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.
In other words, according to you, most married couples are not truly married because their union was not ratified by blood.
What, then, are you fighting for? A return to virginity testing? Blood-stained sheets that are publicly displayed? See, if you are not fighting for those "ideals," then a fight against gay marriage is just meaningless.
Do you think that, just perhaps, your ideology and the application of your Christian belief system are completely outdated and an anachronism in our times?
If so, do you wish to have a return to dogmatic enforcement of biblical standards?
If so, do you approve of middle-Eastern theocracies?
You see, your views may not just be anachronistic, but they are outright anti-American.
Good question.
I defined the ideal situation with the blood.
If you read what I wrote, marriage at its root is a covenant between a man and a woman. That's valid. If the intent is there for the man & woman to live till death part, there is no problem.
Regarding a return to enforcing biblical standards - I want the standards written on people's hearts so that they behave on their own. The only way that can occur is if Christ lives in you.
There are two issues with this type of argument - and they are interwoven:
1.) Your argument would be a lot easier if marriage was an exclusively religious ceremony. Unfortunately for you, government decided long, long ago, that marriage represented a LEGAL contract and thus, bestowed LEGAL CIVIL rights upon such a union.
As soon as government did so, it follows that it MUST grant these rights to all it's citizens.
2.) As long as homosexuality was accepted to be a mental or developmental abnormality, government had no obligation to grant equal rights to homosexuals. However, with an increasingly strong shift toward the perception (based on evidence) that homosexuality is, in fact, an immutable personality characteristic, such obligation has arisen. Except for religion, ALL parameters regulated by anti-discrimination legislation are based on immutable (or potentially immutable) characteristics (gender, race, etc.). Thus, it follows logically, that government will, eventually, not have much of a choice.
In essence, your argument is mute since you want to apply a specific religious definition to a civil issue. If you lived in a Christian theocracy, doing so would not represent a problem. The USA, however, is NOT such a theocracy. The USA is also not a purely Christian nation.
#1 - I stated there is a difference with the legalities as far as the US goes. Marriage was originated far before the US came into being.
#2 - You mute my argument because you choose to do so by using the Christian theocracy logic.
#3 - I'm going to bed. Church tomorrow for me to give honor and glory to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
If you read what I wrote, marriage at its root is a covenant between a man and a woman. That's valid. If the intent is there for the man & woman to live till death part, there is no problem.
Regarding a return to enforcing biblical standards - I want the standards written on people's hearts so that they behave on their own. The only way that can occur is if Christ lives in you.
Validity has little to do with this. Validity simply means that the truth of your premise entails the truth of your conclusion: All flowers are blue. Roses are flowers. Therefore, roses are blue. This is a perfectly valid argument since the conclusion is based on the premises. However, since the premises do not hold truth, the conclusion is, necessarily, incorrect despite the argument being valid.
Similarly, it is the very premise that leads you astray in your argumentation here. The premise you employ in your argument is of religious nature when the conclusion (what is marriage?) is simply a civil one. Homosexuals are generally not pursuing marriage in the yes of your God, they are pursuing it in the eyes of the law.
In other words, you are saying: Marriage is between a man AND a woman. Homosexuals are not a man AND a woman. Therefore, homosexuals can not get married. This is, indeed a valid argument. It does little, however, to assert the truth of your conclusion if the very premise (marriage is between a man AND a woman) is questionable. While it may not be questionable in religious doctrine, the question remains what a definition should be in a society that attempts to separate state and church. If your definition is to prevail, the state needs to have sound, logical reasoning to make it so that goes far and beyond mere religious doctrine.
While I can understand that your hope is that people embrace Christ and thereby uphold the standards in their hearts, I think the approach to the problem that they don't does not make much logical sense.
For one, not everyone in this nation is Christian. Thus, not everyone CAN embrace Christ.
Secondly, if the way to a moral society is through embracing Christ, wouldn't it make more sense to proselytize and WIN the hearts of non-Christians, rather than to attack their existence via discrimination? Wouldn't that be a truly Christian appraoch?
#1 - I stated there is a difference with the legalities as far as the US goes. Marriage was originated far before the US came into being.
#2 - You mute my argument because you choose to do so by using the Christian theocracy logic.
#3 - I'm going to bed. Church tomorrow for me to give honor and glory to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Re: #1 - None of us live in those times. We live in the here and now and marriage, whatever it may have meant long ago, now represents a legal contract signed and sworn before a civil government in order to be recognized.
Re: #2 - Sure, but this just logically follows from your argument: Everybody MUST adhere to my (Christian) standard. If everybody MUST adhere to it, than it logically follows, that you argue FOR a Christian theocracy. The US is not such a theocracy, therefore making arguments that are contingent on the US being under Christian rule are mute. This, of course, is not meant as an offense - it is simply a logical conclusion.
Re: #3 - Have a good night and a peaceful and restful Sunday.
With a high divorce rate, spousal abuse, and infidelity that we find in marriages, we heterosexuals are sure doing a great job with the "Sanctity" part.
What makes you think those hetero's who get divorced, abuse their spouses and/or cheat on them even know the meaning of "sanctity"?
I'm sure the same issues not only do exist in gay relationships (except the divorce) but will come more to light when gay marriage is legalized and over time.
Same sex marriage - you know, it just isn't right. It is against all our instincts and inherent beliefs. It is not and can never be morally justifiable, to have 2 people of the same sex being married. Marriage is a sanctifying bond, between a man and a woman, to ensure the survival of the species and the preservation of morals. How can 2 men, push their penises into each others backsides, then say they can bring up an adopted child to have a balanced view of life?
Whatever your arguments here, or anywhere else, you know in your heart, it is wrong.
Gay people have a MUCH MORE balanced view of life than backward bigots do. Why? Because we've heard it all and have learned to deal with it, and take it in stride. We tend to be more understanding, more empathetic, more caring PRECISELY because of people like you who insist that we are "wrong." That's why gays consistently take up for the underdog, because we ARE the underdog. Constantly and consistently.
Your view of life is extremely unbalanced. You see black/white, right/wrong, and little more. There's absolutely no balance to that, and you are the type of person to quickly cast judgment and wag your finger in consternation. You don't listen to both sides of a story because your mind is already made up. You call that balanced?
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to "push my penis into my boyfriend's backside" and ponder my balanced view of life. Because, as you know, that's all I do and all that I'm defined by. Thanks for putting a label on my life - I was confused there for a bit!!
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
I will do this question by itself here.
I believe it is defined this way because any covenant in the Bible is ratified by blood. When the woman enters marriage as a virgin, and there is the initial sexual encounter, blood is present making the covenant official - at least in God's eyes.
So your problem is not only with gay marriage, it's with the sluttiness of modern women. I get it now.
Look, if you're going to read the bible literally, don't just pick and choose what you follow. Follow it all, to the letter. Don't be a hypocrite - it makes you hard to take seriously.
A lot of you are ignoring something very important here. Why do people marry? Love? Why do people fall in love? People pair up. Why is it pairing? Why two? Why not three? Why not one? What is so important that love, romantic love, is a major driving factor in all of our lives? What is so freaking important about romance? Why did the human species ever develop this need for romance?
Reproduction.
Pair-bonding.
If we didn't need to reproduce, or if we reproduced assexually, there would be absolutely no such thing as romance, love, nor marriage. So indeed, reproduction DOES lie at THE VERY CORE of marriage. Marriage is an extension of pair-bonding.
It's the drive to reproduce that lies at the root of romance. We pair up because it takes two to mate and we have a dimorphic biology. There are essentially two types of people: male and female. And both work together to raise the young. In fact study after study confirms that children that do not have the benefit of two parents of the opposite sex don't do as well.
Let's not hear talk of abuse, divorce, or children of single parents ending up as successful scientists or celebrities. Irrelevant. You MUST compare apples to apples. A lot of studies do NOT compare apples to apples, but the ones that do, support two parent two gender homes.
You have to admit that reproduction and marriage are intertwined. Of course marriage is not a requirement to have children. It's not a requirement for a guy who wants to make some money washing cars to get a DBA. But getting that DBA makes things a lot easier for him. Marriage creates the superior environment in which to bring up a child. It is the more evolved form of pair-bonding.
I have two friends who have been together for over 5 years. They have no plans to marry. But they are bonded. And because they choose not to marry, they do not enjoy the benefits of marriage.
Why shouldn't homosexuals enjoy those benefits too? Because their marriage wouldn't contribute anything to society. Do heterosexual couples have to have children to be allowed to get married. No. Do these childless marriages contribute to society? Yes. They do. They still support the healthy connection between romance, reproduction and marriage. Even if they don't have children, looking at them you don't immediately think "childless.". But looking at a homosexual couple you do. Obviously homosexuals can adopt. But then you have to consider what type of children they will be bringing up. Remember, studies that actually compare apples to apples support two parent two gender homes. Studies that defend same sex parents do not compare apples to apples. It's not enough to look at the conclusions of a study. You have to examine the study. Being in a peer reviewed journal is not in itself proof that the conclusions are true. Publishing in a peer reviewed journal is part of the peer review process. It's not the end. It's the beginning. And finally, there is no study that researches the long term impact of same sex parenting. And what study there is, they don't really look for useful evidence. Just because a child doesn't get involved in drugs, alcohol, addiction, abuse, crime doesn't mean he is healthy. Just because he is monetarily successful doesn't mean he is healthy. Just because he doesn't get into fights with everyone doesn't mean he is healthy. Agreeable doesn't mean healthy. Too much ambition is unhealthy. Seeking the approval of other people, especially the parents is unhealthy. Working too hard is unhealthy. Having too many friends is unhealthy. There are a lot of factors to being emotionally healthy and these studies don't examine them.
At best you can only say that the science about homosexuakity and same sex parenting is still out. There have been absolutely no conclusions about anything related to homosexuality. All scientific study that you will find on the Internet supporting homosexuality has been discredited by peer scientific review. But the pro-homosexual PR machine doesn't pay attention to that. They don't want the truth. They only want the PC propaganda.
Anyway. I digress. Marriage IS about children.
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.
