FileFront Forums - Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)

- - Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other? (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/284339-do-you-jim-take-john-your-lawfully-wedded-something-other.html)

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

If you think of connotations, marriage does not conjure up a same-sex union. It just doesn't. It is always "do you, Jim, take Lucy..." not "Do you Jim take John...", in accordance with the title of this thread.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeRoNiTe (Post 3336638)

If a tradition is "changed" it is no longer tradition. Tradition is something that stays the way it is.

What a stupid thing to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeRoNiTe (Post 3336638)

As I said Marriage is defined by the joining of a man and a woman. Two men is not marriage, they should really make it a separate ceremony or whatever, not change one that is already there.

Here are several marriage definitions for you:

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"

A contractually committed partnership, including sexualove, cohabitation, shared economy/property and mutual childrearing.

Socially approved and legally acknowledged emotional, sexual, and economic relationship between two or more individuals.

Prior to 2003, marriage was defined as the legal conjugal union of two persons of the opposite sex. Since 2003, the definition of marriage has been changed in some provinces and territories to include the legal conjugal union of two persons of the same sex.

Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship.

Note that not one states that it has to be between a man and a woman. In fact, in all my research only one did. That was from medieval writings. Your definition is out of date and incorrect.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Afterburner

Marriage is the religous ceremony that unites a man in a woman in the eyes of God and a particular religon. A Civil Union unites any two people into a legally recognized union, iwth equal rights no matter who happens to get it.

What is the problem with this set up? Wouldn't it appease all parties?

Quoted for truth. Truly this solves the conflict beyond a shadow of a doubt. With civil unions, all of the legal benefits are present, and the church definition of "marriage" is not changed. Why does a gay couple feel the need to be religiously married? The two are close to being mutually exclusive.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Maybe there's a gay couple who are devout christians, and having a civil union just won't cut it for them.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteShark (Post 3336453)

Same logic, yet atheists celebrate Christmas.

So you say, I, and many others treat that day like any other day of the week. It's good for one thing though, overtime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider149 (Post 3336811)

Maybe there's a gay couple who are devout christians, and having a civil union just won't cut it for them.

Devout christians and homosexuality in the same sentence for a positive context, amounts to a stark contradiction.
Then again, hypocrisy in religion isn’t really a new thing, is it. Actually it makes perfect sense.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Well, apart from the fact that its a national holiday (at least where I am, I don't know about everywhere else, is it?).

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire Legion (Post 3336668)

It was tradition in marriages for the woman's vowes to state she will 'obey' the man. That was changed, because it was sexist. No one complained about the tradition of marriage being defiled then. So thus, should the same changes be allowed for homosexual people. It doesn't hurt the marriages going on between straight people, and won't harm your life in any way. What's the problem?

And there's no need to say I'm stupid. Most people have the tact to apologise or put it in a more polite way

What a rude thing to say.

Here are several marriage definitions for you:

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"

A contractually committed partnership, including sexualove, cohabitation, shared economy/property and mutual childrearing.

Socially approved and legally acknowledged emotional, sexual, and economic relationship between two or more individuals.

Prior to 2003, marriage was defined as the legal conjugal union of two persons of the opposite sex. Since 2003, the definition of marriage has been changed in some provinces and territories to include the legal conjugal union of two persons of the same sex.

Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship.

Note that not one states that it has to be between a man and a woman. In fact, in all my research only one did. That was from medieval writings. Your definition is out of date and incorrect.

Regardless of the latest statements, I stand by what I said.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider149 (Post 3336811)

Maybe there's a gay couple who are devout christians, and having a civil union just won't cut it for them.

Then you would find a Christian church that will marry two gays.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeRoNiTe (Post 3337078)

Regardless of the latest statements, I stand by what I said.

What's the point of even taking part in this debate, then?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

well, what if god doesn't bless this union?