PDA

View Full Version : Gay marriage



jzeidler
July 12th, 2015, 06:10 PM
Well this is an interesting day when a federal government passes a law that the majority didn’t want. On this historic day I ponder what Jesus would say about this gay-marriage law. First I think he would say that he didn’t come to make America a theocracy so don’t try to make it one. But I firmly believe he would say something along these lines, “I’ll love you despite what you choose to do or who you love. But don’t call a union a marriage that I and my Father don’t call marriage.” This law doesn’t change the simple fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else. You can call a gay relationship a civil union that’s fine, but it’s not a marriage. It just isn’t. Now if you’re an atheist this law is irrational since gay marriage does nothing for society. It doesn’t bring children into the world to bring about the upward evolution of humanity. Now there are going to be people who will say to those who disagree with this law that you’re ‘homophobic.’ If that’s the case in also 'suicidalphobic’ since I disagree with suicide. Do you see the illogical mindset of people who say 'because you disagree with this you’re homophobic’? So, the moral of this whole long post is be like Jesus, love everyone and accept them with grace, but don’t call it marriage.

Squeaky
July 12th, 2015, 06:42 PM
I can show you what He did say.
HOMOSEXUAL

1 Cor 5:9-13
9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.
10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner-- not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?
13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."
James 1:13-16
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
Gal 5:17
17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.
Gal 5:19
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
Gal 5:24
24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
1 Pet 2:19
19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully.
1 Pet 2:21-22
21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
22 "Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth";
James 4:5
5 Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, "The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously"?
James 4:7-8
7 Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.
8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Tim 1:8-10
8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,
9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
Luke 17:28-30
28 "Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;
29 "but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.
30 "Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.
Titus 1:10-11
10 For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,
11 whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain.
2 Pet 2:3
3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.
Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(NKJ)
xxxxThis is a revelation I received from the Holy Spirit. Like it or not this is what the bible says. You can look up every verse. Whether your a homosexual or not if you approve of it you could condemn yourself. Homosexuality is a sin.


Rom 14:22
22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
(NKJ)

James 2:26
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
(NKJ)


2 Pet 3:9-13
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
(NKJ)

Rom 1:22-32
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
(NKJ)

alwight
July 12th, 2015, 07:16 PM
Gay Marriage doesn't have to mean "holy matrimony".
"Marriage" is simply a word to mean a combining or a joining together not an implied divine contract.

jamie
July 12th, 2015, 08:33 PM
Jesus said, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10:9 KJV)

The context in verses 6-9 explains that God only joins together a man and a woman.

Hedshaker
July 12th, 2015, 09:15 PM
Well this is an interesting day when a federal government passes a law that the majority didn’t want. On this historic day I ponder what Jesus would say about this gay-marriage law. First I think he would say that he didn’t come to make America a theocracy so don’t try to make it one. But I firmly believe he would say something along these lines, “I’ll love you despite what you choose to do or who you love. But don’t call a union a marriage that I and my Father don’t call marriage.” This law doesn’t change the simple fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else. You can call a gay relationship a civil union that’s fine, but it’s not a marriage. It just isn’t. Now if you’re an atheist this law is irrational since gay marriage does nothing for society. It doesn’t bring children into the world to bring about the upward evolution of humanity. Now there are going to be people who will say to those who disagree with this law that you’re ‘homophobic.’ If that’s the case in also 'suicidalphobic’ since I disagree with suicide. Do you see the illogical mindset of people who say 'because you disagree with this you’re homophobic’? So, the moral of this whole long post is be like Jesus, love everyone and accept them with grace, but don’t call it marriage.

Or better yet, you call it what you want but in the real world it remains lawful marriage. And yes, wishing to deny a minority group a basic right that you take for granted, is nothing short of homophobic bigotry.

If you don't like it, well tough! What others do within the law is none of your business :thumb:

Let the spite begin ;)

Bradley D
July 13th, 2015, 12:31 AM
In the day of Judgment only God's law/commandments count. Man's law will be meaningless.

Aaron the Tall
July 13th, 2015, 12:54 AM
Or better yet, you call it what you want but in the real world it remains lawful marriage. And yes, wishing to deny a minority group a basic right that you take for granted, is nothing short of homophobic bigotry.

If you don't like it, well tough! What others do within the law is none of your business :thumb:

Let the spite begin ;)

What basic right are you talking about? The right to love each other and live a life committed to each other?

That right has never been denied.

People can love whoever they want. Being a homosexual is not against the law.

The question you need to ask is why the government would give any special recognition to any relationships. The government isn't interested in love.

The only reason the government started giving recognition to heterosexual governments is because they are a fundamental building block of society. They are the only relationship inherently capable of producing the next generation of people - and they are best equipped to raise that next generation of people.

The recognition of heterosexual marriages is a way to promote them because of the benefit they bring to society.

Homosexual marriages don't provide the same benefit that heterosexual marriages do - and therefore shouldn't be promoted as the exact same thing. You only treat two things the same if they are the same - and in this case, they are not the same.

Tambora
July 13th, 2015, 08:31 AM
Jesus said, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10:9 KJV)

The context in verses 6-9 explains that God only joins together a man and a woman.Yeppers.

Tambora
July 13th, 2015, 08:32 AM
In the day of Judgment only God's law/commandments count. Man's law will be meaningless.Amen.

gcthomas
July 13th, 2015, 09:22 AM
The only reason the government started giving recognition to heterosexual governments is because they are a fundamental building block of society.

Governments never used to regulate marriage, but once they realised they could charge for a licence and also prevent the abuse of women (bigamy, underage girls, etc) they got stuck in. It was never to do with strengthening society or babies or such like, AFAIK.

Hedshaker
July 13th, 2015, 09:55 AM
What basic right are you talking about? The right to love each other and live a life committed to each other?

That right has never been denied.

People can love whoever they want. Being a homosexual is not against the law.

The question you need to ask is why the government would give any special recognition to any relationships. The government isn't interested in love.

The only reason the government started giving recognition to heterosexual governments is because they are a fundamental building block of society. They are the only relationship inherently capable of producing the next generation of people - and they are best equipped to raise that next generation of people.

The recognition of heterosexual marriages is a way to promote them because of the benefit they bring to society.

Homosexual marriages don't provide the same benefit that heterosexual marriages do - and therefore shouldn't be promoted as the exact same thing. You only treat two things the same if they are the same - and in this case, they are not the same.

They are exactly the same, you just don't like it that same sex couples now enjoy the same rights as you regarding marriage. Well tough. Get used to it!

Hedshaker
July 13th, 2015, 09:57 AM
In the day of Judgment only God's law/commandments count. Man's law will be meaningless.

Yes I know what you believe. Doesn't make it real though.

Jose Fly
July 13th, 2015, 10:06 AM
If you don't want to call it marriage, then don't call it marriage. But that only matters to you.

WonderfulLordJesus
July 13th, 2015, 10:09 AM
In the day of Judgment only God's law/commandments count. Man's law will be meaningless.

"If God doesn't judge America, He will need to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!" - Ruth Graham

Romans 1

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Aaron the Tall
July 13th, 2015, 01:49 PM
Governments never used to regulate marriage, but once they realised they could charge for a licence and also prevent the abuse of women (bigamy, underage girls, etc) they got stuck in. It was never to do with strengthening society or babies or such like, AFAIK.

Many of the regulations of marriage in the US go back to English Common Law. When Common Law was in force, nobody needed a marriage licence from the state.

Government got involved because marriages were viewed as a type of "small business" entity where the "fruits" of that business were children.

Obviously there were other issues related to these "small businesses" that the state wanted to regulate - such as inheritance or property.

However, most issues related to inheritance or property could be regulated between two parties through other legal contracts.

The government takes special note though when children are involved. For example, a wealthy widow could leave all her inheritance to the pool boy instead of her offspring - even if the government doesn't see this as the best way for her to conduct business.

Children, on the other hand, are regarded in a sense as property of the state. The state can take children from a biological parent if the parent offends state demands. The state is interested above all in the welfare of its future citizens, and the regulation of marriage is a way to ensure the best possible environment for rearing children.

Aaron the Tall
July 13th, 2015, 01:54 PM
They are exactly the same, you just don't like it that same sex couples now enjoy the same rights as you regarding marriage. Well tough. Get used to it!

How are they exactly the same? Because they involve two people?

Is marriage between two cousins the same?
Is marriage between two minors the same?

These may be the same if your only definition of marriage is the joining of two people in love - but the state is not concerned with love primarily.

There are good reasons for not extending all the same benefits to all people. Native Americans receive different tax benefits than I do.

There are reasons why foreign born American citizens are not allowed to be president of the US - and this isn't about denying them rights. A foreign born person is the "same" as a natural born citizen - but not in regards to governmental regulations.

Sealeaf
July 13th, 2015, 10:07 PM
Traditional, Catholic, moral teaching is that marriage is not primarily either a legal nor a sacramental action. Marriage is preformed and made real by the actions and intent of those who participate in it. The Muslim marriage of one man to four women is still a valid marriage. The church witnesses the two persons taking their vows to each other and blesses the union, but is the two persons themselves who preform the wedding. Bluntly, the sacrament of marriage (usually) does not happen in church but in the bed room! It is the sex and the promise of some sort of exclusivity that make it real.

Two people of the same sex can make a valid bond. Most would say they can also have sex.

Town Heretic
July 13th, 2015, 10:42 PM
Well this is an interesting day when a federal government passes a law that the majority didn’t want.
A new law wasn't passed. Rather, the S. Ct., charged with examining the validity of laws in relation to Constitutionally protected right held that homosexuals had the same right to marry as their heterosexual counterparts.


On this historic day I ponder what Jesus would say about this gay-marriage law. First I think he would say that he didn’t come to make America a theocracy so don’t try to make it one. But I firmly believe he would say something along these lines, “I’ll love you despite what you choose to do or who you love. But don’t call a union a marriage that I and my Father don’t call marriage.”
Maybe. He didn't spend any time that I know of commenting on the laws of Rome. So he might not.



This law doesn’t change the simple fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else.
Then there's no point in talking about it and less in this thread. Or, you could recognize there are, as there has been for a very long time in this nation, two distinct contracts here. One with the state and one before God.


You can call a gay relationship a civil union that’s fine, but it’s not a marriage.
It is and it isn't. That is, legally it's as much a marriage as any other. Biblically, no. But then, the S. Ct. didn't rule on the Bible.


It just isn’t. Now if you’re an atheist this law is irrational since gay marriage does nothing for society.
You're wrong. Marriage makes for more stable relationships and happier citizens. That's a plus for the compact.


It doesn’t bring children into the world to bring about the upward evolution of humanity.
Were you under the impression that the infertile were forbidden entrance into the marital estate? We don't even ask people if they plan to have children.


Now there are going to be people who will say to those who disagree with this law that you’re ‘homophobic.’
You might be, but it isn't necessary that someone be homophobic to disagree with the law. You can even object to it morally and find it a necessary step legally.

Stripe
July 14th, 2015, 12:37 AM
It's not OK to be gay.

Aaron the Tall
July 14th, 2015, 12:42 AM
You're wrong. Marriage makes for more stable relationships and happier citizens. That's a plus for the compact.


The government should not be primarily concerned with giving its citizens what makes them happy. That would be an awful standard for what laws are passed.

I don't know why you need governmental recognition in order to have a more stable relationship. If you want to spend the rest of your life with someone then do it because you want to, not because the government smiles upon the relationship.

Even if the government never offered homosexual unions the same recognitions as heterosexual unions - that never should have stopped homosexuals from having a ceremony and pledging their unending love to each other. They could call it marriage if they want, but that doesn't mean the government should promote these unions to the same level that they should promote heterosexual unions.


Were you under the impression that the infertile were forbidden entrance into the marital estate? We don't even ask people if they plan to have children.

Heterosexual marriages are the only unions inherently capable of producing children - by nature. It is because of this that the government should be concerned with promoting these unions above any other friend or uncle or neighbor or sexual or acquaintance relationships.

Hedshaker
July 14th, 2015, 05:57 AM
How are they exactly the same? Because they involve two people?

Is marriage between two cousins the same?
Is marriage between two minors the same?

These may be the same if your only definition of marriage is the joining of two people in love - but the state is not concerned with love primarily.

There are good reasons for not extending all the same benefits to all people. Native Americans receive different tax benefits than I do.

There are reasons why foreign born American citizens are not allowed to be president of the US - and this isn't about denying them rights. A foreign born person is the "same" as a natural born citizen - but not in regards to governmental regulations.


I said under the law. That doesn't include minors and close relatives. Folks who wish to legally marry, including same sex couples, now have the same right as you to do so.

It has nothing to do with what Native Americans get in tax benefits or who can become president. It's about the rights of same sex couples to marry, that's all. Gay couples now have the same rights as any one else and it ain't going a way any time soon so give the griping a rest and just get used to it.

glassjester
July 14th, 2015, 06:12 AM
I said under the law. That doesn't include minors and close relatives.

But what if they're in love?

Hedshaker
July 14th, 2015, 09:19 AM
But what if they're in love?

Take it up with the law makers.

Town Heretic
July 14th, 2015, 09:35 AM
The government should not be primarily concerned with giving its citizens what makes them happy.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of...stuff."

That more along the lines you'd prefer? But you see my point. Government is concerned with a number of things, including our happiness.


I don't know why you need governmental recognition in order to have a more stable relationship.
It's the way people are built. We like symbols. A contract is a symbol of our intent, like a ring and a ceremony.


If you want to spend the rest of your life with someone then do it because you want to, not because the government smiles upon the relationship.
It's not because the government smiles upon it. It's because people want that symbol (and the benefits conferred by it, including recognition of the union).


Even if the government never offered homosexual unions the same recognitions as heterosexual unions - that never should have stopped homosexuals from having a ceremony and pledging their unending love to each other. They could call it marriage if they want, but that doesn't mean the government should promote these unions to the same level that they should promote heterosexual unions.
Why shouldn't the secular government recognize (which is a bit different than the word you chose) the union between two of its citizens, capable of entering into the contract and subject to its terms?


Heterosexual marriages are the only unions inherently capable of producing children - by nature.
Which would be relevant if we required fertility or intent to have children as a prerequisite to marriage. We don't even have a question on the application about it.

1Way1Truth1Life
July 14th, 2015, 11:42 AM
"If God doesn't judge America, He will need to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!" - Ruth Graham

Romans 1

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Hah! No doubt!

Aaron the Tall
July 15th, 2015, 12:36 AM
It's the way people are built. We like symbols. A contract is a symbol of our intent, like a ring and a ceremony.


It's not because the government smiles upon it. It's because people want that symbol (and the benefits conferred by it, including recognition of the union).


I don't even know where my marriage license is - but I do know where my ring is.

For thousands of years, people got married without any legal certificates. I think it is an overstated case to say people need or want a certificate.

Even if the government said I couldn't marry the person I love, I would still have a ceremony and commit my love to them.



Why shouldn't the secular government recognize (which is a bit different than the word you chose) the union between two of its citizens, capable of entering into the contract and subject to its terms?

Government can do 3 things. 1.) Punish behavior 2.) Promote behavior 3.) Ignore behavior

When you offer special benefits to a particular relationship you are promoting that relationship. Heterosexual marriages should rightly be promoted above and beyond homosexual marriage because they perform a role in society that homosexual marriage cannot.

Homosexual unions are not punishable - but they need not be promoted equally, because they are not equal - by nature.



Which would be relevant if we required fertility or intent to have children as a prerequisite to marriage. We don't even have a question on the application about it.

Heterosexual marriages normally produce children and are the only union that can by nature produce children. This is why they should be promoted and protected beyond any other union two people can have. Whether or not a heterosexual couple actually participates in bearing children (by choice or despite their choice) is not the issue. We can't regulate intent.

Aaron the Tall
July 15th, 2015, 12:55 AM
I said under the law. That doesn't include minors and close relatives. Folks who wish to legally marry, including same sex couples, now have the same right as you to do so.


So, is your basic premise that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage BECAUSE they are the same under the law?

Or is your premise that they are the same under the law BECAUSE they are the same by nature?

Obviously same sex couples now have the right to legally marry - but that says nothing about WHY they should be allowed to legally marry.

If you insist they are the same by nature simply because they involve 2 people who love each other, then you have no grounds to deny marriage between minors or close relatives who might equally love each other.

Like I said - love is not the issue. There are good reasons for promoting one type of relationship above others.

And the Native American or foreign born citizen examples are just to highlight that there already exist good reasons for treating different people differently under the law. That's not unfair - that's not unjust.

gcthomas
July 15th, 2015, 05:18 AM
If you insist they are the same by nature simply because they involve 2 people who love each other, then you have no grounds to deny marriage between minors or close relatives who might equally love each other.


Minors cannot make legally binding contracts, so that bars them from marrying as it does from making other contracts.

Close relatives are another issue. Here, adoptive siblings are forbidden to marry, so it is not a genetic relatedness issue, but a social 'yuk' factor AFAIK. I don't know the formal reason for banning these.

Hedshaker
July 15th, 2015, 06:42 AM
So, is your basic premise that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage BECAUSE they are the same under the law?

Or is your premise that they are the same under the law BECAUSE they are the same by nature?

Obviously same sex couples now have the right to legally marry - but that says nothing about WHY they should be allowed to legally marry.

If you insist they are the same by nature simply because they involve 2 people who love each other, then you have no grounds to deny marriage between minors or close relatives who might equally love each other.

Like I said - love is not the issue. There are good reasons for promoting one type of relationship above others.

And the Native American or foreign born citizen examples are just to highlight that there already exist good reasons for treating different people differently under the law. That's not unfair - that's not unjust.

Suit yourself and gripe away then for what good it will do you. Same sex marriage is here to stay whether you like it or not and future generations will look back and wonder, what was people thinking back then, not allowing minorities the same rights as everyone else, in the same way we wonder how right thinking people could engage in slavery or employ young children as chimney sweeps etc.

In Britain the law is looking into honour crimes against the person, arranged marriage and female genital mutilation. And believe me, there are people who don't like it one bit.

It's all relative to changing times and peoples perception.

TracerBullet
July 15th, 2015, 08:40 AM
Well this is an interesting day when a federal government passes a law that the majority didn’t want. Not true. The Supreme court ruled that laws baring same sex marriage were unconstitutional.





On this historic day I ponder what Jesus would say about this gay-marriage law. First I think he would say that he didn’t come to make America a theocracy so don’t try to make it one. But I firmly believe he would say something along these lines, “I’ll love you despite what you choose to do or who you love. But don’t call a union a marriage that I and my Father don’t call marriage.” This law doesn’t change the simple fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else. You can call a gay relationship a civil union that’s fine, but it’s not a marriage. It just isn’t. Now if you’re an atheist this law is irrational since gay marriage does nothing for society. It doesn’t bring children into the world to bring about the upward evolution of humanity. Now there are going to be people who will say to those who disagree with this law that you’re ‘homophobic.’ If that’s the case in also 'suicidalphobic’ since I disagree with suicide. Do you see the illogical mindset of people who say 'because you disagree with this you’re homophobic’? So, the moral of this whole long post is be like Jesus, love everyone and accept them with grace, but don’t call it marriage.

Other than homophobia why would anyone refuse to call a marriage a marriage?

resodko
July 15th, 2015, 08:44 AM
Other than homophobia why would anyone refuse to call a marriage a marriage?


would you refuse to call a polygamist's marriage a marriage?

how about a father marrying his daughter?

a man marrying his sister?

TracerBullet
July 15th, 2015, 08:46 AM
What basic right are you talking about? The right to love each other and live a life committed to each other?

That right has never been denied.

People can love whoever they want. Being a homosexual is not against the law.

The question you need to ask is why the government would give any special recognition to any relationships. The government isn't interested in love. Equality isn't special.


The only reason the government started giving recognition to heterosexual governments is because they are a fundamental building block of society. They are the only relationship inherently capable of producing the next generation of people - and they are best equipped to raise that next generation of people. That is your opinion but it is not supported by the facts.

TracerBullet
July 15th, 2015, 08:49 AM
Many of the regulations of marriage in the US go back to English Common Law. When Common Law was in force, nobody needed a marriage licence from the state.

Government got involved because marriages were viewed as a type of "small business" entity where the "fruits" of that business were children.

Obviously there were other issues related to these "small businesses" that the state wanted to regulate - such as inheritance or property.

However, most issues related to inheritance or property could be regulated between two parties through other legal contracts.

The government takes special note though when children are involved. For example, a wealthy widow could leave all her inheritance to the pool boy instead of her offspring - even if the government doesn't see this as the best way for her to conduct business.

Children, on the other hand, are regarded in a sense as property of the state. The state can take children from a biological parent if the parent offends state demands. The state is interested above all in the welfare of its future citizens, and the regulation of marriage is a way to ensure the best possible environment for rearing children.

Is the state not interested in the millions of children of same sex couples?

TracerBullet
July 15th, 2015, 08:51 AM
How are they exactly the same? Because they involve two people? other than your prejudice how are they different?






There are good reasons for not extending all the same benefits to all people.
and what good reason is there to deny a minority equal rights and equal protection under the law?

resodko
July 15th, 2015, 08:52 AM
and what good reason is there to deny a minority equal rights and equal protection under the law?



spoken like a true supporter of pedophilia! :thumb:

TracerBullet
July 15th, 2015, 08:59 AM
I don't even know where my marriage license is - but I do know where my ring is.

For thousands of years, people got married without any legal certificates. I think it is an overstated case to say people need or want a certificate.

Even if the government said I couldn't marry the person I love, I would still have a ceremony and commit my love to them. why should the government discriminate?





Government can do 3 things. 1.) Punish behavior 2.) Promote behavior 3.) Ignore behavior

When you offer special benefits to a particular relationship you are promoting that relationship. Heterosexual marriages should rightly be promoted above and beyond homosexual marriage because they perform a role in society that homosexual marriage cannot.

Homosexual unions are not punishable - but they need not be promoted equally, because they are not equal - by nature.
by this standard only fertile heterosexuals should be allowed to marry as only they can reproduce.



Heterosexual marriages normally produce children and are the only union that can by nature produce children. This is why they should be promoted and protected beyond any other union two people can have. Whether or not a heterosexual couple actually participates in bearing children (by choice or despite their choice) is not the issue. We can't regulate intent.

So you only want the position you are presenting her to be applied to the minority that you want to discriminate against. :thumb:

quip
July 15th, 2015, 09:01 AM
Heterosexual marriages are the only unions inherently capable of producing children - by nature..... the government should be concerned with promoting these unions above any other friend or uncle or neighbor or sexual or acquaintance relationships.

Yet, you claimed this: "The question you need to ask is why the government would give any special recognition to any relationships."

Which is it?

gcthomas
July 15th, 2015, 09:48 AM
Yet, you claimed this: "The question you need to ask is why the government would give any special recognition to any relationships."

Which is it?

Hoist by his own petard.

:Shimei:

quip
July 15th, 2015, 10:00 AM
Hoist by his own petard.

:Shimei:

Well, we'll see whether he chooses to recant or special plead.

Aaron the Tall
July 16th, 2015, 09:56 AM
Yet, you claimed this: "The question you need to ask is why the government would give any special recognition to any relationships."

Which is it?

You missed my point.

It is good that the government gives special recognition to certain relationships. I was asking if the person ever considered why they would. I wasn't saying the government shouldn't give special recognition.

It is not a basic fundamental right that the government give special recognition to every type of relationship in the US.

Where are the people upset that there isn't special recognition given to good heterosexual friends? Or to neighbors? Or to niece and aunt?

Government recognition is NOT a right of all relationships.

Aaron the Tall
July 16th, 2015, 10:01 AM
Suit yourself and gripe away then for what good it will do you. Same sex marriage is here to stay whether you like it or not and future generations will look back and wonder, what was people thinking back then, not allowing minorities the same rights as everyone else, in the same way we wonder how right thinking people could engage in slavery or employ young children as chimney sweeps etc.

In Britain the law is looking into honour crimes against the person, arranged marriage and female genital mutilation. And believe me, there are people who don't like it one bit.

It's all relative to changing times and peoples perception.

Your points equate to this:

1.) Don't bother arguing against something that is legal.

2.) There are some things that are legal that shouldn't be.

Take your pick, but you can't believe both.

Hedshaker
July 16th, 2015, 10:07 AM
Your points equate to this:

1.) Don't bother arguing against something that is legal.

2.) There are some things that are legal that shouldn't be.

Take your pick, but you can't believe both.


I'm saying legalising same sex marriage is a good thing and I would argue that it's about time.

If you don't like it then tough. It's here to stay.

quip
July 16th, 2015, 11:34 AM
You missed my point.

It is good that the government gives special recognition to certain relationships. I was asking if the person ever considered why they would. I wasn't saying the government shouldn't give special recognition.

Homosexual unions can claim equal (not special) consideration concerning their civil rights. By contrast, you've given no argument as to why heterosexual marriage deserves special/exclusive government consideration via the exclusion of homosexual marriage...beyond the "natural" assertion.

Why should your opinionated view defining the nature of marriage disqualify homosexual marriage and/or justify a voilation of the latter's civil rights?

TracerBullet
July 16th, 2015, 12:02 PM
You missed my point.

It is good that the government gives special recognition to certain relationships. I was asking if the person ever considered why they would. I wasn't saying the government shouldn't give special recognition.

It is not a basic fundamental right that the government give special recognition to every type of relationship in the US.

Where are the people upset that there isn't special recognition given to good heterosexual friends? Or to neighbors? Or to niece and aunt?

Government recognition is NOT a right of all relationships.

not all relationships are marriages

Dan Emanuel
July 16th, 2015, 12:26 PM
not all relationships are marriagesAnd everybody has the right to have government help them enforce contract's they enter into, regardless of sex, gender or . . . "sexual orientation." If somebody want's to enter into a contract with another person, that guarantees certain power's and transfer of legal ownership in the event of death or incapacitation, then the government has to honor that, just like any other contract, between any two people.

This is America, after all.


Daniel

Aaron the Tall
July 17th, 2015, 01:18 AM
Minors cannot make legally binding contracts, so that bars them from marrying as it does from making other contracts.

Close relatives are another issue. Here, adoptive siblings are forbidden to marry, so it is not a genetic relatedness issue, but a social 'yuk' factor AFAIK. I don't know the formal reason for banning these.

All we need to do is have some tv shows where aunt / nephew unions, or cousin / cousin unions are portrayed as regular loving relationships and the 'yuk' factor will go away.

Throw in a few high profile celebrities who 'come out' as being involved in a cousin / cousin union, and soon enough, even those who think these relationships are 'yuk' will simply say "it's none of my business, let them marry who they want."

Aaron the Tall
July 17th, 2015, 01:21 AM
Equality isn't special.

That is your opinion but it is not supported by the facts.

What part isn't supported by facts? That heterosexual couples are the only relationship inherently capable of producing the next generation?

Or that these unions provide the ideal environment to raise kids?

Aaron the Tall
July 17th, 2015, 01:31 AM
Is the state not interested in the millions of children of same sex couples?

The state is interested in all children - which is why the government should be interested in making every effort to ensure that all children have the opportunity to be raised in the best environment possible - which is by two biological parents.

The state is interested in the children of single parent homes, or divorced families - but we wouldn't promote single parent homes as just as ideal as two parent homes.

When you say that homosexual marriage is no different than heterosexual marriage - you are saying that having a dad doesn't matter - or having a mom doesn't matter - that a mom or dad does not play a unique role in the development of a child.

Aaron the Tall
July 17th, 2015, 01:41 AM
Homosexual unions can claim equal (not special) consideration concerning their civil rights. By contrast, you've given no argument as to why heterosexual marriage deserves special/exclusive government consideration via the exclusion of homosexual marriage...beyond the "natural" assertion.

Why should your opinionated view defining the nature of marriage disqualify homosexual marriage and/or justify a voilation of the latter's civil rights?

What civil right are you talking about? Governmental benefits that extend beyond the basic benefits each person has as a US citizen are not civil rights.

People have the right to unite to any person they want. That right is not being denied. But why should the government give any recognition to this or any particular relationship? They are not obligated to recognize or promote any relationship as special.

Should I cry that my civil rights are being trampled because I don't receive the same tax benefits that a small business does? Or that I don't receive the same tax benefits as someone over 65? These benefits are not a civil right to all people - they are special case benefits.

The simple fact is that heterosexual marriages by nature provide a different benefit to society than homosexual marriages - the same way that a small business provides a different benefit to society than a consumer.

TracerBullet
July 17th, 2015, 09:26 AM
The state is interested in all children - which is why the government should be interested in making every effort to ensure that all children have the opportunity to be raised in the best environment possible - which is by two biological parents. the claim of "best" isn't supported by research.


The state is interested in the children of single parent homes, or divorced families - but we wouldn't promote single parent homes as just as ideal as two parent homes.

When you say that homosexual marriage is no different than heterosexual marriage - you are saying that having a dad doesn't matter - or having a mom doesn't matter - that a mom or dad does not play a unique role in the development of a child.

Having good and loving parents matter. their genders are immaterial

TracerBullet
July 17th, 2015, 09:31 AM
What civil right are you talking about? Governmental benefits that extend beyond the basic benefits each person has as a US citizen are not civil rights.

People have the right to unite to any person they want. That right is not being denied. But why should the government give any recognition to this or any particular relationship? They are not obligated to recognize or promote any relationship as special. equal isn't special


Should I cry that my civil rights are being trampled because I don't receive the same tax benefits that a small business does? Or that I don't receive the same tax benefits as someone over 65? These benefits are not a civil right to all people - they are special case benefits.

Civil rights (http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-are-civil-rights.html) are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or discrimination) in a number of settings -- including education, employment, housing, and more -- and based on certain legally-protected characteristics.

quip
July 17th, 2015, 10:06 AM
People have the right to unite to any person they want. That right is not being denied.

"Unite", within the context of legally recognized marriage...sure it is.



The simple fact is that heterosexual marriages by nature provide a different benefit to society than homosexual marriages - the same way that a small business provides a different benefit to society than a consumer.

The problem with simple facts are that they tend to give way under significant scrutiny. Traditional marriage is in no way diminished nor is its "benefit" to society being threatened by the inclusion of homosexuality. You've absolutely zero pragmatic objections to such legal unions.

aikido7
July 17th, 2015, 10:25 AM
So, the moral of this whole long post is be like Jesus, love everyone and accept them with grace, but don’t call it marriage.

If only; if only.

Quotes from the Bible that showcase the message and the ethics of the authentic voice of Jesus of Nazareth fail to even register with most self-identified Christians.

aikido7
July 17th, 2015, 10:41 AM
The Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

Only rampant biblical illiteracy leads to superficial, literal reading where we in the 21st century project our modern sensibilities back into an ancient and foreign culture.

Biblical hermeneutics pay fundamental attention to what a specific verse or passage meant to its original authors before we deem to pronounce what the Bible can mean for us today.

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 12:59 PM
Or better yet, you call it what you want but in the real world it remains lawful marriage. And yes, wishing to deny a minority group a basic right that you take for granted, is nothing short of homophobic bigotry.

If you don't like it, well tough! What others do within the law is none of your business :thumb:

Let the spite begin ;)

It doesn't matter who man joins together, what matters is who God joins. It's un-natural and it's not God's design. Hetero couples can have their own children, DNA from each parent by means of natural sexual relations. Homo couples can not have their own children, they have to have a third party involved or adopt. They're genitalia do not fit naturally and they're perverted sexual relations do not produce offspring because it's un-natural.

gcthomas
July 17th, 2015, 01:12 PM
It doesn't matter who man joins together, what matters is who God joins.

Then why all the fuss about a law that requires states to offer civil marriage to gays? It is not a religious matter if what you say is correct.

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 01:18 PM
Then why all the fuss about a law that requires states to offer civil marriage to gays? It is not a religious matter if what you say is correct.

The fuss is, it's just another indicator that this country is going away from God instead of towards. People have the free will to do whatever they want, but will have to give account before God on judgment day.

gcthomas
July 17th, 2015, 01:21 PM
The fuss is, it's just another indicator that this country is going away from God instead of towards. People have the free will to do whatever they want, but will have to give account before God on judgment day.

Civil marriage is a civil matter, and nothing to do with third parties. If these people don't believe in the same variety of God as you, will you force your version on them?

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 01:26 PM
Civil marriage is a civil matter, and nothing to do with third parties. If these people don't believe in the same variety of God as you, will you force your version on them?

I can't force anyone to do anything and wouldn't. All I can do is talk with someone to show them what I believe to be God's truth. God blesses those who follow his commandments and this country will not be a great nation for long if we keep pushing him out. I can live and die a Christian no matter what man does.

gcthomas
July 17th, 2015, 01:29 PM
Good to hear it! :up:

Hedshaker
July 17th, 2015, 01:33 PM
It doesn't matter who man joins together, what matters is who God joins. It's un-natural and it's not God's design. Hetero couples can have their own children, DNA from each parent by means of natural sexual relations. Homo couples can not have their own children, they have to have a third party involved or adopt. They're genitalia do not fit naturally and they're perverted sexual relations do not produce offspring because it's un-natural.

And yet, every single gay person enters this world via an heterosexual union. Your obvious bigotry aside, homosexuality appears to exist under nature. They are just different is all and, if you don't like that then so be it. They can now legally marry and there's nothing you or your God can do about it.

c'est la vie :carryon:

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 01:38 PM
And yet, every single gay person enters this world via an heterosexual union. Your obvious bigotry aside, homosexuality appears to exist under nature. They are just different is all and, if you don't like that then so be it. They can now legally marry and there's nothing you or your God can do about it.

c'est la vie :carryon:

This is the only reason I don't like it.

4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

If God had wanted homos to have sexual unions, they would be able to have children.

Hedshaker
July 17th, 2015, 01:52 PM
This is the only reason I don't like it.

4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

If God had wanted homos to have sexual unions, they would be able to have children.

Well, it looks like your God's opinion has been superseded in law on this issue, which, in a secular society, is all that really matters.

And, not all heterosexual unions are able to produce children, not to mention that some do not by choice.

gcthomas
July 17th, 2015, 01:53 PM
This is the only reason I don't like it.

4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

If God had wanted homos to have sexual unions, they would be able to have children.

That passage reads as if every man and woman must marry, with no exceptions. Harsh.

Rusha
July 17th, 2015, 01:54 PM
If God had wanted homos to have sexual unions, they would be able to have children.

So a heterosexual couple who is married and cannot have children should not be together?

Angel4Truth
July 17th, 2015, 01:56 PM
And yet, every single gay person enters this world via an heterosexual union. Your obvious bigotry aside, homosexuality appears to exist under nature. They are just different is all and, if you don't like that then so be it. They can now legally marry and there's nothing you or your God can do about it.

c'est la vie :carryon:

And yet, every single sinner/pedophile/bisexual/polygamous/adulterous person enters this world via an heterosexual union. Your obvious bigotry aside, these things appear to exist under nature. They are just different is all and, if you don't like that then so be it.

Right?

gcthomas
July 17th, 2015, 01:58 PM
And yet, every single sinner/pedophile/bisexual/polygamous/adulterous person enters this world via an heterosexual union. Your obvious bigotry aside, these things appear to exist under nature. They are just different is all and, if you don't like that then so be it.

Right?

I object to people who harm others. You object to people for what they are regardless of whether they cause any actual harm.

quip
July 17th, 2015, 02:04 PM
If God had wanted homos to have sexual unions, they would be able to have children.

The only problem with the "natural" argument is, well...if God didn't want us to naturally die from polio...He would've created for us a natural resistance to the disease.

As it stands, we not only defy nature on a daily basis to fit our needs...we're quite proud of our accomplishments in doing so.

Hedshaker
July 17th, 2015, 02:04 PM
And yet, every single sinner/pedophile/bisexual/polygamous/adulterous person enters this world via an heterosexual union. Your obvious bigotry aside, these things appear to exist under nature. They are just different is all and, if you don't like that then so be it.

Right?

The law appears to have more to say than you think. Are you really equating same sex relationships by consenting adults with paedophilia?

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 02:05 PM
Well. it looks like your God's opinion has been superseded in law on this issue, which, in a secular society, is all that really matters.


Man can do whatever he desires but that doesn't make it right.

British Woman Weds Dog In Expensive ‘Romantic’ Wedding Ceremony – After Marriage To Man Failed
http://www.naijatakeover.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Screenshot_2015-03-02-07-14-54-1.png
She can have sex with this dog, doesn't make it right.

Hedshaker
July 17th, 2015, 02:05 PM
I object to people who harm others. You object to people for what they are regardless of whether they cause any actual harm.

Hear, hear :salute:

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 02:07 PM
The only problem with the "natural" argument is, well...if God didn't want us to naturally die from polio...He would've created for us a natural resistance to the disease.

As it stands, we not only defy nature on a daily basis to fit our needs...we're quite proud of our accomplishments in doing so.

Apples and oranges.

quip
July 17th, 2015, 02:08 PM
Apples and oranges.

Your bias notwithstanding...of course.

BTW apples and oranges are both natural. :chuckle:

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 02:09 PM
Your bias notwithstanding...or course.

If God wanted us to all die from "polio", don't you think we would?

Angel4Truth
July 17th, 2015, 02:11 PM
So a heterosexual couple who is married and cannot have children should not be together?

The purpose and intent of a leg doesn't change if it is blown off.

Just as intent and purpose of marriage and the womb doesn't change if it doesn't work.

quip
July 17th, 2015, 02:12 PM
If God wanted us to all die from "polio", don't you think we would?

Don't you think we would find a way to defy it's natural effect....wait, we did! :idea:

Hedshaker
July 17th, 2015, 02:12 PM
Man can do whatever he desires but that doesn't make it right.

She can have sex with this dog, doesn't make it right.

Don't hold back there. I'm sure there's more grime you could scrape from the bottom of that barrel :sheep:

gcthomas
July 17th, 2015, 02:15 PM
She can have sex with this dog, doesn't make it right.

She didn't marry the dog and cannot legally have sex with the dog.

Don't believe everything you see on t'internet.

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 02:15 PM
So a heterosexual couple who is married and cannot have children should not be together?

Children not the reason for marriage but a blessing, besides, zero homo couples can have their own kids. I would think any homo that believed in God would hate him. Why would he not allow them to have children with their "partner"?

Angel4Truth
July 17th, 2015, 02:16 PM
The law appears to have more to say than you think. Are you really equating same sex relationships by consenting adults with paedophilia?

yes, and with adultery, polygamy etc.. its all sins of the flesh.

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 02:17 PM
Don't hold back there. I'm sure there's more grime you could scrape from the bottom of that barrel :sheep:

Where should the line be drawn? Who determines where it's drawn?

gcthomas
July 17th, 2015, 02:18 PM
The purpose and intent of a leg doesn't change if it is blown off.

Just as intent and purpose of marriage and the womb doesn't change if it doesn't work.

If I said that the intent of gay couples is to support the families of relations without the distraction of their own, would that help?

Who are you to decide what is 'intended' by the existence of homosexuals?

Hedshaker
July 17th, 2015, 02:19 PM
Where should the line be drawn? Who determines where it's drawn?

The law might be a good starting point.

Angel4Truth
July 17th, 2015, 02:23 PM
The law might be a good starting point.

The law determines what is good and acceptable now?

Then why change the law when the law outlawed homosexuality?

Why is it fine now but not then, if the law defined morality?

quip
July 17th, 2015, 02:26 PM
The law determines what is good and acceptable now?

Then why change the law when the law outlawed homosexuality?

Why is it fine now but not then, if the law defined morality?

Mutability.

Because the people collectively define the law and morality.

Hedshaker
July 17th, 2015, 02:28 PM
The law determines what is good and acceptable now?

Then why change the law when the law outlawed homosexuality?

Why is it fine now but not then, if the law defined morality?

Sure, lets bring back slavery and using young children to clean chimneys. :kookoo:

Or maybe not, eh?

Angel4Truth
July 17th, 2015, 02:36 PM
If I said that the intent of gay couples is to support the families of relations without the distraction of their own, would that help?

Who are you to decide what is 'intended' by the existence of homosexuals?

God is who decided, dont like it? Take it up with Him.

Angel4Truth
July 17th, 2015, 02:36 PM
Sure, lets bring back slavery and using young children to clean chimneys. :kookoo:

Or maybe not, eh?

At least you admit your flawed stance, just because something is a law, it doesnt make it right or good, congrats on learning that.

quip
July 17th, 2015, 02:37 PM
God is who decided, dont like it? Take it up with Him.

No. You decide God by proxy.

Just another relative take on morality.

Angel4Truth
July 17th, 2015, 02:38 PM
Mutability.

Because the people collectively define the law and morality.

No, the supreme court did not follow the will of the people, they overrode all the states that defined the law and morality for them.

quip
July 17th, 2015, 02:40 PM
No, the supreme court did not follow the will of the people, they overrode all the states that defined the law and morality for them.

They spoke for the law of the land...the US Constitution. If you don't like it....take it up with them.

Angel4Truth
July 17th, 2015, 02:41 PM
They spoke for the law of the land...the US Constitution. If you don't like it....take it up with them.

Hey be ok with them taking it on themselves to create law when they werent elected just because you like the law they created, one day its going to bite you.

quip
July 17th, 2015, 02:42 PM
Hey be ok with them taking it on themselves to create law when they werent elected, one day its going to bite you.

Reduced to butthurt rhetoric?

Angel4Truth
July 17th, 2015, 02:42 PM
Reduced to butthurt rhetoric?

I'm not hurt at all. Wishful thinking?

Hedshaker
July 17th, 2015, 02:43 PM
At least you admit your flawed stance, just because something is a law, it doesnt make it right or good, congrats on learning that.

Oh I already knew that. The law isn't perfect but it sure has hell beats anarchy.

quip
July 17th, 2015, 02:43 PM
I'm not hurt at all. Wishful thinking?

Great! Then we can move on?

gcthomas
July 17th, 2015, 02:43 PM
God is who decided, dont like it? Take it up with Him.

You don't know what god intended. You have a book written by people in a language you can't read. You have a repeatedly reinterpreted text of recollections and oral history passed down over the years.

I don't think that the Bible even has much to say about modern living law avoiding gay couples living in peace, even if you do believe that it is true. You need to heavily reinterpret a text that meant something specific a long time ago about a specific time and place.

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 02:47 PM
Don't you think we would find a way to defy it's natural effect....wait, we did! :idea:

Only because that is what God want's us to do. He has given us many "thorns" because of Adam's sin.

It's between homos and God what they do, but this is what God intended from the beginning.

4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Angel4Truth
July 17th, 2015, 02:49 PM
You don't know what god intended. You have a book written by people in a language you can't read. Evidence?


You have a repeatedly reinterpreted text of recollections and oral history passed down over the years. The dead sea scrolls prove that false alone.


I don't think that the Bible even has much to say about modern living law avoiding gay couples living in peace, even if you do believe that it is true. You need to heavily reinterpret a text that meant something specific a long time ago about a specific time and place.


Clearly you havent read it.

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 02:50 PM
The law might be a good starting point.

It was a good starting point, but unfortunately it's moving in the wrong direction. Wrong is quickly becoming right and right is becoming wrong.

quip
July 17th, 2015, 02:53 PM
Only because that is what God want's us to do. He has given us many "thorns" because of Adam's sin.

It's between homos and God what they do, but this is what God intended from the beginning.


And we proudly prune those "thorns". Our lives - as we live and adapt to them - depend upon our constant circumvention of nature. Though in this case an ignorant bias clouds the obvious for you.

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 02:55 PM
And we proudly prune those "thorns". The world as we know it depends upon our constant circumvention of nature. Though in this case an ignorant bias clouds the obvious for you.

Where is my bias coming from?

quip
July 17th, 2015, 02:58 PM
Where is my bias coming from?

I'd best assume ...your head!

but hey...it's your bias.

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 03:00 PM
I'd best assume ...your head!

but hey...it's your bias.

Here is where I get mine, where does yours come from?

Matt. 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Hedshaker
July 17th, 2015, 03:02 PM
It was a good starting point, but unfortunately it's moving in the wrong direction. Wrong is quickly becoming right and right is becoming wrong.

Would a Christian Theocracy be a better system, do you think?

quip
July 17th, 2015, 03:02 PM
Here is where I get mine, where does yours come from?


Human evolution...e.g. my head!

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 03:13 PM
Human evolution...e.g. my head!

Your not trusting in a firm foundation so you will reap what you are putting your trust in.

turbosixx
July 17th, 2015, 03:18 PM
Would a Christian Theocracy be a better system, do you think?

This is a snippet of how a Christian should live their life. If everyone did so, what kind of world would it be?


9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality. 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

TracerBullet
July 17th, 2015, 05:26 PM
It doesn't matter who man joins together, what matters is who God joins. It's un-natural and it's not God's design. so why does God keep making gays and lesbians?


Hetero couples can have their own children,
Not all couples.


DNA from each parent by means of natural sexual relations. Homo couples can not have their own children, they have to have a third party involved or adopt. Just like a lot of heterosexual couples.


They're genitalia do not fit naturally and they're perverted sexual relations do not produce offspring because it's un-natural. its natural for them

Hedshaker
July 17th, 2015, 05:41 PM
This is a snippet of how a Christian should live their life. If everyone did so, what kind of world would it be?


9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality. 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

Probably a bit of a "Stepford Wives" scenario by the looks of it. I reckon the human race would soon become extinct from boredom.

Wrapping oneself up in cotton wool would effectively limit life's experience. I wouldn't be able to bear it, nor could I force myself to believe in things that are, to me, patently absurd.

quip
July 17th, 2015, 09:41 PM
This is a snippet of how a Christian should live their life. If everyone did so, what kind of world would it be?


Interminably dull!

quip
July 17th, 2015, 09:42 PM
Your not trusting in a firm foundation so you will reap what you are putting your trust in.

You're only fooling yourself....firm foundations are an illusion.

Dan Emanuel
July 18th, 2015, 07:51 PM
Civil marriage is a civil matter, and nothing to do with third parties....Civil marriage is a contract that involve's the two spouse's, and the third party the government.


Daniel

Dan Emanuel
July 18th, 2015, 07:53 PM
Well, it looks like your God's opinion has been superseded in law on this issue, which, in a secular society, is all that really matters....Jesus Christs opinion in this matter is that civil government should protect, defend, establish, recognize, etc. religious liberty and the freedom to practice religion and the freedom to not practice religion. His opinion prevailed on this issue.

Get used to it. :)


Daniel

jzeidler
July 18th, 2015, 09:00 PM
Jesus Christs opinion in this matter is that civil government should protect, defend, establish, recognize, etc. religious liberty and the freedom to practice religion and the freedom to not practice religion. His opinion prevailed on this issue.

Get used to it. :)


Daniel


That is not the view of Jesus aka God. He is lot so lazy and universal as that. He actually cares about you. This is the role of government, though it should have stayed out of marriage all together cause it really doesn't need to be in it.

Aaron the Tall
July 19th, 2015, 03:48 PM
the claim of "best" isn't supported by research.


Research has shown that children do best with their biological parents - or at least with two parents of opposite sex.

Modern researchers have tried to overturn this idea with case studies of very limited numbers of children being raised by homosexual couples.

If you read those studies, you'll find ideas like this:

1.) Children raised by homosexual couples are not more likely to be abused by their parents than children raised by heterosexual couples, THEREFORE the gender of the parents is immaterial

2.) Children raised by homosexual couples have their sexual identities affected by their parents only slightly more than children raised by heterosexual couples, THEREFORE the gender of the parents is immaterial.

3.) Children raised by homosexual couples tend to do as well in school as children raised by heterosexual couples, THEREFORE the gender of the parents is immaterial.

Research like this abandons sound reason, clamoring for any evidence to claim that gender is immaterial.

A child raised in an orphanage might be trained to do really well in school, but that doesn't mean the orphanage is just as good of a child rearing environment as a heterosexual household.

Just because children raised in homosexual families tend to have similar trends on the extreme highs and lows of childhood experiences as those raised in heterosexual families does NOT mean that parental gender is immaterial.

There is research that shows children raised in homosexual families do suffer in certain categories as compared to children raised in heterosexual families - and just because you show that a child raised in a homosexual family doesn't get in trouble at school more than a child raised in a heterosexual family, doesn't undo the previous research.



Having good and loving parents matter. their genders are immaterial


The president got attacked by liberal scientists for suggesting that fathers were an essential and important determinant in raising healthy children.

Ideas have consequences - especially the idea that gender is irrelevant. It's not surprising that people think they can cut off their genitals to become a woman.

Aaron the Tall
July 19th, 2015, 05:26 PM
"Unite", within the context of legally recognized marriage...sure it is.

So, two people can't unite until the government says its ok?



The problem with simple facts are that they tend to give way under significant scrutiny. Traditional marriage is in no way diminished nor is its "benefit" to society being threatened by the inclusion of homosexuality. You've absolutely zero pragmatic objections to such legal unions.

You don't have to like my pragmatic objections - but I've given them.

If traditional marriage has a distinct benefit to society, then its value IS diminished if you think any other union is the exact same thing.

It's the same as if your company gave certain monetary perks for the people who join a health club - but then the people who don't join a club complain because they aren't receiving the same benefits. If everybody gets the same benefits regardless of healthy behavior - the value of the healthy behavior diminishes.

However, my primary argument is not that it will upset my marriage, or somebody else's marriage. My primary argument is that by saying two daddys are the exact same thing as a mommy and a daddy, that you will be denying children the right to be raised in the best possible situation - and you've essentially said that there is no optimal situation for child rearing.

quip
July 19th, 2015, 06:41 PM
So, two people can't unite until the government says its ok?

I'm not sure of the logical genesis behind this silly inquiry....nonetheless, there are practical benefits to legally sanctioned marriage. Though, for some, the more important aspect of legalized same-sex marriage is based upon the principle of equality i.e. the unjustified lack thereof.




You don't have to like my pragmatic objections - but I've given them.

No you haven't. You've offered asserted benefits to society, with the implication that since homosexuals can't benefit society in the same manner they should not receive the same consideration. What you haven't offered are reasons as to how those benefits are to be threatened by the inclusion of homosexuals to the institution of marriage.


If traditional marriage has a distinct benefit to society, then its value IS diminished if you think any other union is the exact same thing.
Not in any pragmatic sense...this doesn't follow beyond its idealistic ostentation.


It's the same as if your company gave certain monetary perks for the people who join a health club - but then the people who don't join a club complain because they aren't receiving the same benefits. If everybody gets the same benefits regardless of healthy behavior - the value of the healthy behavior diminishes.

Not an apt analogy. First, homosexuals are not refusing to "join the health club"..... on the contrary, they are fighting an unjust exclusion from joining the "health club". Second, this does not follow. The health of the indvidual club members are not affected by giving the perk to non-members....there's simply no cause or correlation between the two. Third, perhaps the motivation to join the health club may diminish under such circumstance....though a lack of motivation to rear children/procreate is not affectively analogous with the inclusion of homosexuals into the marriage contract.




However, my primary argument is not that it will upset my marriage, or somebody else's marriage. My primary argument is that by saying two daddys are the exact same thing as a mommy and a daddy, that you will be denying children the right to be raised in the best possible situation - and you've essentially said that there is no optimal situation for child rearing.

Love and commitment make for an optimal familial situation. I simply don't see the market being cornered by the hetrosexual community on either count....your bias notwithstanding, of course.

aikido7
July 19th, 2015, 06:49 PM
I try to take seriously the great Hebrew prophets and the metaphor from Martin Luther King's speech about the moral arc of justice bending toward the good.

Liberty and justice for all and dignity to all people seems to be a necessary feature of our global culture today.

Dan Emanuel
July 19th, 2015, 07:06 PM
That is not the view of Jesus aka God. He is lot so lazy and universal as that...You think that its lazy to recognize religious liberty? Thats way harder than forcing everybody to believe the same faith.

And your mixing up civil law, with Christian faith, doctrine and moral's. They aren't the same. They're is 1 Christian faith. Recognizing and protecting religious liberty is part of the Christian faith.

...He actually cares about you...Of . . . course. You think defending the freedom of religion is uncaring?

...This is the role of government, though it should have stayed out of marriage all together cause it really doesn't need to be in it.What if a husband die's and instead of his widow being allowed to keep her and her husbands possession's, the mans family won't allow it, and keep's those possession's from her? The government need's to know that they were married before they can help her.


Daniel

TracerBullet
July 19th, 2015, 07:56 PM
Research has shown that children do best with their biological parents - or at least with two parents of opposite sex.

Modern researchers have tried to overturn this idea with case studies of very limited numbers of children being raised by homosexual couples. did you research this for yourself or did you get it from some anti-gay webpage?


If you read those studies, you'll find ideas like this:

1.) Children raised by homosexual couples are not more likely to be abused by their parents than children raised by heterosexual couples, THEREFORE the gender of the parents is immaterial Please cite any legitimately published study that says this


2.) Children raised by homosexual couples have their sexual identities affected by their parents only slightly more than children raised by heterosexual couples, THEREFORE the gender of the parents is immaterial.Please cite any legitimately published study that says this


3.) Children raised by homosexual couples tend to do as well in school as children raised by heterosexual couples, THEREFORE the gender of the parents is immaterial.Please cite any legitimately published study that says this




There is research that shows children raised in homosexual families do suffer in certain categories as compared to children raised in heterosexual families -
what research?




The president got attacked by liberal scientists for suggesting that fathers were an essential and important determinant in raising healthy children. Citation?

Hedshaker
July 19th, 2015, 09:50 PM
Jesus Christs opinion in this matter is that civil government should protect, defend, establish, recognize, etc. religious liberty and the freedom to practice religion and the freedom to not practice religion. His opinion prevailed on this issue.

Get used to it. :)


Daniel

Lol, you sound like the boxer sprawled out on the floor but refusing to admit he's been knocked out!

And btw, I've been used to it for decades. But, well Bob Dylan says it best:

?v=QqvUz0HrNKY

Dan Emanuel
July 19th, 2015, 10:05 PM
Lol, you sound like the boxer sprawled out on the floor but refusing to admit he's been knocked out!...I . . . don't think so. Read it again?


Daniel

Aaron the Tall
July 24th, 2015, 01:26 AM
did you research this for yourself or did you get it from some anti-gay webpage?

Actually, links to these papers were provided by a pro-gay website.

Research showing children do better with heterosexual parents:

Sarantakos, S. (1996). Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development. Children Australia, 21(3), 23-31.

Allen, D. W. (2013). High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households. Review of Economics of the Household, 11(4), 635-658.

Sullins, D. P. (2015). Emotional Problems among Children with Same-sex Parents: Difference by Definition. British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, (forthcoming).



If you read those studies, you'll find ideas like this:

1.) Children raised by homosexual couples are not more likely to be abused by their parents than children raised by heterosexual couples, THEREFORE the gender of the parents is immaterial.

Please cite any legitimately published study that says this

I heard this claim made by a pro-gay college professor in a lecture on the subject - I don't have the information at hand on the specific study he was citing.


Please cite any legitimately published study that says this

The following studies are being used by homosexual marriage advocates to prove that the gender of the parents is immaterial (conclusions stated first in bold):

Children of gay parents are only slightly affected by the sexual orientation of the parents: Bailey, J., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M., & Mikach, S. (1995). Sexual Orientation Of Adult Sons Of Gay Fathers. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 124-129.

Children of gay parents have similar intelligence scores as children of straight parents: Bos, H. M. W., van Balen F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2005). Lesbian families and family functioning: an overview. Patient Education and Counseling, 59(3), 263-275.

Children of gay parents are not more likely to be heavy substance users (although they are more likely to be occasional substance users).
Goldberg, N. G., Bos, H. M. W., & Gartrell, N. K. (2011). Substance use by adolescents of the USA National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study. Journal of Health Psychology, 16(8), 1231-1240.

-------------------------------------------------------

For a closer look, consider the following study: Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter? APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 14(3), 164–178, 2010

The authors conclude with these statements: "Our findings revealed, for the first time, that young children adopted early in life by lesbian and gay parents were as well adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents. Our results suggest that lesbian and gay adults can and do make capable adoptive parents."

Here are some of the survey questions that led to this conclusion:

1.) To assess the child's behavioral adjustment, parents were asked to rate on a scale if their child "Looks unhappy for no good reason."

2.) To assess the child's gender role behavior, parents were asked to rate if their child "Enjoys rough and tumble play" or "likes pretty things."

3.) To assess parental stress, parents were asked to agree/disagree with statements like "I get so frustrated and angry that my child can see I'm upset" or "I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent."

4.) To assess parental relationship satisfaction, parents answered questions like "do you and your mate engage in outside interests together."

So, if the heterosexual and homosexual parents equally replied that their children don't look depressed and like to play with gender-specific toys - it is trumpeted as proof that having a mom doesn't matter, as long as there are two parents in the home.

If the heterosexual and homosexual parents equally replied that they don't feel trapped with parental responsibilities and that the parents engage in outside interests together - it is trumpeted as proof that having a dad doesn't matter, as long as there are two parents in the home.

How can you make such a claim based on such shallow questionnaire data?

One of these studies found that the children of single mothers fared equally as well in the particular accessed categories as the children of heterosexual and homosexual parents - yet we wouldn't use the study as proof that being raised in a single parent home is just as ideal as being raised in a dual-parent home.


Citation?
This paper criticized Obabma's "stereotypical" view of fatherhood, quoting him as saying "Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives,
we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that
foundation."

Talk about controversial...

Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(1), 3-22.

Aaron the Tall
July 24th, 2015, 01:38 AM
I'm not sure of the logical genesis behind this silly inquiry....nonetheless, there are practical benefits to legally sanctioned marriage. Though, for some, the more important aspect of legalized same-sex marriage is based upon the principle of equality i.e. the unjustified lack thereof.



Do you recognize any legitimate reasons why the government would give certain benefits to a group or individual that it doesn't give to all groups or individuals?

We are all equal as individuals - but that doesn't mean that all of our relationships should receive equal recognition.


No you haven't. You've offered asserted benefits to society, with the implication that since homosexuals can't benefit society in the same manner they should not receive the same consideration. What you haven't offered are reasons as to how those benefits are to be threatened by the inclusion of homosexuals to the institution of marriage.

I haven't made the claim that the unique benefits provided by heterosexual marriages will be threatened by the inclusion of homosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriages will always be the only union inherently capable of producing the next generation, regardless of what other unions are called marriage. My point is that government's responsibility is to promote the benefits of heterosexual marriage.



Not an apt analogy. First, homosexuals are not refusing to "join the health club"..... on the contrary, they are fighting an unjust exclusion from joining the "health club". Second, this does not follow. The health of the indvidual club members are not affected by giving the perk to non-members....there's simply no cause or correlation between the two. Third, perhaps the motivation to join the health club may diminish under such circumstance....though a lack of motivation to rear children/procreate is not affectively analogous with the inclusion of homosexuals into the marriage contract.

Of course, not every detail of the analogy applies - but the point is that there are good reasons to give certain people benefits over other people.

TracerBullet
July 25th, 2015, 05:06 PM
Actually, links to these papers were provided by a pro-gay website. Link?




Research showing children do better with heterosexual parents:

Sarantakos, S. (1996). Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development. Children Australia, 21(3), 23-31. "Some commentators claim a single, unreplicated 1996 Australian study demonstrates the existence of deficits in lesbian and gay parents and their children. See S. Sarantakos, Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development, 21 Child. Australia 23 (1996). But the anomalous Sarantakos results
are likely the result of multiple methodological problems, especially confounding effects of parental sexual orientation with effects of parental divorce, because divorce is known to correlate with poor adjustment and academic performance." Amicus brief APA (http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/donaldson.pdf)




Sullins, D. P. (2015). Emotional Problems among Children with Same-sex Parents: Difference by Definition. British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, (forthcoming).

It turns out that the British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science isn't British and is a pay for publication journal. If you pay their fee they will publish your "research"







For a closer look, consider the following study: Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter? APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 14(3), 164–178, 2010

The authors conclude with these statements: "Our findings revealed, for the first time, that young children adopted early in life by lesbian and gay parents were as well adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents. Our results suggest that lesbian and gay adults can and do make capable adoptive parents."

Here are some of the survey questions that led to this conclusion:

1.) To access the child's behavioral adjustment, parents were asked to rate on a scale if their child "Looks unhappy for no good reason."

2.) To access the child's gender role behavior, parents were asked to rate if their child "Enjoys rough and tumble play" or "likes pretty things."

3.) To access parental stress, parents were asked to agree/disagree with statements like "I get so frustrated and angry that my child can see I'm upset" or "I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent."

4.) To access parental relationship satisfaction, parents answered questions like "do you and your mate engage in outside interests together."

So, if the heterosexual and homosexual parents equally replied that their children don't look depressed and like to play with gender-specific toys - it is trumpeted as proof that having a mom doesn't matter, as long as there are two parents in the home.

If the heterosexual and homosexual parents equally replied that they don't feel trapped with parental responsibilities and that the parents engage in outside interests together - it is trumpeted as proof that having a dad doesn't matter, as long as there are two parents in the home.

How can you make such a claim based on such shallow questionnaire data?
[/quote]

Here is the full study Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3k56b4b4#page-1) None of these questions appear anywhere. So where did the questions come from?

quip
July 26th, 2015, 04:37 PM
I haven't made the claim that the unique benefits provided by heterosexual marriages will be threatened by the inclusion of homosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriages will always be the only union inherently capable of producing the next generation, regardless of what other unions are called marriage. My point is that government's responsibility is to promote the benefits of heterosexual marriage.


Again, this doesn't follow. The government is indeed responsible to promote the benefits of heterosexual marriage. Since homosexual inclusion into the pact has no such negative effecs upon such, your insistence that the government promote heterosexual marriage at the exclusion of homosexual ones...holds no grounds for support.

P.S. The government likewise has a responsibility to respect, defend and promote American's civil rights.

Aaron the Tall
July 26th, 2015, 06:06 PM
For a closer look, consider the following study: Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter? APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 14(3), 164–178, 2010

The authors conclude with these statements: "Our findings revealed, for the first time, that young children adopted early in life by lesbian and gay parents were as well adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents. Our results suggest that lesbian and gay adults can and do make capable adoptive parents."

Here are some of the survey questions that led to this conclusion:

1.) To access the child's behavioral adjustment, parents were asked to rate on a scale if their child "Looks unhappy for no good reason."

2.) To access the child's gender role behavior, parents were asked to rate if their child "Enjoys rough and tumble play" or "likes pretty things."

3.) To access parental stress, parents were asked to agree/disagree with statements like "I get so frustrated and angry that my child can see I'm upset" or "I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent."

4.) To access parental relationship satisfaction, parents answered questions like "do you and your mate engage in outside interests together."

So, if the heterosexual and homosexual parents equally replied that their children don't look depressed and like to play with gender-specific toys - it is trumpeted as proof that having a mom doesn't matter, as long as there are two parents in the home.

If the heterosexual and homosexual parents equally replied that they don't feel trapped with parental responsibilities and that the parents engage in outside interests together - it is trumpeted as proof that having a dad doesn't matter, as long as there are two parents in the home.

How can you make such a claim based on such shallow questionnaire data?


Here is the full study Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3k56b4b4#page-1) None of these questions appear anywhere. So where did the questions come from?

????

I guess you didn't read the paper. Those are the example questions from the study - each given within the paper.

Lon
July 26th, 2015, 06:18 PM
Or better yet, you call it what you want but in the real world it remains lawful marriage. And yes, wishing to deny a minority group a basic right that you take for granted, is nothing short of homophobic bigotry.

If you don't like it, well tough! What others do within the law is none of your business :thumb:

Let the spite begin ;)
No, and the way you said this one-sided is spiteful and bigoted :doh:

I REALLY wish atheists could see self-propogated irony :sigh:

(wishes aren't worth much)

Aaron the Tall
July 26th, 2015, 06:20 PM
Again, this doesn't follow. The government is indeed responsible to promote the benefits of heterosexual marriage. Since homosexual inclusion into the pact has no such negative effecs upon such, your insistence that the government promote heterosexual marriage at the exclusion of homosexual ones...holds no grounds for support.

P.S. The government likewise has a responsibility to respect, defend and promote American's civil rights.

So, are you agreeing that heterosexual marriage has distinct benefits? It sounded like you were defending the position that having a mom isn't important.

If homosexual unions don't provide the same benefits that heterosexual marriages provide, why should they promoted as equal? It's as simple as that.

Would you support the idea of giving every American the same government recognition as Native Americans, regardless of nationality?

If we say that homosexual unions are the same thing as heterosexual marriages, we are promoting the idea that fathers are not important to a child's development - and that mothers are not important to a child's development.

You won't be diminishing the actual benefits of heterosexual marriages by making these claims - but there will be societal consequences for making these claims.

Hedshaker
July 26th, 2015, 06:40 PM
No, and the way you said this one-sided is spiteful and bigoted :doh:


Not in context of what it was replying to, advocating to resist recognising it as marriage ;)

I'll bet slavers thought criminalising slavery was "one-sided, spiteful and bigoted" against them, too at the time. Must have hurt their pockets for sure :cigar:

Same sex marriage is a great victory for what is right and fair Lon, don't you agree?

Lon
July 26th, 2015, 08:13 PM
Not in context of what it was replying to, advocating to resist recognising it as marriage ;)

I'll bet slavers thought criminalising slavery was "one-sided, spiteful and bigoted" against them, too at the time.
Equivocating erroneously. Learn to 'listen' and you might understand your problem. Not 'listening' and interpreting as you like is a step toward bigotry, no?



Same sex marriage is a great victory for what is right and fair Lon, don't you agree?
We need to define that term 'marriage.' The problem, on this side of the fence, is correct. I think "holy union" helped pave the way toward understanding of the issue. The largest problem here is about that term "marriage." It indeed, is redefined. I only wish they would have called it "Civil Union." The state, you, and I are concerned with fairness. Yes I share that, but I also agree that "marriage" redefinition should have people up in arms. I do realize "Marriage" applies to both secular and sacred understandings but the problem is 1) the Bible translates "marriage" so it became a sacred term and 2) the state adopted that term THEN redefined it. Of course they never for saw a need to delineate, but the current laws are running roughshod over sanctities. If they had half a sense, they'd have initiated "Civil Unions" for all at the Justice of the Peace. Part of it is that gays wanted to call it 'marriage' too. The Government didn't actually give them that right, as far as redefining the biblical term. That really is the problem that caused a lot of this unnecessary debate.

quip
July 26th, 2015, 08:54 PM
If homosexual unions don't provide the same benefits that heterosexual marriages provide, why should they promoted as equal? It's as simple as that.

For the same reasons government promotes marriages that produce no children.



If we say that homosexual unions are the same thing as heterosexual marriages, we are promoting the idea that fathers are not important to a child's development - and that mothers are not important to a child's development.

No we're not. We are promoting love of family...be it two fathers or two mothers.


You won't be diminishing the actual benefits of heterosexual marriages by making these claims - but there will be societal consequences for making these claims.

Biased nonsense.

The system currently has more children within it than applicable families adopting them. If anything, this will be a boost for such children and in turn . . . society at large will be better for it.

Ktoyou
July 26th, 2015, 09:06 PM
Gay marriage has to mean happy delightful marriage, for if it means any other, then it degrades language, which is the software of your thought process.

To define gay and marriage in any other way is to corrupt your thinking.

Once you use terms, which are used in a debased manner, you partake in the debasement of our language and yourself.

Hedshaker
July 27th, 2015, 07:01 AM
Equivocating erroneously. Learn to 'listen' and you might understand your problem. Not 'listening' and interpreting as you like is a step toward bigotry, no?


We need to define that term 'marriage.' The problem, on this side of the fence, is correct. I think "holy union" helped pave the way toward understanding of the issue. The largest problem here is about that term "marriage." It indeed, is redefined. I only wish they would have called it "Civil Union." The state, you, and I are concerned with fairness. Yes I share that, but I also agree that "marriage" redefinition should have people up in arms. I do realize "Marriage" applies to both secular and sacred understandings but the problem is 1) the Bible translates "marriage" so it became a sacred term and 2) the state adopted that term THEN redefined it. Of course they never for saw a need to delineate, but the current laws are running roughshod over sanctities. If they had half a sense, they'd have initiated "Civil Unions" for all at the Justice of the Peace. Part of it is that gays wanted to call it 'marriage' too. The Government didn't actually give them that right, as far as redefining the biblical term. That really is the problem that caused a lot of this unnecessary debate.

Sorry Lon I got as far as "holy union" and stopped there. I have neither the time nor the inclination for your bigotry, nor do I recognise a word of wisdom in what you have had to say. Not listening, interpreting as you like and insulting those you don't agree with just about sums you up. Well guess what? I don't have to listen to it.

Feel free to carry on if it makes you feel better, I assure you I won't read a word of it.

Good day.

TracerBullet
July 27th, 2015, 08:10 AM
So, are you agreeing that heterosexual marriage has distinct benefits? It sounded like you were defending the position that having a mom isn't important.

If homosexual unions don't provide the same benefits that heterosexual marriages provide, why should they promoted as equal? It's as simple as that. If infertile heterosexual unions don't provide the same benefits that fertile heterosexual marriages provide, why should they be promoted as equal?


Would you support the idea of giving every American the same government recognition as Native Americans, regardless of nationality? irrelevant


If we say that homosexual unions are the same thing as heterosexual marriages, we are promoting the idea that fathers are not important to a child's development - and that mothers are not important to a child's development. which no one is saying


You won't be diminishing the actual benefits of heterosexual marriages by making these claims - but there will be societal consequences for making these claims.

What consequences? concrete real world examples please

TracerBullet
July 27th, 2015, 08:13 AM
Gay marriage has to mean happy delightful marriage, for if it means any other, then it degrades language, which is the software of your thought process.

To define gay and marriage in any other way is to corrupt your thinking.

Once you use terms, which are used in a debased manner, you partake in the debasement of our language and yourself.

Pretending gay marriage is anything other than what it is is corrupted thinking

Ben Masada
July 27th, 2015, 08:17 AM
I see the legalization of gay marriage as the spear piercing on the flesh of Morality.

bybee
July 27th, 2015, 08:19 AM
Pretending gay marriage is anything other than what it is is corrupted thinking

Indeed? That isn't what she was saying.
Homosexual unions are like hybrids, sterile.

PureX
July 27th, 2015, 08:51 AM
Indeed? That isn't what she was saying.
Homosexual unions are like hybrids, sterile.So are many heterosexual unions. The thing is, we humans don't have sex exclusively for procreation, nor do we marry exclusively for it. So all this insistence on procreation as some sort of natural, social, or divine definition of wedlock is nonsense.

bybee
July 27th, 2015, 08:56 AM
So are many heterosexual unions. The thing is, we humans don't have sex exclusively for procreation, nor do we marry exclusively for it. So all this insistence on procreation as some sort of natural, social, or divine definition of wedlock is nonsense.

You can take that up with mother nature!
I am not insisting on anything other than the definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman.
There are any number of ways to unite. They aren't marriage.

Stripe
July 27th, 2015, 08:59 AM
It's not OK to be gay.

PureX
July 27th, 2015, 09:03 AM
You can take that up with mother nature!
I am not insisting on anything other than the definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman.
There are any number of ways to unite. They aren't marriage.That's just semantics. Which you are free to indulge. My point was that it's not based on nature, nor on social necessity, nor on any divine absolute. It's just a simple bias based on a religious dogma, and nothing more.

TracerBullet
July 27th, 2015, 01:26 PM
You can take that up with mother nature!
I am not insisting on anything other than the definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman.
There are any number of ways to unite. They aren't marriage.

Marriage has a much broader definition

Jose Fly
July 28th, 2015, 11:20 AM
I'm trying to remember ever being at a wedding where part of the vows was anything like, "I promise to sire/bear your children". The vows I remember were always about things like sticking with your spouse no matter what (better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness and health) and being faithful.

You'd think if producing children were such an integral part of marriages, it'd be mentioned in the vows.

bybee
July 28th, 2015, 11:48 AM
I'm trying to remember ever being at a wedding where part of the vows was anything like, "I promise to sire/bear your children". The vows I remember were always about things like sticking with your spouse no matter what (better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness and health) and being faithful.

You'd think if producing children were such an integral part of marriages, it'd be mentioned in the vows.

In bygone days it was understood that within marriage the possibility and desirability of bearing children was the norm.

Jose Fly
July 28th, 2015, 11:52 AM
In bygone days it was understood that within marriage the possibility and desirability of bearing children was the norm.

But apparently it wasn't important enough to be included in vows, unlike trust, fidelity, honor, and love.

Aaron the Tall
August 1st, 2015, 10:21 PM
You'd think if producing children were such an integral part of marriages, it'd be mentioned in the vows.

Marriages without children are a more recent phenomenon - at least as far as choosing not to have children when you are physically capable of doing so.

Aaron the Tall
August 1st, 2015, 10:34 PM
If infertile heterosexual unions don't provide the same benefits that fertile heterosexual marriages provide, why should they be promoted as equal?

Producing the children is only half of the unique benefit of heterosexual marriages. Providing the ideal rearing environment is the other half - and if infertile couples want to have children, they can adopt them.

Either way, if certain heterosexual marriages are unable or unwilling to produce children - this doesn't change the fact that heterosexual marriages by nature and by norm provide unique benefits.




which no one is saying

The research papers I cited are precisely claiming that the gender of the parent doesn't matter - that having two dads is just as ideal as having a mom and dad. That is exactly the same thing as saying that having a dad is not uniquely important to child development - or that having a mom is not uniquely important to child development.

If the researchers admitted that having a mom is a uniquely important factor for child development, then they would have to say that placing a child in a homosexual family deprives them of an essential developmental factor - meaning homosexual unions are NOT equal. But, that wouldn't be politically correct...

gcthomas
August 2nd, 2015, 01:26 AM
Producing the children is only half of the unique benefit of heterosexual marriages.

Unique benefit? I have to tell you that there are other ways to get pregnant than getting married. ;)

M. A. Williams
August 2nd, 2015, 02:21 AM
Unique benefit? I have to tell you that there are other ways to get pregnant than getting married. ;)

Indeed, but in an ideal and Biblical world, it's something that should be unique to marriage.

gcthomas
August 2nd, 2015, 02:31 AM
Indeed, but in an ideal and Biblical world, it's something that should be unique to marriage.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that a biblical world is ideal...

But having children has never in the history of the world been unique to marriage, and never will. It was a silly comment and deserved to be called out.

MichaelCadry
August 2nd, 2015, 03:27 AM
Indeed, but in an ideal and Biblical world, it's something that should be unique to marriage.





Hey M. A. Williams,

Uh, I'm your buddy, but I've got to tell you that you are right. It would be ideal. But it doesn't always happen that way. Abraham was told by Sarah, his wife, to take her handmaiden in place of her, and have a child by the handmaiden, since Sarah could not have her own children. She was barren. After the Lord and angels came to speak to Abraham, Saria, was supposed to be able to be called Sarah and that she would become pregnant. And her child shall be named Isaac. And the son that Abraham had with the handmaiden was called Ishmael. Ishmael was the ancestor of the Arab people, etc. Ishmael and his mother were sent out away from Sarah and Abraham, and the Lord God promised Ishmael that he would also be a father of many. I don't do this story justice and so I won't go more into it. I digress. You see that Abraham was not married to his handmaiden.

God Be With You,

Michael

M. A. Williams
August 2nd, 2015, 03:33 AM
Hey M. A. Williams,

Uh, I'm your buddy, but I've got to tell you that you are right. It would be ideal. But it doesn't always happen that way. Abraham was told by Sarah, his wife, to take her handmaiden in place of her, and have a child by the handmaiden, since Sarah could not have her own children. She was barren. After the Lord and angels came to speak to Abraham, Saria, was supposed to be able to be called Sarah and that she would become pregnant. And her child shall be named Isaac. And the son that Abraham had with the handmaiden was called Ishmael. Ishmael was the ancestor of the Arab people, etc. Ishmael and his mother were sent out away from Sarah and Abraham, and the Lord God promised Ishmael that he would also be a father of many. I don't do this story justice and so I won't go more into it. I digress. You see that Abraham was not married to his handmaiden.

God Be With You,

Michael



Good point :)

Well received.

Cons&Spires
August 2nd, 2015, 07:33 AM
Or better yet, you call it what you want but in the real world it remains lawful marriage. And yes, wishing to deny a minority group a basic right that you take for granted, is nothing short of homophobic bigotry.

If you don't like it, well tough! What others do within the law is none of your business :thumb:

Let the spite begin ;)

You're argument has no meritible basis, it's basically just saying 'they passed a law, if you don't like it then you're wrong'.

But the LGBT lobby has warped public opinion so much that you, among others, don't realize that. If homosexual marriage is a 'basic right', then by all means, you should have no qualms with a law being passed allowing marrying one's pet.

That's about how natural homosexual marriage is to someone who hasn't been reprogrammed by LGBT bias. The agenda is fueled by an obsessive need for people to make idols of themselves as some paragon of integrity, and not by God or truth- so in a world which has abandoned each, such an agenda is skyrocketed.

Only a real fool, in other words, believes that people on FB for example are putting rainbows on the profile pictures out of some sincere interest in the rights of homosexuals. You won't find one gay person with it on their screen, because it's not what it insists itself to be. In fact, you won't find many men with it at that- I wonder why?

gcthomas
August 2nd, 2015, 08:18 AM
But the LGBT lobby has warped public opinion so much that you, among others, don't realize that.
...
That's about how natural homosexual marriage is to someone who hasn't been reprogrammed by LGBT bias. The agenda is fueled by an obsessive need for people to make idols of themselves as some paragon of integrity, and not by God or truth-

More and more of the population are realising that they have close friends, trusted colleagues or loved family members that identify as LGB or T as people live more openly. If you make bigotry against their friends, colleagues and family an essential requirement of Christianity, then you will find the recent gentle trend away from christianity in the US will become a flood. Most people are too nice to accept that being openly discriminating and intolerant of good people is a suitable way to behave.

TracerBullet
August 3rd, 2015, 02:27 PM
Producing the children is only half of the unique benefit of heterosexual marriages. Providing the ideal rearing environment is the other half - and if infertile couples want to have children, they can adopt them. Define ideal.


Either way, if certain heterosexual marriages are unable or unwilling to produce children - this doesn't change the fact that heterosexual marriages by nature and by norm provide unique benefits.
single race couples are also the norm but interracial couples can still marry

What are these unique benefits do you keep talking about?




The research papers I cited are precisely claiming that the gender of the parent doesn't matter

Your actual claim was: If we say that homosexual unions are the same thing as heterosexual marriages, we are promoting the idea that fathers are not important to a child's development - and that mothers are not important to a child's development.

Which no one is saying


- that having two dads is just as ideal as having a mom and dad. That is exactly the same thing as saying that having a dad is not uniquely important to child development - or that having a mom is not uniquely important to child development. What the studies have and continue to show is that children raised by same gendered couples fair just as well across the board as those raised by opposite sex couples.


If the researchers admitted that having a mom is a uniquely important factor for child development, then they would have to say that placing a child in a homosexual family deprives them of an essential developmental factor - meaning homosexual unions are NOT equal. But, that wouldn't be politically correct... By this same 'logic' a child whose parent was killed while on active military duty is being deprived an essential developmental factor.

Rejecting this would indicate that you have set up a double standard where you want your justification of discrimination to apply only to the people you want to discriminate against. It also would indicate that your position has nothing to do with children and everything to do with your personal prejudices

Hedshaker
August 3rd, 2015, 02:55 PM
You're argument has no meritible basis, it's basically just saying 'they passed a law, if you don't like it then you're wrong'.

I know you are banned at this time but just in case you return here after your forced hiatus:

No, I'm saying if you don't like it then tough! Because the vast majority of people in the free world now see prejudice against minority groups , that harm no one, as wrong.


But the LGBT lobby has warped public opinion so much that you, among others, don't realize that. If homosexual marriage is a 'basic right', then by all means, you should have no qualms with a law being passed allowing marrying one's pet.


That you seriously post something like that says far more about you than it ever will about your adversaries.


That's about how natural homosexual marriage is to someone who hasn't been reprogrammed by LGBT bias. The agenda is fueled by an obsessive need for people to make idols of themselves as some paragon of integrity, and not by God or truth- so in a world which has abandoned each, such an agenda is skyrocketed.


You wouldn't know "Truth" if it bit you on the rear!



Only a real fool, in other words, believes that people on FB for example are putting rainbows on the profile pictures out of some sincere interest in the rights of homosexuals. You won't find one gay person with it on their screen, because it's not what it insists itself to be. In fact, you won't find many men with it at that- I wonder why?


I have no idea what you are talking about.