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.
The definition of marriage has changed over the course of history. Yes, for the past several centuries it has been one man and one woman but go back farther and it was one man and multiple women. Today popular opinion tells us that its two consenting adults, regardless of sex. You can't rationalize a reason for defending the legal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman when a majority of Americans disagree with that. Churches can define marriage how they see fit and that right should be defended to the death, but the state must define it as the people do.
What does sex, procreation, and marriage have anything to do with each other?
If we are talking about a marriage between one man and one woman, sex can and often does lead to procreation and the children born to this couple are joined to their parents in a legally defined family unit with a common sir name.
If we are talking about same-sex marriage, one obviously has nothing to do with the others and the real purpose of marrying two persons of the same sex is use the power of the state to force an association that would otherwise not exist in hopes of making one type of union the same as the other.
Ah yes, I see you support having the government patrol people's sex lives. Maybe we should let government regulate who we have sex with and when we can have sex.
If we are talking about a marriage between one man and one woman, sex can and often does lead to procreation and the children born to this couple are joined to their parents in a legally defined family unit with a common sir name.
If we are talking about same-sex marriage, one obviously has nothing to do with the others and the real purpose of marrying two persons of the same sex is use the power of the state to force an association that would otherwise not exist in hopes of making one type of union the same as the other.
What about heterosexual couples that can't have children or don't want to have children, are they not allowed to marry? Should the government tell people when they can have sex and with who?
Ah yes, I see you support having the government patrol people's sex lives. Maybe we should let government regulate who we have sex with and when we can have sex.
No i don't, i think gov't needs to stay out of most everything having to do with relationships.
The poster i was speaking with, said there were none, when there in fact are.
Many States did not listen to the Feds, and still have Sodomy laws on the books...
look at this map.
Also if someone engages in sodomy with a minor, they can be prosecuted separately from standard intercourse.
Ergo... sodomy laws.
The institution of marriage is between a man and a woman - not between 2 of the same sex who are helping each other get off on fetishes.
As I mentioned in another thread, you're actually wrong. According to tradition and the bible sex between a man and a woman of the same race, bonded in holy matrimony, is an intimacy that simply cannot be imitated. Mixed race marriages are not traditional marriages and were only made acceptable by the liberal democratic hippy movement of the 60s. What you believe a "traditional" marriage is, is just some bastardized version that the liberal media has convinced you of.
Genesis 24:3 And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.
Deuteronomy 7:3-4 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
Numbers 12:1 - And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
Also, in further correction, it is sex between a man and several of his wives (of the same race), bonded in holy matrimony, is an intimacy that simply cannot be imitated. According to the scriptures there is nothing wrong with having multiply wives, and some of the holiest me in fact did.
2 Chronicles 13:21 - But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives, and begat twenty and two sons, and sixteen daughters.
Exodus 21:10 - If he take him another [wife]; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
2 Chronicles 11:21 - And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)
Genesis 4:19 - And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one [was] Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Yes, and they're pants-on-head stupid things to have on the books - the map fully lives down to one's expectations for the backwaters. Doesn't really change the fact that SuperSoul seems to define marriage in terms of intercourse only.
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.
