U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide

[Rich]

 

 

 

 

Frankly I dont think marriage has much to do with religion anymore anyways.

Well it does for religious people.

And for those that arent religious, why should they be held to the standard of the religious? Is a marriage between two non-religious people any less of a commitment?

Someone asked what the big deal was outside of the ceremonial nature of marriage. There are matters of benefits, death benefits, decision-making etc. Things of that nature.

Franky I think those matters are the big deal. I also don't know why one religion would pretend to have a monopoly on the concept/term since it's been around forever under many different civilizations.

 

Although never between two men or two women, to be fair.

 

 

Thats not entirely true. Ancient Greece and Rome, Mesopotamia, some regions in China, and some older European areas allowed a same-sex marriages until Christianity came into more prominence.

[tacklewasher]

 

 

Although never between two men or two women, to be fair.

 

 

 

Thats not entirely true. Ancient Greece and Rome, Mesopotamia, some regions in China, and some older European areas allowed a same-sex marriages until Christianity came into more prominence.

 

 

This needs to be reiterated.

 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

 

"Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans."

 

"In North America, among the Native Americans societies, same-sex unions have taken place with persons known as Two-Spirit types. These are individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes. "In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with utmost respect and acceptance," according to anthropologist Brian Gilley."

 

Many more examples on that page. This is not a new occurence. Turns out it was the Church who changed the meaning of marriage centuries ago. Now they are grumpy that it is changing back.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

 

Although never between two men or two women, to be fair.

 

 

 

Thats not entirely true. Ancient Greece and Rome, Mesopotamia, some regions in China, and some older European areas allowed a same-sex marriages until Christianity came into more prominence.

 

 

This needs to be reiterated.

 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

 

"Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans."

 

"In North America, among the Native Americans societies, same-sex unions have taken place with persons known as Two-Spirit types. These are individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes. "In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with utmost respect and acceptance," according to anthropologist Brian Gilley."

 

Many more examples on that page. This is not a new occurence. Turns out it was the Church who changed the meaning of marriage centuries ago. Now they are grumpy that it is changing back.

 

Really hits home.  When you also start looking into how the early Church manipulated things, you start to wonder about some of the believes otherwise intelligent people hold.  God gave us free will and intelligence for a reason and it wasnt to blindly follow a book written by man filled with inconsistencies and contradictions. 

[Fraser]

You want to talk about marriage and unnatural, trying to make priests celibate tops the list for me. If you look far enough back, priests could marry, the problem was they'd end up leaving all their $$$ to their heirs. Banning from them from marrying fixed that, at the expense of all the abuse it caused.

[Mark H.]

The church during the Middle Ages was manipulative, but not the early church. Contrary to popular belief, the Romans actually supported the Early Church created by the Apostles. Things were quite peaceful until Constantine decided church and state should be one and the same. That's when all the trouble and all the wars started; the idea of a 'just war' finds its roots in the amalgamation of church and state.

[basslicker]

The church during the Middle Ages was manipulative, but not the early church. Contrary to popular belief, the Romans actually supported the Early Church created by the Apostles. Things were quite peaceful until Constantine decided church and state should be one and the same. That's when all the trouble and all the wars started; the idea of a 'just war' finds its roots in the amalgamation of church and state.

Christians were killed for many years before they became powerful....and the want to kill them never went away.

Christians have more than other ways, spread their beliefs through their own blood. Unlike some other religions I can name that spread it mostly by the sword.

love them or hate them, the Christian faith has kept the west alive and 'free' for hundreds of years.

And if you religious or not, they still want the west dead...or cowed. We're all in this together.

I only say this because we're a target more than ever and this thread's topic is just one other thing that angers our enemies. I'm not blaming homosexuals, jut saying. They're allowed to live free here but are still imprisoned and killed in many nations. We're all lucky to live here. And in the grand scheme of things, I believe gay marriage is a footnote in a world where we have much bigger problems.

[Mark F]

grumpy… Lol

[Taynted_Fayth]

LOL @ 'being a young healthy white male is the worst thing you can possibly be in canada now' haha how many advantages can one person possibly have?

 

all things "equal" that puts you far behind, I would lose out to a visible minority, a woman or a disabled person, no one wants a PR nightmare should I beat out one of those 3 and they decide to feel wronged and vocal about it.

 

Im a little unsure what advantages I have other then my health over a disabled person, something I have no control over much like i didn't choose my skin colour, my gender, or have control over other peoples hate crimes and actions. There's groups and organization out there specifically granting free money and education to cater these people as well, not to me tho, even things like EI, EIA, social assistance put in place by the government itself, are stupid hard to be approved for. Am I supposed to automatically be able to attain these things like higher education and employment because my parents were blue collar workers who provided for their family, put me in public school and were not poor but far from well off? Equality my ass. I guess i missed the memo that I really am not allowed to struggle cuz its a short rope being offered as help 

 

I am absolutely against the way certain groups of ppl have been treated over the course of time, but it's hard not to feel thrown under the bus for those actions which I had no part of. I heard somewhere white people will soon be the visible minority in canada with our lax immigration laws and current population growth rates among the different races, I believe Filipino and Aboriginals were crushing caucasians in the stats, so fingers crossed my day of equality will come

[Mark H.]

 

The church during the Middle Ages was manipulative, but not the early church. Contrary to popular belief, the Romans actually supported the Early Church created by the Apostles. Things were quite peaceful until Constantine decided church and state should be one and the same. That's when all the trouble and all the wars started; the idea of a 'just war' finds its roots in the amalgamation of church and state.

Christians were killed for many years before they became powerful....and the want to kill them never went away.

Christians have more than other ways, spread their beliefs through their own blood. Unlike some other religions I can name that spread it mostly by the sword.

love them or hate them, the Christian faith has kept the west alive and 'free' for hundreds of years.

And if you religious or not, they still want the west dead...or cowed. We're all in this together.

I only say this because we're a target more than ever and this thread's topic is just one other thing that angers our enemies. I'm not blaming homosexuals, jut saying. They're allowed to live free here but are still imprisoned and killed in many nations. We're all lucky to live here. And in the grand scheme of things, I believe gay marriage is a footnote in a world where we have much bigger problems.

 

 

The truth is there were Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians in the early church (c. 100 CE).  The persecution was almost entirely these two groups persecuting each other.  The governing authorities had little if anything to do with it.  Roman tolerance of Christianity is mostly a positive story.

 

During the middle ages (dark ages) you had church and state intertwined and very corrupt.  When people started to speak up about this, they were persecuted by the Catholic Church and by governing authorities.  My own ancestors were among these groups and were in fact considered radicals during that era.

 

In short, it's mostly a history of Christians persecuting each other because of differing beliefs. 

[MOBomberFan]

In response to T_F I guess it depends on the scale you're measuring the advantages with. If I had to choose between young healthy white male living in Canada, or young black female living in the Congo, I'm re-upping on white guy every day of the week.

I'm a young healthy white male and I certainly don't feel disadvantaged in any sense of the word.

[tacklewasher]

 

In short, it's mostly a history of Christians persecuting each other because of differing beliefs. 

 

Don't forget the Christians killing non-Christians. Something called the Crusades.

[Mark H.]

 

 

In short, it's mostly a history of Christians persecuting each other because of differing beliefs. 

 

Don't forget the Christians killing non-Christians. Something called the Crusades.

 

 

Absolutely.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

LOL @ 'being a young healthy white male is the worst thing you can possibly be in canada now' haha how many advantages can one person possibly have?

 

all things "equal" that puts you far behind, I would lose out to a visible minority, a woman or a disabled person, no one wants a PR nightmare should I beat out one of those 3 and they decide to feel wronged and vocal about it.

 

Im a little unsure what advantages I have other then my health over a disabled person, something I have no control over much like i didn't choose my skin colour, my gender, or have control over other peoples hate crimes and actions. There's groups and organization out there specifically granting free money and education to cater these people as well, not to me tho, even things like EI, EIA, social assistance put in place by the government itself, are stupid hard to be approved for. Am I supposed to automatically be able to attain these things like higher education and employment because my parents were blue collar workers who provided for their family, put me in public school and were not poor but far from well off? Equality my ass. I guess i missed the memo that I really am not allowed to struggle cuz its a short rope being offered as help 

 

I am absolutely against the way certain groups of ppl have been treated over the course of time, but it's hard not to feel thrown under the bus for those actions which I had no part of. I heard somewhere white people will soon be the visible minority in canada with our lax immigration laws and current population growth rates among the different races, I believe Filipino and Aboriginals were crushing caucasians in the stats, so fingers crossed my day of equality will come

 

I disagree.

 

As a white male I cant honestly complain that I've lost opportunities to less qualified visible minorities, disabled persons or women.  I work for a very visible company too.  When I was younger I was very against affirmative action and I can understand why some people are.  But working towards a more diverse workplace is a good thing.  Its not about promoting or hiring unqualified people over qualified white people.  I dont know if that happens too much.  But as others have said, how many more opportunities do you need if you're white?  Its about fixing a broken situation that was unduly impacted by bigotry in the past.

 

I will say I strongly disagree with the assertion that white cannot be victims of racism.  That's the Eric Robinson nonsense with his racist remarks.  His "Im a victim of racism so Im allowed to be racist" defense and the "white people cant be victims".  There was some sort of protest a few weeks back where an Aboriginal group blocked Portage Ave.  Small group that rightly should have been removed by the police.  But for political reasons they were not.  The Police attended to make sure it was a peaceful protest.  But the Aboriginal group doing the protesting were making very vile racists remarks to passers-by.  Its people like that that do their cause and their people a dis-service.

[basslicker]

In short, it's mostly a history of Christians persecuting each other because of differing beliefs.

Don't forget the Christians killing non-Christians. Something called the Crusades.

The crusades were mainly a defensive response to the Muslims invading Europe and followed four hundred years of Islam attacking and killing Christians.

And they tried to reclaim the holy land as the Christians there were suffering greatly under the ruling Muslims.

If there was no crusades, Europe would have fallen.

[tacklewasher]

 

 

In short, it's mostly a history of Christians persecuting each other because of differing beliefs.

Don't forget the Christians killing non-Christians. Something called the Crusades.

The crusades were mainly a defensive response to the Muslims invading Europe and followed four hundred years of Islam attacking and killing Christians.

And they tried to reclaim the holy land as the Christians there were suffering greatly under the ruling Muslims.

If there was no crusades, Europe would have fallen.

 

You keep on defending one of the most brutal actions by the Church in 2000 years. Enjoy that, but I'm not biting.

[basslicker]

In short, it's mostly a history of Christians persecuting each other because of differing beliefs.

Don't forget the Christians killing non-Christians. Something called the Crusades.

The crusades were mainly a defensive response to the Muslims invading Europe and followed four hundred years of Islam attacking and killing Christians.

And they tried to reclaim the holy land as the Christians there were suffering greatly under the ruling Muslims.

If there was no crusades, Europe would have fallen.

You keep on defending one of the most brutal actions by the Church in 2000 years. Enjoy that, but I'm not biting.

Believe what you will, but the crusades were a reaction to Muslim hostilities.

It's not myth, but it has become an urban myth of anti Christian sentiment.

[The Unknown Poster]

The moral of the story is, its okay to be violently brutal in the name of religion if the other side starts it and you think your God is better.

 

Im being sarcastic and certainly will not get into a debate about the Crusades.  Im a believer in God but anyone who says "because the bible says so..." is a non-starter. 

 

Saw a great post on FB.  "Even if you think being gay is a choice, so what.  People choose to be a$$holes all the time and they can get married".

 

The way I look at it, if you think it's wrong, so be it.  You have the choice to not marry someone of the same sex.  But the arrogance and ignorance to actually come down on the side of saying gay marriage should not be allowed...its mind boggling really.  In 2015!  its almost funny if it wasnt so sad.

[basslicker]

The moral of the story is, its okay to be violently brutal in the name of religion if the other side starts it and you think your God is better.

Im being sarcastic and certainly will not get into a debate about the Crusades. Im a believer in God but anyone who says "because the bible says so..." is a non-starter.

Saw a great post on FB. "Even if you think being gay is a choice, so what. People choose to be a$$holes all the time and they can get married".

The way I look at it, if you think it's wrong, so be it. You have the choice to not marry someone of the same sex. But the arrogance and ignorance to actually come down on the side of saying gay marriage should not be allowed...its mind boggling really. In 2015! its almost funny if it wasnt so sad.

The moral is its OK to defend your freedom and way of life. Marriage debate put aside.

[Fraser]

No one is taking your freedom away by simply existing

[The Unknown Poster]

And that's the key. Gays and their allies have no desire to hate or remove the rights of the religious "wrong". But the religious wrong feel they are justified in doing that to gay people. Because they know better. Because a very very old book written by flawed man tells them a bunch of things that they pick and choose from to believe.

[Mark H.]

And that's the key. Gays and their allies have no desire to hate or remove the rights of the religious "wrong". But the religious wrong feel they are justified in doing that to gay people. Because they know better. Because a very very old book written by flawed man tells them a bunch of things that they pick and choose from to believe.

 

The bolded part: I used to believe that, but I'm not so sure any more.  I've already given my reasons for that.

 

Same sex marriage aside, the real concern should be the decrease of monogamous relationships in today's society. #1 it isn't safe, #2 is doesn't build strong families.

 

You can poke fun at this very old book as much you like, but the fact is its got some pretty good advice on things like adultery and faithfulness.

[The Unknown Poster]

Nobody is poking fun at it. But a person really has to be nuts to say the bible should be followed to the letter. The bible has contradictions and "orders" that are just incredibly out dated as one would expect. Not to mention the church changes over time too.

I make no judgement about monogamy and faithfulness. It's no ones business but the people involved. from a scientific perspective monogamy is likely not considered very realistic.

[Mark H.]

Nobody is poking fun at it. But a person really has to be nuts to say the bible should be followed to the letter. The bible has contradictions and "orders" that are just incredibly out dated as one would expect. Not to mention the church changes over time too.

I make no judgement about monogamy and faithfulness. It's no ones business but the people involved. from a scientific perspective monogamy is likely not considered very realistic.

 

Agreed. Even the most recent books (the gospels) were written with a great deal of metaphor. Anyone who thinks the Bible is meant to be taken literally - has not spent enough time reading it.  What it does have are certain enduring truths that can be found if one is sincerely looking for them.  The core of the message, if you will.

 

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but myself and many of my friends in the teaching profession have seen the results of bad relationships first hand.  I'm sure most of you are aware that there is a demand for male elementary teachers, and I would venture to guess you can connect the dots and figure out why.

[The Unknown Poster]

I agree about the bible have some wonderful messages.

[basslicker]

No one is taking your freedom away by simply existing

I was referring to Europeans and how the crusades were defending western cultre from destruction, Not gay marriage.