Sinead's Hand

[freydis]

This is Ireland's Gay Rights movement's ad for marriage equality. Rather clever ad. Has a bit of a point too, now doesn't it? Edited September 3, 2009 by munin218

[pomba gira]

Love it! Beautifully done and yeah, that is definitely a good point.

[Rev.Reverence]

See...that was SO cool...& I'll tell you that the last line is the one that the American LGBT community don't understand...

...they can not get Married (in most Churches)(good luck changing the Catholic's minds, let alone the Methodists, & Baptists)...but, they CAN have a Civil Marriage...or like they want to call it here, Civil Union...

...the LGBT, in their massive wisdom, don't see that Civil Union is semantically the same shit...

..if they can FIND a Priest that will do the Ceremony, then, they can call it a Marriage all they want...but, they have to write Civil Union on their taxes...it's only 3 more letters.

...see, all those peoples out there that had a Justice Of The Peace 'Marry' them, they are not married...not so far as the definition comes to my mind...

...what is the point of marriage for atheists? Marriage, is a contract between 2 (or more) peoples, & G*D.

Well...good luck to them anyhow.

[Rev.Reverence]

Oh yeah...before any slamming of the me begins...I am not a Priest that would turn away the LGBT community.

...nor the atheists...I'ld just change the ceremony a bit

(after I get a satisfactorily phrased answer to my most pressing of questions.)

[Slogo]

...what is the point of marriage for atheists?

Tax breaks and adultery

Edited September 4, 2009 by Slogo

[Rev.Reverence]

Tax breaks and adultery

Atheists can't believe in the adultery (can they?)...that's a religious term. (first sighting, Ten Commandments)

Though...I certainly saw the tax breaks...everyone believes in those.

However...that...is not a good reason to marry.

[Slogo]

Atheists can't believe in the adultery (can they?)...that's a religious term. (first sighting, Ten Commandments)

Though...I certainly saw the tax breaks...everyone believes in those.

However...that...is not a good reason to marry.

It is if I still love the person

a⋅dul⋅ter⋅y

–noun, plural -ter⋅ies.

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

Not a religion specific term

Edited September 4, 2009 by Slogo

[Rev.Reverence]

It is if I still love the person

a⋅dul⋅ter⋅y

–noun, plural -ter⋅ies.

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

Not a religion specific term

Not fightin'...just mashin' semantics.

* Main Entry: 1mar·ry

* Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ē, ˈma-rē\

* Function: verb

* Inflected Form(s): mar·ried; mar·ry·ing

* Etymology: Middle English marien, from Anglo-French marier, from Latin maritare, from maritus married

* Date: 14th century

transitive verb 1 a : to join in marriage according to law or custom b : to give in marriage <married his daughter to his partner's son> c : to take as spouse : wed <married the girl next door> d : to perform the ceremony of marriage for <a priest will marry them> e : to obtain by marriage <marry wealth>

...see...the way I see it...there would be no such thing as marriage if there were no religion.

...thereby, adultery is a religious term, right along next to marriage.

[pomba gira]

Not fightin'...just mashin' semantics.

* Main Entry: 1mar·ry

* Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ē, ˈma-rē\

* Function: verb

* Inflected Form(s): mar·ried; mar·ry·ing

* Etymology: Middle English marien, from Anglo-French marier, from Latin maritare, from maritus married

* Date: 14th century

transitive verb 1 a : to join in marriage according to law or custom b : to give in marriage <married his daughter to his partner's son> c : to take as spouse : wed <married the girl next door> d : to perform the ceremony of marriage for <a priest will marry them> e : to obtain by marriage <marry wealth>

...see...the way I see it...there would be no such thing as marriage if there were no religion.

...thereby, adultery is a religious term, right along next to marriage.

Since we are amiably semantic-chopping, I'll just note that none of those definitions specifically mentions religion. And in the usage given for (d), "priest" could easily be replaced by "judge" or "ship's captain".

Jeez, when I start quibbling over this kind of thing it's time to go out for a walk or something!

[Raev]

In a civil ceremony, it's still legally binding. The reason for such is an oath taken with the other person in those situations. It's also a form of making a partnership legitimate in the eyes of society.

With that said, I see no reason for preventing anyone from being married in civil ceremony as long as they are both consenting and of proper age.

[candyman]

I understand that they should have rights I just don't get why they want to get married. The whole deal with marriage has been greatly religious for a while now and, well gays and lesbians don't really fit in with many religions. So why do they want a right to something that is a big part of religion?

I feel bad because I keep voting "no" to the bills here in Wisconsin but their demands are kinda nutty...all they need is the LEGAL part to be equal but for some reason they are not just going for broke...they are going for anything they can think of. If it is to be equal I would vote yes...is it all just for the "brand name"? Or is it so they can shove it in the faces of people that think differently than they do?

Oh and that is a good advert! I wouldn't even have the balls to ask a girls dad for her hand...I would just pass out.

[taysteewonderbunny]

I understand that they should have rights I just don't get why they want to get married. The whole deal with marriage has been greatly religious for a while now and, well gays and lesbians don't really fit in with many religions. So why do they want a right to something that is a big part of religion?

I feel bad because I keep voting "no" to the bills here in Wisconsin but their demands are kinda nutty...all they need is the LEGAL part to be equal but for some reason they are not just going for broke...they are going for anything they can think of. If it is to be equal I would vote yes...is it all just for the "brand name"? Or is it so they can shove it in the faces of people that think differently than they do?

You seem to be suffering under the delusion that homosexual feelings precludes one from holding religious beliefs. If one is of a church that allows homosexual union (and the number that do is growing), why, if we truly have freedom of religion, is it still banned in secular law? The strongest argument is that homosexuality causes harm to the individuals involved and/or society at large, but I haven't seen any solid evidence of that. What I have witnessed is that HOMOPHOBIA causes harm to individuals and society at large.

Edited September 4, 2009 by taysteewonderbunny

[Raev]

I understand that they should have rights I just don't get why they want to get married. The whole deal with marriage has been greatly religious for a while now and, well gays and lesbians don't really fit in with many religions. So why do they want a right to something that is a big part of religion?

Because it's not exclusive to religions?

Also, please pardon the language here as I rarely use profanity when I post - but let's drop the bullshit. A LOT of people who are getting married aren't even close to living the way the religion that is the majority in America dictates. That is a very weak argument that has no legs to stand on.

Reasons to get married? Health benefits. Joint property ownership. Some have children from previous relationships and it allows for both parties to have some legal standing in relation to the children.

Marriage also hasn't been only a religious thing well - in my entire lifetime. My mother wasn't married in the church, it was a civil ceremony and it was fully legally binding. When I was married, it was done the same way. Are you saying that I don't have the right to get married if it's not in a church, nor did my mother?

[candyman]

I am not suffering from any delusions. What I am suffering from is living in a place where if you don't understand things because its not what you do...people give give you shit about it. Now, I would know more about this stuff however I only take classes on cars, hang out in bars after work with the rest of the mechanics, and don't really do much else. I am going to toss aside the "ignorance is bliss" and all that crap because it is not ignorance that I suffer from...its the fact that I would give a shit if I had time to give a shit. A major cause of Homophobia is the fact that many people just don't know that much about anything related to gays and lesbians...so how do we help that? From what I have seen homophobia is known to be cured by huge rallies, poking fun at them, and a good amout of swearing...at least thats how they do things in Madison. So, I guess until someone sends a rep that can talk to straight people about what exactly is going on I am really screwed.

Also I am very sorry about the marriage thing but once again by background was all the information I had because I took Fluids and Thermodynamics instead of Major Religious Studies. I will sign up for those classes now but I fear it is too late for me...they probably made it through Genesis already...DAMN!

[taysteewonderbunny]

I am not suffering from any delusions. What I am suffering from is living in a place where if you don't understand things because its not what you do...people give give you shit about it. Now, I would know more about this stuff however I only take classes on cars, hang out in bars after work with the rest of the mechanics, and don't really do much else. I am going to toss aside the "ignorance is bliss" and all that crap because it is not ignorance that I suffer from...its the fact that I would give a shit if I had time to give a shit. A major cause of Homophobia is the fact that many people just don't know that much about anything related to gays and lesbians...so how do we help that? From what I have seen homophobia is known to be cured by huge rallies, poking fun at them, and a good amout of swearing...at least thats how they do things in Madison. So, I guess until someone sends a rep that can talk to straight people about what exactly is going on I am really screwed.

Also I am very sorry about the marriage thing but once again by background was all the information I had because I took Fluids and Thermodynamics instead of Major Religious Studies. I will sign up for those classes now but I fear it is too late for me...they probably made it through Genesis already...DAMN!

I really didn't mean to offend. Seems like I did. Sorry. All I'm saying is that the majority of homosexuals, just as are the majority of heterosexuals in this country, are theists of some kind. As theists, why wouldn't they want to be married just like everybody else? They aren't irreligious even if their own religion (from their family of origin) has repudiated them.

[Raev]

edit - what I had to say was not productive. Edited out my own derail.

Go gay marriage go! :D

Edited September 4, 2009 by Raev

[candyman]

I really didn't mean to offend. Seems like I did. Sorry. All I'm saying is that the majority of homosexuals, just as are the majority of heterosexuals in this country, are theists of some kind. As theists, why wouldn't they want to be married just like everybody else? They aren't irreligious even if their own religion (from their family of origin) has repudiated them.

Its ok...I get kinds short with people when it comes to car knowledge on accident too.

The argument probably differs from state to state and from country to country considering all the different rules and regulations. Here in Wisonsin at least there is a HUGE attack on the religious coummunities when it comes to this issue and the weird part is that most of the religions here have pretty much said that they could really give a rats ass. It really is confusing for me because when the homosexual community was offered the legal thing, which from my understanding is exactly what they want, they made a big fuss about how it wasn't really marriage and that they wanted the bill rewritten. Then after a bunch of the couple took advantage of the short offer handed to them they seemed to think that many of them needed to go on TV and tell off the religious communities! It was all over the news for about a week and I only saw one...ONE couple that said nothing more than "we are happy we got the chance"...all the others I saw made some serious jabs at Christians.

Again I am still really confused...but I am just going to attribute that to the oddly militant nature of the GSA in Madison which will bite your head off if you ask the bartended for a vodka "straight"...I know most people say "neat" but every time I say that they try to add crap to my vodka.

Edited September 4, 2009 by candyman

[Fidget(+)]

that was brilliant.

[freydis]

Actually, Rev.... if you really wanna debate it, Marriage was never *really* about religion, historically speaking.

It's about stuff.

Who inherits what, who owns what.

Most societies who are heavy into the patriarchy or hold land rights/possessions in high importance also feel marriage and legitimacy (as in... is this kid mine, or the milkman's?) is high in importance.

There are, however, many very old cultures whose marriage practices (or lack thereof) differ greatly. And as such, dont hold with the whole you-own-my-shiat-cause-i-sleep-wit-you bit. I think it may be a tribe in Tibet who practice a form of polyandry, and women may choose a new husband yearly if they want, and often have their own farms and such, and dont stay at their husband's house all the time. They are also still quite religious. So, a lot of this Marriage business is really about Right of Inheritance. And that's a topic that's older than dirt.

[taysteewonderbunny]

Actually, Rev.... if you really wanna debate it, Marriage was never *really* about religion, historically speaking.

It's about stuff.

Who inherits what, who owns what.

Most societies who are heavy into the patriarchy or hold land rights/possessions in high importance also feel marriage and legitimacy (as in... is this kid mine, or the milkman's?) is high in importance.

There are, however, many very old cultures whose marriage practices (or lack thereof) differ greatly. And as such, dont hold with the whole you-own-my-shiat-cause-i-sleep-wit-you bit. I think it may be a tribe in Tibet who practice a form of polyandry, and women may choose a new husband yearly if they want, and often have their own farms and such, and dont stay at their husband's house all the time. They are also still quite religious. So, a lot of this Marriage business is really about Right of Inheritance. And that's a topic that's older than dirt.

Oooh. I do! As an atheist, I want to debate it! Of course it started out as religious! Once upon a time religion encompassed every area of life. There was no segmentation, no conception of "secular." Religion was law, was culture, was society. That's how religion came to be called religion--it means 'to bind.' It makes restrictions on people per what is acceptable, but it also unifies them, ties them to each other as part of a singular identity. Religion was tribes. Religion was family. Religion was government. Religion decided what you would eat, what you would wear, how property was transmitted--not only between generations by inheritance, but in commerce too,-- and even how one was to clean one's dishes. It was probably about the time that competing cultures began to take people of other cultures as slaves that there finally began to be the idea that human law and "God's law" were separate entities. That's just my idea. I have nothing to support it other than my own musing that perhaps the idea emerged then to justify how two (or more) religions could co-exist in the same land, especially per the perspective of the enslaved community. Anyway, my point is that although we know today that marriage is largely about the secular problems of inheritance, access, and additional legal advantages, even those secular traditions were originally rooted in, and once inseparable from, religion.

[Rev.Reverence]

Oooh. I do! As an atheist, I want to debate it! Of course it started out as religious! Once upon a time religion encompassed every area of life. There was no segmentation, no conception of "secular." Religion was law, was culture, was society. That's how religion came to be called religion--it means 'to bind.' It makes restrictions on people per what is acceptable, but it also unifies them, ties them to each other as part of a singular identity. Religion was tribes. Religion was family. Religion was government. Religion decided what you would eat, what you would wear, how property was transmitted--not only between generations by inheritance, but in commerce too (like whom it is appropriate to charge interest to in loaning ) ,-- and even how one was to clean one's dishes.

It was probably about the time that competing cultures began to take people of other cultures as slaves that there finally began to be the idea that human law and "God's law" were separate entities. That's just my idea. I have nothing to support it other than my own musing that perhaps the idea emerged then to justify how two (or more) religions could co-exist in the same land, especially per the perspective of the enslaved community. Anyway, my point is that although we know today that marriage is largely about the secular problems of inheritance, access, and additional legal advantages, even those secular traditions were originally rooted in, and once inseparable from, religion.

I think you had that pretty well nailed in the first half...thanx.

I am not quite certain when the separation of Human Law & G*D'S Law...I will look into it...

*writes down stuff on paper to ask Historian on the crew*

*I am putting in a guess for the dark ages *

AMERICA...is (I'm pretty freikin' sure) the first place they separated the operations of the Church & State (formerly)...though, there were many places that the IDEA started.

I still see an inheritance difference between a Marriage & a Civil Union...I am still trying to find the words to explain...soon...I'll tell you everything.

[freydis]

Oooh. I do! As an atheist, I want to debate it! Of course it started out as religious! Once upon a time religion encompassed every area of life. There was no segmentation, no conception of "secular." Religion was law, was culture, was society. That's how religion came to be called religion--it means 'to bind.' It makes restrictions on people per what is acceptable, but it also unifies them, ties them to each other as part of a singular identity. Religion was tribes. Religion was family. Religion was government. Religion decided what you would eat, what you would wear, how property was transmitted--not only between generations by inheritance, but in commerce too,-- and even how one was to clean one's dishes. It was probably about the time that competing cultures began to take people of other cultures as slaves that there finally began to be the idea that human law and "God's law" were separate entities. That's just my idea. I have nothing to support it other than my own musing that perhaps the idea emerged then to justify how two (or more) religions could co-exist in the same land, especially per the perspective of the enslaved community. Anyway, my point is that although we know today that marriage is largely about the secular problems of inheritance, access, and additional legal advantages, even those secular traditions were originally rooted in, and once inseparable from, religion.

Nope. Actually, historically/anthropologically speaking, it was still more about stuff than about religion. For instance, in old Europe, even when religion was pretty important... marriage and fidelity was held important because of the rights of inheritance. Royal bloodlines of many cultures where the line of decendance was important for inheritance of titles and land wanted to know that their line was unbroken, that it was one of their own that inherited. That's why so many royals of so many cultures were prone to hemophilia--because of the inbreeding.

I'm not saying religion has nothing to do with marriage.

I'm saying that historically speaking, it has little to do with marriage. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is about laws, and rights, and *stuff*. Always has been. Used to be that religion had a lot to do with laws, so religion was a part of marriage.

That said, I'm not an atheist.

However---this is what I think:

What I did with my husband in front of the judge was about law, rights, and stuff. In the eyes of the law, that's Marriage.

What I did in front of the priest and priestess, with our families and friends assembled, was about love and religion. That's life.

My main point was an arguement toward Rev's claim that without religion there wouldnt be marriage. Marriage was never historically about religion. It's about "that woman is mineminemine and you cant touch her neenerneener cause she is mine! .....and so is her stuff." LOL

[Lillylu29]

I dont know about the historical facts and what nots about it but I say to each their own. if gays want to marry so be it... everyone should have their right to pledge the way they feel and care about someone. Altho i do agree that marrage is nothing more then division of the assets. I was married once and thats the only reason we got married... We had said child, and things and poof came marrage. LOL

I dont get into the religious aspect of it, i think ALL religions or non religions should learn to be more tolerant of each other. Marrage is just a piece of paper.... you dont need it to tell someone how you feel about them. but unfortunatly is needed for legal crap.

[Rev.Reverence]

Nope. Actually, historically/anthropologically speaking, it was still more about stuff than about religion. For instance, in old Europe, even when religion was pretty important... marriage and fidelity was held important because of the rights of inheritance. Royal bloodlines of many cultures where the line of decendance was important for inheritance of titles and land wanted to know that their line was unbroken, that it was one of their own that inherited. That's why so many royals of so many cultures were prone to hemophilia--because of the inbreeding.

I'm not saying religion has nothing to do with marriage.

I'm saying that historically speaking, it has little to do with marriage. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is about laws, and rights, and *stuff*. Always has been. Used to be that religion had a lot to do with laws, so religion was a part of marriage.

That said, I'm not an atheist.

However---this is what I think:

What I did with my husband in front of the judge was about law, rights, and stuff. In the eyes of the law, that's Marriage.

What I did in front of the priest and priestess, with our families and friends assembled, was about love and religion. That's life.

My main point was an arguement toward Rev's claim that without religion there wouldnt be marriage. Marriage was never historically about religion. It's about "that woman is mineminemine and you cant touch her neenerneener cause she is mine! .....and so is her stuff." LOL

Most Royal Bloodlines state CLEARLY...their claim to rule, because of Divine Providence.

[freydis]

Most Royal Bloodlines state CLEARLY...their claim to rule, because of Divine Providence.

You're missing the point of the scholarly arguement.

But no matter.

Interesting discussion regardless.