Obama approves naked teenage boys gay raped in front of their mothers

[interesting]

Originally Posted by Officelover

Precisely interesting, let us throw away the endless possibility of love and caring, and the constant changes that keep a relationship exciting for a legally-binding contract- the purest form of love!

I knew you'd see it my way, Officelover. Let's run off and get a man-man union together. That way our eternal love can become notarized on paper, and be bound forever in the archives of bureaucracy, where it will sustain the establishment forever and ever.

But in all seriousness, why is it so hard for people to accept the possibility of altering the meaning of the word?

There is a song by Sting called "The Secret Mariage". Listen to it and tell me it doesn't hold meaning. The song really echoes the truth that is the institution of mariage. Odd that we call it that, is it not?

Here are the lyrics for your benefit:

No earthly church has ever blessed our union
No state has ever granted us permission
No family bond has ever made us two
No company has ever earned commission

No debt was paid no dowry to be gained
No treaty over border land or power
No semblance of the world outside remained
To stain the beauty of this nuptial hour

The secret marriage vow is never spoken
The secret marriage never can be broken

No flowers on the altar
No white veil in your hair
No maiden dress to alter
No Bible oath to swear

The secret marriage vow is never spoken
The secret marriage never can be broken

[Officelover]

Beautiful song.

To relate this tangent to the Office:

"They say marriage is an institution. I say, 'Who want's to be in an institution?'"

[dragonator]

ok sure if wer just going to change the meaning of words lets make "I" mean "you" "Man" mean "woman" "fun" mean "agony" and"freedom" mean "slavery"


you see what i mean? marriage is sacred which means you cant alter the meaning

[lokelake]

Originally Posted by dragonator

you see what i mean? marriage is sacred which means you cant alter the meaning

True. Thats why no none should devorce unless they are in danger from their partner.

[dragonator]

Originally Posted by lokelake

True. Thats why no none should devorce unless they are in danger from their partner.

not according to the bible

according to the bible they may also divorce if one of them has been unfaithful they just may not have sex again

[lokelake]

Originally Posted by dragonator

not according to the bible

according to the bible they may also divorce if one of them has been unfaithful they just may not have sex again

The bible mentions "fornication"

[dragonator]

essentially what i said lol

[interesting]

Originally Posted by dragonator

according to the bible they may also divorce if one of them has been unfaithful they just may not have sex again

That seems feasible.

Why is mariage sacred? What does sacred mean?
1) devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2) entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
3) pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane ): sacred music; sacred books.
4) reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.
5) regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6) secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.
7) properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

So, you are effectively saying that there is no such thing as a civil or political mariage, correct? You are refering to the first three definitions, if I understood the argument. I'm certain you are aware that many mariages are arranged, and have nothing to do with religion, faith or belief whatsover.
Or maybe you refer to definition 6, whereas the idea of mariage should be safeguarded against any violation and infringement, because it would be morally wrong to do so? But the word mariage only came into being in the 1200s, long after the birth of Christianity.
And are there not mariages in other cultures and faiths? Are they sacred as well, if they are between a man and a woman?

[dragonator]

Originally Posted by interesting

That seems feasible.

Why is mariage sacred? What does sacred mean?
1) devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2) entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
3) pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane ): sacred music; sacred books.
4) reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.
5) regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6) secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.
7) properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

So, you are effectively saying that there is no such thing as a civil or political mariage, correct? You are refering to the first three definitions, if I understood the argument. I'm certain you are aware that many mariages are arranged, and have nothing to do with religion, faith or belief whatsover.
Or maybe you refer to definition 6, whereas the idea of mariage should be safeguarded against any violation and infringement, because it would be morally wrong to do so? But the word mariage only came into being in the 1200s, long after the birth of Christianity.
And are there not mariages in other cultures and faiths? Are they sacred as well, if they are between a man and a woman?

i see no reason that a poltical or arranged marriage cannot occur during the first 3 definitions which yes i am reffering to but i am also reffering to definition 6 as well though in a lesser part
the ceremony makes it sacred, the fact that marriages use a religious ceremony to make it complete makes it impossible for marriage to not be sacred so even if the two ppl getting married were to hate eachother it would still be sacred

yes they too would be sacred because they are still religious ceremonies and that makes them sacred in in of its own right (the ceremony is differnt but it is still a religious ceremony with the same purpose)

[interesting]

So your argument is clearly that mariage is sacred because it holds a religious component, and that if there is no such component, then it cannot be considered mariage? You therefore deny many forms of established mariage within society, since many unions are now civil across the globe, yet they still use the terminology for mariage. If you're going to prevent mariage between two individuals of the same sex, by that logic, you also need to ban all mariages that are not performed within religious structures and rituals.

This probably invalidates more than half of all mariages world-wide.

Of course, if you're going to take an inflexible stance such as this, then there is no arguing with your thinking because it is not based on logic but on pure association, which is biased from the start.

[dragonator]

Originally Posted by interesting

So your argument is clearly that mariage is sacred because it holds a religious component, and that if there is no such component, then it cannot be considered mariage? You therefore deny many forms of established mariage within society, since many unions are now civil across the globe, yet they still use the terminology for mariage. If you're going to prevent mariage between two individuals of the same sex, by that logic, you also need to ban all mariages that are not performed within religious structures and rituals.

This probably invalidates more than half of all mariages world-wide.

Of course, if you're going to take an inflexible stance such as this, then there is no arguing with your thinking because it is not based on logic but on pure association, which is biased from the start.

ok then so be it half the marriages in the world cant be be that anymore especially since i have NEVER heard of a morriage without ANY religious component considering that even atheism is technically a religion so even an atheistic marriage is sacred if it is between a man and a woman the way God intended (just because someone doesn't beleive in God or doesnt want to include God in the marriage doesn't mean that hes not real)

o and btw it is based on logic the logic that if it contains a religious component it m,ust therefore be religious the same as if it includes a flawed component it must therefore be flawed, note that i am not saying religion is flawed its just easiest to use flawed to prove my point

[interesting]

Originally Posted by dragonator

ok then so be it half the marriages in the world cant be be that anymore especially since i have NEVER heard of a morriage without ANY religious component considering that even atheism is technically a religion so even an atheistic marriage is sacred if it is between a man and a woman the way God intended (just because someone doesn't beleive in God or doesnt want to include God in the marriage doesn't mean that hes not real)

o and btw it is based on logic the logic that if it contains a religious component it m,ust therefore be religious the same as if it includes a flawed component it must therefore be flawed, note that i am not saying religion is flawed its just easiest to use flawed to prove my point

This is getting confusing. Let's accept the notion that atheism is a religion. There is no mariage without a religious component, because apparently, religion is inherent in all mariages.

You're therefore saying that belief in God is greater than non-belief, that it takes precedence. Remember that there is a difference between Agnosticism, which does not deny the existence of God but does not validate it either, and atheism, which does deny the fact of God. A faith that denies the existence of God would contain God within it as elements of mariage? This is a clear contradiction.

You have 'never' heard of mariage without religious component? Clearly, you have not been keeping up-to-date with mariage laws in Western countries. Most of them, if not all, have sanctionned civil mariage, and those ceremonies remove the component of God altogether. You might not have heard of it before, but now you do. Look it up, if you want and don't believe me.

You can't argue the existence of God because you CANNOT disprove it, since you can't argue the existence of God because you CAN prove it. It is faith. That's the whole of the Christian message: believe and you will be saved.

I'm having a hard time reconciliating all the conflicting notions presented here, mainly because of the contradictions I point out, but I think what you are really getting at, and this comes back to the beginning, is that the SACRED character of MARIAGE only occurs when it is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Any other form of union would therefore not be sacred.

It is not my intention to be mean, and I am actually enjoying this debate, because it remains civil. I am just trying to help articulate the many sides of the coin, as I don't believe this is a black-and-white issue. I am also trying to help you sum up your position: if that is truly what you believe, I respect it, but I think your reasoning needs to be honed and defined if it is to stand up on its own. Otherwise, it's just, well to put it bluntly, a form of prejudice. But that's my opinion.

(Also: Is it possible for you to use capital letters and punctuation? It would make your entries more readable. Thank you.)

[steffie]

Originally Posted by dragonator

...considering that even atheism is technically a religion so even an atheistic marriage is sacred...

Atheism is a belief, not a religion.

[depp]

Originally Posted by steffie

Atheism is a belief, not a religion.

I thought atheism was an absence of belief.

[Collared_Slave]

Originally Posted by depp

I thought atheism was an absence of belief.

Atheism is a belief that there is no god nor any supreme being