Marriage and it's supposed sanctity

J2 i haven't said you missed the point of the thread, i was waiting for you to join it.

Quote:

---

I really hate to intrude on your thread with tough questions, but you know how I am.

---

what's tough about the questions?


Not sure why you think that i am lightening "accidental pregnancy"...... in this day and age contraception is widely available and many, but not all, pregnancies can be avoided. Sometimes even with contraception accidents happen.

I know the arguement of abstinance being the only 100% protection however again i think that goes against what is sacred in marriage. The absinance approach being a "moral" theory..... i don't think that having sex if one is an adult is immoral...even outside wedlock. This does of course mean that if one does partake then one has to accept responsibility for any possible outcome.

This is where you and I part company.

I am pro choice even though i would never make that choice myself. (i would like to steer clear of the abortion debate please as this thread has already been hijacked once) But then even married people have abortions.
I would not consider it a "family value" to push 2 people together that had a one night stand that resulted in a baby. To me this is turning marriage into a punishment instead of a commitment.

If they both decide to have said child and both wish to be involved as parents they can choose to do so without being married.

But then there is also the point that to me a "marriage" is the life and not the ceromony that makes it official.

i know of many people that live together out of wedlock and their relationships are shining examples of what marriage should be.
They endure the judgemental "well they can just walk away" comments from married couples that IMO don't have as good a "marriage" even with the paperwork.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

When was this thread hijacked.

The first question asked (after the gay marriage disclaimer) was "What is the sanctity of marriage? "

The discussions here have been in relation to that subject, so how was it hijacked.

---

already covered that, reworded, and cleared it up....next question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

What's that supposed to mean. People were on topic throughout. The fact that you may have subsequently made a post, which said that they were not talking about what you had originally intended is irrelevant.

There was no spam to speak of and people were having a sensible discussion. So once again, when was it hijacked. Perhaps an answer this time.

---

If you don't like the answer that's your problem. The thread was cleared up..it is about the sanctity of the "Marriage" not the meaning of the term, it is about the way marriage is conducted, not the vow to god...yet that continued to be the debate even after it was cleared up.

As i said before, if anyone misses the point i will galdly clear up any misunderstanding...... if they then decide that they haven't missed the point I made and decide to follow the point they think i made then they are hijacking and going off direction.

look back and read the original post...there was more than just one line, it was devoted to making the point about what is breaking the meaning of what marriage is supposed to be in its "sacredness" (i have cleared that element up)

Hobbes picked up on it very clearly



if you wish to join that debate i welcome your views

You have to have something like the Royal Perogative or the Executive Order, otherwise a country cannot react quickly enough to some events.

Its the misuse of these powers that i object to.

ie: The concentration of too much power in one persons/parties hands.

The Head of State should be a Titular Position, with no real power other than being able to force an election and react to events threatening the nation...

Governing should be left to the Prime Minister and Parliament.. accountability, although much slower. To give the PM the powers of the Head of State too, which he currently employs.. means that he can bypass Parliament when he feels like it. Just like GW does in Washington with his Executive Orders.

Your way, is basically electing an Absolute Leader for a period of time... I dont like Absolutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Who is it you think you are exactly. People discuss things the way they wish to, not the way you direct them to. As long as it is not spam, or offensive then it is not a problem. The fact that you started the thread is irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of where it naturally progresses to.

---

there is a difference between natural progression and not discussing the original point at all.

If you wish to further hijack and argue more please start your own thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

You have to have something like the Royal Perogative or the Executive Order, otherwise a country cannot react quickly enough to some events.

Its the misuse of these powers that i object to.

ie: The concentration of too much power in one persons/parties hands.

The Head of State should be a Titular Position, with no real power other than being able to force an election and react to events threatening the nation...

Governing should be left to the Prime Minister and Parliament.. accountability, although much slower. To give the PM the powers of the Head of State too, which he currently employs.. means that he can bypass Parliament when he feels like it. Just like GW does in Washington with his Executive Orders.

Your way, is basically electing an Absolute Leader for a period of time... I dont like Absolutes.

---

stop it rat :lol:

So then, the upshot of all of this is that the institution of marriage, with all of it's accoutrements, religious and/or otherwise, has no righteous or tangible value to any other than religious types, and no one apart from religious types could/would/should have any objection whatsoever if the union and all rights thereto were extended to any and all, so long as their reasons for seeking such a union are of a strictly secular nature? :huh:

Ought to be interesting when the shepherd/sheep lobby, et. al., step to the plate... :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

So then, the upshot of all of this is that the institution of marriage, with all of it's accoutrements, religious and/or otherwise, has no righteous or tangible value to any other than religious types, and no one apart from religious types could/would/should have any objection whatsoever if the union and all rights thereto were extended to any and all, so long as their reasons for seeking such a union are of a strictly secular nature? :huh:

Ought to be interesting when the shepherd/sheep lobby, et. al., step to the plate... :whistling

---

No.... i am not religious and i am argueing that marriage is being demoted by those that take it frivilously. I have however probably hit a nerve because i made a point of saying that some (not all) people of faith are just as responsible for this as those with no faith.

As to the objection bit to it being extended to all, who said only religious "types" could have an objection?.

That said i think it should be extended to all..... as long as it is taken with the seriousness it is supposed to have

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

stop it rat :lol:

---

I have no idea how that post appeared in this thread
:blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

No.... i am not religious and i am argueing that marriage is being demoted by those that take it frivilously. I have however probably hit a nerve because i made a point of saying that some (not all) people of faith are just as responsible for this as those with no faith.

As to the objection bit to it being extended to all, who said only religious "types" could have an objection?.

That said i think it should be extended to all..... as long as it is taken with the seriousness it is supposed to have

---

You have contended (in your own roundabout way) that the only people who would object to sharing the term marriage do so on religious grounds, and whose opinions on the matter are therefore of no account.

Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You have contended (in your own roundabout way) that the only people who would object to sharing the term marriage do so on religious grounds, and whose opinions on the matter are therefore of no account.

Right?

---

The thing is that same sex couples may make the exact same pledge to God that you do, it just may be that they define their God differently.

It is the belief in God that is important, not which God.

There are many heterosexual couples who are "married" but have no faith in God, haven't heard much of a ruckus about insisting they use another term. Only since this whole gay thing came up that this has been an issue.

But I'm not one who cares about the word. Call it garraige, fairyage, homosexualarige, it is the violation of personal rights that I am concerned with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You have contended (in your own roundabout way) that the only people who would object to sharing the term marriage do so on religious grounds, and whose opinions on the matter are therefore of no account.

Right?

---

wrong.

I have pointed out that many do only because of their religious beliefs but have not said once that because it is soley because of religious beliefs that it is of no account, i just disagree that they have a monopoly on the word marriage.
Where i object isn't because they wish to keep the word marriage, rather they wish to deny the rights that go along with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

wrong.

I have pointed out that many do only because of their religious beliefs but have not said once that because it is soley because of religious beliefs that it is of no account, i just disagree that they have a monopoly on the word marriage.
Where i object isn't because they wish to keep the word marriage, rather they wish to deny the rights that go along with it.

---

And I, your own personal rock-ribbed conservative, have said that I myself wouldn't care if, say, a civil union included all rights normally included in heterosexual marriage, as long as, if it is not a heterosexual union, it is not referred to as a marriage.

If those partaking in "civil unions" wish some sort of religious sanctification to be conferred upon the ceremony, that is a fight for them, to be fought another day; mayhaps they'd find it a desirable option to try to start another religion or something.

May I take it you would agree with the scenario I have just laid out, vid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

And I, your own personal rock-ribbed conservative, have said that I myself wouldn't care if, say, a civil union included all rights normally included in heterosexual marriage, as long as, if it is not a heterosexual union, it is not referred to as a marriage.

If those partaking in "civil unions" wish some sort of religious sanctification to be conferred upon the ceremony, that is a fight for them, to be fought another day; mayhaps they'd find it a desirable option to try to start another religion or something.

May I take it you would agree with the scenario I have just laid out, vid?

---

I'm not sure what vid would think but I think it's nonsense to take a stand declaring that you don't mind homosexuals getting married so long as they never utter the word marriage when relating to their state of union. Would you also like heterosexual folk to also have a monopoly on the word wedding or perhaps referring to a young lad in the ceremony as a page boy is also a bone of contention.

Please, live and let live. What possible difference does it make.

One definition of to marry is 'to combine or blend agreeably' Therefore, imo to marry is precisely that, and is not dependant on the sex or even nature of the individual parts, but a joining together.

J2

Please put your ego back in the box.... :rolleyes: .... then point to where i said "all" conservatives in ANY post when i have argued the rights for homosexuals to marry/civil union ....if i mean you specifically i will use your name or words such as "you" :P

It has been noted because you made the point of actually letting us know what your view is (sometimes we never find out :P )...we understand and accept your view but don't agree with it as I at least don't believe anyone has the ownership of the word.
Make it a civil union by all means as long as it carries the same rights countrywide...no state excluded....however you will not be able to stop people from calling it marriage. couples are going to say "we are married"...not "we are civil unioned". But then what would you call it if a church decides it will accept gay "unions"?

@ manker

I won't say that J2s stance is "nonsense" even if i disagree and and can say why (as you did) i say this not to argue with you but because i think just because someone disagrees with me that doesn't mean they have a less valid viewpoint....there is too much of that already :)

@ sara

;) not wishing to open that can of worms..... :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vid

@ manker

I won't say that J2s stance is "nonsense" even if i disagree and and can say why (as you did) i say this not to argue with you but because i think just because someone disagrees with me that doesn't mean they have a less valid viewpoint....there is too much of that already :)

---

I think lots of people have less valid viewpoints than my own. Some of them, in my opinion, are nonsensical whereas my own are not. That's not to say I'd deny them the right to their own viewpoint - merely that I think my own is better.

I duno, does that make me sound like an arse :P

Of course I meant no detriment to J2, fine chap that he is. I expressed that I believed his viewpoint to be lacking in logic, or sense - hence nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

J2

Please put your ego back in the box.... :rolleyes: .... then point to where i said "all" conservatives in ANY post when i have argued the rights for homosexuals to marry/civil union ....if i mean you specifically i will use your name or words such as "you" :P

---

I didn't say you said "all"; I alluded to the fact you defined (everywhere I have ascertained), in every instance you mentioned, that those who were stuck on the point of just who should be allowed to appropriate the term, were doing so based on a religious objection.

You never acknowledged one who so objected could be doing so for any reason other than religion.

If you ever specified me, I do not remember it.

In my last post, I began by referring (rather clearly, I thought) to myself, so your last makes no sense.

Worry not, though-it isn't the first time for that. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You never acknowledged one who so objected could be doing so for any reason other than religion.

---

This is because i have not come across anyone that objected to the use of the word other than due to religious beliefs.

I don't doubt that there are people that fit this criteria and have not once said that they don't exist.

I will of course refrain from starting a thread complaining that because i haven't mentioned those of non religious objections that i am being unfairly judged as not realising they exist :P

Just making it a round 80, just to be tidy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Just making it a round 80, just to be tidy.

---

Huh?.....

it was a "round 80"...you made it 81 :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I will of course refrain from starting a thread complaining that because i haven't mentioned those of non religious objections that i am being unfairly judged as not realising they exist :P

---

Of course.

A round 83, then. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Huh?.....

it was a "round 80"...you made it 81 :unsure:

---

Even with J2's addition and this one, my page says 83, so it was 80 for me. Wonder if that has to do with the fact you started the thread. :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Even with J2's addition and this one, my page says 83, so it was 80 for me. Wonder if that has to do with the fact you started the thread. :blink:

---

well that's wierd, surely it would include all posts...i should find one you started and put the number in see if you see it one more...... just wish i could raise enough interest to do it :lol: