What is Digg?312 Comments
- uncajoe, on 07/10/2009, -16/+145It's very refreshing to see organized religion promoting inclusion for a change.
- Diefree, on 07/10/2009, -15/+77These are the few clergy I can say I absolutely respect.
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -5/+61Explain me something.. why marriage is government business (or church) in the first place? You can start a company and whatever with anyone with no prob but if you want "officially to be with someone" then you need to ask for permission.. Come on!! It should be just a matter of simple notice: we're together. period. Like changing an address...
- charlie6969, on 07/10/2009, -14/+70Following their consciences.
I am so proud of them. - hmiles619, on 07/10/2009, -8/+41How about we get the government out of the marriage business altogether. I am against gay "marriage" as far as my religious beliefs go, but couldn't care less if two gay people want to have the same government benefits as two straight people.
So how about this, each state allows any two people to have a civil union. They will no longer call anything a marriage as far as the state is concerned. If you want to get "married", you go to your place of worship and conduct it however you would like.
I think that this would be a compromise that most on both sides of the issue would agree on. - johnnr2, on 07/10/2009, -13/+43good piece!
- amorrise, on 07/10/2009, -2/+28And then they invented taxes and the "married filing jointly" status
- KahRahTay, on 07/10/2009, -4/+27@presbyterian
hey idiot,
there are more than 2 major religions in the world - uncajoe, on 07/10/2009, -2/+25I understand that marriage is a religious ritual with ABSOLUTE rules...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw - smacksaw, on 07/10/2009, -15/+38Disagree. States should issue CIVIL UNIONS to all who seek them. If this article is pointing out that these preachers are agents of the state, the state should not be agents of the church.
Marriage is a largely religious and/or spiritual concept. Civil unions are a great way to ensure rights and settle family issues. Asking the church to do that is like asking them to supervise the FDA or like asking the Border Patrol to baptise children. - apzdsx, on 07/10/2009, -2/+22You'd be more likely to get gay marriage nationwide than civil unions. The only thing conservatives hate more than gays is atheists.
- danj484, on 07/10/2009, -0/+19You have to ask permission in most states to start a business, too.
- Hetman, on 07/10/2009, -1/+19I really do not understand the semantic freak out over the word marriage. Is it really that offensive to people.
- Hetman, on 07/10/2009, -3/+20It is called the ability to consent. It is the same reason that we do not give driver licences out to dogs. Your argument is so ridicilous that I really should not even be answering it.
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -1/+18What about gay atheists? :O
- wolfiekun, on 07/10/2009, -0/+17A long time ago, that's kind of all it was. You said your vows and BOOM! Married, just like that. No church or state license or regulation required.
- Hetman, on 07/10/2009, -3/+18Since there are thousands of different sects of christianity with many different things being wrong or right according to them. I doubt you can speak for all christians.
- zeuslgn, on 07/10/2009, -0/+15The word "God" does not appear in the text of the Constitution of the United States. At all. Zero, zip, nada. Not even "Creator" nor the word "Divine Providence".
You might be thinking of the Declaration of Independence which used the word "god" only once (i.e. "nature's god"), used the word "Creator" once and the word "Divine Providence" once. - DaDrake, on 07/10/2009, -0/+15How about everyone has a civil union and if you want to call yourself married (or your church does), you can do that.
Government shouldn't be using two different words for two different type of people... even if their rights are the same. - asnider, on 07/10/2009, -2/+16I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but here's the answer to that "slippery slope" question: Animals and objects cannot consent to marriage.
- tgjerusalem, on 07/10/2009, -0/+14Priests (and ship captains, and county clerks, and anyone who has filled out the right paperwork) can act as an agent of the state for the purpose of preparing legally binding marriage contracts. But the state is not acting as an agent of the church through the use of these contracts.It's one word that has developed multiple very distinct and separate meanings, and in its legal contractual sense it is not a religious concept or institution.
Unfortunately being called by the same name as various religious and social rites confuses things. But @apzdsx is right - we're going to see federal legal recognition of gay marriages, before we see the federal government abandon use of the word "marriage" to refer to the contract altogether. People are trying to foist separate 'civil union' contracts on gay couples as a half-assed, second tier option; most straight people are not going to be amenable to the idea that *their* contracts should be called 'civil unions' too. If it ever happens, it'll be long after gay marriage has become mainstream, and 'civil union' is an archaic legal term with none of the emotional and cultural baggage it currently carries. - danj484, on 07/10/2009, -0/+14No church in the United States is government funded. That would be outrageously unconstitutional.
- Hetman, on 07/10/2009, -1/+15That was stupid. You know the difference between a dog and a person. If you are unable to make that distiction then the last thing you should be worrying about is gay marriage.
- Hetman, on 07/10/2009, -2/+15Jesus himself did not accept the old testament as law. He came here to change it. I am really flabbergasted by that statement you just made. Do you eat selfish? Work on the sabbath? Where cloths of multiple fabrics? Eat with gentiles? etc.
- Memnochxx, on 07/10/2009, -0/+13Because it's a contract, and inanimate objects or animals can't make contracts.
- asnider, on 07/10/2009, -0/+13Phalanxia - Make it gay atheist immigrants and you've got a perfect person for ultra-conservatives to blame for all of the evils in the country.
- keviniskool, on 07/10/2009, -1/+13Who are you, Optimus Prime?
- Diefree, on 07/10/2009, -2/+14You're an idiot. Do you eat shellfish? Where clothing made from more than one type of fabric? Believe in slavery? Think a woman should be forced to marry a man that rapes her? Are you against inter racial marriage? Think witches should be killed? How about stoning blasphemers that ok with you?
Now answer these questions then actually read the old testament to see why you're completely wrong. - tgjerusalem, on 07/10/2009, -0/+11Because animals and possessions can't sign contracts.
Though if you want to have a party and declare yourself married to a highway overpass, you could. Nobody says you can't have a party and start calling yourself Mr/Ms. 95S. There's a woman who recently declared herself married to the Eiffel Tower. But until the Eiffel Tower grows a pair of hands and a sentient consciousness capable of informed consent and entering into legally binding agreements, it's just a 'spiritual' marriage. - Thepirateking, on 07/10/2009, -0/+11See I'm okay with that. I don't see anything wrong with people wanting to pool together to form a family. So long as everyone is entering into it freely, and the boundries are set and agreed on, why would it be a problem if me and my wife wanted to form a civil union with another couple, or if we wanted to form a union with just a 3rd person. If we're living together, responsible for the household bills, any children, and all sharing the responsiblities of the household, how does it hurt anyone else?
- Diefree, on 07/10/2009, -0/+11Oh my god that was awesome. Wish I could digg you up more.
- Hetman, on 07/10/2009, -1/+12All companies require a licence of some sorte. Unless they are very very small.
- DrVic, on 07/10/2009, -8/+19I applaud these individuals for standing up for what is right.
- Hetman, on 07/10/2009, -0/+10Then why is it not in the 10 commandments? Obviously it is not that straight forward.
- dixieleopard, on 07/10/2009, -1/+11So, did anyone else see the thumbnail as some sort of dismayed ghost at first glance?
- mithrasinvictus, on 07/10/2009, -1/+11As is wearing jewelry, women not covering their heads, women speaking in church, women teaching, eating shellfish, wearing cloth woven of more than 1 thread, eating pork, premaritial sex etc. etc. etc.
What i don't get is who got to decide what parts of the bible to ignore and why these christians don't have the freedom to ignore different parts of it. - mazdamx, on 07/10/2009, -3/+13Presbyterian - "Islam is such a peaceful and tolerant religion"
Islam actually is a peaceful religion when followed. Its the extremists who take it out of context that give it a bad name. - charlie6969, on 07/10/2009, -2/+12Actually, YOU are wrong.
Not all Christians believe the same way. Some Christians believe the Bible is, every word, LITERALLY true.
Others, such as the Quakers, believe it is a Holy Book, but is not LITERALLY true. Used to be a guide, not a rulebook.
Please speak for yourself, not all Christians. - tgjerusalem, on 07/10/2009, -1/+11It matters to them as a matter of conscience, it matters to their congregants who see what unjust marriage laws do to people, it matters to queer people who see that there are clergy protesting on our behalf, it matters to straight people to see that those who try and frame the fight for equality as being "anti-Christian" are full of *****.
- cheddaro, on 07/10/2009, -1/+10Because you happen to agree with their conscience in this case?
Or because you would be honestly happy to see someone stand up for their convictions even if you totally disagreed with them? - Diefree, on 07/10/2009, -0/+9Actually I was talking about the Jewish people owning slaves. And where did Jesus say homosexuality was a sin? He didn't, you obviously never actually read the bible. I notice you didn't say anything about a woman having to marry her rapist, so you support that? The fact is though you don't get to take away people's rights period. Being anticivil rights makes you a bigot period. We've shown that you're completely wrong but to show you why you're even dumber I have a link as to why Christians don't use traditional marriage.
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/04/29/the-variet ... - censormagnet, on 07/10/2009, -0/+9government and religion need to get a divorce, they dont belong together
- askantik, on 07/10/2009, -6/+15Organized religion does this all the time. Perhaps not the mainstream front that gets on the news, and perhaps Christianity isn't the most inclusive of the major world religions, but it's still not all that unusual. But still refreshing, yes.
- cawpin, on 07/10/2009, -3/+12"Islam actually is a peaceful religion when followed. Its the extremists who take it out of context that give it a bad name."
Exactly the same as Christianity. We had our crusades a thousand years ago. Islam seems to be having a similar issue now. Extremists speaking for the whole body of believers. - designerutah, on 07/10/2009, -0/+9methdwman: You stated it, but missed it. Christians are people who claim to follow Christ. That's it. All anyone has to do to call themselves a Christian, or be part of the Christian demographics is call themselves a Christian, no matter what else they claim or believe.
- Hetman, on 07/10/2009, -3/+12Finally clergy men are sticking up for there first amendment rights. A church should be able to legally marry any consenting adults they want. It is the first amendment right. Government should only care about the contract side of the deal.
- designerutah, on 07/10/2009, -0/+9Cheddaro: I agree with charlie that standing up for your convictions is laudable. However, there is also something to be said for letting others enjoy the same rights if they don't harm you, and in this case, that seems to be the crucial issue. I understand that many religions want to prohibit same sex couples from marrying because they feel it is against God's will. But, if we're being fair to all people, then freedom of religion includes the concept of being free from being oppressed by another person's religion as well. Otherwise, Christians are free to persecute Jews, Jews to persecute Christians, and so forth. Bottom line here, if a person's religion says that same sex couples shouldn't marry, then within that faith they have the perfect right to deny marriage to same sex couples. But if their neighbor's belief (religion) says otherwise, people of that faith (or belief system) should be able to marry.
It's a case of you being free to swing your arm so long as it doesn't hit anyone else's face, which is one of the underlying concepts of fair laws. And in this case, those who don't want same sex marriages aren't begging for laws to stop THEM from marrying, they're begging for laws to stop OTHER people from marrying; a clear case of their arms hitting someone else.
Other than that complaint, please stand up for your beliefs, just realize that your right to your belief ends at the point it starts affecting another person's life. A Christian shouldn't be able to deny marriage to a Jew, so why should they feel the right to deny marriage to a couple of non-believers, Jews, Protestants (in a faith that allows same sex marriage), etc.? - 7m7uf, on 07/10/2009, -0/+9No Shellfish? No Ploy-cotton blends? Those are unacceptable in the same book you're quoting.
- AmazingA, on 07/10/2009, -0/+8You're obviously a genius, so I'll just take your word for it.
- Mnementh2230, on 07/10/2009, -0/+8Methinks we should abolish the concept of marriage entirely at a state level. Make civil unions the norm for couples. If they want to get MARRIED they can do so at a religious ceremony. If they want a civil union, they can have a civil ceremony, or just go sign some papers.
Keeps the separation between church and state, keeps the fundies happy and stupid because nobody is infringing on "their institution". -
Show 51 - 100 of 314 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is