Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Roy_D_Mylote]

Originally Posted by Toast

What really gets me is that often people use Sodom and Gomorrah as evidence and yet conveniently forget that Lot, the supposedly most virtuous man in that city, was perfectly willing to give up his two virgin daughters to gang rape just so he could have some peace and quiet in his own home.

It wasn't so he could have peace and quiet in his own home, that's a lie. It was so that the visitors, the, y'know, angels in disguise, wouldn't themselves be gang raped/beaten by the crowds.

[Seil]

Just a side note, and completely off-topic, so don't even bother reading this:

I just find it ironic that with the apparent impending death of RaiRO, and the appearance of several players quitting, this is the first I've seen that the Religious Thread has actually appeared in the "New Post" list regularly.

[42PETUNIAS]

Back when this first started, it was there all the time. Enough that it was extremely difficult to keep up with. You'd wake up in the morning with like half a page of long posts. And I have 40 post long pages.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Roy_D_Mylote

It wasn't so he could have peace and quiet in his own home, that's a lie. It was so that the visitors, the, y'know, angels in disguise, wouldn't themselves be gang raped/beaten by the crowds.

Yeah, well, if it's between my family and some extra-dimensional beings, I'm gonna say the angels are going to be taking one for the team in this case.

Anyway, gay marriage: It's a separation of church and state issue, simple as that. Marriage, as defined by the government, isn't the same thing as the religious definition of marriage. When you go down to the county courthouse and fill out your marriage license, this is not the actual ceremony where a dude in some fancy robes makes it official that you have God's okay on it.

Personally, if it's nothing more than a semantics argument (which it is), will just changing what the law refers to as "marriage" to "civil union" fix the problem? That way, everyone gets all the same benefits and government doesn't have to be officially regulating marriage, which is largely a spiritual concept.

Me, personally? I've always been in favor of a constitution amendment banning marriage altogether. It's wrong and totally against the founding principles of what our nation stands for, but I still think it would be a nice change.

[Roy_D_Mylote]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Yeah, well, if it's between my family and some extra-dimensional beings, I'm gonna say the angels are going to be taking one for the team in this case.

Then of course, God woulda been pissed off and Lot wouldn't have got out of the city.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Roy_D_Mylote

Then of course, God woulda been pissed off and Lot wouldn't have got out of the city.

Well, then God sounds like a spoiled brat in that situation. It's Lot's daughters, who didn't deserve any of that. God is perfect, right? God is love, yes? Then God's motherfucking angelic representatives should be expected to save their own hides, not kick back while the teenage girls get horribly brutalized.

It's stories like that that really sell me against the whole Judeo-Christian organization.

[Archbio]

POS,

Personally, if it's nothing more than a semantics argument (which it is), will just changing what the law refers to as "marriage" to "civil union" fix the problem? That way, everyone gets all the same benefits and government doesn't have to be officially regulating marriage, which is largely a spiritual concept.

I think civil institutions have at least as good a claim on the word marriage than religious institutions.

Well, then God sounds like a spoiled brat in that situation.

That's the Old Testament for you.

Ryanderman,

What the Bible does clearly do, is define Godly marriage as a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. It also states that sex is something that was created for, and should be reserved for marriage. It's not supposed to be used just to procreate, and it shouldn't be fun, as some people oddly argue, but I think it was intended as a celebration of the covenant of marriage.

Now, keeping in mind the rest of your post, this is only a question of theological interest for me, and not a very argumentative one at that (in the sense that I'm not going for a bigger point*): are you sure both of those two propositions are actually, explicitely, in a text included in the Bible? I seem to recall instances in which monogamy and marriage is even overridden by the need to produce heirs or something like that. And then there's Solomon (not Grundy.)

Just checking.

*Except perhaps to see if my opinion that present day religious beliefs or rationales are often retroactively projected onto ancient text applies here.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Archbio

I think civil institutions have at least as good a claim on the word marriage than religious institutions.

While I don't disagree with you, the fact that more than half the argument is an issue with the actual definition of the term "marriage", it seems to me that the easiest way to get spousal health benefits for gay couples is to scrap the word "marriage" altogether in a governmental sense.

And Solomon Grundy want secks too!

[Archbio]

While I don't disagree with you, the fact that more than half the argument is an issue with the actual definition of the term "marriage", it seems to me that the easiest way to get spousal health benefits for gay couples is to scrap the word "marriage" altogether in a governmental sense.

It still seems like a big concession to make to the mistaken notion that marriage is altogether (and fundamentally) religious, even in the USA, just on account of a big, theocratically leaning fuss.

Bad precedent.

And Solomon Grundy want secks too!

As disturbing as that image is, the undead belong in this thread.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Archbio

It still seems like a big concession to make to the mistaken notion that marriage is altogether (and fundamentally) religious, even in the USA, just on account of a big, theocratically leaning fuss.

Bad precedent.

Yeah, but they can have it, for all I care. I just want everyone to be able to get all the benefits they should have and if that means a further distinction regarding the separation of church and state, then I'm all for it.