New York State Approves Gay Marriage
#1 Posted 24 June 2011 - 06:44 PM
We were one of the first to decriminalize pot and now we've allowed butt buddies to get married. I don't think any other state has DMV's with a thirty minute wait time either.
God damn it there are so many reasons why I love my state. Aside from the high cost of living, I have no complaints.
#2 Posted 24 June 2011 - 07:09 PM
Quote
It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.
#3 Posted 24 June 2011 - 08:00 PM
/obligatory asshole post and flame bait
But, whoop-di-fucking-doo...
#4 Posted 25 June 2011 - 01:01 AM
Descent, on 24 June 2011 - 06:44 PM, said:
We were one of the first to decriminalize pot and now we've allowed butt buddies to get married. I don't think any other state has DMV's with a thirty minute wait time either.
God damn it there are so many reasons why I love my state. Aside from the high cost of living, I have no complaints.
Now men can get married with other men and have beautiful kids together and make a happy family... aww wait.
This post has been edited by Mr.Deviance: 25 June 2011 - 01:07 AM
#5 Posted 25 June 2011 - 02:35 AM
#6 Posted 25 June 2011 - 04:02 AM
Here my official response to New York: Congratulation to gay marriage, another step towards the equalisity (Hank word) aim of the political correct, and a clear victory for the persecuted, mistreated and certainly misunderstood pillars of your society.
#7 Posted 25 June 2011 - 06:45 AM
When it comes to marriage, I take a more libertarian view: the government has no role in it. The culture at large doesn't care about marriage as a union, only the title, so they might as well abolish it formally since it is already abolished socially.
#8 Posted 25 June 2011 - 08:42 AM
Mr.Flibble, on 25 June 2011 - 06:45 AM, said:
When it comes to marriage, I take a more libertarian view: the government has no role in it. The culture at large doesn't care about marriage as a union, only the title, so they might as well abolish it formally since it is already abolished socially.
Agreed. Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. There should be no limits to what kind of contracts consenting adults are allowed to make.
#9 Posted 25 June 2011 - 09:03 AM
Mikko_Sandt, on 25 June 2011 - 08:42 AM, said:
I prefer to define marriage as a contract between two sentient beings who have reached the legal age of consent.
I'm assuming at least some aliens out there are super sexy.
#10 Posted 25 June 2011 - 09:34 AM
Mikko_Sandt, on 25 June 2011 - 08:42 AM, said:
This. Fuck all fascist Jesus-freaks. This is America. Our laws are worthless. Gay people should have the same rights as anyone else. Marijuana should be legalised (and no, I'm not a big fan of it, tried it and it's boring.) The drinking age should be lowered to eighteen, and we should be able to buy it on Sundays. Also, religion should be taxed.
#11 Posted 25 June 2011 - 09:54 AM
Captain Awesome, on 25 June 2011 - 09:34 AM, said:
Fucking. Yes.
Mr.Deviance, on 25 June 2011 - 01:01 AM, said:
Don't forget that gerbils will now be a housewarming gift.
This post has been edited by Descent: 25 June 2011 - 09:56 AM
#12 Posted 25 June 2011 - 03:13 PM
This post has been edited by rasmus thorup: 25 June 2011 - 03:16 PM
#13 Posted 25 June 2011 - 03:38 PM
rasmus thorup, on 25 June 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:
No.
http://www.time.com/...2079861,00.html
The Big three, Judaism, Christians and Muslims will not. There are liberal churches that do wed gays. But those are political correct blah blahs. You either follow your faith or you follow the political correct. Or fuck them all, and follow what works for you. As I wrote before, if you want get married, go get married, and I don't give a shit, really. In India you even can get married to your pet.
Sooo, I think you just opened a can of worms. lol
This post has been edited by Hank: 25 June 2011 - 03:40 PM
#14 Posted 25 June 2011 - 05:17 PM
#15 Posted 25 June 2011 - 05:33 PM
In the same way, wanting to kill someone, strictly speaking, isn't a sin (well, depends on how you read some parts of the Christian Scriptures) but acting on that impulse is a sin. Desires are not problems, acting on those desires are a problem. I don't feel like enumerating anything else specific because I'm kind of tired and I need to cut my hair because it grows weird on my neck and I'm self conscious.
#16 Posted 25 June 2011 - 08:20 PM
#17 Posted 25 June 2011 - 08:35 PM
If 2 man wanna marry each other is their opinion not the government. If someone hate gays is their choice but they have no right to tell them not to marry. Or doing any bigot etc.
Gay are normal people. Homophobia is considered discrimination.
Gays don't force straight people to do stuff.
Just like Abortionist don't force pro-life to have an abortion.
GJ to NY.
So when they decriminalized it they became civil and did a right move.
LGBT should be accepted and gay marriage LEGAL everywhere.
I'm not gay myself but I am for civil and equal right.
This post has been edited by Zaxtor: 25 June 2011 - 08:36 PM
#18 Posted 25 June 2011 - 11:40 PM
Captain Awesome, on 25 June 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:
It's not an issue if you were a sinner before Jesus on your side. Once he's in you can't just sin whenever you want because that would be outright hypocritical. If you really accepted Jesus as you savior etc. then you shouldn't sin. If you did you'd be crawling on your knees asking for forgiveness. You can't have sex outside of marriage frequently if you're really really sorry before your god every time you do.
#19 Posted 26 June 2011 - 07:18 AM
Mr.Flibble, on 25 June 2011 - 05:33 PM, said:
That's...not true. Maybe it was in the old testament, but in the new testament Jesus specifically was talking about your desires and motives. According to Christianity, that's why there is a new testament because the old "law" (ten commandments) didn't work.
Matthew 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."
Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Clearly he's talking about desires. In simpler terms, the law wasn't solving the problem by just telling you not to do things since it didn't change your desires.
Helel, on 25 June 2011 - 11:40 PM, said:
Right. Romans 6:1 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?"
If you're going to be a Christian you can't just ignore these verses. Hypocritically, many Christian denominations do.
This post has been edited by MusicallyInspired: 26 June 2011 - 07:20 AM
#20 Posted 26 June 2011 - 07:44 AM
Helel, on 25 June 2011 - 11:40 PM, said:
MusicallyInspired, on 26 June 2011 - 07:18 AM, said:
If you're going to be a Christian you can't just ignore these verses. Hypocritically, many Christian denominations do.
Ignoring the cherry picking of verses, you are both taking a rather extreme view here. The opposite side of the same coin used by Evangelical Christians.
....
MusicallyInspired, on 26 June 2011 - 07:18 AM, said:
Matthew 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."
Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Clearly he's talking about desires. In simpler terms, the law wasn't solving the problem by just telling you not to do things since it didn't change your desires.
That is why I said it "depends on how you read some parts of the Christian Scriptures"...
You can read those and think, "well, it must be what Jesus said" or you can say, "hey, this is only in Matthew's gospel and sounds like a rabbinical interpretation of the laws in the vein of the Talmud." You can say that it is a literal situation (and then reject outright that other passages are literal because you don't like them) or you can read it within its own context etc.
I suppose you can say "strictly" intention is a sin but then you get stuck in this unlivable world and have to either reject the world or reject the scripture. I know people on both sides, but, again, just two sides of the same (faulty logic) coin.
#21 Posted 26 June 2011 - 08:36 AM
The bible was compiled when marriages, as we know it, existed only for the ruling class. To find anything specific references against gay marriages is fruitless. In the good old days, the prime function of marriages was to have and hand down power to your children.
In the same vain; the bible does not embrace gay marriages either. Here however, religion is forced yet again to close a loop hole and do what government wants. In this case get the blessings from the Pope. God made girls and boys to have kids. (I'm atheist - evolution sort of aims towards reproduction) To accept anything else is, well, political correct bullshit. This gay right crap suits the very wealthy gays to assure the cash stays within wanted lovers. Fine, but's at least be honest about it; methinks.
#22 Posted 26 June 2011 - 09:09 AM
Mr.Flibble, on 26 June 2011 - 07:44 AM, said:
Ok, tell me. What's the context then?
Quote
Isn't that the point? Like I said earlier, the whole viewpoint is that it's impossible for humanity in its nature to live that way without these desires and there was nothing to change that. So the commandments were created. But the commandments don't solve the problem, they just deal with the repercussions. The whole point of Jesus coming and dying for our sins etc and everything Christianity believes means that through the crucifixion people can be changed and have their desires and their very natures changed. It's not just a simple set of rules and guidelines for how to live your life that are honestly very annoying to try to follow, it's much deeper than that. If you're truly a saved Christian you're a new person and you have no desire to have any of those intentions so they never become an issue.
Whether you believe any of that or not is a different matter altogether. But that's what Christianity is, that's all I was trying to say. You can't change what it is. Many denominations exist but they're all centred around the same book. They're not all right, in fact maybe none of them are completely right yet. But I don't believe there are many valid interpretations of the same thing. There is one truth in everything. The Bible is not a book of gibberish any more than the Qur'an or some other sacred text is. They all have a clear cut message that you can't take any other way. You can't pick and choose the parts that suit you best. I mean, you can but that doesn't mean you're following the belief as it was intended by God (or man, whatever your opinions are on that). And you can't just point fingers and say "that doesn't work" or "that's not possible" because for many people it does and is. I suppose the bottom line is nobody can tell anybody else that their belief system doesn't work because if they believe it works for them then it's really a matter of opinion from then on. You can't change someone's opinion that religion or spirituality (not the same thing) works anymore than you can change someone's opinion that it doesn't work because it's their experience. You can't argue one's experience, even if you're right. It falls on everyone's own walk in life to come to their beliefs on their own. But I think the whole meaning of "being a Christian" has been diluted with all these different denominations. But strictly speaking there are two groups: those who pick and choose which scriptures suit them best and apply that to their lives as "their Christianity" and those who try to follow the Bible as closely as possible without selfishly picking and choosing. The latter I consider to be "true Christians". And that's true of any religion.
And yeah, this is way off-topic. Maybe this should be moved into that there religion/spirituality thread...
This post has been edited by MusicallyInspired: 26 June 2011 - 09:14 AM
#23 Posted 26 June 2011 - 10:20 AM
Mr.Flibble, on 26 June 2011 - 07:44 AM, said:
What? Having sex outside of marriage isn't "bad" in christianity? Really? Of course, there are different confessions, but still.
Btw, I'm talking about this from point of view of orthodox christianity, but I never thought that orthodox was considered that extreme and different from catholic. Is catholic christiany okay with adultery?
#24 Posted 26 June 2011 - 10:20 AM
Hank, on 26 June 2011 - 08:36 AM, said:
...
God made girls and boys to have kids. (I'm atheist - evolution sort of aims towards reproduction) To accept anything else is, well, political correct bullshit. This gay right crap suits the very wealthy gays to assure the cash stays within wanted lovers. Fine, but's at least be honest about it; methinks.
Actually, marriage as we know it (people who care for each other to some extent) existed for the lower class. The upper class were concerned with money and power more so than the lower class. I haven't done enough reading of non-literary stuff but I'm fairly certain that in the ancient Mediterranean, people had marriages that are close to the style of, at least Judeo-Christian, modern marriages. There are clauses for divorce in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.
However, concerning what you said about evolution, I agree.
MusicallyInspired, on 26 June 2011 - 09:09 AM, said:
Chapters were added late and verses even later in the history of the Bible. The questions posed by Paul in 6:1-2 should be read with the stuff before it. He connects the presence of the law with the existence of sin (if you know you are making a mistake, you are culpable; I think Augustine and others talked about this sort of thing). He says "The law entered in so that transgression (wandering) might increase but, where sin (error) increased, grace overflowed all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through justification for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (5:20-21)
Because of grace, forgiveness to sins is possible. Because of the love of God through Jesus' crucifixion (cf Rom 5:12-19), sin as an oppressive regime is defeated. The concept of "abiding" in sin (your translation said "continue" but I don't like that for epimeno) is different than simply sinning. The use of the article (something lost in an English translation unless they were to capitalize the word) indicates a thing, a philosophical concept or state, rather than individual instances. Perhaps it could be "Should we remain in the state of sin (as those inclined to sin) so that grace may abound?" The call to a higher nature is important.
Perhaps this is exactly what you said and I'm misunderstanding you, but this is way off topic at this point.
MusicallyInspired, on 26 June 2011 - 09:09 AM, said:
We ought to, but the discussion in those threads veered in some way or another so I left them. I can't remember why anymore.
#25 Posted 26 June 2011 - 11:11 AM
Besides, if they're restricting marriage from gays because it's against God's will, I want to start restricting marriage from atheists and other sorts of unbelievers.
This post has been edited by Captain Awesome: 26 June 2011 - 11:13 AM
#26 Posted 26 June 2011 - 11:40 AM
At this point, divorce is essentially a civil law suit over property because one party feels like the other party didn't live up to the contract (that they never actually signed, unless there is some sort of contract in a marriage license; I'm not married so I don't know).
#27 Posted 26 June 2011 - 11:45 AM
Mr.Flibble, on 26 June 2011 - 11:40 AM, said:
Actually, there is a contract. In the French law at least. It mainly concerns the sharing of the common goods acquired, the heritage and that kind of stuff. So when one divorces, he has to follow the marriage contract, which can have different effects according to the chosen type of contract.
This post has been edited by Kyphros: 26 June 2011 - 11:45 AM
#28 Posted 26 June 2011 - 12:01 PM
Mr.Flibble, on 26 June 2011 - 11:40 AM, said:
At this point, divorce is essentially a civil law suit over property because one party feels like the other party didn't live up to the contract (that they never actually signed, unless there is some sort of contract in a marriage license; I'm not married so I don't know).
I had a similar thought earlier this morning. Marriage should be restricted to religious institutions, and our current form of marriage just renamed as civil unions and is irreligious.
#29 Posted 26 June 2011 - 12:15 PM
Kyphros, on 26 June 2011 - 11:45 AM, said:
That is interesting. I think a pre-nuptual agreement in the US would be what that is. As far as I know, a pre-nup is the only form of contract married people agree to, but it is an agreement that when (come on, let's be serious, if you sign a pre-nup, there is no "if") they get divorced, they don't fight over the money etc.
The issue is children. From a legal stand point in a divorce, children are simply property and are given to whomever happens to "win" in the custody battle. The mother tends to win but when she is a crack head or something like that, the father sometimes has a chance.
#30 Posted 26 June 2011 - 12:47 PM
Mr.Flibble, on 26 June 2011 - 10:20 AM, said:
Because of grace, forgiveness to sins is possible.
Actually, I take this to mean moreso that freedom from sin and freedom from committing sins are both possible. Not just forgiveness. When the Bible says to "repent" that doesn't mean "ask forgiveness" that means turn around and don't do it anymore. And that's possible through grace. I'm aware that chapters and verses were not added until later, but even in context of what came before it I still see it this way.
Quote
Perhaps this is exactly what you said and I'm misunderstanding you, but this is way off topic at this point.
I agree there is a distinction between "sin" and "sinning". Sin being the force that's infected humanity and separating us from God and the "sins" being the disobedient actions we do toward God as a result of "sin". I think what Paul was going after was the fact that continuing to live in sin won't help you stop sinning and that because of grace you are freed from sin, and as a result, freed from sinning as well.
Quote
Religious/spiritual discussions usually go south very quickly.
Captain Awesome, on 26 June 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:
Erm...it says the opposite actually.
Romans 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
So, if the price of sin is death, and Jesus paid that for us there is only one possible equation:
Dead people are free from sin + Christ died for our sin = We are free from sin without having to die
That's what the whole crucifixion thing is about and why Christians focus on it so much. It's the whole point. The Bible isn't against it, it's the very message of it.