Mass Town expands definition of marriage

5,864 Views | 117 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Its OK to be White
Seamaster
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:30p, 7/2/20
AG
Now recognizes "polyamorous" relationships as same as marriages.

"Once the law and culture says the male-female aspect of marriage violates justice and equality, we haven't 'expanded' marriage, we've fundamentally redefined what it is. And those redefinitions have no principled stopping point."

- Ryan Anderson

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/massachusetts-city-recognizes-polyamorous-civil-partnerships-38000

In other words, by redefining marriage, it's now meaningless (legally speaking.) If marriage is man+man it can be anything. Which means it's everything. Which means it's nothing.
Reply Quote
10
UTExan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Seamaster • 4:42p, 7/2/20
Seamaster said:
Now recognizes "polyamorous" relationships as same as marriages.

"Once the law and culture says the male-female aspect of marriage violates justice and equality, we haven't 'expanded' marriage, we've fundamentally redefined what it is. And those redefinitions have no principled stopping point."

- Ryan Anderson

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/massachusetts-city-recognizes-polyamorous-civil-partnerships-38000

In other words, by redefining marriage, it's now meaningless (legally speaking.) If marriage is man+man it can be anything. Which means it's everything. Which means it's nothing.
Welcome to dystopia. I am certain no jealousy issues will arise.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
Reply Quote
4
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:49p, 7/2/20
AG
Quote:
In other words, by redefining marriage, it's now meaningless (legally speaking.) If marriage is man+man it can be anything. Which means it's everything. Which means it's nothing.
Yes and no. There are still privileges applied to "married couples" such as tax benefits, medical decision making, inheritance, and workplace benefits. This is the end result of letting a secular government sanction marriage in the first place. Prior to the gay marriage ruling, these people would set up fake adoptions so they could have legal rights with their domestic partners. That seems way more perverse than a secular marriage.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
3
UglyGiantBagOfMostlyWater
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:58p, 7/2/20
Doesn't hurt me any.
Reply Quote
1
Seamaster
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:20p, 7/2/20
AG
Yes it does hurt you.

All of us are affected by our culture.

And our culture is sick.
Reply Quote
17
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:35p, 7/2/20
AG
Haven't had a good seamaster thread in a while!
Reply Quote
10
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ramblin_ag02 • 5:43p, 7/2/20
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:
Quote:
In other words, by redefining marriage, it's now meaningless (legally speaking.) If marriage is man+man it can be anything. Which means it's everything. Which means it's nothing.
Yes and no. There are still privileges applied to "married couples" such as tax benefits, medical decision making, inheritance, and workplace benefits. This is the end result of letting a secular government sanction marriage in the first place. Prior to the gay marriage ruling, these people would set up fake adoptions so they could have legal rights with their domestic partners. That seems way more perverse than a secular marriage.

Yep. If there are going to be such benefits, government should not be free to discriminate. I don't understand why so many Christians put so much stock in a state-issued piece of paper. Heck, I have known Christian married couples who have refused to get state sanction of their marriage. Their marriage is no less valid before God. Nothing in scriptures makes state recognition a facet of a marriage.
Reply Quote
2
UglyGiantBagOfMostlyWater
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Seamaster • 5:51p, 7/2/20
Seamaster said:
Yes it does hurt you.

lol, no it doesn't. People should have the right to do whatever the hell they want between consenting adults, the state has no business regulating it.
Reply Quote
14
RebelE Infantry
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:58p, 7/2/20
AG
We all called this like 7 years ago.
Reply Quote
11
Ol_Ag_02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:08a, 7/3/20
AG
If the simple act of someone saying that the definition of marriage causes you harm the perhaps you out to reevaluate the foundations of your beliefs.
Reply Quote
5
Ag_of_08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:25a, 7/3/20
AG
Why are we defining a legal contract between adults differently than other contracts?

The religious institution some of yall are worried about is not the domain of law, but your own religious practices.

Everything else is contract law over a shared estate. Please spare me the "no, it's more complicated than that!" Speech if you also take the position "civil unions" are good enough for gay people.... theyre good enough for everyone actually, and you get to call it a marriage....if you choose to!
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RebelE Infantry • 5:18a, 7/3/20
AG
RebelE Infantry said:
We all called this like 7 years ago.

Nah, I think y'all were screaming more that it would lead to beastiality, marrying little green aliens, and other hysterical claims.

As Ag_of_08 points out, the state is defining a legal contract. People like seamaster's real problem is that the state has co-opted the term 'marriage'. They've co-opted it to the point that people like seamaster are unable to differentiate between the civil relationship that receives state sanction vs the religious institution which is defined by articles of our faith. That's where his anger should be. His focus is misplaced. Instead of demanding that there be some differentiation, which would be accomplished by something as simple as the state naming all these relationships including hetero relationships as 'civil unions', his focus is on promoting state discrimination. This is why he is often accused of hating the LGBTQIA community.

The religious act of marriage is not defined by Caesar, no matter how much seamaster desires it to be. Given the various tax and healthcare implications involved the state should not be free to discriminate. Private and religious institutions? Sure, but not the state.
Reply Quote
16
2 edits
Frok
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:41a, 7/3/20
AG
Well you got what you want, the state marriage is now meaningless.

I think this is significant for our culture because marriage is the bedrock of the nuclear family.
Reply Quote
11
Ag_of_08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frok • 8:22a, 7/3/20
AG
Frok said:
Well you got what you want, the state marriage is now meaningless.

I think this is significant for our culture because marriage is the bedrock of the nuclear family.


You completely missed the point.

The legally enforced , state dictated contractual agreement that the state offers has nothing to do with your view of the nuclear family. What youre talking about is the religious aspect.

Deciding who gets a tax break, and who gets half of who's crap when you split is a civil contract issue, not a religious one.

Marriage long predates legal definition, why has it only been recently brought out of the religious rralm?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PacifistAg • 8:22a, 7/3/20
AG
Words can have more than one meaning. I don't think there's a need to legalize things further by using the term civil union. I think people are smart enough to know that a religious marriage and a state marriage are different things that use the same word. Well maybe not Seamaster. Other words like communion and baptism have other meanings too and are used all the time outside of religion.
Reply Quote
1
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frok • 8:22a, 7/3/20
AG
Frok said:
Well you got what you want, the state marriage is now meaningless.

I think this is significant for our culture because marriage is the bedrock of the nuclear family.
Shouldn't a Christian, or anyone who views marriage through their various faith perspectives, view the state definition of "marriage" to be meaningless anyways? Our job isn't to get Caesar to force others to abide by our definition of marriage, but to model Christ-centered marriages to the world so as to provide a clear, distinct, and more appealing alternative.

I'm typically not a Gospel Coalition person, but they posted this. Obviously, those who are more active and engaged with faith practices (Bible study, prayer, regular church attendance, etc) have a lower probability of divorce than secular Americans, but I don't think the number who fit into that category is as high as many think. I think we have a serious problem with cultural Christianity, even among people who sit in pews every Sunday.

Quote:
Professor Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut, explains from his analysis of people who identify as Christians but rarely attend church, that 60 percent of these have been divorced. Of those who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced.[url=https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-divorce-rate-among-christians/#_ftn1][1][/url]
[url=https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-divorce-rate-among-christians/#_ftn1][/url]
Quote:
W. Bradford Wilcox, a leading sociologist at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, finds from his own analysis that "active conservative Protestants" who regularly attend church are 35 percent less likely to divorce compared to those who have no affiliation. Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans.[url=https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-divorce-rate-among-christians/#_ftn2][2][/url]
[url=https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-divorce-rate-among-christians/#_ftn2][/url]
Quote:
Editor's note: In reading the table, the numbers represent the likelihood of divorce compared to those with no religious affiliations. So 20% would mean that group is 20% more likely to divorce than Americans with no religious affiliations while -97% means the group is 97% less likely to divorce than the non-religious.

% Divorce Likelihood Reduction Faith Affiliation
Protestant (Nominal): 20
Protestant (Conservative): 10
Protestant (Active Conservative): -35
Catholic: -18
Catholic (Nominal): 5
Catholic (Active): 31
Jewish: 39
Jewish (Nominal): 53
Jewish (Active): 97
I'd say this is a great area where the Church needs to focus on the plank in our eyes before worrying about the speck in the eyes of secular Americans.
Reply Quote
2
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quad Dog • 8:24a, 7/3/20
AG
Quad Dog said:
Words can have more than one meaning. I don't think there's a need to legalize things further by using the term civil union. I think people are smart enough to know that a religious marriage and a state marriage are different things that use the same word. Well maybe not Seamaster. Other words like communion and baptism have other meanings too and are used all the time outside of religion.
Oh, I agree. The state can call it whatever it wants, and you are right...most people are smart enough to know the difference between the two. I was more making the suggestion since seamaster seems hung up on the term "marriage" being used. If he's this hung up on the term used, then he should just focus on getting the state to drop the term "marriage" altogether. Instead he insists the state use the term, and then apply the rules in a discriminatory manner.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Seamaster
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to UglyGiantBagOfMostlyWater • 9:18a, 7/3/20
AG
You clearly don't have children or if you do, you haven't considered the impact of the culture that they'll inherit.

If you think this ends at "polygamy" you're wrong.
Reply Quote
7
Frok
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:56a, 7/3/20
AG
Quote:

Marriage long predates legal definition, why has it only been recently brought out of the religious rralm?


Because people are redefining it to mean something else.
Reply Quote
2
UTExan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frok • 10:04a, 7/3/20
Frok said:
Well you got what you want, the state marriage is now meaningless.

I think this is significant for our culture because marriage is the bedrock of the nuclear family.
And not insignifacantly, one of the very things that the Black Lives Matter, Inc. seeks to disrupt by their policy statement.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
Reply Quote
4
Frok
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:04a, 7/3/20
AG
Quote:
I'd say this is a great area where the Church needs to focus on the plank in our eyes before worrying about the speck in the eyes of secular Americans.


I agree we shouldn't expect non-christians to act like christians but that doesn't mean I have to stay silent on what I believe to be true.
Reply Quote
1
Post removed:
by user
10:13a, 7/3/20
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frok • 10:55a, 7/3/20
AG
Frok said:
Quote:
I'd say this is a great area where the Church needs to focus on the plank in our eyes before worrying about the speck in the eyes of secular Americans.


I agree we shouldn't expect non-christians to act like christians but that doesn't mean I have to stay silent on what I believe to be true.

I'm not telling you to be quiet on what you believe to be true. Im saying religious and civil marriage are two different things, and the view on the religious understanding of marriage doesn't mean the civil understanding must be the same, especially when it requires discrimination of others. Instead of driving others away by creating animosity due to seeking use government force to discriminate, see this as an opportunity to set ourselves apart and provide a clear alternative to the secular view.

But we can't even do that because the Church hasn't effectively provided that clear alternative, so instead, we give up in the battleplace of ideas (or more accurately, our witness), and instead try to bludgeon with brute government force.

There's a better way to stand for your beliefs and challenge the secular view than using the same methods the secular society uses.
Reply Quote
schmendeler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:45p, 7/3/20
AG
I support this return to biblical marriage.
Reply Quote
10
boboguitar
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Seamaster • 2:57p, 7/3/20
AG
Quote:
Now recognizes "polyamorous" relationships as same as marriages.
Plenty of religions define polyamorous marriages as marriages, who are you to enforce your religious views on them.
Reply Quote
2
UglyGiantBagOfMostlyWater
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Seamaster • 4:46p, 7/3/20
Seamaster said:
You clearly don't have children or if you do, you haven't considered the impact of the culture that they'll inherit.

Oh God, imagine if my children accepted others. The horror.

Frankly, I'd be more disappointed if my children ended up being people who think they should use the state to force other's to live a certain way, especially if it has no effect on them.

My children are free to be exposed to whatever ideas they want. And most of all I want my children to be free to judge those ideas for themselves, not have the state decide what ideas are too vulgar for them to even be exposed to.
Reply Quote
8
Repeat the Line
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to UglyGiantBagOfMostlyWater • 11:04p, 7/3/20
UglyGiantBagOfMostlyWater said:
Seamaster said:
You clearly don't have children or if you do, you haven't considered the impact of the culture that they'll inherit.

Oh God, imagine if my children accepted others. The horror.

Frankly, I'd be more disappointed if my children ended up being people who think they should use the state to force other's to live a certain way, especially if it has no effect on them.

My children are free to be exposed to whatever ideas they want. And most of all I want my children to be free to judge those ideas for themselves, not have the state decide what ideas are too vulgar for them to even be exposed to.


So just to clarify, you would be livid if your hypothetical kids believed government should force bakers to bake the cake?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
craigernaught
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:15a, 7/4/20
AG
If marriage is meaningless, feel free to get a legal divorce and stay true married.

After all, it's meaningless.
Reply Quote
9
Ag_of_08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Repeat the Line • 2:25a, 7/4/20
AG
Nice gotcha, but the practice of branding everyone with the same identity brush is what has gotten us where we are politically in this country.

People shouldn't have to bake cakes, churches shouldn't have to marry people they don't want, and govts shouldnt be telling people who they can legal have sex with, or enter into a legal contract with once theyre of age and legally consent.

Reply Quote
7
Frok
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag_of_08 • 8:23a, 7/4/20
AG
I agree with most of this. I do think it is the government's job to dictate contract laws though. Otherwise you have no legal recourse if someone violates a contract.
Reply Quote
2
UglyGiantBagOfMostlyWater
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Repeat the Line • 12:14p, 7/4/20
Dog-Faced Pony Soldier said:
UglyGiantBagOfMostlyWater said:
Seamaster said:
You clearly don't have children or if you do, you haven't considered the impact of the culture that they'll inherit.

Oh God, imagine if my children accepted others. The horror.

Frankly, I'd be more disappointed if my children ended up being people who think they should use the state to force other's to live a certain way, especially if it has no effect on them.

My children are free to be exposed to whatever ideas they want. And most of all I want my children to be free to judge those ideas for themselves, not have the state decide what ideas are too vulgar for them to even be exposed to.


So just to clarify, you would be livid if your hypothetical kids believed government should force bakers to bake the cake?

Not sure what you're clarifying. I never said anything about being livid or forcing bakers. Business and personal life are not the same thing.

But if you want to know my opinion on whether or not I think those bakers should have been forced to bake that cake, I do not.
Reply Quote
UglyGiantBagOfMostlyWater
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag_of_08 • 12:15p, 7/4/20
Ag_of_08 said:
People shouldn't have to bake cakes, churches shouldn't have to marry people they don't want, and govts shouldnt be telling people who they can legal have sex with, or enter into a legal contract with once theyre of age and legally consent.


Reply Quote
1
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:27p, 7/4/20
AG
Seamaster threads are always an interesting look into the past and the worst of the present.

There are basically two ways I've seen people allow religion to manifest in their lives in so far as they take it seriously, one looking up and one looking down.

Those who look up tend to let religion be a generally positive influence in their lives in relation to How they treat others. They don't focus on sin, they focus on righteousness-particularly their own in striving to trend it towards an ideal.

Those who look down tend to release the worst in religion. They focus on sin and rule breaking and tradition breaking, they focus on damnation, punishment, innate human frailty. They focus on the sins of others and see themselves as righteous in being gods instrument toward these ends.Here you find sinners In the hands of an angry god, here you find witch hunts, here you find inquisition, here you find wahhabi Islam, here you find ISIS.

People who look down try and use the government and force to dictate and judge, they see themselves and those around them as burdened with the sins of others rather than a light for others to see by.

If you are going to take your religion seriously please look up.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 3:27p, 7/4/20
AG
John 3:17
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

IMHO, Jesus always looked up. If he had looked down, He would have said to stone the adulteress. Or condemn the prostitute who washed his feet. Or condemn the tax collectors.

He never excluded anyone. He always looked up. He did get upset except with those who looked down like the Pharisees. And He said by their "looking down" they condemned themselves.

And after further thought, Jesus never went to brothels, bars(or whatever they were called then), houses of homosexuals(and yes they existed then), adulterers, etc.

In fact, He only got angry at the folks perverting the Temple. Interesting.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
Its OK to be White
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ramblin_ag02 • 4:24p, 7/4/20
ramblin_ag02 said:
Quote:
In other words, by redefining marriage, it's now meaningless (legally speaking.) If marriage is man+man it can be anything. Which means it's everything. Which means it's nothing.
Yes and no. There are still privileges applied to "married couples" such as tax benefits, medical decision making, inheritance, and workplace benefits. This is the end result of letting a secular government sanction marriage in the first place. Prior to the gay marriage ruling, these people would set up fake adoptions so they could have legal rights with their domestic partners. That seems way more perverse than a secular marriage.


The good doctor is very much correct in his diagnosis. Everyone wants a secular morally relative government until it starts doing secular morally relative things.

Our society is under the influence of Satan, the government is down river of society. This has no bearing on actual marriage any more than a biological male with "F" on his driver's license makes him a woman.

Christ is priest, prophet, and king and any society who refuses to acknowledge him as such is going to have these issues
Reply Quote
6
Last Page
Page 1 of 4 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.