P-O-P

Pretty much my view. Live and let live.

Economy is slanting, jobs are far apart, trillion dollar war are fought on dubious grounds, I can buy a gun in the nearby store. Nothing much to get upset about. But two homosexuals getting married!!!! What the f6ck??? Its an outrage! :)

I am just saying..

It's a sentence fragment, and "thid" is not a word in English.

The sentence does not make any sense logically.

I think the second clause was supposed to read: "Markus this election in my view will decide the downfall of hope for America".

I still don't know what fluffing has to do with it...

Thanks for helping a poor sod (me) out, Chris! :D

You have it all wrong, Jeff. Marriage very much is a religious institution that has been adopted by a secular society. It's been so thoroughly bastardized by secularists seeking the modern legal and financial incentives for it, that nit wits have forgotten (or were never aware of) its religious origins.

In the ultimate secular society, why have "marriage" at all? Two people of any gender, age, or whatnot should be able to live together without having to disclose that arrangement to the state. Secularist who marry do so out of a religious based tradition, whether they like to admit it or not. They do so equally for its' modern advantages.

There is no disputing, however, that marriage is a religious based institution. Secularists that don't like that should find their own damn term. Like "civil union" or something; for straights as well as gays. Don't use the religious term if you don't want all the baggage that goes with it.

:)

I get accused of being "awfully European" at times. I take that as a compliment given how stupid a lot of Americans are. . .

I wish I had as much free time as some people here have, so I too could sit at home and hate so many groups that are not like me.

I was waiting for the first moron to drag out the "hate" card.

It's as well worn and overused as the "moron" card, don't you think?

The lady doth protest too much...

"Originally Posted by Rikao4
a start fluffing, Markus thid election in my view will decide the downfall or hope for America,

Rika"

Start fluffing, Markus. This election, in my view, will decided the downfall or hope for America.

OK, I'll give you partial credit for your answer. The part about "marriage" being a religious institution is partially correct, but only when understood in the context of societies in which there was little (if any) distinction between religious and secular authority. In the Middle Ages, for example, there was considerable blurring of the lines of authority between religion and government. Kings were believed to be selected by God and had broad authority bestowed upon them by divine ordination. Once can look back as long as they want in societies of the Middle East, Europe, North America, Asia, even Africa to see similar patterns. Religion has always been used as a tool by government to "legitimize" itself and its policies/beliefs/institutions. Our own society is quite revolutionary in the fact that it allows (and in fact seeks to have) religion to be separated from the secular government.

So to answer the question, "is marriage a secular institution or a religious one?", I"d have to say that historically it's been a little of both. Traditionally it has been an institution with secular motives given credibility through religious authority. In our society, we set the "base" laws, policies, beliefs, standards, laws, etc. based on purely SECULAR interests and must have them remain so - even if they have historically become part of the secular arena through such "religious authority" in the past. If one wants to include the religious parts on their own, no problem.

The options are:

1. Marriage as a secular institution (historically what's been done in the U.S. through civil ceremonies, etc.)

2. Marriage as a religious institution (meaning that government would have to defer some of its authority to religious authorities, which is problematic and a slippery slope at best).

- - -

Seems simple enough. The LAWS (for everyone) should be secular. The INDIVIDUAL CHOICES to go "above and beyond" those can be religious (or simply personal beliefs, whichever).

Not really. Why is it that particularly when discussing sexual preference or race, some one always has to play the "hate" card when some one else dissagrees with their position? It is both childish and simplistic; the use of "moron" was meant to reflect that.

You do seem adept at the childish, simplistic answers. You have now somewhat dissingeniously picked the top two from the "neener neener, yes you are, but what am I?" grade school response list used when discussing gay rights. You are going to have to do better than that.

No, I don't. I'm new here, see? You guys have long ago established your pecking order, and your cliques. I'm not about to try to interfere with that. I've put my time in with other forums.

However, I hoped that sitting among a bunch of high end German car owners would allow me the opportunity to chat on a slightly more intelligent and aware level...it's safe to assume that this group has more education, wealth, and background than many other forums I've been a part of, and it USED to be safe to assume that people with more education, wealth and background could actually discuss subjects in a clean and decent manner, following basic rules of debate.


I was wrong in my hopes, apparently.

This is very simple. Marriage is a religious institution. The government has chosen to give certain rights to those married people. As our government has become more secular, it decided to take over marriage from the churches to appease those who wanted a union but didn't want to do it in a church.

I still do not get why it is not reasonable to make all unions civil in the government's eyes and reserve "marriage" for those people joined in a church under the authority of that church.

On the gay marriage vs polygamy thing, to me there is no difference. If you accept that heterosexual sex is the norm in humans then anything outside of heterosexual sex is a deviation from that norm. In fact, polygamy could be viewed as much less "harmful" to the race as a whole vs homosexuality. If the world were full of homosexuals, the race wouldn't do very well. A bunch of polygamists would do just fine though.

Dude, you are in the WRONG place. Better head over to the Ferrari forum or something...

You guys ain't THAT bad...

There is nothing 'right' about homosexuality.


KT

wow. ok...say two people love each other. what if the two people dont believe in God? i understand the nice gentle guys in here that follow the scripture. you know the nice ones.. the "turn the other cheek" guys. really, down to the bone, driven by God NICE! you guys feel homosexuality is an abonimation. i get that. but IF the two individuals lesbian/gaydudes want a legal union? call it marriage. why cant they get it? are they to be held to your beliefs? i dont get it. this is a courtroom marriage right? i still dont get it.

i think, live and let live is the easier solution. the days of forced beliefs are supposed to be over.

i just heard that the GOD HATE FAAGS group is going to crash george takai's wedding. i dont care who you think you have in your corner. that is just a diick move.

So you aren't into German cars. So you are here as a, what was your term, "scrotum remora?"

Feel free to spit your airheaded opinions out here. Just don't cry if they get slapped back into your face.

I'll never lobby or vote for or against any of these subjects.

It's NOT within our abilty to correct the wrongs in society.

It's up to everyone to make their choices in life.
Not all choices are correct.

When it's all said and done, history will record that being gay was a bad choice.


KT