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.
I have to say that I do not feel that my marriage - or my definition of marriage - is so weak as to be threatened by two people who love each other who happen to be of the same gender who wish to express that love in legal marriage. If it was threatened by that, I'd be more worried about my marriage or my definition of marriage than by any two other people who love each other.
I have to say that I do not feel that my marriage - or my definition of marriage - is so weak as to be threatened by two people who love each other who happen to be of the same gender who wish to express that love in legal marriage. If it was threatened by that, I'd be more worried about my marriage or my definition of marriage than by any two other people who love each other.
Then what is your definition of marriage? You say it will not threaten your own...but what exactly is that definition? Apparently, it is subject to evolution and change.
What if the definition of marriage is further defined as three or four people -- or brother and sister -- who love each other and of the same or different gender? Or any combinations thereof?
Well, actually, marriage between one man and one woman is an anomaly in the Bible - and even in these times, in some countries and some cultures. Solomon and King David come to mind right off the bat.
My personal definition is a lifelong commitment between people who love each other and want to build a life together and are willing to make that commitment in front of their community and their state and stick to it. In my personal case, a man and a woman, but what other people do in this regard is not really, from my point of view, any of my business nor does it impact my own marriage. How could it, unless I'm so threatened by others making different choices in who to love than I do that my own choices can't stand on their own?
Well, actually, marriage between one man and one woman is an anomaly in the Bible - and even in these times, in some countries and some cultures. Solomon and King David come to mind right off the bat.
My personal definition is a lifelong commitment between people who love each other and want to build a life together and are willing to make that commitment in front of their community and their state and stick to it. In my personal case, a man and a woman, but what other people do in this regard is not really, from my point of view, any of my business nor does it impact my own marriage. How could it, unless I'm so threatened by others making different choices in who to love than I do that my own choices can't stand on their own?
you seem like a very rational, wise and beautiful individual.
Well, actually, marriage between one man and one woman is an anomaly in the Bible - and even in these times, in some countries and some cultures. Solomon and King David come to mind right off the bat.
No, not an anamoly. The original is between Adam and Eve. However, if you are going to invoke the Bible as the source, then be fair and acknowlege that it was ALWAYS between a man and woman. Right?
What you are really doing is pointing out seeming inconsistencies (by human understanding) of the Bible to negate another persons point of view...but by the same token. it really doesn't prove your own. You appeal to the very authority you find fault with.
Quote:
My personal definition is a lifelong commitment between people who love each other and want to build a life together and are willing to make that commitment in front of their community and their state and stick to it. In my personal case, a man and a woman, but what other people do in this regard is not really, from my point of view, any of my business nor does it impact my own marriage. How could it, unless I'm so threatened by others making different choices in who to love than I do that my own choices can't stand on their own?
Ok. Fair enough. But all the fluff and flowerly stuff aside, what you are saying is that marriage -- from a legal standpoint -- has no concrete definition. It can just as easily be two brothers and sisters who decide to tie the knot. Or taking multiple partners?
What you personally think of it as, or I do, doesn't matter a hill of beans, other than we both have the right to express those opinions via the natural legislative process Which goes to what the state recognizes and sanctions.
So? If in your opinion it is fine based on nothing more than a "commitment" to one another (or mulitples) regardless of gender, numbers, or whatever...then ok, fine. I don't happen to think so.
TexasReb, I don't think you read my post above quite clearly. (Or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly.) Marriage between one man and one woman, once there were more than one man and one woman, was more often than not in the Bible described as one man and multiple women, thus, multiple partners. As it is in some cultures today. Not my cup of tea, but there it is.
As for the old bugaboo of siblings marrying that is so repetitively pulled out, there are good genetic reasons (she says as a horse breeder) why that wouldn't generally be a good idea - though there have been cultures, including recently, where that was mandatory for the ruling family, if not for the general population.
And, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that for those with one definition to insist that another definition not be allowed because it would be a threat to the very idea of marriage is inaccurate. It might be a threat to their perception of marriage, if their perception is so weak as to be threatened by someone else who is not just like them participating in a formal and legal declaration of lifelong commitment. But not to the idea of marriage, itself.
There is a societal fallout for all of this that we must recognize because it has an impact. I'm appalled to see news programs featuring 5-year-olds who now believe they're "transgendered" and by "men" who assert their "right" to get pregnant (even though they're not really men at all).
When everything can be redefined to accommodate certain individuals or groups of them and nothing is stable anymore, what are we promoting here? How will future generations live in a world where everything in nature can be medically altered to suit their "feelings?" A world where NOTHING is secure, nothing is natural, and there is no right and wrong? I dated a man whose wife left him and their children to become a lesbian. Sorry, but this is not one of those "everything is wonderful!" stories they like to show on television. The children became confused and angry; the man was absolutely crushed. All had to undergo intensive therapy. But we're all just supposed to "celebrate" this woman's choice? Tell that to the kids and to the man whose psyche was so battered that he found it difficult to have another relationship.
And, practically speaking, if company health-care plans are forced to cover "gender transformations" and extreme measures to allow "men" to have babies, what is that going to do to a system that has already become too costly for many folks to have access to REAL health care? I assure you, that's the next step for these activists -- to file discrimination suits against insurance companies who won't cover any and every procedure they want to achieve whatever it is they desire. We will ALL PAY for this.
TexasReb, I don't think you read my post above quite clearly. (Or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly.) Marriage between one man and one woman, once there were more than one man and one woman, was more often than not in the Bible described as one man and multiple women, thus, multiple partners. As it is in some cultures today. Not my cup of tea, but there it is.
Correct. But ALL involved a man and woman. I never pretended to be so wise and knowing as to understand all the seeming contradictions in the Bible. There is slavery for instance (although I have sorta come to terms with this one) and other moral dilemas...but the failure to be able comprehend them and articulately argue them, is a limitation in me...not the Word.
Quote:
As for the old bugaboo of siblings marrying that is so repetitively pulled out, there are good genetic reasons (she says as a horse breeder) why that wouldn't generally be a good idea - though there have been cultures, including recently, where that was mandatory for the ruling family, if not for the general population.
True about siblings. Also true that a child needs the natural nurture of a mother and father. A man and woman. So even if in disagreement, it seems what you are saying is that there are rational reasons why the state should be able regulate marriage via traditional values and common sense and morality? In this realm, I can think of no more compelling and important rationale than that, again, a child needs the balancing influences of a male and female. It is God's design, and it cannot be improved on.
As the old saying goes: "Never did nature say one thing, and wisdom another..."
Quote:
And, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that for those with one definition to insist that another definition not be allowed because it would be a threat to the very idea of marriage is inaccurate. It might be a threat to their perception of marriage, if their perception is so weak as to be threatened by someone else who is not just like them participating in a formal and legal declaration of lifelong commitment. But not to the idea of marriage, itself.
What do you mean, not be allowed? I don't care how you define marriage at all. My own doesn't really matter either. I DO care about what the state sanctions as legally recognized...and you refuse to answer this question as to how it should be.
In your opinion, should the state recognize gay marriage? IF so, then say so outright. Further, if so, then explain why polygamy or sibling marriage should not likewise be recognized.
As it is, I gotta cook supper and hit the sack. LOL Enjoyed it as always, my fellow Texans! Everyone have a good 'un! *hugs to the ladies (if they permit) and handshakes to the men*
And, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that for those with one definition to insist that another definition not be allowed because it would be a threat to the very idea of marriage is inaccurate. It might be a threat to their perception of marriage, if their perception is so weak as to be threatened by someone else who is not just like them participating in a formal and legal declaration of lifelong commitment. But not to the idea of marriage, itself.
Here's the problem -- they're not happy with the idea of "civil" or "legal" unions like they do in Britain that afford legal rights. NOPE! They want "marriages" because they say that it's a "right" they are being denied. And they know darn well that "marriage" is understood as a social contract that builds stability for the rearing of children.
So, then, they will assert that they, as married people, are being denied the "right" to have children if medical procedures, adoption, etc. are not provided for them -- and paid for them. The fact that nature dictates a man and a woman create a child does not phase them. They HAVE and WILL sue whomever it takes so that doctors, insurance companies, adoption agencies, whatever, MUST accommodate their desires or face discrimination lawsuits.
So what you are saying is that there are rational reasons why the state should be able regulate marriage via traditional values and common sense and morality.
No, that wasn't what I was saying, and I take back that you weren't reading my prior post quite clearly. Once is an accident, twice is deliberate twisting. Please have more respect for me than to do that, will you?
I was saying that there are scientific reasons, not "traditional values and common sense" why siblings producing children could be problematical.
Now, once again, what I said was:
"I'm saying that for those with one definition to insist that another definition not be allowed because it would be a threat to the very idea of marriage is inaccurate. It might be a threat to their perception of marriage, if their perception is so weak as to be threatened by someone else who is not just like them participating in a formal and legal declaration of lifelong commitment. But not to the idea of marriage, itself."
Get it, this time? It's really that simple - I was responding to one argument.
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.
