Jump to content
teme

Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life,

Recommended Posts

They can already get married anytime they wanted. They want legal recognition.

So which authority joins them if it is not legal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lol, why do you even care that they choose to celebrate this way? It's their wedding not yours.

I never said i cared. only that this highlights there argument that it makes a joke out of marriage.

 

Also, i should add, you could ban all religous marriage tomorrow and the religous would not care because the authority that joins them is not of this world.

but, atheists require Temporal authoritys be established first to get married, hence why they waited for the NZ marriage eqaulity bill.

If they had a God, they could have got married anytime they wanted.

 

How does it make a joke out of marriage ? Do you know the personal details of those involved in the pic ?

 

[Making an assumption] I'd guess you've no idea how those in the pic feel about their choice of ceremony.

All you're doing is putting your own biases on to them.

 

As to the underlined ... I think the CC itself disputes your claim, else why are they bothering to put a stop to SSM ?

You need to make more sense te0p :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love lamp.

I truly was stumped by this ^^

 

 

Until The Anchorman told me true :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isnt this the exact same thing that those who oppose Marriage Equality warn against? that marriage becomes a joke? it is funny how those who are for it and get it, now supply the fuel for the arguments against it. these people are absurd.

When i got married, SSM was illegal in both Australia and Arizona.

 

Not sure if my rennfaire wedding in costumes was taking marriage more or less seriously than the m/billions of divorces that happened before SSM became a new issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I love lamp.

I truly was stumped by this ^^

 

 

Until The Anchorman told me true :)

 

 

Brick is truly a poet and a god among men :3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I love lamp.

I truly was stumped by this ^^

 

 

Until The Anchorman told me true :)

 

 

Brick is truly a poet and a god among men :3

 

Oh \(o)/!... Rightio .

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killed and ate a Bosmer once, made me sick,

saw Sheogorath in the vomitus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Isnt this the exact same thing that those who oppose Marriage Equality warn against? that marriage becomes a joke? it is funny how those who are for it and get it, now supply the fuel for the arguments against it. these people are absurd.

When i got married, SSM was illegal in both Australia and Arizona.

 

Not sure if my rennfaire wedding in costumes was taking marriage more or less seriously than the m/billions of divorces that happened before SSM became a new issue.

 

Im more highlighting the point of people like the colander heads, that they never really cared about SSM to begine with and completly forgot the metaphysical side of marriage, they only ever cared about attaking there perceived enemy religion, and in doing so actully showed that the arguments some who are against SSM used actully came true... like getting married with spaggetti on there head.. you could not stand there straight faced and tell me this is ridiculous? surely?

 

Atheists, Unlike some SSM people beleive marriage to be a metaphysical union as well a physical.... So a SSCouple could easily be married by druids in the forest and be married with out any need of a temporal authority like a Federal government to feel married, and quite rightly be married, the government can not tell the SSC who believes in the metaphysical who can and can not be married.

 

For the record, i also think Divorce makes a bit of a joke of marriage, probably more than SSM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...like getting married with spaggetti on there head.. you could not stand there straight faced and tell me this is ridiculous?

 

Of course it's ridiculous - that's the whole point!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Atheists, Unlike some SSM people beleive marriage to be a metaphysical union as well a physical.... So a SSCouple could easily be married by druids in the forest and be married with out any need of a temporal authority like a Federal government to feel married, and quite rightly be married, the government can not tell the SSC who believes in the metaphysical who can and can not be married.

 

For the record, i also think Divorce makes a bit of a joke of marriage, probably more than SSM.

 

They may feel married but in the eyes of the law they are not. For a lot of people this may not be an issue, however this can have serious consequences when it comes to other legal matters.

 

EG

 

The legal benefits that come with marriage

Married partners have immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities.

This contrasts to de facto couples who must live together for a certain period before they are deemed to have legal rights.

A marriage certificate also allows married partners to easily prove their legal rights if challenged, for example in emergency situations. The capacity to quickly and easily prove one’s relationship status is particularly important for same-sex partners because prejudice against same-sex relationships can mean legal rights are denied.

Another practical benefit of marriage is that it is a widely recognised legal relationship. The criteria for establishing de facto status, and the rights ascribed to de facto partners, are different between the Australian states and between Australia and other nations.

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/faqs/the-legal-benefits-that-come-with-marriage/

 

So the state recognising a ceremony as legal has some major implications for the couple.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your father existed before your birth. you cannot say that before your birth your father don,t exists.

 

 

QFT

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Atheists, Unlike some SSM people beleive marriage to be a metaphysical union as well a physical.... So a SSCouple could easily be married by druids in the forest and be married with out any need of a temporal authority like a Federal government to feel married, and quite rightly be married, the government can not tell the SSC who believes in the metaphysical who can and can not be married.

 

For the record, i also think Divorce makes a bit of a joke of marriage, probably more than SSM.

 

They may feel married but in the eyes of the law they are not. For a lot of people this may not be an issue, however this can have serious consequences when it comes to other legal matters.

 

EG

 

The legal benefits that come with marriage

Married partners have immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities.

This contrasts to de facto couples who must live together for a certain period before they are deemed to have legal rights.

A marriage certificate also allows married partners to easily prove their legal rights if challenged, for example in emergency situations. The capacity to quickly and easily prove one’s relationship status is particularly important for same-sex partners because prejudice against same-sex relationships can mean legal rights are denied.

Another practical benefit of marriage is that it is a widely recognised legal relationship. The criteria for establishing de facto status, and the rights ascribed to de facto partners, are different between the Australian states and between Australia and other nations.

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/faqs/the-legal-benefits-that-come-with-marriage/

 

So the state recognising a ceremony as legal has some major implications for the couple.

 

I was never arguing that there are not practical benefits for SSM. Im arguing that Atheists like the ones in the picture and story dont really care about SSM. They are anti theist and only care about any thing that degrades any established religious cultural institutions. And when marriage equality is legal as in the NZ, they make it look like a joke which harms genuine SSM couples in the pursuit to convince those opposed to SSM.

 

IMO, atheists need to be recognized by society whn they get married or it becomes meaning less, they can not enter into the belief of transcendence of things like "love" with out undermining there atheism, so they have to seek recognition in the flesh, an authority that will recognize them as being married ie: like the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, you may as well be arguing that people can't experience the value of a gift if they don't believe in Santa Claus.

kind of,.... more that you cant value a gift with out some faith knowledge, you believe it was in good intentions... even though you dont know at all if it is.

Same applys for marriage, people have certain affinity's for each other that are describable, you love in faith, which i believe is a type of knowledge, some dont of course, but it pretty hard to be "in love" get married and then reduce it to a biomechnical process is more what i am getting at.. and if it is more than a biomechanical process, then it has not bounds, meaning a law can not contain a marriage so to speak. Marriage is a purely metaphsical bond, if you want to reduce it to a legal union (which seems to be the main tilt) it is really no better than a legal contract with out the metaphysical which is the real meat in the sandwich of marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... snipped lots ...

 

IMO, atheists need to be recognized by society whn they get married or it becomes meaning less, they can not enter into the belief of transcendence of things like "love" with out undermining there atheism,...

Why ?

 

Legal equal rites and ' worth ' for all. Isn't that what the ssm push is for ?

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lol, you may as well be arguing that people can't experience the value of a gift if they don't believe in Santa Claus.

kind of,.... more that you cant value a gift with out some faith knowledge, you believe it was in good intentions... even though you dont know at all if it is.

Same applys for marriage, people have certain affinity's for each other that are describable, you love in faith, which i believe is a type of knowledge, some dont of course, but it pretty hard to be "in love" get married and then reduce it to a biomechnical process is more what i am getting at.. and if it is more than a biomechanical process, then it has not bounds, meaning a law can not contain a marriage so to speak. Marriage is a purely metaphsical bond, if you want to reduce it to a legal union (which seems to be the main tilt) it is really no better than a legal contract with out the metaphysical which is the real meat in the sandwich of marriage.

 

Sounds like you believe what you do because it suits your narrative of the world, and not because it has any objective truth.

 

You don't need to believe in Santa or any supernatural entity to understand the value of a gift. Atheists are exactly like everyone else, they just believe one less thing - that your god exists. That's it. Their opinions on faith and religion may very well mirrors yours exactly. They're capable of understanding the value of a gift sans Santa, and they're capable of understanding the value of marriage - same sex or otherwise - just as anyone else can.

 

If a couple chooses to wear a colander on their head while getting married, then good for them. That says nothing of their stance on SSM. If anything, it shows that they have a sense of humour, however perverse it may me to you. If it bothers you enough that it affects the sanctity of your own marriage, then perhaps your faith is more fragile that you think. If it doesn't affect you or others, then why do you care?

Edited by .:Cyb3rGlitch:.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian Marriage is a purely metaphsical bond, if you want to reduce it to a legal union (which seems to be the main tilt) it is really no better than a legal contract with out the metaphysical which is the real meat in the sandwich of marriage.

 

FTFY.

 

But yes. It really is just a legal contract. Some people just want access to a legal contract that some other people have.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, atheists need to be recognized by society whn they get married or it becomes meaning less, they can not enter into the belief of transcendence of things like "love" with out undermining there atheism

... Tell me you did not just suggest that atheist can't know love - that you just misspoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, i should add, you could ban all religious marriage tomorrow and the religious would not care because the authority that joins them is not of this world.

but, atheists require Temporal authorities be established first to get married, hence why they waited for the NZ marriage equality bill.

If they had a God, they could have got married anytime they wanted.

 

did you actually mean "...ban all kinds of legally recognised unions tomorrow..."?

or perhaps you were proposing if no marriage ceremony by itself was legally binding? (eg. anyone married in a church by a priest would need to seek legal recognition as a separate formality)

 

either way, you make no sense.

 

if the lynch pin of your argument is that 'religious people' only really care about their particular deity's ultimate authority to recognise and validate their metaphysical union, then surely there is nothing left to argue. because if this were the case, religious people should have no need to seek redundant validations from society at large or the law, nor feel threatened by them, nor express great desire to interfere with the independent processes of either.

 

so let us be clear. this is discussion is precisely NOT about those religious persons for whom the legal recognition of their marriage is a mere bonus that they could take or leave.

 

this is discussion is PRECISELY about religious people who in fact expect, demand, if not covet, the validation of society at large and the Law -- ie. "temporal", "earthly", authorities.

 

because sufficient recognition by society at large — a group comprised of people of many incompatible faiths including many who are non-religious — is EXACTLY what is required to create the legal authority for recognition by law.

 

the earthly authority you in truth are ill-prepared to disdain and which you almost certainly would expect of a Christian priest or pastor and cry foul in its absence, is only there by virtue of it being gifted to him/her by the likes of idolatrous Hindus and Buddhists, impious pagans, and rampaging athiests. and no citizen of a society with the rule of law, who has had their idiosyncratic costumes and rituals elevated in this way, has moral grounds to bemoan the same rights being given to another. if anything, you'd expect to see them rushing to show their gratitude.

 

 

IMO, atheists need to be recognized by society when they get married or it becomes meaning less, they can not enter into the belief of transcendence of things like "love" with out undermining there atheism, so they have to seek recognition in the flesh, an authority that will recognize them as being married ie: like the government.

Same applys for marriage, people have certain affinity's for each other that are describable, you love in faith, which i believe is a type of knowledge, some dont of course, but it pretty hard to be "in love" get married and then reduce it to a biomechnical process is more what i am getting at.. and if it is more than a biomechanical process, then it has not bounds, meaning a law can not contain a marriage so to speak. Marriage is a purely metaphsical bond, if you want to reduce it to a legal union (which seems to be the main tilt) it is really no better than a legal contract with out the metaphysical which is the real meat in the sandwich of marriage.

 

meh. all youre doing is proclaiming your distaste for a narrow set of misinformed characterisations youre projecting onto all atheists.

 

a non-religious person, even one hopelessly committed to objectivity and science, need not live in a world without rapture and reverence and immersion in the majesty of all things greater than themselves and all questions unanswered or unanswerable, nor one without morals informed by impassioned metaphysical apprehensions, including for example, deep notions of love that transcend the mere physical.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

a non-religious person, even one hopelessly committed to objectivity and science, need not live in a world without rapture and reverence and immersion in the majesty of all things greater than themselves and all questions unanswered or unanswerable, nor one without morals informed by impassioned metaphysical apprehensions, including for example, deep notions of love that transcend the mere physical.

 

 

Pretty much says it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IMO, atheists need to be recognized by society whn they get married or it becomes meaning less, they can not enter into the belief of transcendence of things like "love" with out undermining there atheism

... Tell me you did not just suggest that atheist can't know love - that you just misspoke.

 

No, im sure there are plenty of atheist with a more open heart and loving than i am.. while atheism is not a worlview (disclaimer), Most atheists (not all) have a big problem when it comes to claims like "love" etc... in that they cant really both deny a metaphysical claim like "God" and then accept another metaphycscial claim like "love"

 

 

a non-religious person, even one hopelessly committed to objectivity and science, need not live in a world without rapture and reverence and immersion in the majesty of all things greater than themselves and all questions unanswered or unanswerable, nor one without morals informed by impassioned metaphysical apprehensions, including for example, deep notions of love that transcend the mere physical.

 

 

Pretty much says it.

 

But wouldnt that mean that your standard of evidence changes for one thing to anohter? ie: God you require science.... but for love and morals you reuire none? that does stink of a double standard no matter how well written.

 

Christian Marriage is a purely metaphsical bond, if you want to reduce it to a legal union (which seems to be the main tilt) it is really no better than a legal contract with out the metaphysical which is the real meat in the sandwich of marriage.

 

FTFY.

 

But yes. It really is just a legal contract. Some people just want access to a legal contract that some other people have.

 

Unfortunately those who oppose SSM there metaphysical claims dont allow for legal contraction whilst living in a Democracy, otherwise they would be underselling there beliefs down the river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately those who oppose SSM there metaphysical claims dont allow for legal contraction whilst living in a Democracy, otherwise they would be underselling there beliefs down the river.

Nonsense. The government allowing SSM does not effect you or your religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately those who oppose SSM there metaphysical claims dont allow for legal contraction whilst living in a Democracy, otherwise they would be underselling there beliefs down the river.

Nonsense. The government allowing SSM does not effect you or your religion.

 

How would you guarantee that when the laws are under the guise of Marriage equality law? How would marriage be equal if you are a SSC and are not allowed to get married in a Chruch/mosque/synagogue which provides marriage servcies? Are you going to make such guarentees? If you do, it does not sound like Mariage equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×