Freedom of Marriage

[Custard]

And you know how lenient the Christians are as far as marriage goes... :/

[Ad Bot]

[Duckmeister]

Really, I've read a couple of your previous posts, and all I saw was "This topic is dumb" or "Wow this is really handicapped" or some stupid stuff like that. Maybe if you actually thought stuff out before you wrote it, I'd take your opinions and ideas seriously, but obviously we're to childish, or stupid for your superiority. Get the hell out.

Gee, this looks a lot like

useless ranting

Think about it this way: I went to my friend's party, and said "This party is stupid" and then saw another dude start a party within the party, so I went over to his party and started partying there.

Why are we using a party as an allegory?

Sure, let's trust a Christian on that subject.

Normally, this would be a valid critique of bias.  Because it's coming from you, however, it's total discrimination.  Do we have to do the whole "no such thing as religious neutrality" thing again?

If I agreed with you on this subject, and recommended "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine, you would have no problem, even though the bias there is exponentially greater.  And then the Christian version of you quotes from the wiki and says "Sure, let's trust an Atheist on that subject".

Yay, hypocrisy!

[Custard]

Normally, this would be a valid critique of bias.  Because it's coming from you, however, it's total discrimination.  Do we have to do the whole "no such thing as religious neutrality" thing again?

If I agreed with you on this subject, and recommended "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine, you would have no problem, even though the bias there is exponentially greater.  And then the Christian version of you quotes from the wiki and says "Sure, let's trust an Atheist on that subject".

Yay, hypocrisy!

You say you hate people who go "People who don't approve of gay marriage are handicaps" yet you go along and say "People who don't like the Christians are discriminating"

Please! Now you're the one seeping with ignorance and hypocrisy.

And also, it turns out you're only talking about religion here as opposed to what the discussion is actually about. Where's your valid argument here? Oh yeah, it's "This discussion is stupid, and Custard is just showing off". If you don't like it, get out. I have the right to rant about people hating my party, yet staying there anyway. It's complete ignorance and stupidity combined together to form the most perfect douche bag.

[dkamm65]

Normally, this would be a valid critique of bias.  Because it's coming from you, however, it's total discrimination.  Do we have to do the whole "no such thing as religious neutrality" thing again?

If I agreed with you on this subject, and recommended "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine, you would have no problem, even though the bias there is exponentially greater.  And then the Christian version of you quotes from the wiki and says "Sure, let's trust an Atheist on that subject".

Yay, hypocrisy!

lol I never said what side of this debate I was on, you just assumed. My point is, on a subject that is, according to you, so easily misinterpreted, why should we trust the opinion of anyone but ourselves? There is too much room for interpretation in the opinions of others. This author you referenced has quite clearly cemented himself on one side of the debate, so why should I think anything of his opinion other than it will be biased? I'm just thinking from reason here. As I said, the only opinion I trust is my own.

[Duckmeister]

You say you hate people who go "People who don't approve of gay marriage are handicaps" yet you go along and say "People who don't like the Christians are discriminating"

Please! Now you're the one seeping with ignorance and hypocrisy.

The only reason why I hate people who say "People who don't approve of gay marriage are handicaps" is because they don't actually provide any argument, it's nothing but a personal attack.  All that person needs to do is put "because" after that statement, and then explain themselves.  I fully respect someone who's willing to contribute to an argument, regardless of whether I disagree with them, but if they're just going to spew ad hominem statements then I see no reason to pretend that their posts are legitimate.

tl;dr stop putting words in my mouth.

And also, it turns out you're only talking about religion here as opposed to what the discussion is actually about. Where's your valid argument here? Oh yeah, it's "This discussion is stupid, and Custard is just showing off". If you don't like it, get out. I have the right to rant about people hating my party, yet staying there anyway. It's complete ignorance and stupidity combined together to form the most perfect douche bag.

Hey, this looks like more

useless ranting

!

My point is, on a subject that is, according to you, so easily misinterpreted, why should we trust the opinion of anyone but ourselves? There is too much room for interpretation in the opinions of others. This author you referenced has quite clearly cemented himself on one side of the debate, so why should I think anything of his opinion other than it will be biased? I'm just thinking from reason here. As I said, the only opinion I trust is my own.

I totally agree with you (as far as the disadvantages of going by another's interpretation), but the problem is you said "trust a Christian".  Come on.  That's a little more than simply disagreeing with a person's views.  That's basically "poisoning the well".

Besides, you're completely missing the point.  I recommended the book because it states my position better than I ever could, and more importantly, more thorough than I ever could.  All I was trying to say was "I agree with the views of this book, read it if you want to find out what I think on this subject".  I couldn't care less if it persuaded anybody.

[Dodger]

Well, just because somebody has established himself on one side of an argument doesn't mean they can't contribute any valid/important/new points to an argument at all.

[Custard]

Anyways, the true purpose of this discussion was to bring up opinions over marriage and the restrictions placed against it, but I guess it's become a book talk. Really though, the separation of church and state have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. You're basically riding the backs of other people's opinions and injecting them with your views, whilst having nothing to do with the actual discussion.

I'm not here to argue with you about something I didn't intend for this topic to obtain. So saying I'm ranting is completely hypocritical.

[Dodger]

Anyways, the true purpose of this discussion was to bring up opinions over marriage and the restrictions placed against it, but I guess it's become a book talk. Really though, the separation of church and state have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. You're basically riding the backs of other people's opinions and injecting them with your views, whilst having nothing to do with the actual discussion.

I'm not here to argue with you about something I didn't intend for this topic to obtain. So saying I'm ranting is completely hypocritical.

Certain religions have restrictions on when marriage is right and wrong, and when you talk about free marriage, there is obviously going to be some debate over whether it is right or wrong from members of both viewpoints considering that this forum has multiple members of both sides. Also, the fact that you bring the US constitution in effect to whether anyone can marry whoever you want entwines that argument along with the toleration of just about all religions here in the US and their viewpoints on homoloveual marriage.

It was going to come to this and theory, and now it is reality.

[Custard]

Well, this is true, but while I incorporate religion into my comparisons to marriage, religion actually reflects upon the matter rather than having absolutely nothing to do with it. The separation of church and state isn't the same as the restrictions against marriage, nor does it state anything about the freedom of marriage. This is why I state that it has nothing to do with the matter.

[Solid]

AMERICA - Everybody's free, except some people.

[Packer]

Its the USA, most contradicting country in the world. Religion for politics is one of those areas you never touch, hence why they get away with so much. USA is highly based on religion, to go against it is Self Delete. With that said, religion is against any sort of manner that doesn't increase their own population, meaning more people going to church etc. To merely suggest that you have "the right to pursue happiness" is absolutely outrageous, say I wanted to kill someone for my own happiness... not gonna let me go free in the eyes of the law.

Marriage is just a legal thing in the end, doesn't actually truly mean anything unless your a religious nut hence where Marriage came from. I somehow don't think I will ever get married... too much legal stuff to think about.

[Hectic]

I've always had no problem with "Gay" marriage.
I mean who is the gov' to say who you can't love.
Why the hell do they care in the first place?

[Dodger]

I've always had no problem with "Gay" marriage.
I mean who is the gov' to say who you can't love.
Why the hell do they care in the first place?

BECAUSE OF RELIGION?

Also, many people see it as contradictory to nature.

[*Magick* Mage]

I've always had no problem with "Gay" marriage.
I mean who is the gov' to say who you can't love.
Why the hell do they care in the first place?

Because if we can stop the gays from marrying each other, all our problems would be solved!

[Dodger]

Because if we can stop the gays from marrying each other, all our problems would be solved!

NO MORE AIDS THEN!