Gay Marriage - Page 20

Shadee · 03-17-2008, 03:27 PM

I find it interesting that Marriage is such a sacred thing to the Church that Gay marriage isn't allowed yet getting a divorce is perfectly legal. If they're that strict about the sanctity of marriage shouldn't they make divorce illegal too? You are after all making the sacred promise that you'll stay with that person for better or for worse until death do you part.

Just to clarify, I'm not against gay marriage, I think Churches should have the right to decide wether or not they're willing to perform the ceremony for gay marriages based on their beliefs but where I used to live gay couples could still get married by a mayor at a town hall.

I'm not against divorce either, I just find it strange how they allow some of the rules to be broken but not others.

**Skepticologist** · 03-17-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadee

I find it interesting that Marriage is such a sacred thing to the Church that Gay marriage isn't allowed yet getting a divorce is perfectly legal. If they're that strict about the sanctity of marriage shouldn't they make divorce illegal too? You are after all making the sacred promise that you'll stay with that person for better or for worse until death do you part.

Just to clarify, I'm not against gay marriage, I think Churches should have the right to decide whether or not they're willing to perform the ceremony for gay marriages based on their beliefs but where I used to live gay couples could still get married by a mayor at a town hall.

I'm not against divorce either, I just find it strange how they allow some of the rules to be broken but not others.

You make some excellent points, but what you apparently fail to understand is that, whether it's a religion or a political party or any other aggregation of more than a single human being, the answers to such otherwise perplexing dilemmas is simply political expediency. If you fail to pay attention and respond to it, you run the risk of becoming an anachronism. So you make little allowances and exceptions in the interest of remaining at least marginally viable. If you end up negating the core principles you started out with, that's OK. The vital consideration is that you continue to exist despite having lost all meaning for your existence.

SirArthur · 03-17-2008, 05:15 PM

Divorce is not allowed within Catholic Church. You may still divorce by law but not by church, means supposedly* after your first church wedding you can't get a second one by the church, just a civil one.

* - Well, I'm aware that many parishes seams to not care for this canonic law.

**Skepticologist** · 03-18-2008, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirArthur

Divorce is not allowed within Catholic Church. You may still divorce by law but not by church, means supposedly* after your first church wedding you can't get a second one by the church, just a civil one.

* - Well, I'm aware that many parishes seams to not care for this canonic law.

More power to those parishes! They're at least in touch with the reality of human nature, whereas "canonic law" seems to negate it completely. To put it into a recent historical context, the negation of human nature, as well as gross mismanagement, is precisely the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed some 18 years ago. (Geez! Has it been that long?)

It failed to take into account that people wouldn't voluntarily make sacrifices for the good of the masses unless they perceived some equivocal personal benefit. That's neither good nor bad. That's just the way things are.

Similarly, the Catholic church, and many associated Christian religions, erroneously expect a man or a woman, who screwed up in their youth and married someone who didn't turn out to be what they expected, to live the rest of their lives as victims of that mistake when there are perfectly acceptable alternatives that are both legal and socially acceptable.

And for every Catholic, or associated Christian, who is confronted with such a choice as defined by their religious elders, there will be one less Catholic or associated Christian. And we'll likely be welcoming them when they post to Introductions and Greetings.

SirArthur · 03-18-2008, 10:32 PM

I don't think it to be on the role of an Agnostic or Atheist to say whether a religion should or should not do. It's up to them. As long as you aren't forced to follow their religion they can do whatever they please and be followed by whoever decided to join them.

I found disturbing however your totally individualistic view! People aren't individualistic by nature, well most of them, it's society who makes them that way. In fact the worse thing to make people individualistic is to be surrounded by individualists.
Besides that wasn't the reason of the fall of USSR (yep... it has been 18 years now and still remember it like yesterday, guess we're getting old). The worse thing to be done on people is to take away any chance of decision on their own, be it right or wrong, healthy or unhealthy, it must be your choice, and communists as well as fascists just keep doing it all the way. In a matter of fact I found the "deadly enemies of Fascism", the Communists, to be a carbon copy of Fascism, they only struggle to see who gets the power yet they do nothing different one from another when they get it.

**Skepticologist** · 03-19-2008, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirArthur

I don't think it to be on the role of an Agnostic or Atheist to say whether a religion should or should not do. It's up to them. As long as you aren't forced to follow their religion they can do whatever they please and be followed by whoever decided to join them.

It kind of depends on the political system under which the agnostic or atheist exists. If it's a totalitarian system, and those in power don't happen to ascribe to religious beliefs, or don't find them convenient to their quest to maintain their power or to gain more power, then it is definitely the role of the agnostic or atheist "to say whether a religion should or should not do."

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirArthur

I found disturbing however your totally individualistic view! People aren't individualistic by nature, well most of them, it's society who makes them that way. In fact the worse thing to make people individualistic is to be surrounded by individualists.

People are either individualistic or they're duped into thinking otherwise by those who are out to exploit and take advantage of them. Certainly, there are situations which required collaborative effort, but an individual should sign on to them only after carefully considering what others who sign on have to gain from marginalizing them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirArthur

Besides that wasn't the reason of the fall of USSR (yep... it has been 18 years now and still remember it like yesterday, guess we're getting old). The worse thing to be done on people is to take away any chance of decision on their own, be it right or wrong, healthy or unhealthy, it must be your choice, and communists as well as fascists just keep doing it all the way. In a matter of fact I found the "deadly enemies of Fascism", the Communists, to be a carbon copy of Fascism, they only struggle to see who gets the power yet they do nothing different one from another when they get it.

Whether you realize it or not, you just corroborated my assertion. The Soviet Union, as well as the Nazis, took "away any chance of decision on their own" in the name of nationalism, in the former case, and Communism in the other.

SirArthur · 03-19-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skepticologist

It kind of depends on the political system under which the agnostic or atheist exists. If it's a totalitarian system, and those in power don't happen to ascribe to religious beliefs, or don't find them convenient to their quest to maintain their power or to gain more power, then it is definitely the role of the agnostic or atheist "to say whether a religion should or should not do."

With religion as a totalitarian system there's not only on the role but the duty of Atheists and Agnostics to fight that religion, no matter what it may be. Theocracies are never a good thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skepticologist

People are either individualistic or they're duped into thinking otherwise by those who are out to exploit and take advantage of them. Certainly, there are situations which required collaborative effort, but an individual should sign on to them only after carefully considering what others who sign on have to gain from marginalizing them.

Wrong assumption. The problem is if non-individualistic get surrounded by individualistic he will soon either become one of them or get exploited.
Furthermore we all need collaborative effort on almost everything we do, individualistic money-based systems are just one way to reward those efforts on individual level. Communists had them too, yet they didn't use money, one better for the party (was a dictatorship, so it all goes around the party) received more, as better housing, more food supplies... and this is just another way to waging.
Obviously when the party is the center of the Universe, the ones better waged are the best boot lickers and not the more effort or competent workers. Although boot licking also comes to the scene on capitalist systems just not a centralized as in communists.

**Skepticologist** · 03-20-2008, 10:44 PM

Sir Arthur,

I'd really like to reply, but first I need to understand what you're saying. Although I consider myself somewhat grammatically adept, I don't demand grammatical perfection of my correspondents. Just that their messages are conveyed in a more or less understandable fashion.

xxkayxx · 03-21-2008, 11:18 AM

People should be able to marry whoever they like. Being against gay marriage is just another form of prejudice in my opinion. It is not for others to decide how another person is to live their life, especially when its as harmless as who theyre marrying. Seems to me, this issue it geting wayyyy too much attention, and is just a way for the government to keep its people distracted about other IMPORTANT issues, such as this war on terrorism, which actually directly affects each and every one of you. Some gay guy marrying another gay guy isnt going to have an effect on your lives. And making gay marriage illegal isnt going to make someone not gay, so whats the point really?

SirArthur · 03-21-2008, 01:54 PM

Let me see if I can make it more understable them:

The first part I believe you understood it clearly.

The second, well, the idea itself is hard to explain, now imagine on how to put it on a language that isn't my natural one (what would Portuguese European).

As you said individualism is natural, well, I stand it isn't. However if one non-individualistic person gets surrounded by individualists, then he face two choices; become individualist or get exploited.
Another point is on waging. Under capitalism, they pay your wage in order to compensate your individual effort. Under communism they do the same just by other means, by giving you more benefits, such as a better house or more food supplies.
So turns out to be the same if I pay you 2000 USD/monthly and you pay 1000 USD/monthly to your house mortgage as if I pay you 1000 USD/month and give you the house.