Your stance on gay marriage

[The Montiarian Empire]

Hawt.

Women together are invariably hot and just barely 18. put that on the internet and add some religious stuff to satisfy my fetish.

That's has to be one of the creepiest and most awesome thing that I have ever heard. I agree, bring on the sexy girls and some religious stuff. And shrink one down to satisfy my fetish!

[New Helier]

I never understood the "gay marriages don't produce children" argument. Apart from the points that 1. they can and 2. the world is overpopulated, wouldn't this also mean infertile people shouldn't be allowed to get married? And couples that don't really plan on having children? Since when did marriage come to mean "churn out babies" Hell, might as well make it a law that any married couple that doesn't produce children within two years of their marriage should be forcibly divorced.

Dont give them ideas.

[Tekania]

No, it doesn't. For their marriage to be valid they still need a marriage license... Ergo, it is secular. They have simply decided to attach a religious ceremony to it.

Yes it does. They need a license and what-ever other criteria the couple may deem necessary. Ergo it is what they make of it. No one is talking about a ceremony here, religious or otherwise, when I and DK are talking about a religious nature to it, we're not talking about "a ceremony", we're talking about the people party to it's actually viewpoint of the personal institution itself... Lifelong... not just a fucking ceremony.

[Tekania]

It really doesn't matter if a particular couple attaches religious significance to their union, when you are talking about the legal recognition of that union, or even the social recognition of it. At least in the USA.

You're right, and maybe once Dyokovo and Grave get this through their think fucking skulls, it will no longer be an issue.

[Tekania]

That people consider it religious does in fact make it religious for them. As YOU are not a party to THEIR marriage your opinion does not matter (and most certainly is not fact).

I think the problem here is that YOU can't fucking handle reality.

I think the problem here is that YOU are ignorant of the law.

Not in the least bit.

[Grave_n_idle]

The problem here is the wording: "Marriage is not religious." That will alienate people who view their marriage as religious,

I don;t care if it alienates someone. I'm not going to pretend reality is different than it is, just to avoid upsetting someone.

...and they are more likely to stop listening at that point than if you simply said "Marriage is not universally religious" or "Marriage is not necessarily religious," either of which would be easier for them to stomach. You are generalizing from your own view of marriage,

Not at all. My own wedding was[p/i] religious. We married in a church, with a preacher and all the trimmings. We had a traditional Southern Baptist wedding.

But that was the wedding, which is a ceremony. We weren't officially 'married' until the paperwork was done. Which means my [i]wedding was religious, but my marriage is secular.

...and that's fallacious, because your view is itself not universal. The only necessary refutation of your assertion is "there is some x such that x is religious and x is marriage," which is, regardless of your personal beliefs and/or feelings on the matter, verity.

The challenge lies in your assumption that you are "pointing out that marriage is not religious." That's inaccurate; you are asserting your personal view of marriage as universal fact, when it is not.

On the contrary, all I'm talking about is the objective reality. You keep confusing the issue by conflating how people might SUBJECTIVELY feel about it, with the OBJECTIVE reality.

Now, my culturally-based view is that marriage is a civil contract between two or more consenting adults, but that's based on the historical laws and ethical teachings of my heritage,

Actually, where I come from - there are two different ways in which one can formally get married - a religious route, and a purely civil route.

...and is therefore also not capable of generalization to marriage as a whole nor in every particular (since my cultural heritage is not shared by all). However, it does have the virtue of not denying that marriage can be lived in tune with one's religious views, or even be interwoven with mystical beliefs and techniques to such an extent as to be considered a religious union.

See, you say it yourself. It can be 'considered a religious union'. Which means you're talking about subjective flavour added by the people involved, not inherent in the union.

If any legal mention is made of the religiosity (or lack thereof) of marriage, then, because of the First Amendment, all that should be said is "marriage is not universally religious, and is not the exclusive property of any one religion nor even of religion in general."

Marriage is not inherently or intrinsically religious, as I keep saying.

That much is factual. [b]To go further and state "marriage is not religious" or "marriage is a secular institution" would not only be the expression of opinion rather than fact, but would also be a violation of the First Amendment,

Horseshit.

[Grave_n_idle]

1: No shit? Here I thought I had a marriage and have been weddinged all these years...
2: People considering it religious does not make it religious.
3: No, I will continue trying to push reality onto people whether you or they like it or not.
4: Necessary or not it is reality. Not my problem that some people can't handle reality.

That people consider it religious does in fact make it religious for them. As YOU are not a party to THEIR marriage your opinion does not matter (and most certainly is not fact).

I think the problem here is that YOU can't fucking handle reality.

I think the problem is that some people think their SUBJECTIVE perspective matters in an OBJECTIVE sense.

I don't care if you think your marriage is religious. Marriage, itself, isn't.

[AWESOME321]

They can do what ever they want.

[Aggicificicerous]

You can have any sort of ceremony, religious or otherwise, and call it a marriage. But to become legally married, a couple must acquire a licence from the secular government. Thus, no matter how religious the wedding ceremonies may be, the "official" marriage is not religious.

I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

[Grave_n_idle]

It really doesn't matter if a particular couple attaches religious significance to their union, when you are talking about the legal recognition of that union, or even the social recognition of it. At least in the USA.

You're right, and maybe once Dyokovo and Grave get this through their think fucking skulls, it will no longer be an issue.

I assume "think fucking skulls' is supposed to be 'thick fucking skulls'?

I suggest you take a few minutes to calm down before you post anything else. When you're prepared to debate like an adult, maybe I'll debate with you.

[Samuraikoku]

I think the problem here is that YOU are ignorant of the law.

Not in the least bit.

If you weren't, you wouldn't say that marriage is religious according to the parties. You don't NEED the church to get married, you need the State license. End of story.

[Farnhamia]

That people consider it religious does in fact make it religious for them. As YOU are not a party to THEIR marriage your opinion does not matter (and most certainly is not fact).

I think the problem here is that YOU can't fucking handle reality.

I think the problem here is that YOU are ignorant of the law.

Why are the three of you arguing? Grave and 'Koku are right, marriage is secular in the US. And Tekania is right, if people attach a religious meaning to marriage then it becomes religious to them. Doesn't mean it is religious, they just think it is. Damned liberals, can't even take their own side in an argument.

[Distruzio]

Completely for it.

I do favor gay marriage. Just not a federal level decision on the matter.

Which is fine, as long as heterosexual marriage is also not recognized on a federal level. Anything else would be discrimination on the government's part.

Completely agree!

[The Halbetan Union]

Hawt.

Women together are invariably hot and just barely 18. put that on the internet and add some religious stuff to satisfy my fetish.

Meh.

[Dyakovo]

It really doesn't matter if a particular couple attaches religious significance to their union, when you are talking about the legal recognition of that union, or even the social recognition of it. At least in the USA.

You're right, and maybe once Dyokovo and Grave get this through their think fucking skulls, it will no longer be an issue.

Oh, I get what Bottle is saying. That doesn't change the fact that marriage is secular. Don't believe me? Try having a religious wedding performed without a marriage license and see if you get any of the rights that come with marriage. I'll give you a hint: You won't.

[Dyakovo]

<SNIP>They need a license<SNIP>

Case Closed

[Farnhamia]

You're right, and maybe once Dyokovo and Grave get this through their think fucking skulls, it will no longer be an issue.

Oh, I get what Bottle is saying. That doesn't change the fact that marriage is secular. Don't believe me? Try having a religious wedding performed without a marriage license and see if you get any of the rights that come with marriage. I'll give you a hint: You won't.

I can't imagine Tekania saying that. Granted I came a little late to this act but I read him more as saying that some people add a religious aspect to marriage and that makes marriage religious to those people.

[Tmutarakhan]

You're right, and maybe once Dyokovo and Grave get this through their think fucking skulls, it will no longer be an issue.

I assume "think fucking skulls' is supposed to be 'thick fucking skulls'?

Thick FUNKING skulls

[Samuraikoku]

I can't imagine Tekania saying that. Granted I came a little late to this act but I read him more as saying that some people add a religious aspect to marriage and that makes marriage religious to those people.

But that subjective aspect has nothing to do with validity.

[Farnhamia]

I can't imagine Tekania saying that. Granted I came a little late to this act but I read him more as saying that some people add a religious aspect to marriage and that makes marriage religious to those people.

But that subjective aspect has nothing to do with validity.

I don't think he meant to say that it did, except to the people to whom religion matters. Perhaps he was explaining why those people get so bent out of shape about same-sex marriage, and calling it "marriage."

[Dyakovo]

But that subjective aspect has nothing to do with validity.

I don't think he meant to say that it did.

And yet he said it...
*shrugs*

[Grave_n_idle]

Oh, I get what Bottle is saying. That doesn't change the fact that marriage is secular. Don't believe me? Try having a religious wedding performed without a marriage license and see if you get any of the rights that come with marriage. I'll give you a hint: You won't.

I can't imagine Tekania saying that. Granted I came a little late to this act but I read him more as saying that some people add a religious aspect to marriage and that makes marriage religious to those people.

The assertion that marriage is religious because some people think it is, is what keeps throwing me.

Marriage isn't religious, Some people may find it religious, but that's subjective versus objective.

Someone may get a profound religious experience out of taking a dump. That doesn't mean they have holy shit.

[Grave_n_idle]

I assume "think fucking skulls' is supposed to be 'thick fucking skulls'?

Thick FUNKING skulls

*nods*

That makes sense.

[Farnhamia]

I can't imagine Tekania saying that. Granted I came a little late to this act but I read him more as saying that some people add a religious aspect to marriage and that makes marriage religious to those people.

The assertion that marriage is religious because some people think it is, is what keeps throwing me.

Marriage isn't religious, Some people may find it religious, but that's subjective versus objective.

Someone may get a profound religious experience out of taking a dump. That doesn't mean they have holy shit.

Martin Luther is said to have been reading Paul's Letter to the Romans while engaged in just that bodily function, but that's neither here nor there. You're both right.

[Grave_n_idle]

The assertion that marriage is religious because some people think it is, is what keeps throwing me.

Marriage isn't religious, Some people may find it religious, but that's subjective versus objective.

Someone may get a profound religious experience out of taking a dump. That doesn't mean they have holy shit.

Martin Luther is said to have been reading Paul's Letter to the Romans while engaged in just that bodily function, but that's neither here nor there. You're both right.

There are those that would say Martin Luther had the right idea, and that's the only appropriate way to experience Paul's letters.

*nods*

I think Tek's problem with what I'm saying, is that he's missing the 'inherent and intrinsic' part.