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.
No at all. The socio-economical purpose of marriage has always been to be able to provide and assure proper upbringing to your children. Of course there are people who cant have or don't want to have children but it does not change the fact that this is the social purpose of marriage.
So then two women who want to marry each-other could do so if one of them gets artificially inseminated and they raise the child properly and according to the law? Two men could get married if one of them used their sperm to fertilize the egg of a surrogate and they raise the child properly and according to the law? I mean you said it yourself, as long as they have a child and assure proper upbringing, then they should be allowed to be married.
But then even with what you said above, if an hetero couple doesn't want to have a child they can still marry as it doesn't go against the social purpose of marriage. I agree, it doesn't harm anything. But this also means that two men could get married as it would not go against the social purpose of marriage and it too does not harm anything. Since these two men can marry, if they can provide a stable nurturing home, it would be reasonable to assume they should be able to adopt a child as it does follow along with the social purpose of marriage.
Our country was funded on principles of Christianity. It was funded by Christians for the Christians.
It is only natural that laws of the land express moral standards of Christianity and not Islam or Hinduism.
BZZZZZZT!!! Wrong again johnny. I think we just proved that you aren't studying history at all. If you were a historian or even just studying it, you would know that this country was founded on secular principles providing freedom of all religious practices.
Quote:
The law forces you to accept morality as dictated by majority of population. For instance
the majority does find polygamy morally acceptable and the law FORCES you respect that moral view either you like or not.
Yes, your moral views are your won thing yet you are still forced to accept the morality of the majority.
So if the majority of the nation said we should nuke ourselves because sin is overwhelming, we are obligated to accept their morality and accept being nuked? Yeah, don't think so. LAWS and MORALS are challenged and changing all the time. Hey not too long ago it was immoral for a woman to speak up and against her husband, even if he was beating her.
Do you even know where we derive our moral concepts from? There are two places and neither are the bible.
Quote:
If it these words did not come from a pervert they would actually be offensive.
Southern ignorant and bigot
You're not going to start crying, are you?
No there are no names and dates and there is not going to be any as there was no same sex marriage in neither Greece nor Rome. Stop reinventing history.
If you actually read something you would find the dates. Since you love Wikipedia...
Quote:
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[74] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[75]
An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[76]
The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[77] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.[78] These were usually reported in a critical or satirical manner.[79] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[80] Furthermore, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."[81] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure.[82] In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[83]
A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[84
Amongst the Romans, there were instances of same-sex marriages being performed, as evidenced by emperors Nero[14][15] and Elagabalus[citation needed] who married men, and by its outlaw in 342 AD in the Theodosian Code,[16] but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.[17]
The first recorded mention of the performance of gay marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[20]
At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.[21]. The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. First with one of his freedman, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride, and later as a groom Nero "married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse" A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law."[22] The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[23] The emperor Elagabalus married an athlete named Hierocles in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.[24]
Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans.
Oh and here is a nice tidbit: 11 Countries Where Same-Sex Marriage is Legal
If you ask nicely they will give you their sources, but if you use a braincell and your keyboard you can find them yourself.
Heres a writing from a Nun who was a mystic. Her writings were examined & reviewed for a few hundred years. It is believed out of this research involving many minds that some of her writings were the outcome of a communication from The Creator of this thing called the Universe and mans participation......( including some things some men decide would be a good idea.
Here is the writings concerning this subject and the Creator. Recall the popular Christian theme in the importance of example with children in many different ways..
Catherine in a trance writing down the words of God, and with witness:
"No, these wretches not only do not restrain their weakness; they make it worse by committing that cursed unnatural sin. As if they were blind and stupid, with the light of their understanding extinguished, they do not recognize what miserable filth they are wallowing in. The stench even reaches up to me, supreme Purity, and is so hateful to me that for this sin alone five cities were struck down by my divine judgment. For my divine justice could no longer tolerate it, so despicable to me is this abominable sin. The stench displeases not only me, as I have said, but the devils as well, those very devils these wretches have made their masters. It is not its sinfulness that displeases them, for they like nothing that is good. But because their nature is angelic, that nature still loathes the sight of that horrendous sin actually being committed. It is true that it was they (the devils) who shot the poisoned arrows of concupiscence, but when it comes to the sinful act itself they flee..."
Sad...just plain sad... Stargazzer, I am an atheist, but even I will be praying for your mind tonight. This junk is just that, junk. This woman is obviously having a psychosis and everyone just sits there thinking she is talking to god....sad.
Last edited by raison_d'etre; 07-27-2012 at 11:47 PM..
gays, pedophiles, bestiality, are all in the same black filthy kettle! why is it so difficult! because two guys can never produce a human being or two women can not produce a human being. i think some peoples minds have just been too perverted to see it. i think the people having difficulties are gay people their perversion just doesn't allow them to comprehend their perversion. same goes for a pedophiles they don't see anything wrong having sex with kids i bet they wish they had their human rights to molest kids after all they were probably born that way as well!
Did you know that 88% of pedophiles were raised in a christian home? 72% even still claim to be christian. Christians must be pretty filthy if they are the majority of the pedophiles out there.
This is coming from the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University.
Sorry for the clumps of long posts folks. I am currently finishing up the final arrangements for my wedding this sunday. They only time I have is early morning and late night. Oh, and for those of you who are wondering I am marrying a....
So then two women who want to marry each-other could do so if one of them gets artificially inseminated and they raise the child properly and according to the law? Two men could get married if one of them used their sperm to fertilize the egg of a surrogate and they raise the child properly and according to the law? I mean you said it yourself, as long as they have a child and assure proper upbringing, then they should be allowed to be married.
yet more of your retarded logic.
Two daddies does not count as a proper upbringing.
Quote:
Since these two men can marry, if they can provide a stable nurturing home, it would be reasonable to assume they should be able to adopt a child as it does follow along with the social purpose of marriage.
So if the majority of the nation said we should nuke ourselves because sin is overwhelming, we are obligated to accept their morality and accept being nuked?
and the likelihood of this happening is how much?
or are you just throwing out pointless analogies again because you have nothing better to say?
A homosexual couple is more likely to promote and encourage the 'lifestyle' to their 'wished for' adopted children.
This is wrong as it will cause confused gender and sexual roles in the young.
another good reason for banning.
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.
