I can only pray that the justices are not arrogant enough to override God's definition of marriage, the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history, to appease a minute minority. a minority that is NOT just seeking equal rights (which I have absolutely no problem with), but to identify themselves as the same as hetrosexual people. The two groups are not the same so why should their union be called the same? Just as monogamy is not polygamy, neither is the union (marriage) between a man and a woman the same as the union (civil?) between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
36 comments
"a minority that is NOT just seeking equal rights (which I have absolutely no problem with), but to identify themselves as the same as hetrosexual people"
Well, at least I can see where this one's coming from. I imagine he'd be open to debate.
See, the problem is that historically, "separate but equal" hasn't worked too well.
God's definition of marriage
God doesn't give one. See bible.
the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history,
You are referring to polygamy. Monogamy is fairly new with regards of being the main kind of marriage.
a minority that is NOT just seeking equal rights (which I have absolutely no problem with), but to identify themselves as the same as hetrosexual people.
How can you say you agree with equal rights and then say you want them to be identified (therefore treated) differently than other people?
The two groups are not the same so why should their union be called the same? Just as monogamy is not polygamy, neither is the union (marriage) between a man and a woman the same as the union (civil?) between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
A union between a couple of different two races or two different ancestries
Don't say god (see above)
"I can only pray that the justices are not arrogant enough to override God's definition of marriage, the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history, "
You're talking about the Koran definition where a man has 4 wives, right? Because Allah is the real god and islam is the real religion.
"I can only pray that the justices are not arrogant enough to override God's definition of marriage"
"the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history"
"to appease a minute minority."
"The two groups are not the same so why should their union be called the same? Just as monogamy is not polygamy, neither is the union (marriage) between a man and a woman the same as the union (civil?) between a man and a man or a woman and a woman."
"God's definition of marriage"
The one where Abraham has two wives? Or how about Solomon's wives?
"the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history"
Er, no. Just no.
"a minority that is NOT just seeking equal rights (which I have absolutely no problem with), but to identify themselves as the same as hetrosexual people."
Equal rights are usually about some people being able to do the same things and use the same institutions as everyone else.
I can only pray that the justices are not arrogant enough to override God's definition of marriage
Which one would that be? One man and one woman; one man, one woman, and the woman's slaves; one man, 300 women, and 700 concubines; one soldier and a virgin from the tribe he conquers; or a woman and her rapist?
> I can only pray that the justices are not arrogant enough to override God's definition of marriage, the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history, to appease a minute minority.
Yeah, this nonsense about monogamous marriage has gone long enough and it's time to embrace polyamorous marriages again. Just like what the Bible says and just like what virtually every society in recorded history has allowed, as you said.
But try not to bring forth those Biblical bits about marrying slave women. Slavery isn't cool, you know.
the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history
It's not even accepted by every country NOW, let alone throughout all of history. The Greeks famously had few problems with homosexuality and even had armies full of gays. Oh, and if you want to talk about marriage specifically, that hasn't had the same definition for MOST of recorded history. It used to be used as a form of political alliance and before then it was polygamous. Even the damn Bible specifies that Solomon (a great hero in the Bible, which made a huge deal about his wisdom) had multiple wives, concubines, and maidservants.
"NOT just seeking equal rights (which I have absolutely no problem with), but to identify themselves as the same as hetrosexual (sic) people"
That's what equal rights are, which by your own admission, you don't have a problem with.
What difference should it make to you if Charlie Dimwit marries his elm tree or his car or (gasp) another man? It doesn't effect your marriage. Your Church isn't required to perform any marriages it doesn't want to.
You claim to support equal rights but then deny homosexual's and heterosexual's sameness in your agrument to deny homosexuals equal rights. That's like saying blacks and whites aren't the same, therefore, blacks are not entitled to get married.
I can only pray that the justices are not arrogant enough to override God's definition of marriage, the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history,
Historical and cultural fail.
All people are created equal. It's just that some are more equal than others.
Is that what you're trying to say, Bill?
@UHM: "Question there, if Prop 8 is struck down, would that mean that same-sex marriage was legal in all 50 states?"
I believe it depends on the details of the ruling. From what I've read, they could take a narrow view on it and rule that marriage equality is a state issue; in this case, they'd say that Prop 8 violated the CA constitution but not the US Constitution, and so gay marriage would be permitted again in CA but every other state's laws would be unaffected and there'd be no federal right to marry someone of the same sex. The better outcome would be if they ruled that marriage equality is a federal right, in which case the state bans on it would be overridden and we'd have nationwide gay marriage. I don't know how much middle ground there is between those two, but they could potentially rule something else with different results.
equal rights (which I have absolutely no problem with), but to identify themselves as the same as hetrosexual people.
Ok, you want them to be equal but not the same?
Hmm, let me see: "2 = 2"
How can "2" be equal to "2" but not be the same as "2"?
Please define "equal".
First of all, they ARE seeking just equal rights and second, you people need to stop getting so bent out of shape over a freaking word. "Marriage" is not defined by Christians and meanings change over time. Marriage is not just between a man and a woman anymore (and in fact, never really has been). That's the reality and you need to accept it.
"... A minority that is NOT just seeking equal rights (which I have absolutely no problem with), but to identify themselves as the same as hetrosexual (sic) people."
It IS all about equal rights, stupid; to be able to marry your consenting adult love-of-your-life, regardless of gender. They ARE the same as "hetrosexual" people, dumbass! The only thing differing is the gender of the person we fall in love with. When you think about it, it's about as stupid to divide by that, as to divide by the hair-color or the height or preferred hand of the person you fall in love with.
Monogamy is not the same as polygamy, no, but they are both called marriage.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
