Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't know that even today Catholic church grants anullemnet of marriage if parties can't have offspring together?
At best, this would mean the Catholic church recognizes that some people (not to be confused with authorities on the purpose of marriage for all, or even most) get married with that plan in mind and, once it is determined they won't be able to follow that plan, consider the marriage a mistake. It only means the Catholic church sympathizes with them. Sorry, it does not justify keeping homosexuals from marrying by any stretch of the imagination, nor by anything written in the Bible... You know, "God's word"?
I'm finding it interesting how many people are trying to pass their own personal prejudices off as something biblical. I maintain that if your precise argument isn't biblical, it's all your own and you should admit it.
At best, this would mean the Catholic church recognizes that some people (not to be confused with authorities on the purpose of marriage for all, or even most) get married with that plan in mind and, once it is determined they won't be able to follow that plan, consider the marriage a mistake. It only means the Catholic church sympathizes with them.
You asked for evidence that marriage has been historically an instrument to ensure that children are raised by both parents and in stable union so I provided to you. I am not saying that what Catholic church does should be an example for everyone.
Yes, marriage as social institution was meant to help raising children. That's all.
You asked for evidence that marriage has been historically an instrument to ensure that children are raised by both parents and in stable union so I provided to you.
No, I asked for evidence showing that it was to encourage procreation, and by something other than an anti-gay religion. How would what you just typed apply to the subject of gay marriage?
I just love the contradiction, though. It's supposedly about kids having a good home to live in. Yet, the opposition to gays adopting would decrease the number of potential perfectly qualified applicants. And so would the opposition to gays marrying, since being married is considered a plus.
No, I asked for evidence showing that it was to encourage procreation, and by something other than an anti-gay religion. How would what you just typed apply to the subject of gay marriage?
Who ever said it was to increase procreation? I said it was to encourage raising children by both parents. This is a social function of marriage, that's how marriage came to be, as opposed to simple unions that people practiced before marriage was instituted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I just love the contradiction, though. It's supposedly about kids having a good home to live in. Yet, the opposition to gays adopting would decrease the number of potential perfectly qualified applicants. And so would the opposition to gays marrying, since being married is considered a plus.
Well, I and amny others don't believe that two men or two women can make a good home and even less a family to raise kids. I believe that you need a masculine and feminine element to properly raise a child.
The person whose claim I actually asked for substantiation for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
I said it was to encourage raising children by both parents. This is a social function of marriage, that's how marriage came to be,
Again, there is no proof or evidence of that. At best, what you presented earlier would mean the Catholic church recognizes that some people (not to be confused with authorities on the purpose of marriage for all, or even most) get married with that plan in mind and, once it is determined they won't be able to follow that plan, consider the marriage a mistake. It only means the Catholic church sympathizes with them. It does not mean that child-rearing has anything to do with the origins of the institution of marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Well, I and amny others don't believe that two men or two women can make a good home and even less a family to raise kids. I believe that you need a masculine and feminine element to properly raise a child.
And there are mountains of evidence to suggest you are wrong. Here's just a portion of it:
Tell me, what consistent, credible evidence can you present that suggests you may be right?
You can believe whatever you wish, but you cannot restrict another person's freedoms based on your beliefs alone and still claim to have morality on your side. Unless you would be okay with someone else restricting your freedoms because they believe anyone with the number 12 in their user name is a bad parent or spouse?
Having had some good friends who are gay, I've decided that there's absolutely no reason to oppose gay marriage unless your entire belief system is based on a book that also claims the earth is only a few thousand years old. I think my gay friends would do a MUCH better job of providing a good family environment for a child to be raised in than most of the borderline-psychotic religious fundies on this website.
Having had some good friends who are gay, I've decided that there's absolutely no reason to oppose gay marriage unless your entire belief system is based on a book that also claims the earth is only a few thousand years old. I think my gay friends would do a MUCH better job of providing a good family environment for a child to be raised in than most of the borderline-psychotic religious fundies on this website.
Ironically, it's only when so-called "Christians" add to what's actually written in the Bible that they find reason to oppose gay marriage. And the Bible is NOT their motivation; don't let any of them lie to you. How many Christians have you seen pushing for legislation to control who can remarry? None! Why? Because even though the Bible is much more clear on God's stance on remarriage, "Christians" do not have a prejudice against them. So what's explicitly commanded by God can and always does take a back seat to what would-be Christians reason to be God's will.
Again, there is no proof or evidence of that. At best, what you presented earlier would mean the Catholic church recognizes that some people (not to be confused with authorities on the purpose of marriage for all, or even most) get married with that plan in mind and, once it is determined they won't be able to follow that plan, consider the marriage a mistake. It only means the Catholic church sympathizes with them. It does not mean that child-rearing has anything to do with the origins of the institution of marriage.
You either pretend or don't realize that the Catholic doctrine and law WAS the authority on marriage. Before French revolution there was no such thing as civil marriage in Europe as there was no separation of church and state. We are of course talking about tradition of marriage not it's present state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
You can believe whatever you wish, but you cannot restrict another person's freedoms based on your beliefs alone and still claim to have morality on your side. Unless you would be okay with someone else restricting your freedoms because they believe anyone with the number 12 in their user name is a bad parent or spouse?[/font][/font]
Of course I can. After all most Americans are Christian and Christian morality is a reason that polygamy and incest are considered crimes in the US.
The person whose claim I actually asked for substantiation for.
I never said marriage was to increase procreation --- "But civic marriage in the U.S. is in part to encourage heterosexual couples to bear and raise children in committed married relationships."
I know nothing I write can 'substantiate' for you the view that marriage is in part based on a responsible procreation theory, which justifies conferring the inducements of civic marital recognition and benefits on woman-man couples.
If you care to, take the sentence from Loving, the Whole sentence --- "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." Follow the Loving cites. You think Loving and other cases had ssm and gay adoption in mind with the words, 'marriage is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.'
Yes, marriage as social institution was meant to help raising children. That's all.
Ha. Tell that to the majority of people throughout history whose marriages were arranged by their parents for status and financial security. Children weren't important throughout most of history when it came to marriage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
