationship. All in all it's merely the bond and commitment of two people to each other. To Christianity anyways I interpret it as a bond between a man and a woman. That's why I never understand why gay couples insist they have to be 'married' what do they care as long as they are fairly treated as equals in the government secular system.
These right wings nutjobs need to chill the eff out. Fifty years ago blacks couldn't vote and were not given the same rights as whites. Now that seems ridiculous to the common twenty something year old. I hope in fifty years gay people are afforded the same thought.
The Following User Says Thank You to Aces High For This Useful Post:
More anti gay stuff, man these people are dramatic/apocalyptic
So basically, they want to let people use anti-gay slurs, and take away their rights? They're complaining about their rights being taken away, because a few guys want to marry their boyfriends? They act as if by being taught tolerance, their children are going to run off and start having sex, because of education? As if being homosexual in and of itself is going to cause one to contract AIDS and die at 25 years old?
This pisses me off more than few things in the world. There's no logic. They refuse to allow gay couples to marry because it is an attack on the "institution of marriage" and then get divorced when their own marriage gets a little tough. They cheat on their spouses and cheapen their marriage vows, but God forbid two people in love are allowed to marry if they happen to be the same gender.
These same people who spout off about pro-life, who insist that all children be born, refuse to allow gay couples the right to adopt. Where do they expect the children born to teenage mothers to go? Into already overcrowded foster systems and let on their own for most of their lives? There's a woman who comes into my shop who then takes the stance that women who adopt are selfish, and are preventing their own children from being born. She also claims that single moms are selfish, for putting themselves above their children and refusing to get married so that the child has two parents.
The sad thing is this woman is in her mid-40s. It isn't like she's one of the crazy senior citizens. We're used to that from them, growing up in a different era and all that. But no, this is an educated woman, a professor, who spouts this bull off to her students. It's just depressing to see.
Focus on your life, and let everyone else live their own.
The Following User Says Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
As per troutman's post above, the marriage pre-dates Christianity by centuries if not millenia. Even in cultures that weren't exposed to Western Abrahamic religions until the last 500 years or so, marriage still exists. I'm not sure why so many people seem to think that marriage is exclusively a religious (and specifically Christian) institution when it clearly isn't.
Marriage isn't exclusive to religion, as has been stated by you and others.
Its the intolerance of religious however that fight against gay marriage under the guise of religious rights/freedoms.
I think John Stewart said it best when talking to Huckabee, that religion is much more of a choice than being gay is, considering what we know now about genetics and other factors.
If we only had more people like this Bishop in the UK:
Quote:
"Let's be honest, most of the discrimination ... has come at the hands of religious people, and the greatest single hindrance to the achievement of full civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people can be laid at the doorstep of the three Abrahamic faiths: Christianity, Judaism and Islam," Robinson said in Atlanta at Emory University's Center for the Study of Law and Religion.
Justifying anti-homosexuality laws with presumed moral authority from the Bible's Book of Leviticus -- which says a man "shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" punishable by death -- ignores that life has changed since 400 B.C., Robinson said.
People today routinely do many other things, from eating shellfish to wearing two kinds of cloth, that Leviticus also labeled abominations, said Robinson.
Humanity's beliefs about God and life have evolved in many ways, but Leviticus's few verses about homosexuality "are quoted as if nothing has changed in our understanding since biblical times," Robinson said.
Robinson called on "religious voices and religious people to undo the harm and devastation" by helping the nation and religious communities to question, if not change their minds about, religious convictions that "we've been very sure about for thousands of years."
No, the only conclusion, and the point of this essay, is that we use our extant morality to determine which bits of religious texts are those we should follow and which bits are those we should ignore.
Religion uses the morality we already have to try and buttress its claims to deep truths. The mismatch between natural and biblical morality is a consequence of the attempt to mold our existing feelings of what is right and wrong into a power structure that wants to hijack our own nature and claim it for itself - it is parasitic on our naturally evolved sense of morality.
To throw another spin on it without religion in the equation, I wonder how the field of science can handle homosexuality because you would think it would seem strange when you would think the purpose of species is to procreate and to continue existence. If we were all gay we wouldn't last long on the planet. So biologically how do we look at it? A mutation in genes?
To throw another spin on it without religion in the equation, I wonder how the field of science can handle homosexuality because you would think it would seem strange when you would think the purpose of species is to procreate and to continue existence. If we were all gay we wouldn't last long on the planet. So biologically how do we look at it? A mutation in genes?
It does handle it, it happens in nature obviously as results of mutation (bad copying).
Its a typical misunderstanding that a purpose is required for mutation and evolutionary pressures, its more apt to suggest that a mutation that's beneficial will provide a benefit, thus that mutation has more likely success in the survival/procreation of a species and that mutation becomes something common in that species. A beneficial mutation might not become part of a species that's evolving, there's other factors to consider.
Think of a type of mouse living in a green grassland 50 million years ago, this isolated area was then a victim of a volcanic decimation, this brown mouse over many of generations went from brown to black. The black obviously benefited the mouse thanks to camouflage on the lava.
There are plenty of bad mutations, there are plenty of examples where something hinders a small number in a species, but evolution solves that because it doesn't evolve, it falls off.
Re-occurring issues like homosexuality, birth defects, etc.. These are just part of the equation as our genes are imperfect and the copying process is flawed, so you expect what we see in humans, regards to homosexuality.
It does handle it, it happens in nature obviously as results of mutation (bad copying).
Its a typical misunderstanding that a purpose is required for mutation and evolutionary pressures, its more apt to suggest that a mutation that's beneficial will provide a benefit, thus that mutation has more likely success in the survival/procreation of a species and that mutation becomes something common in that species. A beneficial mutation might not become part of a species that's evolving, there's other factors to consider.
Think of a type of mouse living in a green grassland 50 million years ago, this isolated area was then a victim of a volcanic decimation, this brown mouse over many of generations went from brown to black. The black obviously benefited the mouse thanks to camouflage on the lava.
There are plenty of bad mutations, there are plenty of examples where something hinders a small number in a species, but evolution solves that because it doesn't evolve, it falls off.
Re-occurring issues like homosexuality, birth defects, etc.. These are just part of the equation as our genes are imperfect and the copying process is flawed, so you expect what we see in humans, regards to homosexuality.
That's an even more frightening view of homosexuality. So homosexuals are just genetic mistakes or birth defects? Yikes...
I've read some convincing arguments by EO Wilson and others that homosexuality is actually where alot of humanity's altruism stems from, as they traditionally have taken care of their kins' children without having any of their own.
That's an even more frightening view of homosexuality. So homosexuals are just genetic mistakes or birth defects? Yikes...
I've read some convincing arguments by EO Wilson and others that homosexuality is actually where alot of humanity's altruism stems from, as they traditionally have taken care of their kins' children without having any of their own.
There's no definite clear reasons, a lot is yet unknown but that's definitely a factor in it.
Its not out of the realm of possibility that in the future when we start to genetically engineer our offspring to have turned off genes that bring about cancer, Alzheimer's, MS, etc.. If a number of genes are clearly identified to cause or highly increase the chances of homosexuality then the religious would be thrilled to know they can ensure their children are born straight.
There's a lot of assumptions in my statement, but boy does Bio Ethics have a lot of massive challenges ahead in its future, especially concerning genetics and bioengineering of our future species.
However as I said, its doubtfull theres a simple gay gene(s) and theres nothing else to it, as Dr. Francis Collins the famous Geneticist said:
Quote:
It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.
The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.
Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.
To throw another spin on it without religion in the equation, I wonder how the field of science can handle homosexuality because you would think it would seem strange when you would think the purpose of species is to procreate and to continue existence. If we were all gay we wouldn't last long on the planet. So biologically how do we look at it? A mutation in genes?
Clearly, since they don't serve any rational evolutionary purpose, gay people must be proof of God, since only He could have created them.
Seriously though, I don't think DNA mutation rates are anywhere near high enough to surport the theory that homsexuality is a mutation. Much more likely that's it's some kind of recessive gene that helps that persists because it helps the relatives of the homosexual survive (in the evolutionary sense).
One thing we know is that the more older brothers he has, the more likely a man is to be gay. However, this factor is only strong enough to account for 1/7 homosexual men.
To throw another spin on it without religion in the equation, I wonder how the field of science can handle homosexuality because you would think it would seem strange when you would think the purpose of species is to procreate and to continue existence. If we were all gay we wouldn't last long on the planet. So biologically how do we look at it? A mutation in genes?
How it can "handle" homosexuality? Huh?
How can the "field of science" "handle" being female? Because if we were all female, we wouldn't last long on this planet.
If all humans procreated constantly we wouldn't last long on this planet. The fact is that having a species that is ALWAYS in rut and having EVERY member be moreover heterosexual with an insanely long life span and (for males) period of fertility is suicidal for the species. It makes more than perfect sense to have some members who can't or won't reproduce. The human species needs some men who don't like p u s s y.
Christianity didn't invent the concept of marriage and don't have the right to lay claim to it. However, I have a problem with churches being forced to carry out gay marriage if it comes to that (i think it will be contested).
So many other things to worry about than this issue. It should be resolved already.
Marriage predates religion - hmmmm how is that again? So man started out without religion but was ignorant then got smarter got religion and now we have the universe completely figured out we have now would be an idiot to believe in god. Is that right? Someone needs to explain this one to me.
Blacks couldn't legally vote until 50 years ago? Really? since 1960? R U sure? I think a bunch of people under crosses at Gettysburg would say closer to 1865.
Quote:
Its not out of the realm of possibility that in the future when we start to genetically engineer our offspring to have turned off genes that bring about cancer, Alzheimer's, MS, etc.. If a number of genes are clearly identified to cause or highly increase the chances of homosexuality then the religious would be thrilled to know they can ensure their children are born straight.
This opens up all sorts of possiblities and will likely happen. Imagine that the religious right and the Gays picketing together against genetic engineering a true sign of the apocolypse.
Quote:
I've read some convincing arguments by EO Wilson and others that homosexuality is actually where alot of humanity's altruism stems from, as they traditionally have taken care of their kins' children without having any of their own.
Sort of like Priests then?
Sorry was a slow pitch pumpkin.... i had to swing. Maybe that altruism comes from something called a "maternal" instinct?
How about we let all the religious folks keep their "marriage" institution and create something new for everyone else but give them equal protection under the law? If you don't want a church wedding, you can go get "Unionized" down at the justice of the peace. Everyone says it is just words right except those old fashioned religious folks so let them keep what is theirs without corrupting it but give all the others on the secular side their own deal with the same legal protections.
Marriage predates religion - hmmmm how is that again? So man started out without religion but was ignorant then got smarter got religion and now we have the universe completely figured out we have now would be an idiot to believe in god. Is that right? Someone needs to explain this one to me.
Blacks couldn't legally vote until 50 years ago? Really? since 1960? R U sure? I think a bunch of people under crosses at Gettysburg would say closer to 1865.
Someone needs to explain that part to me too, cause that's indecipherable.
As for the vote, if we're just talking the US, officially the right to vote was granted to african americans with the 14th amendment in 1868, but full voting rights weren't really conferred upon everyone until the passage of the voting rights act in 1964. Which is of course just under 50 years ago.
How about we let all the religious folks keep their "marriage" institution and create something new for everyone else but give them equal protection under the law? If you don't want a church wedding, you can go get "Unionized" down at the justice of the peace. Everyone says it is just words right except those old fashioned religious folks so let them keep what is theirs without corrupting it but give all the others on the secular side their own deal with the same legal protections. Problem SOLVED!
How about we have the cake, you have the broccoli? Problem SOLVED!!
As for blacks and the 1960s, I think he was referring to the 1964 "Voting Rights Act". Yes, blacks were granted suffrage after the civil war, but many, many states made it near impossible for many blacks to qualify for voting. (Obviously beaten to the punch on that one)
Someone needs to explain that part to me too, cause that's indecipherable
What I was basically inferring was that there have been comments that marriage existed pervious to religion so therefore religion doesn't "own" it. Which is pretty ludicrious. Religion has existed ever since man saw things he could not understand and attributed them to a god. When man got organized religion did too, religions have evolved over the years just as society has. It has been that way ever since time immortal. Then funny part is in the second half of the arguement where since religion doesn't "own" marriage because they are ingnorant fools who don't believe in science they should just let it go an become "enlightened" like the rest of society. I am sure I can go back to manuscripts from the middle ages and find similar text on how we know enough about science now to abandon religion.
Quote:
As for blacks and the 1960s, I think he was referring to the 1964 "Voting Rights Act". Yes, blacks were granted suffrage after the civil war, but many, many states made it near impossible for many blacks to qualify for voting. (Obviously beaten to the punch on that one)
Saying that they didn't have the right to vote until 50 years ago and saying there were stringent policies that prevented them from voting until 1964 in 10 of the 50 states is quite another. In the early days of the colonies you had to be a land owner or be part of a church to vote so does that mean all the poor white folks didn't get to vote until 150 years ago?
With equal rights under the law what is the problem? You add ritual it takes religious connotations. If there were religions that accepted gay marriages we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. You present a legal problem you get a legal answer.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjinaz
How about we let all the religious folks keep their "marriage" institution and create something new for everyone else but give them equal protection under the law?
How about the religious folk come up with a new word for religiously sanctioned unions and the rest of us use "marriage"? Maybe you can call it "A Threesome with God", since apparently he is so involved in the whole thing that merely to contemplate using the same word for the unholy union of two same-sex people makes baby Jesus cry.
Or, the religious could just pipe down and stop trying to tell people what words they can and can't use to refer to their relationships. Your right to religious freedom doesn't include forcing everyone else to adjust to your vocabulary.
Do you think the ancients used the word "marriage" - obviously not, since it's English, not Hebrew or Greek or freakin' Sanskrit. So when you say we can't use the word "marriage", you're not upholding a tradition lost in antiquity, you're trying to control language for the purpose of setting up two levels of union: the religiously sanctioned kind which you prefer; and the civil kind that you see as lesser. Well, too bad - the 21st century is here and everyone gets to play in the same sandbox now.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Do you think the ancients used the word "marriage" - obviously not, since it's English, not Hebrew or Greek or freakin' Sanskrit. So when you say we can't use the word "marriage", you're not upholding a tradition lost in antiquity, you're trying to control language for the purpose of setting up two levels of union: the religiously sanctioned kind which you prefer; and the civil kind that you see as lesser. Well, too bad - the 21st century is here and everyone gets to play in the same sandbox now.
Really? wow. I bet you vomit into your throat everytime you sing "God keep our land glorious and free!"
The country was founded on religion and it is not easily separated. And actually it is keeping a tradition founded in antiquity. It is not just the Judeo Christian religions we are talking about here. It is as far as I know well maybe ALL of them. Most of them are much less forgiving of homosexuality than christians. I am saying both sides would be recognized equally just one is called marriage and is done by a church and the other is called <insert your chosen name here> and is done by non religious authority. Even heteros that aren't religious would not be "married". It is not about same sex marriage, it is about separating those who want a religious union and those that do not.
Someone needs to explain this one to me.
