Date Joined: Jun 30, 2024 20:19:58 GMT -5
|
Post by naz on Jul 7, 2024 15:34:09 GMT -5
oh, and ftr, John , I would support legalizing polygamy as well. And I have no issue with a person marrying a robot or his television set.
|
|
Date Joined: May 29, 2020 20:23:50 GMT -5
|
Post by John on Jul 7, 2024 15:40:59 GMT -5
That is what marriage is by definition. They literally changed it to allow same sex marriages. It is a religious institution. You can argue that the government should not have gotten into the business of issuing licenses to wed, but marriage is between a man and a woman. If it can go beyond that, then why not expand it to include a man and his robot wife or a man and his television set? I actually heard of someone who wanted to marry his TV! Certainly, polygamy would need to be allowed because that was even allowed in the Law of Moses. To expand marriage to include two men or two women is ludicrous. You could call it some kind of civil union, but it is not marriage. States have every right to say no to it. But who made these definitions? If you say "God" then that is a religious definition. If you say man then that is discriminatory. Either way you lose. I do not lose either way. That is what marriage is. It is a union between a man and a woman. If we are going to allow it for gay couples, then let's take it to the extreme and demand marriage for anyone to anything. That means polygamy, marriage to robots, objects, even yourself. Again, if they want to call it a civil union, fine, but not marriage. If the government wants to get out of the marrying business altogether, I am fine with that. Churches can simply have ceremonies as always and couples can record their marriages in a Family Bible or the church can give them a certificate, but I will always oppose gay marriage. By the way, in my state, 60 percent of our citizens voted to leave marriage between a man and a woman and I am hoping the USSC will overturn that stupid decision requiring the states allow gay marriage so it will be stopped.
|
|
Date Joined: May 29, 2020 20:23:50 GMT -5
|
Post by John on Jul 7, 2024 15:41:45 GMT -5
oh, and ftr, John , I would support legalizing polygamy as well. And I have no issue with a person marrying a robot or his television set. Thank you for clarifying that. If a person marries their television set, would an employer have to provide health care and benefits for it?
|
|
Date Joined: Jun 30, 2024 20:19:58 GMT -5
|
Post by naz on Jul 7, 2024 15:43:07 GMT -5
oh, and ftr, John , I would support legalizing polygamy as well. And I have no issue with a person marrying a robot or his television set. Thank you for clarifying that. If a person marries their television set, would an employer have to provide health care and benefits for it? Well the whole idea is quite silly. The marriage would really not mean anything. But then most marriages don't anyway.
|
|
Date Joined: Jun 20, 2024 13:47:15 GMT -5
|
Post by fuzzems on Jul 7, 2024 15:46:19 GMT -5
Thank you for clarifying that. If a person marries their television set, would an employer have to provide health care and benefits for it? Well the whole idea is quite silly. The marriage would really not mean anything. But then most marriages don't anyway. Marriage isn't silly. Marriage has been one of the greatest boons to mankind. It allowed for the creation of families and communities. It helped improved the lot in life for women. For men, it civilized and quelled some of their baser instincts. It's been the best possible vehicle for raising children. So you can scoff or do whatever you do, but you are flat out wrong. Are there bad marriages? Yes. Has marriage failed in a lot of ways? Yes, but that doesn't negate the value of it because there have been less than ideal marriages.
|
|
Date Joined: May 29, 2020 20:23:50 GMT -5
|
Post by John on Jul 7, 2024 15:49:13 GMT -5
Thank you for clarifying that. If a person marries their television set, would an employer have to provide health care and benefits for it? Well the whole idea is quite silly. The marriage would really not mean anything. But then most marriages don't anyway. My biggest issue with gay marriage is anti-discrimination laws, which I feel are Unconstitutional. I should have the freedom to associate with or disassociate with anyone I want. The same should apply to hiring and firing and renting or selling to or doing business with. If we did not have anti-discrimination laws where some gay couple could sue because a photographer or baker didn't want to be part of their sham wedding, it wouldn't affect me or other Christians so no big deal. Sadly, marriage doesn't mean much to most people. It does to some of us. I have been married to the same woman for going on 39 years, but I understand that divorce for any cause is common today. If a couple isn't serious about honoring their commitment, marriage loses its meaning.
|
|
Date Joined: Jun 30, 2024 20:19:58 GMT -5
|
Post by naz on Jul 7, 2024 15:54:08 GMT -5
John, the whole purpose of government involvement in marriage is to administer the conditions of its dissolution (division of common property, child support, etc). That is something religious organizations cannot do as they have no legal authority.
|
|
Date Joined: Jun 30, 2024 20:19:58 GMT -5
|
Post by naz on Jul 7, 2024 15:58:47 GMT -5
Well the whole idea is quite silly. The marriage would really not mean anything. But then most marriages don't anyway. My biggest issue with gay marriage is anti-discrimination laws, which I feel are Unconstitutional. I should have the freedom to associate with or disassociate with anyone I want. The same should apply to hiring and firing and renting or selling to or doing business with. If we did not have anti-discrimination laws where some gay couple could sue because a photographer or baker didn't want to be part of their sham wedding, it wouldn't affect me or other Christians so no big deal. Sadly, marriage doesn't mean much to most people. It does to some of us. I have been married to the same woman for going on 39 years, but I understand that divorce for any cause is common today. If a couple isn't serious about honoring their commitment, marriage loses its meaning. As a libertarian I also oppose anti-discrimination laws especially when they force religious people to violate their conscience. Especially since they are not really discriminating against a class of people but rather specific events. But that is not the issue here. Private citizens should have the right to discriminate; government cannot. I agree with you about how most people feel about marriage. The idea of "in sickness or in health, for richer or poorer, till death do us part" is pretty much a thing of the past. Sadly even among those identifying as Christians.
|
|
Date Joined: Jun 20, 2024 13:47:15 GMT -5
|
Post by fuzzems on Jul 7, 2024 16:00:16 GMT -5
My biggest issue with gay marriage is anti-discrimination laws, which I feel are Unconstitutional. I should have the freedom to associate with or disassociate with anyone I want. The same should apply to hiring and firing and renting or selling to or doing business with. If we did not have anti-discrimination laws where some gay couple could sue because a photographer or baker didn't want to be part of their sham wedding, it wouldn't affect me or other Christians so no big deal. Sadly, marriage doesn't mean much to most people. It does to some of us. I have been married to the same woman for going on 39 years, but I understand that divorce for any cause is common today. If a couple isn't serious about honoring their commitment, marriage loses its meaning. As a libertarian I also oppose anti-discrimination laws especially when they force religious people to violate their conscience. Especially since they are not really discriminating against a class of people but rather specific events. But that is not the issue here. Private citizens should have the right to discriminate; government cannot. I agree with you about how most people feel about marriage. The idea of "in sickness or in health, for richer or poorer, till death do us part" is pretty much a thing of the past. Sadly even among those identifying as Christians. Really? I know a lot of "till death us do part" marriages. Seems to be more common around here than not. Maybe it failed for you but that's not a commentary on marriage across the board.
|
|
Date Joined: May 29, 2020 20:23:50 GMT -5
|
Post by John on Jul 7, 2024 16:02:03 GMT -5
John , the whole purpose of government involvement in marriage is to administer the conditions of its dissolution (division of common property, child support, etc). That is something religious organizations cannot do as they have no legal authority. That kind of thing could be dealt with in a contract, like when someone gets a pre-nuptial agreement. If the couple intended to remain together till death, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
|
|
Date Joined: May 29, 2020 20:23:50 GMT -5
|
Post by John on Jul 7, 2024 16:05:28 GMT -5
As a libertarian I also oppose anti-discrimination laws especially when they force religious people to violate their conscience. Especially since they are not really discriminating against a class of people but rather specific events. But that is not the issue here. Private citizens should have the right to discriminate; government cannot. I agree with you about how most people feel about marriage. The idea of "in sickness or in health, for richer or poorer, till death do us part" is pretty much a thing of the past. Sadly even among those identifying as Christians. Really? I know a lot of "till death us do part" marriages. Seems to be more common around here than not. Maybe it failed for you but that's not a commentary on marriage across the board. There are still many of us who take marriage vows seriously, but the divorce rate is much too high. That is a symptom of the times and the lack of morality, but I know many couples that have remained together for decades. My parents remained together till my father passed away at the age of 83.
|
|
Date Joined: Jun 30, 2024 20:19:58 GMT -5
|
Post by naz on Jul 7, 2024 16:12:28 GMT -5
Really? I know a lot of "till death us do part" marriages. Seems to be more common around here than not. Maybe it failed for you but that's not a commentary on marriage across the board. There are still many of us who take marriage vows seriously, but the divorce rate is much too high. That is a symptom of the times and the lack of morality, but I know many couples that have remained together for decades. My parents remained together till my father passed away at the age of 83. I have been with my "wife" for almost 35 years. But we never legally married.
|
|
Date Joined: Jan 17, 2024 18:56:17 GMT -5
|
Post by Justice-4-All on Jul 7, 2024 16:15:08 GMT -5
I've avoided this discussion for the most part. It is not fun pointing out the hypocrisies of some for it is not my place to judge their damnation. That said, the Bible was very clear in its promise. A promise that those on the right have spent decades mocking. Believing is much more than lip service. You should practice the words of your stated belief, or else. The "or else" is equally written in the Bible and if you have read the Bible, you know that some are not as they need you be.
That said, we all take moments to reflect upon our time here, and I'm sure most if not all have helped our fellow man to some degree. I think the question is has your help ever been restricted by Race, Color, Sexuality, Religion, or some other reason to justify allowing a continued suffering. My personal plight has always been, and an area of moral clarity is: you're in front of someone who's suffering and you have the tools at your disposal to alleviate that suffering or even eradicate it, then the only thing you must do is act. No discussion, just act.- JM2C
|
|
Date Joined: Jun 20, 2024 13:47:15 GMT -5
|
Post by fuzzems on Jul 7, 2024 16:31:29 GMT -5
There are still many of us who take marriage vows seriously, but the divorce rate is much too high. That is a symptom of the times and the lack of morality, but I know many couples that have remained together for decades. My parents remained together till my father passed away at the age of 83. I have been with my "wife" for almost 35 years. But we never legally married. Shes not your wife . Maybe common law. Depends on the state. Ehy try to use the terms of marriage if it’s meaningless?
|
|
Date Joined: Jun 30, 2024 20:19:58 GMT -5
|
Post by naz on Jul 7, 2024 16:36:05 GMT -5
I have been with my "wife" for almost 35 years. But we never legally married. Shes not your wife . Maybe common law. Depends on the state. Ehy try to use the terms of marriage if it’s meaningless? Because after 35 years calling her my "girlfriend" sounds rather silly and because we are more committed than most legally married people. But of course you will make something of anything personal shared. And I never said marriage was meaningless.
|
|
Date Joined: Jun 20, 2024 13:47:15 GMT -5
|
Post by fuzzems on Jul 7, 2024 16:40:52 GMT -5
Shes not your wife . Maybe common law. Depends on the state. Ehy try to use the terms of marriage if it’s meaningless? Because after 35 years calling her my "girlfriend" sounds rather silly and because we are more committed than most legally married people. But of course you will make something of anything personal shared. And I never said marriage was meaningless. Oh don't throw down your victim card. I didn't make "something " out of what you said . You are saying our marriages don't mean what we say they mean so that's pretty personal. But, it's not our fault you don't have some other term for you your relationship and situation. Why co-opt the terms of marriage when you don't wish to married. And sorry, i don't know anyone who has a wife that puts that term in quotes . She is either is or she isn't. So why not own the approach that you wish to take. Husband and Wife are terms of marriage. So, if you wish to have some other arrangement, fine and dandy but you don't get to steal the terms of marriage and re-define them to suit you.
|
|
Date Joined: Jun 20, 2024 13:47:15 GMT -5
|
Post by fuzzems on Jul 7, 2024 16:42:31 GMT -5
And if it means so little, then why not get the 'piece of paper" which comes with some legal advantages? If it means nothing then it would mean nothing to sign and have it too. So the "piece of paper" means a LOT to you on some level that you try so hard to diss it.
|
|
Date Joined: Jan 17, 2024 18:56:17 GMT -5
|
Post by Justice-4-All on Jul 7, 2024 16:43:32 GMT -5
Really? I know a lot of "till death us do part" marriages. Seems to be more common around here than not. Maybe it failed for you but that's not a commentary on marriage across the board. There are still many of us who take marriage vows seriously, but the divorce rate is much too high. That is a symptom of the times and the lack of morality, but I know many couples that have remained together for decades. My parents remained together till my father passed away at the age of 83. With divorce rate being so high, I cannot believe so many of you take it that serious. Just saying.
|
|
Date Joined: Jun 20, 2024 13:47:15 GMT -5
|
Post by fuzzems on Jul 7, 2024 16:45:39 GMT -5
There are still many of us who take marriage vows seriously, but the divorce rate is much too high. That is a symptom of the times and the lack of morality, but I know many couples that have remained together for decades. My parents remained together till my father passed away at the age of 83. With divorce rate being so high, I cannot believe so many of you take it that serious. Just saying. So one shouldn't strive for something if there are failures? That somehow makes a thing null and void if it's not always successful?
|
|
Date Joined: May 29, 2020 20:23:50 GMT -5
|
Post by John on Jul 7, 2024 16:45:43 GMT -5
I've avoided this discussion for the most part. It is not fun pointing out the hypocrisies of some for it is not my place to judge their damnation. That said, the Bible was very clear in its promise. A promise that those on the right have spent decades mocking. Believing is much more than lip service. You should practice the words of your stated belief, or else. The "or else" is equally written in the Bible and if you have read the Bible, you know that some are not as they need you be. That said, we all take moments to reflect upon our time here, and I'm sure most if not all have helped our fellow man to some degree. I think the question is has your help ever been restricted by Race, Color, Sexuality, Religion, or some other reason to justify allowing a continued suffering. My personal plight has always been, and an area of moral clarity is: you're in front of someone who's suffering and you have the tools at your disposal to alleviate that suffering or even eradicate it, then the only thing you must do is act. No discussion, just act.- JM2C I have always tried to be courteous and even helpful to anyone in need, and have not refused to help someone because of anything, but that is not the point. The government has no business mandating I associate with anyone. That is my decision alone. While I would assist a man or woman in trouble, even if they were obviously homosexual, I would not condone their behavior. I would not celebrate Pride Month with them. I would not participate or attend a gay wedding. On the other hand, if they were hungry or needed help, of course I would help them. Still, that is something each person has to decide on their own. Forcing people to help others is playing Robin Hood. I do not support the government being used that way. People should give as they desire to give when it comes to alms, and yes, I have read the Bible through more than 20 times. I know what it says.
|
|