Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 47825

[on homosexual marriage]

Shouldn’t those who DO NOT believe in Jesus’ Word be allowed to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage?- This is a huge one in today’s society. I am curious to what you think:Why SHOULDN’T they? To alter the definition of marriage in any way would severely devalue the institution of marriage!!! If we were to start describing the immoral union of 2 men or 2 women as a marriage, what would keep us from stopping there??? Nothing would! Then who’s to say that 13 men could not marry 1 woman, or a woman could not marry her cat? I know these are silly examples, but if we allow the labeling of ANY relationship as a marriage, it creates confusion and opens the path for more perversions of the true definition of the union that Jesus taught was to be between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN

Buzzardhut, Rapture Ready 59 Comments [9/22/2008 9:10:12 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
afacelessatheist

Sorry but Christians don't have a monopoly on Marriage. The last time I checked, they didn't start the tradition ether so yes, those who don't believe in your religion should be allowed to marry. Anything else you need cleared up?

9/22/2008 9:13:37 PM

wackadoodle

"but if we allow the labeling of ANY relationship as a marriage, it creates confusion and opens the path for more perversions of the true definition of the union that Jesus taught was to be between ONE WHITE MAN and ONE WHITE WOMAN"

9/22/2008 9:21:13 PM

Rat of Steel

First of all, the Slippery Slope you're describing is a classic logical fallacy; I've learned not to expect much in the way of logic from Rapture Ready posters, though.

Non-human animals can't marry anyone, since they don't have standing to enter into a legal contract (which, like it or not, marriage is and always was).

Secondly, if you insist on invoking your precious Bible in every discussion, try reading it once in a while, so you'll at least be adequately informed regarding what it says when you quote it. In several different places, the Bible actually condones having multiple spouses (albeit always '1 man, more than 1 woman' in the Bible's case, never vice versa).

Then again, if you actually did read the Bible more than a chapter here and a verse there, you'd know that your so-called "Rapture" isn't found anywhere in there.

9/22/2008 9:23:05 PM

Lord Nikon

you FAIL

9/22/2008 9:23:09 PM



Shouldn’t those who DO NOT believe in Jesus’ Word be allowed to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage?

Yet I don't see you FUCKING IDIOTS stopping atheists and people of different belief systems from getting married.

And marriage is not limited to your bullshit religion or opinion. Even if it were, there are plenty of gay people of faith and they should have the right to marry the person they love. That has absolutely nothing to do with marrying an animal or a child that cannot give informed consent, you sick fuckers. With that said I don't have anything against polygamy as long as it's not a bunch of men controlling young girls and vice versa.

9/22/2008 9:29:27 PM

solomongrundy

I know these are silly examples

PWNED your own argument there, I think.

9/22/2008 9:32:19 PM

David B.

Yes, apparently this "true definition" is so important that none of the new testament authors thought to write down Jesus' teachings on marriage being between one man and one woman.

Don't believe me? Cite chapter and verse.

9/22/2008 9:35:18 PM

Callyn

I don't remember Jesus saying anything about marriage. He seemed more focused on helping the helpless or being an ass for no reason, depending upon which gospel you read.

9/22/2008 9:37:42 PM

doomie 22

Careful, you might fall and break your neck on that slippery slope you have there.

9/22/2008 9:38:49 PM

Pyroclasm

Yeah, one man, three hundred wives, and six hundred concubines! No divorce either! That's holy matrimony!

9/22/2008 9:43:07 PM

Doctor Whom

You're right. We have no business altering the Biblical definition of marriage.

9/22/2008 9:46:35 PM

solomongrundy

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

What does that imply for any man other than a Bishop (and incidentally, how does the Catholic Church get around it)?

Let's not forget Deuteronomy 21:15 onwards either, how to deal with the children of your hated second wife:

21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated
21:16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
21:17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.



9/22/2008 9:48:46 PM

Fera

Then who’s to say that 13 men could not marry 1 woman, or a woman could not marry her cat?
Who the hell would want to marry 13 men?(Trust me, I think use women wouldn't want to deal with more men.) I'm pretty dang sure monogamy would still exist. And I don't think anyone is insane enough to marry their cat....I'd be scared if I saw that, probably mentally scarred for life!

I know these are silly examples
Damn right they are.

Remember kids, it's only immoral if you don't agree with it!

9/22/2008 9:54:05 PM

Canadia

Wow this argument sure is new and controversial isn't it?

9/22/2008 9:56:01 PM

Sisyphus

But one man marrying 13 women is okay.

9/22/2008 10:05:21 PM

GigaGuess

Shouldn’t those who DO NOT believe in Jesus’ Word be allowed to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage?
Yes, because you said the magic word there. Legal. I can get married in a fucking BATHHOUSE and so long as the documents are signed and witnessed, it's all good in the eyes of the law. God has nothing to do with it if you don't want him to.

This is a huge one in today’s society. I am curious to what you think:Why SHOULDN’T they?
Bingo, but I don't think that's the feeling you were going for.

To alter the definition of marriage in any way would severely devalue the institution of marriage!!!
More than marriages of money/convenience, Reality TV weddings, Britney's 42-hours 'Gettin' Hitched.'" Yeah. 2 guys or 2 girls that actually love each other devoting themselves to each other would just devastate the institution...by that, I mean the institution of marriage which has a 50% divorce rate as it stands.

If we were to start describing the immoral union of 2 men or 2 women as a marriage, what would keep us from stopping there??? Nothing would!
Whoa, careful of that slope there...it looks slippery.

Then who’s to say that 13 men could not marry 1 woman...
Look up a few of your Biblical heroes...some of them decided not to stop at one, just FYI.

...or a woman could not marry her cat?
Show me a cat that can give informed legal consent, and then we'll talk.

I know these are silly examples, but if we allow the labeling of ANY relationship as a marriage, it creates confusion and opens the path for more perversions of the true definition of the union that Jesus taught was to be between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN
I don't recall Jesus teaching anything of the sort. I do recall him having a lot to say about treating others with dignity and respect...you might wanna look that up.

9/22/2008 10:07:34 PM

Mac Roach

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/seamusd/Summer%202008/vitter.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

9/22/2008 10:20:36 PM

Allegory for Jesus

"To alter the definition of marriage in any way would severely devalue the institution of marriage!!!"

Or so you say. Slippery slopes aren't really that convincing, though.

9/22/2008 10:28:05 PM

Redneck Bimbo Governor

Of course also infertile people shouldn't marry because there's no other reason to marry and have sex other than to procreate.

And atheists can't get married.

And anyone that believes anything other than what the RR whores believe.

HEY BUZZARDHUT YOU'RE A FUCKING CUNT!

9/22/2008 10:31:37 PM

KathleenTheTerrible

Um, sorry, Jesus didn't teach that.

Also, you know what really fucked up the idea of marriage? DIVORCE. And it is fucking legalized. So quit your bitching.

9/22/2008 10:34:27 PM

Papabear

"Shouldn’t those who DO NOT believe in Jesus’ Word be allowed to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage?"

Yes. Enough said, Buzzardbutt.

9/22/2008 10:36:14 PM



fixed for Mac Roach :D



9/22/2008 10:45:01 PM

thejebusfire

[Shouldn’t those who DO NOT believe in Jesus’ Word be allowed to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage?]

Yes they should.

[To alter the definition of marriage in any way would severely devalue the institution of marriage!!!]

Marriage has been altered time and time agian in the past.

[Then who’s to say that 13 men could not marry 1 woman,]
Well, in some areas 1 man can marry 13 women.

[or a woman could not marry her cat? ]
Yes, because a cat has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

[ it creates confusion and opens the path for more perversions of the true definition of the union that Jesus taught was to be between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN ]

I don't think Jesus said anything about marriage.


9/22/2008 10:56:42 PM

David D.G.

"If we were to start describing the immoral union of 2 men or 2 women as a marriage, what would keep us from stopping there???"

You've got some adjectives mixed up. Try it this way:

"If we were to start describing the marital union of 2 men or 2 women as immoral, what would keep us from stopping there????"

And apparently, until recently, nothing did. But now your oppressive, paranoid, sadistic, megalomaniacal power trip is coming to an end, and you want your free ride to continue. Well, too freakin' bad. You just had the bad luck not to have had your life before civil rights became the big deal they deserve to be.


~David D.G.

9/22/2008 10:58:13 PM

Old Viking

You jokers keep referring to the "definition" of marriage. What definition -- other than your own -- do you have in mind? A quote would be appreciated.

9/22/2008 11:03:48 PM
1 2 3