Anonymous comments allowed.
#196 - poopalishes **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #330 to #196 - godofcorndog (03/28/2013) [-]
Actually marriage isn't about a man and a woman marrying for life and reproducing, that is just what our culture has adapted it to mean. It originally was meant for an exchange of goods between two men, and usually one of their virgin daughters was added in the contract as a wife to help seal the deal.
User avatar #287 to #196 - inomonym (03/28/2013) [-]
Two men or two women get married for the same reasons a man and a woman. It would make absolutely no sense to change the title.
#218 to #196 - theseustheminotaur (03/28/2013) [-]
What is the logic behind it having to be called something different? I don't understand, and why do you care? Other people's marriages have no effect on anyone else's, in the literal and figurative sense.
#217 to #196 - anon (03/28/2013) [-]
Protip: Don't argue with this ↓ faggot. He's a gigantic atheist douche.
User avatar #205 to #196 - noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-]
Why SHOULD it be called anything else? Marriage does not mean a "man and a woman who marry for life and reproduce", otherwise, the heavy majority of married couples wouldn't actually be able to get married. It can easily be described as consenting adults who want to be together. Simple as that. Why over-complicate it.
#230 to #205 - anon (03/28/2013) [-]
Actually it does. When people want to get married in a Christian Church, by a Christian Priest, they are agreeing to the Christian rules of Marriage. Christianity says only a man and a woman can marry. Deal with it.
User avatar #331 to #230 - godofcorndog (03/28/2013) [-]
Thank God the whole world isn't Catholic.
#311 to #230 - rodneyabc (03/28/2013) [-]
So should we ban Hindu weddings as well?
#238 to #230 - gilfhunter (03/28/2013) [-]
If christian churches do not want to marry gay couples, that is their choice. Just as I do not agree with the christian right trying to push their morals on others, I do not agree with gays pushing their ideals on the church. Church believes the way they do, and that is fine, as long as it no longer affects national politics. Other than that, gays should still be allowed to marry. Many hetero couples are not married by church leaders but instead by a justice of the peace. There are more ways to marriage than through a church.
User avatar #235 to #230 - noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-]
Cool, I'm glad christianity says that. But last time I checked the U.S. is secular, meaning no one religion can define a process that is federally supported. Not to count that christianity isn't even the first religion/group to have marriages.

So what about the gay couples that don't want to get married in a christian church, by a christian priest, because they don't want to go with christian rules of marriage? What's wrong with them getting married outside of the church like every other non-christian?
#247 to #235 - anon (03/28/2013) [-]
We were founded on the principle of "Freedom of Religion". Apparently you forgot that.
"Freedom of Religion" means people can practice it any way they want. Meaning they are free to deny marriage services to any couple they don't agree with.

gays can get a civil union. It's exactly the same as marriage. It just doesn't force people to recognize it as something they don't agree with. Apparently being able to get the same benefits isn't enough, they want to take the name, too.
User avatar #273 to #247 - noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-]
Yes we have freedom of religion, and we also have freedom FROM religion.

Considering no specific group can own the word marriage, I see no problem letting gays get married. In any way they choose.

Not to mention there are also priests out there that support gay marriage and would gladly allow them to get married in their church.
User avatar #317 to #273 - durkadurka ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
>Freedom from religion.

No. You have the freedom to associate with your religion of choice, if you choose to associate with one at all. Freedom FROM religion implies that you have a right to never hear, see, or be exposed to religion when others are practicing it.

I might just be reading into your statement wrong, but I'm throwing this out there.
 Friends (0)