Forum • Non-Gaming • News and Politics

Will Gay Marriage finally cause the separation of Church and State? • Page 2

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

  • AcidSnake 12 Jun 2012 16:45:13 6,692 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    meme wrote:
    Separation of Church and State in absolutely no way guarantees lower levels of religious influence on politics, as the US demonstrates.
    I always wondered about that. Surely the whole "one nation under god" thing sort of means that church and state are pretty much entwined in America?
    Wasn't the "under God" bit added in the sixties though?

    AcidSnake - He can't see your sig, avatar, images or vids and talks about himself in the third person because he's proper old-skool...UID 24017

  • darkmorgado 12 Jun 2012 16:46:53 22,984 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    It's a symbolic thing more than anything.

    If the two things are the same, why give them different names? The argument is that having two names for the same thing is segregational.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855
    Xbox: darkmorgado
    PSN: dark_morgan

  • AcidSnake 12 Jun 2012 16:49:40 6,692 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Added in 1954...Thanks, wikipedia!
    (the "under God" bit)

    AcidSnake - He can't see your sig, avatar, images or vids and talks about himself in the third person because he's proper old-skool...UID 24017

  • kalel 12 Jun 2012 16:50:55 77,140 posts
    Seen 18 seconds ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    It's a symbolic thing more than anything.

    If the two things are the same, why give them different names? The argument is that having two names for the same thing is segregational.
    But they're not the same thing. One is about a trifecta with God for eternity, and the other is about two people committing their lives to each other.

    Currently when people talk about the gay marriage issue, they're actually talking about two quite separate issues - the inconsistency in the naming of civil unions, and the right to have a homosexual union under God.
  • meme 12 Jun 2012 16:51:28 15,810 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Yep, One Nation Under God was added in the late 50s. It's also talking about the people, not the government. The constitution, and supporting documents, specifically talk of a "wall of separation between church and state".

    GHOSTBUSTERS

  • Khanivor 12 Jun 2012 16:52:33 38,878 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Did the Church trademark the word marriage?

    Well shut the fuck about it then.

    The churches will change their stance about it soon enough. Eventually they will realise it's not winning them any new members and that those who care deeply are dying off.

    The Bible expressly forbids women from being priests while saying nothing that bans homos from being married. The church's hostility to women was a long-standing sacrament. I do think the hostility to gay marriage is connected to folks who still disapprove of the ordination of women but can't bitch openly about it, while still needing to vent their anger with the way the world is not in line with how they think it should be,
  • darkmorgado 12 Jun 2012 16:54:17 22,984 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    It's a symbolic thing more than anything.

    If the two things are the same, why give them different names? The argument is that having two names for the same thing is segregational.
    But they're not the same thing. One is about a trifecta with God for eternity
    But that's not how the majority of people see it anymore. Marriage simply isn't viewed as a purely religious ceremony and hasn't been in a very long time.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855
    Xbox: darkmorgado
    PSN: dark_morgan

  • AcidSnake 12 Jun 2012 16:54:52 6,692 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Not sure how it works over there, but over here if you want to marry in the church you also have to sign the civil documents...

    Basically marriage in church holds no meaning (legally), it's the civil part that counts...But we still call it marriage...Even though gay marriages are still against the law here...

    AcidSnake - He can't see your sig, avatar, images or vids and talks about himself in the third person because he's proper old-skool...UID 24017

  • grey_matters 12 Jun 2012 16:55:13 3,110 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    So let the religious define the wording of their marriage as "marriage under God" or whatever, they pretty much do that anyway. The symbolism of the word is strong. The "marriage under God" bit can argued on another day and by the people who care about religion.
  • ecureuil 12 Jun 2012 16:56:45 74,325 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    meme wrote:
    Yep, One Nation Under God was added in the late 50s. It's also talking about the people, not the government. The constitution, and supporting documents, specifically talk of a "wall of separation between church and state".
    And some Thomas Jefferson quotes.
  • kalel 12 Jun 2012 16:57:53 77,140 posts
    Seen 18 seconds ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    It's a symbolic thing more than anything.

    If the two things are the same, why give them different names? The argument is that having two names for the same thing is segregational.
    But they're not the same thing. One is about a trifecta with God for eternity
    But that's not how the majority of people see it anymore. Marriage simply isn't viewed as a purely religious ceremony and hasn't been in a very long time.
    Yes, that's why those who don't give a fuck about religion don't have religious marriages. Those that do however, presumably buy into the God thing to some extent.

    Which, again, is why I'm suggesting we turn the, into completely separate things, which they effectively already are, but the word marriage is confusing the issue.
  • AcidSnake 12 Jun 2012 16:59:18 6,692 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I say let everyone have the word marriage and the religious "union under God"...

    AcidSnake - He can't see your sig, avatar, images or vids and talks about himself in the third person because he's proper old-skool...UID 24017

  • Khanivor 12 Jun 2012 17:00:30 38,878 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The word marriage does indeed overflow with religious connotations. The ceremony in a church is just that. To be legally married you need to sign civil documents. Hence you can understand why the church is against using the word as they see it as infringing on their turf. Turf, which for some reason, they have decided cannot allow gays to be married at a church service.
  • darkmorgado 12 Jun 2012 17:01:37 22,984 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I also find it rather hypocritical that the COE is moaning about the "redefinition of marriage" when its primacy was only brought about by its willingness to introduce divorce.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855
    Xbox: darkmorgado
    PSN: dark_morgan

  • Khanivor 12 Jun 2012 17:02:32 38,878 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    EyeLand wrote:
    Stupid things, doesn't mean things should change. If you don't see it as religous, don't get married in a church.
    Why should two religious gay people not be allowed to get married according to their faith? Jesus talks a whole bunch about love but never once about homosexuality, let alone prohibiting it in any way shape or form.
  • darkmorgado 12 Jun 2012 17:02:43 22,984 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    EyeLand wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:


    But that's not how the majority of people see it anymore. Marriage simply isn't viewed as a purely religious ceremony and hasn't been in a very long time.

    People think all sorts of stupid things, doesn't mean things should change. If you don't see it as religous, don't get married in a church.
    This has nothing to do with getting married in a church, which is why the COE's objections are being shouted down as misleading and scare-mongering.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855
    Xbox: darkmorgado
    PSN: dark_morgan

  • kalel 12 Jun 2012 17:07:21 77,140 posts
    Seen 18 seconds ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    I also find it rather hypocritical that the COE is moaning about the "redefinition of marriage" when its primacy was only brought about by its willingness to introduce divorce.
    I see what you did there, but to be fair that's bollocks. Certain parties manipulated Henry VIII into reformation through his selfish desire to divorce (or technically annul), but that was a means to an end, and nothing to do with the reformation really, which was actually all about removing corruption from the church.
  • kalel 12 Jun 2012 17:09:17 77,140 posts
    Seen 18 seconds ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    And to that end, I don't really see how church and state can ever truly be separated in this country while we still have a royal family.
  • disusedgenius 12 Jun 2012 17:09:53 4,936 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Also there was a COE before Henry VIII anyway, it changed from Catholic to Protestant with him. We did this last time you raised that point. :)
  • kalel 12 Jun 2012 17:12:36 77,140 posts
    Seen 18 seconds ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Anyway, the way I see it, it's the secular people that are supposed to be progressive. Let the religious lot have their dated and irrelevant notion of marriage, with all the baggage that goes with that collection of letters.

    The rest of us can use a better word like union, or partnership or whatever.
  • glaeken 12 Jun 2012 17:14:47 10,428 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    EyeLand wrote:
    Stupid things, doesn't mean things should change. If you don't see it as religous, don't get married in a church.
    Why should two religious gay people not be allowed to get married according to their faith? Jesus talks a whole bunch about love but never once about homosexuality, let alone prohibiting it in any way shape or form.
    He also used to hang around with a bunch of blokes all the time so it would not surprise me if he was a little light in his loafers. This certainly looks a lot like it might be a gay bar to me.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%9Altima_Cena_-_Da_Vinci_5.jpg

    All those pastel colours and half of them seem to be up dancing.
  • darkmorgado 12 Jun 2012 17:21:54 22,984 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    IIRC, wasn't there a legal challenge launched a couple of years back by a hetero couple that wanted a civil partnership? Anyone know what happened to that?

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855
    Xbox: darkmorgado
    PSN: dark_morgan

  • cianchristopher 12 Jun 2012 17:22:46 6,360 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    "union" and "partnership" aren't great words, though.

    What about "fusion"? Or "merger", or "assimilation"?
  • darkmorgado 12 Jun 2012 17:23:29 22,984 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    For some reason that makes me think of Jeff Goldblum in the telporter pods...

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855
    Xbox: darkmorgado
    PSN: dark_morgan

  • cianchristopher 12 Jun 2012 17:26:13 6,360 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Did Brundle assimilate fly?
  • darkmorgado 12 Jun 2012 17:32:28 22,984 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    cianchristopher wrote:
    Did Brundle assimilate fly?
    Brundle merged with fly.

    Brundle... became fly.

    bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855
    Xbox: darkmorgado
    PSN: dark_morgan

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

Log in or register to reply