Speakeasy forum

General discussion

IF you're "married"

by JP Bill / June 10, 2015 8:07 PM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: IF you're "married"
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: IF you're "married"
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
by James Denison / June 10, 2015 8:11 PM PDT
In reply to: IF you're "married"

because "legalized" doesn't make it so, not anymore than passing a law saying all citizens were now "white" would actually make them all "white", nor if the law said everyone was "black" would it make that so either. Just another wrong law to add to many others already out there.

Collapse -
RE: "legalized" doesn't make it so
by JP Bill / June 10, 2015 8:48 PM PDT
In reply to: No

YES it does....In the eyes of the people that participated.

A marriage certificate (IF you have one) means nothing?

Not even make you "legally married" in the eyes of the government/law?

passing a law saying all citizens were now "white"

I'm fairly certain you can't find any attempt to past that law.

Collapse -
(NT) I see Logic fails with you
by James Denison / June 11, 2015 12:22 PM PDT
Collapse -
RE: Logic
by JP Bill / June 11, 2015 1:01 PM PDT
passing a law saying all citizens were now "white"

Was that YOUR example of "logic"?

Sounds more "illogical" to me.
Collapse -
Now you are learning
by James Denison / June 11, 2015 2:43 PM PDT
In reply to: RE: Logic

just using the wrong words to describe something doesn't make it that way. And that's a wrap folks!!!!! Devil

Collapse -
For all purposes ...
by Kees_B Forum moderator / June 11, 2015 2:56 PM PDT
In reply to: Now you are learning

two people of the same sex being legally married can call themselves married.

Nobody can say they aren't; only that they shouldn't be according to the speakers religion. That's the difference between a fact and an opinion.

By the way, aren't marriages in the USA always done by ministers/clergymen? That would certainly give it an 'approved by God' stamp.


Collapse -
No they aren't
by TONI H / June 11, 2015 3:01 PM PDT
In reply to: For all purposes ...

You can have a ship's captain perform a ceremony as easily as a magistrate of a court or a city official, like a mayor.

Clergy aren't the only option....especially now that you can legally get a license to perform marriages online, so pretty much any half-wit will do these days.

Collapse -
by James Denison / June 11, 2015 3:54 PM PDT
In reply to: For all purposes ...

Matthew chapter 19

No Adam and Steve, only Adam and Eve.

3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to [c]divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to [d]divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever [e]divorces his wife, except for [f]immorality, and marries another woman [g]commits adultery[h].”

Genesis chapter 2

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because [w]she was taken out of Man.”

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Nope, don't see another man there either, not as "help mate" or "wife".

There are places homosexuals are mentioned in the Bible, but never favorably. In fact one tribe in Israel become homosexuals, and were nearly wiped out by the other tribes on God's command, and the survivors forced to marry women and make children by them. Ah, those were the good ol' days!

Collapse -
So you are saying that it's right to force
by Diana Forum moderator / June 11, 2015 5:32 PM PDT
In reply to: Jesus

your religious beliefs on the whole country? How would you feel if someone else forced their religious beliefs on you?

Collapse -
Yes, it's right, because it's moral
by James Denison / June 11, 2015 6:23 PM PDT

Every law forces something on someone he or she may not agree with. Time the Majority took back America, or carve our own section out of it.

Collapse -
I don't want to live in your world.
by Diana Forum moderator / June 11, 2015 7:01 PM PDT

You are saying that it's okay to enforce Sharia law on everyone in the US?

Collapse -
Morality, not Sharia
by James Denison / June 11, 2015 11:49 PM PDT

There is a difference.

Collapse -
"We the people" Democracy in Action
by James Denison / June 13, 2015 12:00 PM PDT
Collapse -
RE: "We the people"
by JP Bill / June 13, 2015 1:50 PM PDT

WE the people...NOT YOU the people

How is YOUR campaign to get all homosexuals sent to an Island in the North Sea going?

Collapse -
(NT) why not New Brunswick, Ca.???
by James Denison / June 13, 2015 1:56 PM PDT
In reply to: RE: "We the people"
Collapse -
Wouldn't matter to me.....
by JP Bill / June 13, 2015 2:05 PM PDT

I don't have to watch/hear about whatever they do....Do you?

I don't even care if YOU moved up here, you wouldn't last long(you don't like the climate). Your neighbour could be gay/adulterer/sinner for all you know. You could be a sinner for all I know.

Collapse -
The presider of the ceremony is of least importance
by Steven Haninger / June 11, 2015 5:32 PM PDT
In reply to: For all purposes ...

For legal purposes, it's the couple and the witnesses to their vows. For the state or local authorities, the importances is the collection of a fee. As for a God stamp of approval due to the presence of a clergyman, it doesn't happen that easily or with that guarantee...at least not in my church.

Collapse -
Re: words
by Kees_B Forum moderator / June 12, 2015 12:34 AM PDT
In reply to: Now you are learning

Words, you know, can get new meanings.

A "phone" used to be a device you could use to talk to somebody far away. The full word was "Telephone", from Greek words meaning far and voice. Now it' means 'small portable computer with a touchscreen and that can do much more than talking', quite something else. Although people still use it in the old sense, the new sense is very common, although a little bit confusing. You can complain about such a linguistic development, but you can't stop it. Maybe you even use it yourself.

Marriage used to mean a bond between man and women, with a primary purpose of getting children, for the rest of their lives. Now it's getting a new meaning: a legal bond between two persons, with a well defined legal meaning. You can complain about such a linguistic development, but you can't stop it. You could even invent a new word for it, but ithat would have a very small chance of being generally accepted.
Ald old frame of reference like the Bible doesn't know this new meaning. That's a little bit confusing indeed.


Collapse -
when you call filth
by James Denison / June 12, 2015 1:15 AM PDT
In reply to: Re: words

by new words, it causes those words to fall into disrepute fairly quickly.

Collapse -
I can't argue that words won't take new meanings
by Steven Haninger / June 12, 2015 3:07 AM PDT
In reply to: Re: words

but I'd not want government to dictate their definitions. We can verify that language changes simply by how we argue the meanings or interpretations of writings from the past. There are some words or definitions that evolve with very specific meanings, however. They began as one thing but became clarified so as to create an image. We can say that marriage is a union but there are all kinds of unions. We can say it's a union of people with certain objectives but there are all kinds of objectives. Such is why we use the term "labor union" as it clarifies the term. I'd think the word marriage may well fall into that category. It's a union of persons for a specific reason. As such, for couple that would not fit the term that's become custom, why not just come up with another that defines the union of same sex persons so that everyone will be able to visualize them? I see no wrong in that. In my own religion, we add additional clarity by adding the term "holy" to what our marriages are so I personally don't have a problem understanding what it means when two are united in holy matrimony.

Collapse -
Re: marriage
by Kees_B Forum moderator / June 12, 2015 3:27 AM PDT

That's great.

- Use '(holy) matrimony' for marriage between religious man and woman.
- Use 'marriage' in a legal meaning for any comparable union between two persons in general
- Use 'menage a trois' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9nage_%C3%A0_trois) for still a different kind of union (no legal meaning, probably not very religious either).

Using different words for different things helps to prevent confusion.


Collapse -
I don't think we need to undo the word "marriage"
by Steven Haninger / June 12, 2015 5:29 AM PDT
In reply to: Re: marriage

to fit changing circumstances. We need to find and all accept a new term. Why argue what has come to be understood? We're really just talking about marriage in the secular sense, are we not? We really don't need to cause upheaval elsewhere, IMO. All that does is create confusion, distrust and unnecessary confrontation that moves us backward. Letting things evolve without forcing them on all people at once, albeit not as quick to happen, must certainly be a less disruptive way to do such things. I can think of all kinds of terms that are parts of the traditional definition of marriage but leave the word "marriage" alone and adopt something new, that fits, and helps people visualize other forms of pair bonding.

Collapse -
Did the world come to an end
by Diana Forum moderator / June 12, 2015 5:53 AM PDT

when people of two different races could get "married"? The word wasn't changed - just the definition.

Collapse -
No, it didn't and
by TONI H / June 12, 2015 6:23 AM PDT

since the next logical step now for liberals is to also recognize polygamy as a 'marriage', it probably won't stop then either.

Or going even further.....no one will ever be too young or too closely related.

Where will a liberal draw the line, do you think, Diana? Or will it be another 'red line' that gets ignored once crossed?

Collapse -
(NT) You sure have a rich fantasy.
by Kees_B Forum moderator / June 12, 2015 6:39 AM PDT
In reply to: No, it didn't and
Collapse -
by TONI H / June 12, 2015 7:28 AM PDT

Not long ago, nobody would have believed gays would be 'entitled' to the benefits of marriage either or that we would have school books in elementary classes titled "I have two mommies" and that it doesn't refer to divorced parents who remarry......

How far would the 'right' to marry go with you, Kees?

Collapse -
Re: fantasy
by Kees_B Forum moderator / June 12, 2015 10:59 AM PDT
In reply to: Fantasy?

Somewhat longer ago:
Before 1920 nobody would have believed that women would be entitled (no quotes necessary) to vote, and now maybe you even get a women president.
Before 1863 nobody would have believed that blacks aren't born to be slaves, and now you even have a black president.

And now:
Before 2010 nobody would have believed a same-sex marriage would be legal.

It's a fact that things are changing, even if some conservatives don't agree with it (yet). One wonders what the conservatives of 2115 will consider to be fully normal.


Collapse -
you speak of history
by James Denison / June 12, 2015 11:50 AM PDT
In reply to: Re: fantasy

but consider only a relatively short time of it. What I see of history where God is considered is entire nations being destroyed or brought low or sent into slavery for not following God's commandments, for engaging in immorality, even to the national acceptance of such. Some of them were mighty nations too, at the very time they fell, such as Babylon when Cyrus invaded and took it over. There was also Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed suddenly. Some not so powerful, such as Judah.

1 Kings 14
22 And Judah did evil in the sight of the Lord, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel. And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: And he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house; he even took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made.

1 Kings 22
41 And Jehoshaphat the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel. Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi. And he walked in all the ways of Asa his father; he turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the high places were not taken away; for the people offered and burnt incense yet in the high places. And Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel. Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he shewed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

1 Kings 15
9 And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah. And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom. And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron.

2 Kings 23
7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

Always, throughout the bible, God blessed those who removed the sodomites. Those who failed, it was like the final insult to Him, he brought destruction upon them for their great sin as a nation.

The entire tribe of Benjamin had become filled with sodomites, and ended up destroyed by the other tribes.

Judges 20
So the sons of Benjamin saw that they were defeated. When the men of Israel gave ground to Benjamin because they relied on the men in ambush whom they had set against Gibeah, the men in ambush hurried and rushed against Gibeah; the men in ambush also deployed and struck all the city with the edge of the sword. Now the appointed sign between the men of Israel and the men in ambush was that they would make a great cloud of smoke rise from the city. Then the men of Israel turned in the battle, and Benjamin began to strike and kill about thirty men of Israel, for they said, “Surely they are defeated before us, as in the first battle.” But when the cloud began to rise from the city in a column of smoke, Benjamin looked behind them; and behold, the whole city was going up in smoke to heaven. Then the men of Israel turned, and the men of Benjamin were terrified; for they saw that disaster was close to them. Therefore, they turned their backs before the men of Israel toward the direction of the wilderness, but the battle overtook them while those who came out of the cities destroyed them in the midst of them. They surrounded Benjamin, pursued them without rest and trod them down opposite Gibeah toward the east. Thus 18,000 men of Benjamin fell; all these were valiant warriors. The rest turned and fled toward the wilderness to the rock of Rimmon, but they caught 5,000 of them on the highways and overtook them at Gidom and killed 2,000 of them. So all of Benjamin who fell that day were 25,000 men who draw the sword; all these were valiant warriors. But 600 men turned and fled toward the wilderness to the rock of Rimmon, and they remained at the rock of Rimmon four months. The men of Israel then turned back against the sons of Benjamin and struck them with the edge of the sword, both the entire city with the cattle and all that they found; they also set on fire all the cities which they found.

Only 600 men of Benjamin left alive at the end of it. So, what caused the war? Sodomites. Judges chapter 19

Then behold, an old man was coming out of the field from his work at evening. Now the man was from the hill country of Ephraim, and he was [m]staying in Gibeah, but the men of the place were Benjamites. And he lifted up his eyes and saw the traveler in the open square of the city; and the old man said, “Where are you going, and where do you come from?” He said to him, “We are passing from Bethlehem in Judah to the remote part of the hill country of Ephraim, for I am from there, and I went to Bethlehem in Judah. But I am now going to my house, and no man will take me into his house. Yet there is both straw and fodder for our donkeys, and also bread and wine for me, your maidservant, and the young man who is with your servants; there is no lack of anything.” The old man said, “Peace to you. Only let me take care of all your needs; however, do not spend the night in the open square.” So he took him into his house and gave the donkeys fodder, and they washed their feet and ate and drank. While they were celebrating, behold, the men of the city, certain worthless fellows, surrounded the house, pounding the door; and they spoke to the owner of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring out the man who came into your house that we may have relations with him.”

So, you see, homosexuality has always brought judgments from God upon mankind, upon nations, and will continue to do the same.

Just look at the immorality that was sweeping across Europe in the 20's and 30's and the end result of that was the rise of Hitler and many of the same who had caused it were destroyed. Not such a "fabulous" time when the end came for them, was it?

Think it won't happen in Europe again? You would be mistaken. It's already being setup even now, with the Muslims and their Sharia coming there. At the right time, they will punish Europe for all her sins, even if otherwise God rejects them for their murderous ways, they will become a tool for him to use to punish the errant children of Christians who abandoned Christ's Way.

America still has time to turn things around, to keep it from happening here, but how much time remains is questionable.

Collapse -
Re: Europe
by Kees_B Forum moderator / June 12, 2015 1:25 PM PDT
In reply to: you speak of history

Did you ever consider the option that the conquest of Spain by the Moors (around 800) and the possible conquest of Europe by the Muslims (around 2050) aren't an act of God to punish the Christians for their immorality, but - on the contrary - an act of Allah to reward the Muslims for their piousness (like not drinking alcohol, not eating pork and having women cled in such a way you only see their eyes) and punish the Christians for the Crusades (long ago) and the mess they made in Iraq and Afghanistan (recently)?

I see no reason to prefer one of those explanations above the other. Do you?


Collapse -
The Crusades
by TONI H / June 12, 2015 1:41 PM PDT
In reply to: Re: Europe

were started because Muslims were killing Christians and invading territories to do so. The Crusades were the RESULT of that aggressive behavior, not the other way around.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!