What is Digg?550 Comments
- inactive, on 03/07/2009, -53/+314The really sick thing is that these hateful idiots don't have the first ***** clue what the biblical definition of marriage is. The bible has men with multiple wives, fathers ***** their daughters, husbands ***** their wives' servants, etc.
If they want to really follow the biblical definition of marriage, the first thing they need to do is to outlaw divorce. - inactive, on 03/07/2009, -17/+242I didn't sign up for your church, so why should I have to accept your definition of marriage? You don't have to accept mine, just don't make me have to accept yours. Also, if the argument here is that "marriage" is a religious notion, shouldn't we strike down marriage from the law as unconstitutional?
- Phylter, on 03/07/2009, -12/+221My wife and I (we're hetero) are legally married and we didn't go anywhere near a church. The mayor was quite happy to perform the ceremony.
If anyone thinks that allowing gay marriage willl destroy their church, well all I can say is "what a weak person and a weak church". - Calcularius, on 03/07/2009, -11/+152The majority used to think it was OK to have black slaves and not let women vote. They were wrong, too.
- eir574, on 03/07/2009, -2/+106I've even seen some people say that same sex marriage will weaken their heterosexual marriages. If someone's marriage is so weak that its strength is determined by external forces rather than internal ones, then I don't see why that person is fighting for the so-called sanctity of marriage.
- inactive, on 03/07/2009, -11/+110and sell their daughters for a few goats to be a 50 year old' dudes 10th wife...
- Adam420, on 03/08/2009, -20/+111Who gives a ***** if religion defines marriage, there is a little thing called separation of church and state.
I am gay, I do not believe in god, and I should be able to have the same rights as everyone else. - eir574, on 03/07/2009, -3/+90Edge, the same argument was made about interracial marriage. A black man had the same rights as a white man: he could marry someone of his own race. You don't have to believe that race is analogous to sexual orientation in order to understand the analogy. Just because a law is applied to everyone equally doesn't mean that it's not discriminatory. If the constitution were amended to outlaw Christianity, would you say that a Christian would have exactly the same rights as anyone else, that is to believe in any religion he wants (or none at all) so long as it isn't Christianity?
Or, to keep things less controversial, would you support a change to marriage laws that would only allow people to marry someone whose birthday is the same month as theirs? After all, we'd all have exactly the same rights -- the right to marry someone whose birthday is in the same month as ours. Equal application of the law does not necessarily satisfy the requirement that we all be treated equally under the law. - Alheithinn, on 03/07/2009, -10/+93Wow, you ARE profoundly ignorant, aren't you?
- flip2trip, on 03/07/2009, -1/+75"...shouldn't we strike down marriage from the law as unconstitutional?"
Yes. - Killphibian, on 03/08/2009, -4/+74Humans are the root of all evil. Religion is a convenient excuse.
- Firstdaughter, on 03/07/2009, -15/+80After all boys, the number one cause of divorce is marriage...
In poll after poll it has been shown that the overwhelming majority of women would not remarry if they were to lose their husbands to divorce or death. Gee...that isn't surprising since there are still laws on the books that endorse things like beating your wife is ok if she is outspoken (that one may still be on the books in IL)...
As an unapologetic feminist I can tell you that marriage was designed to serve men, not women. We were seen as their property with strict laws governing our rights as wives.
You would think that in the 21st century where hunting and gathering is not the only means for survival that human beings would have evolved past such conventions.
As such I view marriage as an example of the "marriage" btw church and state. Where religion dictated the laws and still does.
The only reason I participated in the farce that is currently defined as marriage in the US was so that the existing laws and society does not judge my children. I wanted them to be recognized as legitimate. I am in no way saying that I do not love my husband, rather I not love the definition of marriage.
If people (of any sex) have a commitment to each other, then that is enough for me. It is society's addiction to religion that fuels the myth of legal marriage. - Alheithinn, on 03/07/2009, -6/+69Marriage is and always has been a social, not a religious contract. The Right doesn't get that for some reason.
- vlmusicalsound, on 03/08/2009, -15/+78The Bible is the wrong place to look if one is looking for a source of good family values.
- manzplan, on 03/07/2009, -91/+148Religion is the root of all evil.. 100%
- amprather, on 03/08/2009, -2/+49I think homosexuals should have the same right as the rest of us to ***** up their lives by entering into marriage.
- clvngodess, on 03/07/2009, -22/+69The thing that gets me is the fetish like obsession these bible thumpers have with what is going on in the bedrooms of other human beings. It's a bit freaky-deaky to me. I honestly do not believe for one instant that this has any thing to do with defining marriage, but every thing to do with getting their freak on. I think it's a strange and twisted sex act of their own. Seriously. Like public masturbation or B & D. More like B & D, I think. They really have some funky sexual hang ups and they've targeted gay people with their repressed desires. It's some ***** up and weird sex play and they've moved it from the sex shoppes to play it out in pubic, I mean public, in the legislature and supreme court.
- Garjon, on 03/08/2009, -3/+44How about this?
Stop useing marriage as a legal term.
Call it something else, regardless of who's involved.
Let marriage be something spiritual.
Let the legal privilage be something secular.
Seperate the two. - Travelsonic, on 03/08/2009, -2/+41Not being able to marry somebody of the same sex doesn't sound like having the same rights to me.
- MSUKate, on 03/08/2009, -1/+39Hate to burst your bubble, but marriage is a legal right.
It is a contract between two people recognized by the state. - Hetman, on 03/07/2009, -14/+49If we did go by the religious definition of marriage it would be interesting. For like 15 goats you could marry "purchase" a hot white wife who couldn't talk back to you and if she was unable to give you a son, no problem. Just sleep with one of your slaves problem solved.
- Hetman, on 03/08/2009, -1/+36For sake of argument lets say you did receive a message from God. He specifically brought up homosexuality during this discussion?
- JigoroKano, on 03/08/2009, -3/+33I only ***** my daughters because they got me drunk... and my wife turned to salt.
- NikoKun, on 03/08/2009, -3/+33Considering that I would never be attracted to another man no matter how much I wanted to try, I'm guessing being gay, by the same logic, is not a choice either, just as being straight for me isn't a choice, I just am. If you cannot acknowledge gays' right to marry the one they REALLY love, then you are ignorant and a bigot. -_-
- BoxAdorable, on 03/08/2009, -1/+31If by right you mean he has the "choice" of marrying anyone from a select pre-determined group, then yes I suppose you do share the same right. But if you mean he has the right to entwine his life in every way with the person that he loves the most, then no I don't think you have anything approaching the same rights.
- clvngodess, on 03/07/2009, -8/+38The ONLY reason I participate is to keep our mutual assets --we own property, and contrary to popular belief in California, there is no common law and if my darlin' died and we weren't hitched, his family would get the goodies. Not me. This happened to some I knew and loved who survived her live in significant other of 30 years. His kids came in and gave her the boot. And it was legal-- in the event my spouse meets an untimely death AND for health benefits that I cannot afford as a mostly unemployed creative consultant type of being that I am. Othewise, I wouldn't be marriaged in the first place. And I flat out refused to do the damn deed in ***** papist or christian or any religious order. Went to the county offices, signed the papers, said "yep" went and had Mexican food and margaritas and that was that.
And we've been together for damn near 20 years. To be honest, I've known unconventional couples who define "marriage" far healthier than that crazy judeo-christian model of patriarchy and imprisonment. - johnhummel, on 03/08/2009, -3/+33A most interesting concept - that while the Bible discusses people with multiple wives (Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc), you contend that the Bible does not "condone it".
Which ignores, I would think, that God blessed Abraham with additional children through his concubines, even promising that they would rise up mighty nations (such as Ishmael). Or that the 12 tribes came from Jacob/Isreal's seed through his 2 wives and 2 concubines. Or, as I recall, God was perfectly find with David having tons of wives - he was just pissed off when he had Uriah killed to take Bathsheba.
Or that Solomon was considered to be wise and a holy man before God - his only sin was marrying foreign wives that lead him into idolatry, as I recall.
Can I recall a scripture from my former Seminary days where God says "multiple marriage? *Love* it!" with a swish of his giant hand. But seeing as God sure did bless his chosen prophets/leaders while they were having multiple wives, and consider them as righteous people, sure does seem to be "condoning" their behavior.
As for point 3 - that only holds if all other religions that support Prop 8 also support the "no divorce ever" proviso that the Catholic church does. Last time I checked, those other religions do not. Perhaps you could argue that the Catholic church is the only non-hypocritical religion of the Pro-Prop 8 group (barring the whole "sex with boys and hiding it from the public bit then blaming the victims") - but that only pertains to the sliver of religions supporting the proposition. - MrColdheart, on 03/08/2009, -7/+37As much as I hate religion even I have to admit a few things that came from it that bettered humanity.
Information archiving and schools. - murrdpirate, on 03/08/2009, -7/+36Hi, I'm a married person. I'm going to produce a ***** load of offspring for whom you are going to have to help educate and care for with your tax dollars. Oh, and I'm gonna pay less tax dollars now because I did all the hard work by having sex.
- redcolumbine, on 03/07/2009, -8/+37Anti-miscegenation laws fell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_la ... This will fall too.
- Paranor01, on 03/08/2009, -1/+29Religion is not good nor evil. The evil comes into play through a single person's interpretation of a religion, to use for their selfish ends. Whether it be for power, money, etc. It is always a human at the helm. Religion is just one of many tools.
- mnpilot, on 03/08/2009, -5/+33Christians didn't invent Marriage, *****, there not even that good at it......
- linagee, on 03/08/2009, -1/+28The right to save money on taxes?
- freakpuppet, on 03/08/2009, -5/+32Funny, I don't see macweirdo42 forcing anti-gay-marraige folks into marrying people of their own gender.
"Forcing your ideals on" does not apply here, lint hero. - Paranor01, on 03/08/2009, -2/+29@Herolint: But here's the thing. Religion adopted marriage. They were not the creators of it. Marriage was created as a legal contract to combine wealth, land, power, etc. across families through the coupling of 2 offspring of those families. It had nothing to do with love, religion, or anything else.
Proof of this is in "arranged" marriages, which are closer to the honest "traditional marriage" than what is found in western cultures where marriage is by the choice of the license signers. - smemily, on 03/08/2009, -0/+26My husband and I obtained a godless marriage in a casino. Someone forgot to tell us that marriage is a religious construct I guess.
- fyngyrz, on 03/08/2009, -5/+30Religious views in general should never trump individual liberties. Ever.
That's why this bigoted, superstitious, sexually paranoid POS should not be allowed to override the state's constitution (or the federal one, come to that.)
You know, this is a good example of why pure democracy is a bad idea.
Any two unqualified people can outvote a qualified person in an environment where qualified people are relatively rare; it's like inviting just any unqualified person in to install the AC wiring in your home -- bloody thing will probably burn down the next day.
Too bad we don't have civics education in many states today, and too bad *passing* it isn't required as a voting qualification. Not to mention being able to cite the constitution word for word and pass an examination on constitutional vocabulary ca. 1787. But that would (cough) be "unfair" to the uneducated. In a nation where education is freely available. Sure.
Religious people are fond of whining about how they're persecuted; well, if they weren't so busy trying to screw up everyone else's lives by dictating that their superstitious nonsense applies to everyone else, maybe there would be a little more live and let live, eh? - felipe41194, on 03/08/2009, -0/+25If the religious bigots really wanted an end to gay sex,
they would support gay marriage - inactive, on 03/08/2009, -3/+26Religious folk DON'T have to accept gay marriage. Don't you ***** get it? Legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean that ANY church has to recognize gay marriage, only that the state does.
- JigoroKano, on 03/08/2009, -0/+23If your god exists, let him strike me dead before I can reply to this post.
- MJ87, on 03/08/2009, -7/+28What I don't understand is, in the bible gay marriage would be considered as a sacrament anyway. So why do religious people care about this issue so much when there is WAY worse things that are considered sacraments that are part of their every day lives. I'm also pretty sure that divorce would be way worse in the eyes of God according to the Christians and yet that is at what...55% in the united states? These people seem like they need to get their priorities straight.
- Alheithinn, on 03/08/2009, -0/+20bigotry is a sin
- DivisibleByZero, on 03/08/2009, -8/+28"If viewed through a sort of ‘religious filter’, opposition to gay marriage can be understood"
Viewed through an agnostic filter... how can support for gay marriage--or any marriage--be understood? Why do you get special rights and privileges above single people just because you ***** somebody and put a ring around your finger? - twiztidsinz, on 03/08/2009, -0/+19http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus ... 7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
- fyngyrz, on 03/08/2009, -3/+22I *have* something other than democracy; it's called a republic. At the time it was established, the rich and educated -- nominally qualified, read their writings -- were installed as representatives as a matter of normal procedure, because no one else could afford the time. And they made the laws. This was an attempt of precisely the type I describe; trying to have the laws made by careful, considered, informed and liberty-oriented people, as qualified as possible.
Today, you don't have to be rich to be educated, we have considerable luxury in that regard. Accordingly, a much larger pool of people should be able to qualify to serve. And to vote, though that will never happen.
From section 4 of the federal constitution:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"
California's use of the public to attempt to trump the state's constitution is more straight democracy than it is the act of a sensible republic. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. It's not a good idea, and it never has been. - eco57, on 03/08/2009, -8/+27Uhhh...I'm afraid you're gonna hafta leave a little room for "money".
- YodaOfDarkness, on 03/08/2009, -1/+20Pedophiles scar children mentally (and sometimes physically) for life. Most arsonists kill people in the fires they start.
Please tell me how a man loving another man harms someone else. Really. I'd like to know if I should stay away from my gay friends, lest they smite me where I stand. - Uberkitty, on 03/08/2009, -0/+19sinning is a sin
Also do you claim to be a messenger from God? Isn't that a little arrogant? - FurDieNosferatu, on 03/08/2009, -3/+22Jews, atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims shouldn't be allowed to marry either.
- inactive, on 03/08/2009, -2/+21Yeah, ***** that - straight people feel no need to leave their sexual preference at home, but for some reason, some expect gay people to adhere to a standard that straight people have never had to follow.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 563 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is