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.
Gay marriage
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
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
New member
Where is my bias coming from?
turbosixx
New member
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
New member
Would a Christian Theocracy be a better system, do you think?
Human evolution...e.g. my head!
turbosixx
New member
Your not trusting in a firm foundation so you will reap what you are putting your trust in.
turbosixx
New member
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
New member
so why does God keep making gays and lesbians?
Not all couples.
Just like a lot of heterosexual couples.
its natural for them
Hedshaker
New member
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.
Interminably dull!
You're only fooling yourself....firm foundations are an illusion.
Dan Emanuel
Active member
Civil marriage is a contract that involve's the two spouse's, and the third party the government.
Daniel
Dan Emanuel
Active member
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
New member
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
Member
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.
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
Member
So, two people can't unite until the government says its ok?
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.
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.
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.
Not in any pragmatic sense...this doesn't follow beyond its idealistic ostentation.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Dan Emanuel
Active member
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.
Of . . . course. You think defending the freedom of religion is uncaring?
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