Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
98 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: How do Christians feel about same-sex being allowed in NY? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Garcian Smith
United States
Northridge
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If this thread is not appropriate, please close it down or let me know so I will close it down. I only ask this because I was reading the other thread and I was wondering about differing opinions.

As for myself, I am a Christian. However, I do not feel it is right to make laws that prevent people who are different from me from being able to enjoy the same rights that I do and vice-versa. I know of friends that have voted measures such as YES on prop 8 which I do not agree with. It's really a tangled mess when you mix up values you uphold as part of a religious background versus rights that you get from laws and the government.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Webb Space Telescope in 2018!
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
My opinion:

#1 - Traditional marriage is the foundation of a healthy society.

#2 - We abandon or redefine traditional marriage at our peril.

Government has a role in this issue because of #1.

Gays should be able to live together, have civil unions. But marriage is different.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tesuji wrote:
marriage is different.


Why?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel
Netherlands
Den haag
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
tesuji wrote:
My opinion:

#1 - Traditional marriage is the foundation of a healthy society.

#2 - We abandon or redefine traditional marriage at our peril.

Government has a role in this issue because of #1.

Gays should be able to live together, have civil unions. But marriage is different.

#3 - Letting gay people marry does not change one single thing about marriage.



I have said it before, I will say it again there does not exist one single valid argument to prevent gay people from getting married in a society where marriage exists.

Every argument a person can come up with boils down to bigotry.

In case the anti-gay marriage is going to complain about being called bigots again.

I personally will never call people bigots for having a different opinion, but I will call people bigots if they want to keep the rights that they have from other people purely based on the other persons sexual preference.



Oh, and in case you want to come up with the argument that a gay person has the same right as a hetero person to marry a person of the opposite gender, you know that it is a ridiculous argument so please safe us the effort of having to read it.


I am not gay, and I believe that marriage is an outdated institution, but threads about gay marriage always make me angry.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shane Yeager
United States
Sykesville
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There are multiple denominations who are not only happy with SSM, but actively have been working to get equality to become the law of the land.
9 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Wheeler
United States
Mobridge
South Dakota
flag msg tools
No peeking!
badge
The item is not here.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mag74b wrote:
I have said it before, I will say it again there does not exist one single valid argument to prevent gay people from getting married in a society where marriage exists.

Every argument a person can come up with boils down to bigotry.

In case the anti-gay marriage is going to complain about being called bigots again.

I personally will never call people bigots for having a different opinion, but I will call people bigots if they want to keep the rights that they have from other people purely based on the other persons sexual preference.


I hope, then, you are willing to concede that in New York's (and other states') new and more inclusive definition of marriage there is no mutual amorous arrangement of any type that should, for any reason, be excluded.

Because you are not a bigot, correct?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Garcian Smith
United States
Northridge
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The way I came to see it is that the Christian definition of marriage (or Christian marriage) is seen as man-woman. Marriage taken in a political scope is more about the things that are attached to it such as certain legal benefits.

As said before, I feel that a large segment of BGG users are Christian and I am interested to hear their opinions. One thing I ask of everyone is to remain civil and understand there will be differing opinions as we all have different backgrounds.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Carr
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Both of my parents are pastors in the United Church of Christ and find the change in New York to be fantastic. My parents have both been active within their denomintion to promote gay marriage, and both haver performed wedding ceremonies for gay couples, including my mom's brother to his husband.

They see gay marriage as congruent to the key messages of Jesus in the New Testament and would take issue with theological interpretations of the Bible that are against same-sex marriage, basically saying that these theological positions are overlooking the core Christian message.

Around the family dinner table today, as part of a 4th of July meal, we were commenting on how Vermont is now completely surrounded by states (and Quebec) that allow same-sex marriage. It was worthy of a 4th of July toast, representing not only good Christian values, but also good American values. Just as Vermont was a core of the just abolition movement, it's now becoming the core for just same-sex movement.

"How do you like that big apple?"
13 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ryan Wheeler wrote:
I hope, then, you are willing to concede that in New York's (and other states') new and more inclusive definition of marriage there is no mutual amorous arrangement of any type that should, for any reason, be excluded.

Because you are not a bigot, correct?


I don't think New York has a new definition of marriage, but if it does, it's only by changing from "one man and one woman" to "one person and one other person." So I won't speak for mag74b, but yes, I am all in favor of any two people who want to marry each other being able to do so in accordance with this "new definition."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Wheeler
United States
Mobridge
South Dakota
flag msg tools
No peeking!
badge
The item is not here.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Golux13 wrote:
I don't think New York has a new definition of marriage, but if it does, it's only by changing from "one man and one woman" to "one person and one other person." So I won't speak for mag74b, but yes, I am all in favor of any two people who want to marry each other being able to do so in accordance with this "new definition."


The term has been redefined under the law hasn't it? And in this country, as marriage goes, it's a pretty new development.

But why must only two people be involved? Mutual can mean more than two.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
I've got an 808 and a 303 and a record collection like the ABC
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ryan Wheeler wrote:
I hope, then, you are willing to concede that in New York's (and other states') new and more inclusive definition of marriage there is no mutual amorous arrangement of any type that should, for any reason, be excluded.

Because you are not a bigot, correct?

Is this going to be some insane slippery slope argument based on something not actually enshrined in law? If so, please keep digging...
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Holger Hannemann
United Kingdom
Upper Heyford
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tesuji wrote:
My opinion:

#1 - Traditional marriage is the foundation of a healthy society.


No, the pursuit of happiness is the foundation of a healthy society.


tesuji wrote:

#2 - We abandon or redefine traditional marriage at our peril.

Government has a role in this issue because of #1.

Gays should be able to live together, have civil unions. But marriage is different.



The world would be a much happier place without crap like this!

I live in a hetero civil union, and it is EXACTLY like a marriage. We just didn't have a crazy rain dance at our wedding to get the blessing from a non-existing entity.
9 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Green Dan
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I really don't get marriage. My partner doesn't either so it works out well.

I have the same rights as a father (since 2003) that a married father has, and our Wills define what happens to our estates. So this whole thing seems like a big argument over nothing but an outdated concept to me.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel
Netherlands
Den haag
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Ryan Wheeler wrote:
mag74b wrote:
I have said it before, I will say it again there does not exist one single valid argument to prevent gay people from getting married in a society where marriage exists.

Every argument a person can come up with boils down to bigotry.

In case the anti-gay marriage is going to complain about being called bigots again.

I personally will never call people bigots for having a different opinion, but I will call people bigots if they want to keep the rights that they have from other people purely based on the other persons sexual preference.


I hope, then, you are willing to concede that in New York's (and other states') new and more inclusive definition of marriage there is no mutual amorous arrangement of any type that should, for any reason, be excluded.

Because you are not a bigot, correct?

I know people love to make the slippery slope argument. So here goes.

Age:
At some age people are too young for amorous relationships and marriage, at a later age they are old enough. The age differs from person to person and can't be objectively defined.
I do think it is fine for a government to set an age limit on marriage and amorous relationships to reduce the risk of young people to be abused. I do not consider this discrimination.

Animals:
Since consent is neededfrom both partners, and we can't speak to animals, you can't marry animals, since it is not a mutual amorous arrangement.

polygamy:
I can't see why a person can not marry multiple people, or multiple people marry eachother. To me it is just another one of those strange laws limiting marriage based on some peoples idea of what a normal relationship must look like.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I am even in favour of letting Christians marry other Christians (if they are into it, who am I to judge).

mag74b wrote:
polygamy:
I can't see why a person can not marry multiple people, or multiple people marry eachother. To me it is just another one of those strange laws limiting marriage based on some peoples idea of what a normal relationship must look like.


The only honest problem I see with polygamy is that while extending the exact same rights and duties from 2 people of different sex to 2 people whatsoever is automatic, some minor tweaking must be made to extend them to 3 or 4 people (if only because of math: splitting inheritances? parental duties? life end decisions?). But yeah, why would anyone have a problem if three people want to sign a civil commitment contract?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Green Dan
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HeinzGuderian wrote:
I am even in favour of letting Christians marry other Christians (if they are into it, who am I to judge).

mag74b wrote:
polygamy:
I can't see why a person can not marry multiple people, or multiple people marry eachother. To me it is just another one of those strange laws limiting marriage based on some peoples idea of what a normal relationship must look like.


The only honest problem I see with polygamy is that while extending the exact same rights and duties from 2 people of different sex to 2 people whatsoever is automatic, some minor tweaking must be made to extend them to 3 or 4 people (if only because of math: splitting inheritances? parental duties? life end decisions?). But yeah, why would anyone have a problem if three people want to sign a civil commitment contract?


Why have is called a 'Marriage' at all? Why not just have a Living Will and a usual will that states in the event of my death/incapcitacnce the following things will occur...
Wills can be updated and chopped around whenever you feel like...marriages, not so much.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ryan Wheeler wrote:
Golux13 wrote:
I don't think New York has a new definition of marriage, but if it does, it's only by changing from "one man and one woman" to "one person and one other person." So I won't speak for mag74b, but yes, I am all in favor of any two people who want to marry each other being able to do so in accordance with this "new definition."


The term has been redefined under the law hasn't it? And in this country, as marriage goes, it's a pretty new development.

But why must only two people be involved? Mutual can mean more than two.


If everyone is a consenting adult and it can be accomplished without abusing the tax code or taking unfair advantage of civil services, I don't have a moral problem with more than two adults being involved in a marriage. So if you're advocating restructuring the law around polygamy and formally recognizing plural marriages, I say go for it as long as you can untangle the tax and legal implications.

On the other hand, if you're just trying to throw polygamy out as the next "scare" in some transparent attempt to demonstrate that gay marriage is leading the country to moral ruin, put me down as "not impressed."
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve B
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
As a former-christian, banning same-sex marriage is dumb. To me marriage has become more of a legal term than a religious term. It's religious if you get married in a church or are regular attendees to church. For everyone else, it's legal.

Oh, and...

14 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
sbszine wrote:
Ryan Wheeler wrote:
I hope, then, you are willing to concede that in New York's (and other states') new and more inclusive definition of marriage there is no mutual amorous arrangement of any type that should, for any reason, be excluded.

Because you are not a bigot, correct?

Is this going to be some insane slippery slope argument based on something not actually enshrined in law? If so, please keep digging...


Bah I'm going to just admit it. My support of gay marriage is just the first step in my master plan to marry my 13 year old sister, my goldfish Mr Blackie and my vacuum cleaner. Wow it feels good to get that off my chest.
14 
 Thumb up
0.50
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it's awesome. Love is universal.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Jones
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tesuji wrote:
My opinion:

#1 - Traditional marriage is the foundation of a healthy society.

#2 - We abandon or redefine traditional marriage at our peril.

Government has a role in this issue because of #1.

Gays should be able to live together, have civil unions. But marriage is different.


#1 - Traditional divine right monarchy style government is the foundation of a healthy society.

#2 - We abandon or redefine divine right monarchy style government at our own peril.

God has chosen our Kings and Queens and only he has a role in deciding our leaders because of number one.

The common people should be able to live and have some rights among each other. But governing is different.

20 
 Thumb up
1.50
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Greendan wrote:

Why have is called a 'Marriage' at all? Why not just have a Living Will and a usual will that states in the event of my death/incapcitacnce the following things will occur...
Wills can be updated and chopped around whenever you feel like...marriages, not so much.


Because marriages do involve rights while the other person is still alive and not incapacitated? Insurance. Spousal agreement when it comes to, say, refinancing a house.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mag74b wrote:
Ryan Wheeler wrote:
mag74b wrote:
I have said it before, I will say it again there does not exist one single valid argument to prevent gay people from getting married in a society where marriage exists.

Every argument a person can come up with boils down to bigotry.

In case the anti-gay marriage is going to complain about being called bigots again.

I personally will never call people bigots for having a different opinion, but I will call people bigots if they want to keep the rights that they have from other people purely based on the other persons sexual preference.


I hope, then, you are willing to concede that in New York's (and other states') new and more inclusive definition of marriage there is no mutual amorous arrangement of any type that should, for any reason, be excluded.

Because you are not a bigot, correct?

I know people love to make the slippery slope argument. So here goes.

Age:
At some age people are too young for amorous relationships and marriage, at a later age they are old enough. The age differs from person to person and can't be objectively defined.
I do think it is fine for a government to set an age limit on marriage and amorous relationships to reduce the risk of young people to be abused. I do not consider this discrimination.

Animals:
Since consent is neededfrom both partners, and we can't speak to animals, you can't marry animals, since it is not a mutual amorous arrangement.

polygamy:
I can't see why a person can not marry multiple people, or multiple people marry eachother. To me it is just another one of those strange laws limiting marriage based on some peoples idea of what a normal relationship must look like.


How many people can you marry?

4?

12?

36? (subchapter S corporation)

36,000?

"Marriage" is about the management of property and visitation rights in the hospital as much (more?) than it is about clear lineage for children (and by clear lineage-- it's really property rights again- who does the estate go to? Who gets their college paid for?)

My only concern about same sex marriage is the potential for abuse by billionaires to transfer wealth tax free through a series of "marriages" (or even an artfully arranged series of marriages and divorces).

I john marry jake. Okay, you bastard John, I'm divorcing you. "oh jake, I'm so sorry, let me give you this 1 billion dollar corporation tax free as part of our divorce settlement." Jake marries Sally... continue iterating.

We need high limits on spousal transfers-- maybe 400x the average wage to mitigate this risk.

As far as sex goes- who cares. There are many sexless mixed gender marriages- and many mixed gender marriages with sex but no procreation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Green Dan
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hibikir wrote:
Greendan wrote:

Why have is called a 'Marriage' at all? Why not just have a Living Will and a usual will that states in the event of my death/incapcitacnce the following things will occur...
Wills can be updated and chopped around whenever you feel like...marriages, not so much.


Because marriages do involve rights while the other person is still alive and not incapacitated? Insurance. Spousal agreement when it comes to, say, refinancing a house.


We have insurance and we are both Signatories on our joint mortgage (you don't have to be married to have either of these things).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:



My only concern about same sex marriage is the potential for abuse by billionaires to transfer wealth tax free through a series of "marriages" (or even an artfully arranged series of marriages and divorces).



I fail to see how same-sex marriage in any way exacerbates this problem? These same hypothetical billionaires could do this now.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.