Marriage: RITE or RIGHT?

RITE or RIGHT

  • Marriage is a Rite

    Votes: 4 50.0%
  • Marriage is a Right

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • Marriage is both a Rite and a Right

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • Marriage is neither a Rite nor a Right

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other.

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • Total voters
    8
Very well put. I actually like this explanation, Cat.

Neither my husband nor I believe in a god. Yet we are married. We had a civil ceremony. We enjoy the same legal rights as others who have chosen to make this lifetime commitment to each other.

that's also one more reason I believe, and have always believed,
government should stay out of the marriage 'business' all together.
They just need to keep records, without incentive for any couple, or group.

It's easy to support legislation when it agrees with one's personal belief
system, but if the shoe happens to be place on the other foot...not so good anymore.
So, just stay away from it....on the national level.
 
You mean like a satanic church?

You're really putting to much diluted thinking into this. The tradition and rite are historically very clear on the matter. After all my nation is based on JudeoChristian values. I can't speak for your nation.

No..not Satanic Churches, RM. Oddly enough, JudeoChristian churches marry same-sex couples. One that I witnessed was United Church and the other Anglican (Episcopalian).

Most of Canada is based on two specific religions, or rather, two faces of the same religion. From England, we get Anglican Church (Protestant)..and from the French side, Roman Catholic.

Whether you nation is based on JC values is debateable..and is still going on here. The point is moot. There are many JC values that are patently ignored by your gvt and people daily, whilst one line in the Bible seems sufficient to ban homosexuality in men, and another is interpreted as a ban on same-sex marriage.

There is a wall between religion and government. Break it at your own peril. On the other side of this wall is Theocracy...fascism in disguise.

You are proving the old adage: "A little knowledge is dangerous."

These values in regards to the Rite of Marriage are time tested and proven to be the best scenio for the future propagation of the species.

Unfortunately, monogamous relationship modern marriage is a social construct. Biblical marriage allows for harems and multiple wives, mistresses etc...

Whether it's the best scenario is also debatable. It's the most accepted scenario, granted.

You have the benefit of living at time where knowledge is exploding like no other time in history. You have a very limited amount of actual knowledge as we are at the dawn understanding the nature of the world. -- Yet you hold what you know as the absolute final truth. -- Even worse you take this very limited information and make wild theories and then proclaim them better than the traditions that have naturally developed over the last 2.5 million years.

Let me put in a frame of mind you might understand better. -- In the last ~2000 years we discovered knowledge that hydrocarbons can produce light, heat and even make cars move, jets fly and create fantastic consumer goods. We now know this naturally occurring set of chemicals pollute our biological world and does some degree of damage. This damage has increased and now has polluted enough to where we've taken notice. You and I both believe that we need to make some changes, that we need to stop using the limited knowledge we have on fossil fuels to avoid making more ways to pollute with it.

Much is the same with our very limited and more complex knowledge of human development. We are no where close to understanding human development. Your thinking is overly polluted with theroies and made up political fodder that are presented to you in a fashion that appears to make sense on the surface. Like the notion we can power our world with fossil fuel forever without consequences.

I prefer debate, trial and error...science is not about concensus, nor should it be about bully-pulpits. The current debate re: same-sex marriage is not about biology. Both sides of the equation like to use biology, sociology, psychology etc as tools in the debate, but when it's boiled down to it's essential core..it's a theological debate. One side sees homosexuality as a sin..the other does not. It's Theists v. deists+athiests


In contrast, traditions that have evolved over thousands of years are based on real observation and real consequence. They are proven. You seem to believe that your very limited pool of information are solid facts, they are not. They are over-thought rationalizations from people who trying to justify a behavior. Thought pollution if you will.

Even with all the scientific advance we have: The world is a dangerous place, it is an unfair place and it is a very unforgiving place. The future of the species and the survival of my nations are important to me. I have far more faith in the time tested traditions than I do in your over thought theories.

Don't mistake the time you live in as something changes the nature of the way the world works. You are not a god.
I'm afraid that you are assuming that current traditions resemble past traditions..and that this should be considered a good thing. Morals, mores, laws and traditions are far more fluid than you care to imagine.

Homosexuality exists. It is a biological trait. It exists as a very small percentage of the overall population. Certainly not in sufficient numbers to present as a threat to the survival of the human race, or of your nations.

There are far greater threats to the human race and far more numerous. As you said, nature is neither kind, fair, nor forgiving. Same-sex marriage is being given far too much emphasis considering it's overall impact. It's a bone...toss it to the homosexuals and lets get on to more pressing and important matters, eh.
 
Now you don"t even know what marriage is

Now you don"t even know what marriage is?

is this kinda like the Clinton is is thing?

yep when you seek to redefine a rite that has been
around for centuries into something that makes no sense
what so ever yer gonna have to get people to buy into some
seriously twisted logic to pull it off.

How many Americans bought the idea that what slick Willie did
wasn’t adultery? Only the immoral ones to be sure.
self same crowd that wants us normal folks to take it in the behind
with fag marriage.

I say no thanks keep yer peeny outta my poop hole plz

Thank goodness Bish
All the while I thought this was a march into communism
if it's really been a 'Republican Fascist takeover' all
along then I'm good with that.

Bring on the troopers!


2n9x91g.jpg
 
No..not Satanic Churches, RM. Oddly enough, JudeoChristian churches marry same-sex couples. One that I witnessed was United Church and the other Anglican (Episcopalian).

Most of Canada is based on two specific religions, or rather, two faces of the same religion. From England, we get Anglican Church (Protestant)..and from the French side, Roman Catholic.

Whether you nation is based on JC values is debateable..and is still going on here. The point is moot. There are many JC values that are patently ignored by your gvt and people daily, whilst one line in the Bible seems sufficient to ban homosexuality in men, and another is interpreted as a ban on same-sex marriage.

There is a wall between religion and government. Break it at your own peril. On the other side of this wall is Theocracy...fascism in disguise.
you're still stuck on the word Christian, it blinds you. It's JudeoChristian Values not the JudeoChristian Religion.

Marriage isn't really the governments business, they stepped in for their own purposes.

I don't really care about canadas thinking or laws.


Unfortunately, monogamous relationship modern marriage is a social construct. Biblical marriage allows for harems and multiple wives, mistresses etc...

Whether it's the best scenario is also debatable. It's the most accepted scenario, granted.

again, we're talking about JudeoChristian values. not the old testament religion.



I prefer debate, trial and error...science is not about concensus, nor should it be about bully-pulpits. The current debate re: same-sex marriage is not about biology. Both sides of the equation like to use biology, sociology, psychology etc as tools in the debate, but when it's boiled down to it's essential core..it's a theological debate. One side sees homosexuality as a sin..the other does not. It's Theists v. deists+athiests

No you're wrong. it boils down to time tested values that have evolved and are proven to work. Being hip and cool isn't science, its silly.



I'm afraid that you are assuming that current traditions resemble past traditions..and that this should be considered a good thing. Morals, mores, laws and traditions are far more fluid than you care to imagine.

Homosexuality exists. It is a biological trait. It exists as a very small percentage of the overall population. Certainly not in sufficient numbers to present as a threat to the survival of the human race, or of your nations.

There are far greater threats to the human race and far more numerous. As you said, nature is neither kind, fair, nor forgiving. Same-sex marriage is being given far too much emphasis considering it's overall impact. It's a bone...toss it to the homosexuals and lets get on to more pressing and important matters, eh.

I'd like to see the biological traits of homosexuality. Rainbows and leather?

One danger has little to do with another, although I'll agree that homosexuality may serve as a natural switch for population control or as the result of a piss-poor lifestyle put you into this dead-end loop.


But if marriage is a rite, why would homosexuals demand it when they get the exact same benefit under the civil union?

Having a right to union seems acceptable, why do the feel the need to diminish someone else's values?

IF marriage is nothing more than construct, it's only real value is the tradition. What gives a group who doesn't hold those values the right to devalue that construct?
 
But if marriage is a rite, why would homosexuals demand it when they get the exact same benefit under the civil union?

Prop-8 and it's ilk equally block civil unions - thus equating civil and religious marriage.

If the church in question has no issue with the rite being given to same-sex couples, then why shouldn't they be allowed to have them?
 
Prop-8 and it's ilk equally block civil unions - thus equating civil and religious marriage.

If the church in question has no issue with the rite being given to same-sex couples, then why shouldn't they be allowed to have them?

I'm not sure about that but.... I know that the compromise was offered and the gays flatly refused it. So be it.

Some single church(s) doesn't dictate the JudeoChristin values, so no it matters not.
 
I'm not sure about that but.... I know that the compromise was offered and the gays flatly refused it. So be it.

Some single church(s) doesn't dictate the JudeoChristin values, so no it matters not.

If Civil Unions were treated the same as marriage, I suppose that it would've been accepted. Civil Unions, as opposed to marriages,are only in effect at the state level.

I suppose that if Civil Unions and Marriage were given the same legal protections, then civil unions would be a perfectly acceptable alternative to a religious ceremony.
 
^ This is what liberals actually believe.

But whoa to the day if they ever find a gay gene, abortion will become illegal again.




So Bish, let me ask you a personal question: Have you ever had a homosexual experience? Maybe out of curiosity or just drinking a little to much. I would ask you this: How was the experience then and how do you feel about it today?

honest question ^
Somehow I doubt that..though I can see that the day after a gay gene is found that reps will finally okay genetic testing on humans.

Nope. Never found myself sexually attracted to men..or boys for that matter. I guess that I fall on the heterosexual side of the equation. Must be something I'm born with. :shrug:
 
If Civil Unions were treated the same as marriage, I suppose that it would've been accepted. Civil Unions, as opposed to marriages,are only in effect at the state level.

I suppose that if Civil Unions and Marriage were given the same legal protections, then civil unions would be a perfectly acceptable alternative to a religious ceremony.
wrong. civil unions were to be the same except in name (and tradition) ....it was flatly rejected. It was the tradition that they want to devalue.

Ask Rosie O'fatmouth, she got married for a political statement, not for love.
 
I almost had a homosexual experience once. I had been drinking heavily, I was ~21'ish. I woke up to some guy, Ben DeCordova, who had unzipped my pants and was trying to wrangle my wiener out of my pants into his mouth. I woke up to this and beat him with the coffee table.

Predatory behavior to feed an addiction. In the end, a few years later, Ben was killed by his sexual malfunctions.
 
You're thinking of the Federal Civil Union bill...which failed. The current Civil Union by states is in play and certainly not the same as marriage. The DOMA sank the FCU bill.

Many heterosexual people get married for less than valid reasons... immigration being one. Perhaps het-marriage should be made illegal until they can get their numbers lower than the 45% divorce rate they currently enjoy.
 
you are just a buncha tyrannical homophobes
and whenthey come back to change the traditions
by force of law
they will call you pedophobes
and you will cave on that one too
 
I almost had a homosexual experience once. I had been drinking heavily, I was ~21'ish. I woke up to some guy, Ben DeCordova, who had unzipped my pants and was trying to wrangle my wiener out of my pants into his mouth. I woke up to this and beat him with the coffee table.

Predatory behavior to feed an addiction. In the end, a few years later, Ben was killed by his sexual malfunctions.

Rape or attempted sexual molestation does not equal 'homosexual experience' any more than being drunk or dressing seductively suggest an openness to sexual contact.

If you'd been drunk and invited Benny to suck on your weiner knowing that he was gay, that'd be a whole other story.
 
I agree that no-fault divorce is responsible for such a high divorce rate. It reflects whats happens when you abandon the values behind the rite of marriage. Divorce should be more difficult to procure.

It's just more devaluation of the value system.
 
Rape or attempted sexual molestation does not equal 'homosexual experience' any more than being drunk or dressing seductively suggest an openness to sexual contact.

If you'd been drunk and invited Benny to suck on your weiner knowing that he was gay, that'd be a whole other story.
I supoose there is some bias on my part here. I have allowed such actions fall upon me by pretty young girls.

Ah, those days gone by.
 
Back
Top