"I Am Not A Second Class Citizen"

**Moosey** · 2012-01-20 03:16

Originally Posted by SamanosukeShiva

Oh wow, you just said it's not about what it's called a few posts ago, and now you just said the exact opposite.

You should do less skimming for things to call me out on and more reading about what we're talking about. We were talking about what I believe marriage is, then we were talking about what gay people really want.

Demosthenes11 · 2012-01-20 03:17

Originally Posted by Moosey

This country is mostly made up of people(lawmakers, too) who believe in one Abrahamic religion or another, so that is why there is such a big outcry. Their ideologies are being challenged, their way of life is being challenged, but what they don't realize is that it's just a big word game. I don't think either side really sees that.

I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about YOU.

YOU said you don't support gays getting married if its called marriage

**Sera** · 2012-01-20 03:21

Originally Posted by Moosey

God created marriage, it has everything to do with God. If you choose not to believe that, fine, but it doesn't make it any less true. Since the bible means nothing to you, I can't begin to convince you otherwise. I only mentioned God because others did, and I was asked questions and responded to with my beliefs. That's why I mentioned God.

But no one here cares about that. People here are discussing the POLITICAL subject of "gay marriage." This means they are discussing the ability of a gay couple to become legally married in every single state in the USA. That has nothing to do with god, church, religion, or any of what you are discussing. No one here cares about god or a religious definition of something. The issue here is that the word itself is being used to refer to unions in the eyes of the government. Changing a word seems petty: if it's the word you're hanging onto and not the injustice of preventing people from entering "the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law", then that alone is nothing but petty semantics and should be ignored entirely. I'm sorry if you think using the word is an affront to your cherished biblical definition of that contractual relationship recognized by the law, but that book isn't important to everyone.

**Moosey** · 2012-01-20 03:21

Originally Posted by Demosthenes11

I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about YOU.

YOU said you don't support gays getting married if its called marriage

Correctamundo. Because gays can't get married. Refer to my previous definition.

You really weren't happy with things winding down and everyone coming to a relative agreement, you just want to continue trolling.

That's all you're doing now.

Originally Posted by Sera

But no one here cares about that. People here are discussing the POLITICAL subject of "gay marriage." This means they are discussing the ability of a gay couple to become legally married in every single state in the USA. That has nothing to do with god, church, religion, or any of what you are discussing. No one here cares about god or a religious definition of something. The issue here is that the word itself is being used to refer to unions in the eyes of the government. Changing a word seems petty: if it's the word you're hanging onto and not the injustice of preventing people from entering "the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law", than that in itself is nothing but petty semantics and should be ignored entirely. I'm sorry if you think using the word is an affront to your cherished biblical definition of that contractual relationship, but that book isn't important to everyone.

If no one really cared about that, then why was it brought up in the second post, and the following 3 pages?

**SamanosukeShiva** · 2012-01-20 03:21

I wonder, what ever happen separation of church and state?

Demosthenes11 · 2012-01-20 03:25

Originally Posted by Moosey

Correctamundo. Because gays can't get married. Refer to my previous definition.

You really weren't happy with things winding down and everyone coming to a relative agreement, you just want to continue trolling.

That's all you're doing now.

I'm trolling? You just said your definition of marriage does not apply to marriage in the US because a) it's secular here and b) "marriage" is a word that exists outside of the bible and does not directly apply to the bible itself, as, through interpretations and translations, the word "marriage" being produced out of the bible is wholly subjective and not founded in anything but that specific translator's words, and not the word of god. Yet you still hold on to "gays cant get married" because "marriage is under god"

wtf

**Moosey** · 2012-01-20 03:28

Originally Posted by Demosthenes11

I'm trolling? You just said your definition of marriage does not apply to marriage in the US because a) it's secular here and b) "marriage" is a word that exists outside of the bible and does not directly apply to the bible itself, as, through interpretations and translations, the word "marriage" being produced out of the bible is wholly subjective and not founded in anything but that specific translator's words, and not the word of god. Yet you still hold on to "gays cant get married" because "marriage is under god"

wtf

I guess I didn't understand what you were trying to say there. I agreed that the argument was on semantics of the meaning of the word "marriage" in it's English usage, not whether it was translated incorrectly or not. It's a word used to describe an institution of matrimony between a man and a woman. That definition is fuzzy for many people. That's all I meant.

Demosthenes11 · 2012-01-20 03:31

Originally Posted by Moosey

I guess I didn't understand what you were trying to say there. I agreed that the argument was on semantics of the meaning of the word "marriage" in it's English usage, not whether it was translated incorrectly or not. It's a word used to describe an institution of matrimony between a man and a woman. That definition is fuzzy for many people. That's all I meant.

What makes your definition of "marriage" more correct than say, wikipedia, which has it listed as "Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony."

**Sera** · 2012-01-20 03:31

Originally Posted by Moosey

If no one really cared about that, then why was it brought up in the second post, and the following 3 pages?

Because you're arguing apples and oranges here. Let me ask you something: if you and a partner decided to go and get "married" in a church, but did not file the appropriate government paperwork or apply for the license to do so, would that marriage be valid for anyone but the two of you and whatever deity you chose to worship?

The answer is no. The government wouldn't recognize it, because it wasn't gone about through the proper channels. Would that matter to you? Why isn't the "covenant" you have formed with your god and your new spouse enough? Why do you need it to be recognized by the government?

For the same reason everyone else does: taxes, name change, insurance, medical emergencies, starting a family, next of kin laws, etc etc etc. The WORD itself doesn't DO anything. It's just a word the government borrowed for lack of a better one, because they didn't feel it necessary to call it something different just because it was intended to show a union of business and civil matters as opposed to a union of religious and spiritual matters. The difference is the intended context. The word could be anything, or nothing. You religious types get caught up on semantics and verbiage, but you miss the concept.

The difference is YOU. YOU value your religion and therefore you feel it valuable to be married before a god: but god doesn't give you a married tax rate, insurance through your partner, or the legal grounds to change your name without having to petition in court. NONE of these things are things that god can do for you; ALL of these things are things that the government allows you privilege to do when you enter into legally married status by filing the proper paperwork and applying for a license to do so through your local government. The government does not require you to be married by a religious institution or person, does not require you to include god in your ceremony, does not even mention god. When I got married last year, god was specifically NOT mentioned in my proceedings, because no god is relevant to me.

**Moosey** · 2012-01-20 03:33

Originally Posted by Demosthenes11

What makes your definition of "marriage" more correct than say, wikipedia, which has it listed as "Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony."

I said before, it's not my definition. It's God's definition. It's just what it is.

The Wikipedia authors who wrote that article are among the ones who are either mislead or ignorant to the true definition of marriage.

**Sera** · 2012-01-20 03:36

Originally Posted by Moosey

I said before, it's not my definition. It's God's definition. It's just what it is.

The Wikipedia authors who wrote that article are among the ones who are either mislead or ignorant to the true definition of marriage.

Your god's definition of anything, from marriage to rape to what constitutes a foul ball, does not matter at all to the government, nor should it.

We are talking about a LEGAL matter here, not a spiritual one. A word is just a word.

Originally Posted by Moosey

We're discussing the American usage of the word 'marriage' as it is used in law, which is something different from the 'marriage' in the Abrahamic religions.

Oh good, then you agree with me. Why are we discussing any god then? Your god is irrelevant in this discussion regarding a word that is used with respect to legal matters. Any definitions of a word with respect to any religion or deity should be irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

This statement only proves my point further, btw. A definition of a word with respect to ANY religion should have no bearing on the legal definition of the same word.

Demosthenes11 · 2012-01-20 03:39

Originally Posted by Moosey

I said before, it's not my definition. It's God's definition. It's just what it is.

The Wikipedia authors who wrote that article are among the ones who are either mislead or ignorant to the true definition of marriage.

but that's my point. The word "marriage" never appears in the bible, so you are completely postulating that God's word for "a man and a woman and god getting together" is "marriage" in the English language.

This is important, because the word itself is your hangup. "Marriage" and "God's defnition for a man and a woman and god getting together" are completely separate and having nothing to do with each other. Man attributed "marriage" to God, not God.

**Moosey** · 2012-01-20 03:45

Originally Posted by Demosthenes11

but that's my point. The word "marriage" never appears in the bible, so you are completely postulating that God's word for "a man and a woman and god getting together" is "marriage" in the English language.

This is important, because the word itself is your hangup. "Marriage" and "God's defnition for a man and a woman and god getting together" are completely separate and having nothing to do with each other. Man attributed "marriage" to God, not God.

What bible are you reading?

http://www.youversion.com/search/bib...niv&q=marriage

Sera: There is no difference between spiritual and legal matters. And you don't think God can do any of those things for someone? You are sorely mistaken. I am truly saddened that God doesn't matter to you at all. I don't think you realize that He has more to do with things than any of us will ever know. I know all this sounds like crazy talk to a lot of you, especially those of you who claim Athiesm, but I was in your place once. You have no idea what it's like for me talking to you all here, it's like speaking to myself in the past.

Good night

Demosthenes11 · 2012-01-20 03:50

Originally Posted by Moosey

What bible are you reading?

http://www.youversion.com/search/bib...niv&q=marriage

the bible that was written in Hebrew, and not English. When you read the English version of the Bible, it has been translated by men with no direction from God. Their application of the word "marriage" to "the union between a man and a woman under God" is completely arbitrary. They could have used "Union." They could have used "Powow" - the word itself means nothing because it was not given under the direction of God.

**Sera** · 2012-01-20 03:51

Originally Posted by Moosey

Sera: There is no difference between spiritual and legal matters.

Separation of church and state would tend to disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Moosey

And you don't think God can do any of those things for someone? You are sorely mistaken.

Nope, your god cannot put me on my husband's insurance, he and I have to do that. Your god cannot issue me a state marriage license, the state has to do that. This is a simple concept. Your god does not have any bearing on legal matters. Your god is irrelevant to this discussion, regardless of how much you may like him.

**Ryko** · 2012-01-20 03:52

Originally Posted by Moosey

Sera: There is no difference between spiritual and legal matters.

Go stone a whore and see if God's precedent gets you out of legal trouble. The bible tells you to respect man's law as you would God's law, not that there isn't a difference between them. Christian from 6 to 18 and almost joined the seminary, so the wording of the bible was a big deal to me through most of my learning years. Come at me bro.

**Kohan** · 2012-01-20 03:55

Originally Posted by Moosey

There is no difference between spiritual and legal matters.

There is, and she defined it quite clearly. In fact, I would hope no one else responds to your comments, as there is nothing more to say about them. If you choose to disagree, that is your opinion. It is not truth nor fact, simply what you choose. If you cannot accept this, there is no point in discussing any aspect of this with you any further, as you believe what you feel is true, even though it is not.

By declaring your own definition of marriage and stating that it is God's word, you are a liar, or bearing false witness, if you will; you are a sinner, someone who is deliberately misinterpreting what you claim to be God's word, and merely claiming to use the Bible to reinforce your statements without actually being able to do so. Marriage being discussed does not mean marriage is being defined, and by trying to state otherwise, you are putting words in God's mouth; you are claiming to be an absolute authority, which is the sin of pride.

You, therefore, have no right to speak as a moral authority when you yourself are amoral. You call others wrong, and put yourself above them; you state you are correct and that anyone dissenting is incorrect; you put yourself upon a pedestal and declare that you cannot be challenged; you sin, and you do not deserve respect.

Before these posts were made, I already went about preparing some of the links I often refer to people who behave as you do:

http://www.fallwell.com/ (Don't guess at what this is before you click it, as if you've never seen it before, your guess will be incorrect.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-je..._b_886102.html

http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarri...cal_Issues.htm

**Abandon** · 2012-01-20 04:08

oh lawd

**Drex** · 2012-01-20 04:18

Every time I think we are finally moving on from taking Christians seriously, a thread like this pops up where everyone starts taking a Christian seriously.

**Kohan** · 2012-01-20 04:20

Originally Posted by Drex

Every time I think we are finally moving on from taking Christians seriously, a thread like this pops up where everyone starts taking a Christian seriously.

I imagine you're kidding (and I don't blame you for that), but you would know as well as most would that ignoring a problem does not make it vanish.

Thread: "I Am Not A Second Class Citizen"

Thread Tools

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads