Gay marriage destroys heterosexual marriage. (history, America, quote, gays)
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.
And you know my point. Being able to choose who you wanted to marry without any restrictions was never a guaranteed right to anyone until the SCOTUS decision to make it so.
You are absolutely wrong on this. The SCOTUS made it possible to marry a person of the gender that you wanted to and no other change. You still cannot marry someone who does not want to marry you. I would have thought that someone who is a pastor would know that you cannot legally force someone to marry someone else against their will.
By the way your cleaver little all women can marry a man so there is no discrimination is not only silly but really old and outdated and you yourself have used it way to many times for it be anything but evidence that you simply do not think gays and lesbians deserve a marraige with a consenting adult that they love and that loves them in return.
Before the court decision neither you nor a LBGT person had the right to marry a person of a gender they wanted to. That is what changed.
You are absolutely wrong on this. The SCOTUS made it possible to marry a person of the gender that you wanted to and no other change.
And they did not have the legal right to make that change to the law.
Quote:
You still cannot marry someone who does not want to marry you. I would have thought that someone who is a pastor would know that you cannot legally force someone to marry someone else against their will.
So then marriage for love isn't really the deal, is it?
Quote:
By the way your cleaver little all women can marry a man so there is no discrimination is not only silly but really old and outdated and you yourself have used it way to many times for it be anything but evidence that you simply do not think gays and lesbians deserve a marraige with a consenting adult that they love and that loves them in return.
Yet, no one has given a reasonable counter argument yet. Both men and women have always been able to marry with the exact same rules.
Quote:
Before the court decision neither you nor a LBGT person had the right to marry a person of a gender they wanted to. That is what changed.
You have yet to explain why this change was necessary.
Plenty of people would argue against your position. You have given your body to someone else. Therefore you can no longer give yourself 100% to your future spouse. There is a deep personal closeness knowing that your spouse is the only other human being who has known you on this intimate physical level.
So widowers and widows who remarry are giving less then 100%? Remarriage means they are giving ...what.... 50%? 30%? Is that how it works in your world? What about someone who divorces their first spouse for whatever reason and remarries? Which probably includes people in your church.
Congratulations! You've devalued millions of people because you think everyone should be a virgin when they marry.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 03-16-2016 at 12:47 PM..
No it certainly isn't clearly. You are drawing conclusions and assumptions based on weak evidence. Christianity is a strong foundation to a healthy marriage IF you do it God's way. That's the problem. Most people do not. A lot of people rush into marriage unprepared because they are so in love with the idea and security of being married. I do put some blame on the churches for failing to stress strong couples counseling prior to marriage.
Well of course you can always claim people aren't doing it right but at the end of the day Christianity teaches what it teaches and the results are the results.
I will agree with you that many young couples enter their first marriage unprepared -- I certainly did -- and that the church fails to provide effective counseling -- mine certainly didn't. The best advice I got, actually, was from my first wife's psychologist, and it was essentially, run, don't walk, to the exit -- you have no idea what you are getting into. He was a Christian psychologist ... but not a fundamentalist and so I was aghast at what he was saying to me, which from my perspective was lacking in faith and far too based in empirical reality for my taste as a "fundamentalist in love". I was, at that point, not willing to accept the notion that some people, despite being believers, despite subscribing to all the dogma, despite praying and studying their Bible and trying to do the right thing in god's eyes, are s__t out of luck regardless. I had no rationalization with which to abandon my wife-to-be based on facts about her psychology and assuming that god does not trump empirically predictable outcomes in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage.
While my situation was unusual in that my fiancee had pre-existing mental illness with a poor prognosis, I rather think that more typical scenarios fare no better. Young people are idealistic, lovers are even more idealistic, fundamentalism amps up that idealism to the max, and the results are predictable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
But the real statistic I want to see is just what is the divorce rate in couples who both married as virgins. The last time I looked, it was much much lower. That's God's design. Your sexuality is the greatest physical gift you can give to another person and God's plan is for it to be shared with only one person. That creates a great bond. But since we are such a sex obsessed society, most people do not wait anymore.
Well my first wife and I were virgins but I don't see what that had to do with the outcomes, honestly. Nor do I see how it influences the loyalty and devotion of the partners. In my experience either they have a vision for and commitment to that, or they don't. You could just as well argue that sex enhances that bond after marriage, so why not before.
I wanted to be married to / sexual with one woman for life but sometimes that just doesn't work out despite the best intentions. And I now believe that it doesn't count for nearly as much as I once thought, anyway, in terms of influencing outcomes.
And they did not have the legal right to make that change to the law.
So then marriage for love isn't really the deal, is it?
Yet, no one has given a reasonable counter argument yet. Both men and women have always been able to marry with the exact same rules.
You have yet to explain why this change was necessary.
Yes the courts did have the legal right to decide if the state laws were constitutional, just like they did when they decided the state laws were unconstitutional in Loving v Virginia.
And it is states responsibility to show how having said law fulfills a compelling state interest. The only reason need to be show is that the laws violated the constitution and the CRA.
Yes the courts did have the legal right to decide if the state laws were constitutional, just like they did when they decided the state laws were unconstitutional in Loving v Virginia.
But they do not have a right to legislate.
Quote:
And it is states responsibility to show how having said law fulfills a compelling state interest. The only reason need to be show is that the laws violated the constitution and the CRA.
The definition of marriage had served our country well for 200+ years. There was no compelling argument made to change it.
How do you know that? My sources tell me marriage has been around as long as human beings.
In any event, it certainly has been around as long as our country has been in existence. So again, why would we want to go and change the definition of an institution that is a bedrock of our society in order to suit a vocal minority?
Again, hardly since time began.
The definition of marriage hasn't changed. Marriage is still a couple joining together as one in loving commitment.
The definition of marriage hasn't changed. Marriage is still a couple joining together as one in loving commitment.
Marriage has always been 1 man, 1 woman. The primary reason for it was for procreation and to raise children. It benefits society to have stable family units within marriage.
There has not been a compelling argument given for changing that.
Marriage has always been 1 man, 1 woman. The primary reason for it was for procreation and to raise children. It benefits society to have stable family units within marriage.
There has not been a compelling argument given for changing that.
Except for the times where it was one man and numerous women, right?
Only nasty bigots would argue that despite someone having a cogent, rational argument and a moral conviction for a position, they are bigots.
Agreed.
Now to the topic, I am by no means a supporter of gay marriage, but at the same time I have nothing against it either. I'm just not one of those people who feels the need to demonstrate for rights and whatnot.
Why shouldn't gay folks get married if they want to? They're people too after all.
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.
