You oversimplify everything, Silk. Good luck with that.
You're welcome. It's a simple argument.
You oversimplify everything, Silk. Good luck with that.
You're welcome. It's a simple argument.
At this point, the burden of proof is on you. Do you mean to tell me that 700/700 of King Solomon's marriages were done in the name of religion or, maybe…
Oh my! Don't tell me you haven't read the Bible! Making evaluations about the Bible without having read it? That sounds like some satanic liberal talk, you honky.
In the name of the religion he followed. Yes. I never made evaluations on the Bible.
That's just false. Marriage for political purposes has been around forever. There are also social and health benefits from ensuring that your husband will stick around. For instance, humans are unable to have unaided birth. When a woman gets pregnant, it's kind of important that her mate sticks around to help her throughout the (very long) pregnancy, help her with the birth itself, and also ensure that the child and mother will be taken care of after birth. Unlike many animals, humans are completely helpless for the first few years of life. So helpless that they require almost the entire attention of the mother just to survive, which often makes it hard for the mother to take care of herself.
You don't think that these are good reasons for people to get married? You know, like, maybe a little bit better reasons than just, "'Cuz God said so"?
Well, that's just nice that you say its false. Marriage under the wing of religion has been used for political purposes for around "forever".
I think so, yes. Do other people? Not everyone. The proof is in the pudding. Look at single mother rates outside of the religious demographic.
Look, I don't know how relevant this is to our upcoming presidential election, but I figured that you might find this to be an interesting read: The Myth of Marriage as a Religious Institution
Religion has been around for a long time, but in no way did it predate marriage. Rather, both have existed in different forms throughout likely all of human history. They've evolved with each other as our societies change. Sometimes, they are tightly linked, other times they aren't. But to say that monogamy originally came only from some religious purpose is, I think, ridiculously stupid.
Like I said, even other species have monogamous relationships and will mourn the loss of a partner, much like people treat marriage. How do you explain that if marriage is supposed to come only from religion? Are mourning doves religious?
Besides, regardless of your feelings about where marriage came from, how can you deny all of the other benefits associated with it? When people are married legally, a lot more is influenced than just their tax returns, as others have repeatedly pointed out.
You're right! – and actually the idea of marriage was used in polygamy (as your link correctly points out) as well. My point is, no one called the relationship of 2,3,4 individuals a marriage until there was some sort of religion. Mourning doves are not religious, and I'm pretty sure no one looks at two mourning doves and assumes they're married -- unless your a 4 year old daughter lol. Being in a relationship and loving someone does not equal marriage (if we look at past historic context... majority of the past historic context.)
This is all not to say that I care how anyone else defines marriage. I care what I define as marriage in my life. I'm just pointing out that it's disingenuous to act as if marriage isn't a creation of religion. Yes, you can love someone and do the hanky-spanky, but it wasn't until religion that you were forced into a bond to stay with that person and do the hanky-spanky forever with that person.
@The:
So I finally decided to look a bit more into the whole Benghazi controversy that so many people are up in arms about by reading various sources on the matter. So if I got everything correct the deal is back in 2012 an attack happened where 4 Americans were killed at the time Hillary was still Secretary of State. Two things were that she had a private email account that may have had confidential emails in them that could've been easily hacked into because of the lack of firewalls or something, and the second being that there was talks about increasing security at the place the attack happened but Hillary decided not to increase security. For the first account there is no proof of the confidential information being leaked or sent on that email. Supposing there was confidential information there's no way to know that it had any effect on that attack.
As for the second part just seems like something that may not have made a difference at best, and at worst was a mistake. I would assume for where it was there would be heavy discussion and not a light decision. Then something happened that they didn't expect and those people died. Unless I'm missing something I don't see how you can make something like this such a big deal. because it wasn't like she did something to actually cause the attack to happen, or did anything severely illegal. If this is something that's supposed to be terrible, then by definition almost all politicians would be at least in the same boat. So is there something I'm missing, or is it just a nontroversy made to try and stop Hillary because they have nothing else to go off of?
The committees were pretty much a publicity stunt that Republicans threw to show that Clinton/Obama cared more about elections then saving four American citizens. This is evident in the fact that she was aware of the Benghazi attack, but out of (incompetence?…) Clinton refused to act. What Republicans failed to understand is that people no longer care about ( incompetence / political scheming at the cost of lives )
Not going to get in the argument, because I lack the historical knowledge and other stuff to really get in depth. All I will say is people are assuming that because your posts are coming off pretty hostile. You also go into pretty Black and White territory where things are not nearly as simple as you might think it is.
Don't be bashful, everyone just googles their knowledge anyways.
Yeah, not gonna comment on the Marriage part as folks above me are doing it quite well already.
I might watch that whole video when I get home because hey, I'm masochistic and I do like being able to say I listened to an opposing viewpoint. I'll even retract or change parts of my above statement if the whole video makes any good points, but if Taboo's assessment is right, and I tend to trust her judgement, I think everything I said above still applies.
Not really. (not sure, how I offended you guys on this one. Just because I don't care about marriage of same-sex doesn't mean I'm against it). One person called me a bigot, and another refuses to understand that no matter where you look in history, even for political cause, that ultimately religion is always the "excuse" or reason to bond two people together.
Doo it! He pretty much says that your refusal to understand that ultimate right and wrong exist is what makes you a liberal. Understanding right and wrong isn't all that complicated, liberals just like to pretend it is so they don't have to live up to standards. It's the same reason that typically, if you have a competent boss, that boss more than likely leans right.
sometimes I watch vids people link to me who swear it's a real game changer video, just to check myself I guess, and it's generally always what I expected it to be
This guy insulted me and then insulted a thing that I like so I felt like obviously the least I could do is watch this hour long video he posted
Well, if that's what gets you to watch it I guess… Here's another one!
@CCC:
Pettily framing marriage as an onerous thing that "the gays might as well have because it sucks anyway" is a classic code for "I'm a social conservative who's still bigoted, but just a little more secretly now." It'd be too compassionate and humane to just concede something nice to the LGBT community, so you have to pretend you never really gave a shit.
Anyway, there's hospital visitation rights, tax benefits (what conservative doesn't understand that of course the government pushes the "traditional" married-with-kids family model via financial incentives? That's family values 101) , sharing insurance with one's spouse, SS benefits, veteran's benefits, immigration/visa benefits, etc. Plenty of tangible benefits that were previously being denied. Why pretend that that's all irrelevant? Hmmmm?
And calling me a bigot without proof is code for being a complete jerk. (not that I care, just pointing out the hypocrisy) I clearly said I don't care who loves who. I also have no care in the world about who the government marries. I'm not sure what you mean by "conservative doesn't understand that of course the government pushes…101" Conservatives push for tax breaks for family units all the time.
The government doesn't punish people for being married. Actually, people who file their tax returns as married get much larger tax breaks than people who file individually. This is one of the main points of contention when same sex marriage isn't legally recognized. Why should same sex couples not have the same opportunity for higher tax breaks?
Also, how do you know that marriage was originally a religious thing? Pretty sure people were getting married (entering into socially recognized, long term, monogamous relationships) long before the Christian church existed… maybe even long before organized religion existed. Hell, there are even other species that basically get married.
Marriage definitely does hurt a couple tax-wise if the sum of the couples income pushes them into a higher tax bracket, and it hurts. Sure, monogamy has always been around, but you'll be hard pressed to find the term marriage used in history and not have it affiliated with some sort of religion. Whether it was for
(@Wagomu:
Yeah, marriage was a political thing before it was a religious thing and was a common practice of powerful families seeking alliances.
)
politics or not, religion was still used as the reason for binding two together.
Oh, beautiful. We are so off to a good start when the first thing you do is equate liking comic books with immaturity. As if A: Liking comic books = Being Liberal, and therefore "Being Liberal = Being Immature". Way to TOTALLY bring us into your way of thinking by appealing to our logic, rather than just outright ATTACKING us right out of the gate and making us TOTALLY feel like listening to you.
First off, good use of the "Heritage Organization" video. I bet you're anti-LGBT too? If you believe in such moral absolutism as this man in the video is preaching.
For anyone who didn't watch it… I only got a few minutes in myself, but here's a couple of actual things the guy in the video says:
"I've got to assume that everyone in this room agrees that the democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, I'm here to propose to you it's not 'just about every issue' it's quite literally 'every issue' and it's not just wrong, it's wrong as wrong can be. It's 180 degrees from right, it's diametrically opposed to that which is good, right, and successful."
and
"The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the variables that lead to failure over the variables that lead to success."Yes, evil. Liberals are not just wrong, we are EVIL!!!
I have an entire rant against this in my head, but I have to go to work. Just.... lol.
Moral Absolutism guys: Liberals vs. Conservatives is TOTALLY a Black and white issue with absolutely NO shades of grey or redeeming qualities.
I'm not anti-LGBT-ect., neither is Evan Sayet. If anything I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage. Marriage is a religious invention in the first place, why would the government have anything to say about religious activities. Conservatives lost that fight the second it was decided government would be involved with marriage. All the government does is punish me by combining mine and my fiances income, but hey – if someone wants to be punished for loving another person and they're not religious then have at it. Get married by the government.
Just watch the whole video before you rant. You just listened to his thesis, he proves it in the video.