http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxidhcy0
Seriously, check the Senator from NY make her plea for why gay marriage doesn't threaten anybody's marriage.
Too bad there were enough bags in the NY Senate to keep them a slave state.
it was a good speech, especially the aspect regarding the way we really do not value marriage the way that we consider ourselves to and that religions are not really threatened by sanctioned gay marriages.
still, i think this is really about insurance companies and all the other "sanc y" of marriage rhetoric is a cover.
It's a cover for sexuals to feel normal and be 'accepted' by society.
Notice how they do NOT want their own ins ution with all of the same rights.
bull .
I think we should let men marry multiple women, fathers marry daughters, brothers marry sisters, people marry their pets, etc. etc. As long as they love either other, who cares, right?
That's because you're re ed. Pets can't give consent. A daughter under 18 can't legally consent, because she's a kid who could never be expected to be capable of making a decision like that. If every person is of legal age though, then let them do it. Peoples' social lives are not any of the government's responsibility, at least to me (not to you evidently).
As long as the government is allowed to tell people how to live, they should probably limit everyone to an hour a day of TV. They should make everyone run a mile 3 times a week. Burn off those fat asses. They could criminalize listening to talk radio and posting on the internet while at work, since it kills productivity. Everyone could be forced to eat their veggies and drop their sodas, beer, and tobacco in your authoritarian utopia.
When has a slippery slope argument ever worked?
Pets and kids aren't rational thinkers.
Complete failure of a post.
would you care if a brother married his sister?
I'm setting the over/under line at 5 pages.
place your bets.
It won't have the same rights unless it is made into an inseparable synonym with marriage. In other words, no lawmaker could ever refer to marriage without also implying civil unions and vice-versa. Otherwise, the two sets of rights will quickly become out of sync, even without any kind of malicious intent (the same way when you write a computer program and have two separate objects that are supposed to be equivalent, it's easy to change one and forget about the other, and then have them no longer refer to equivalent data, which can lead to major problems (hence, one reason programming languages have pointers, to effectively make names synonyms)).
No point arguing with these bigots. They're irrational and claim to have all these morals and ethics and that justifies why gays shouldnt marry. But wouldnt it be immoral to exclude a perfectly law abiding and tax paying group from courtship. A very important thing in society. sexuality isnt disgusting or immoral or unethical. Its just how some people are. I know gays and they are nice people. Put away your bible for at least 2 minutes
nah, just twp consenting adults. are you equating gay people to animals?
The Reaction to Jesus' Teaching on Marriage and Divorce
Matthew 19:9
I know of no one who would deny it. Jesus was radical in the religious arena of the first century world. His life began in the womb of a woman not yet married. He was not degreed from a prestigious rabbinical school, yet He never hesitated to engage the scribes and lawyers in fierce verbal confrontations. He did not pay tribute to the hallowed traditions of men. He rowed against the tide of current religious thought during His entire ministry and for a finale, He died the de able death on the cross.
Repeatedly, the Lord heralded the message, "My kingdom is different." In the Greco-Roman world of first century Palestine, a person could not have found someone more openly counter-cultural in both lifestyle and philosophy than was Jesus of Nazareth. One would come to expect anything Jesus said to be expressed in radical terms.
The marriage question has been a controversial religious issue for years, even during the first century. The scribes and Pharisees were forever trying to entrap Jesus with their questions, attempting to force Him to take a position which they, in turn, could effectively destroy. In Matthew 19, their question was erroneously focused on the legalities and technicalities of divorce. My Lord, in response, focused on God's purpose and intent in marriage. Rabbi Hillel was the champion of liberals, advocating a broad position of divorce for every cause. Rabbi Shammai, on the other hand, was the hero of the conservative wing, holding the line on what seemed to be an extremely narrow interpretation of the law regarding divorce. Jesus of Nazareth was publicly challenged to show His colors and declare one way or the other. It seemed to be the perfect challenge. No matter which of the two positions Jesus took, those holding the other view would devour Him
You already know that less did not take either of the two positions on divorce. Instead, He stated the law of God concerning marriage. According to the Lord, marriage was God's idea. It was designed for one man and one woman, ins uted from the time of creation. God said that the duration of the relationship established between a man and woman in marriage would be lifelong. Furthermore, God said that sundering a marriage was sin.
While the listeners were still reeling from the rigidity of these comments on marriage, Jesus boldly asserted a divine message about this matter of divorce. To the ears of these listeners, it was the most radical statement of all.
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9).
Who can believe it?
Who can accept it?
When this confrontation began, it was the Pharisees who were challenging Jesus. As Jesus expresses the at ude of heaven toward marriage and divorce, it is the disciples not the Pharisees who react to Jesus' teaching.
Today, when a Christian teaches that divorce for every cause is sin and those who thus divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery, he likely will hear some folks say, "That's too hard!" Be advised, that is exactly what the disciples of Jesus said almost two thousand years ago (Matthew 19:10). The disciples understood what Jesus was saying. They understood the implications of that teaching. In fact, in their turmoil they concluded that if His rigid, obdurate statement is indeed the divine Word on marriage, then it would be far better for a man not to marry. "It's hard. It requires so much. It's so inflexible. It's radical!" But what did they expect? What less can you expect in a kingdom born of a crucified King. This is the King who demands a loyalty to Him that exceeds loyalty to one's own flesh and blood (Matthew 10:34-39). If God can require of us our very lives, He can surely require of us certain relationships in life.
Did you ever wonder why the disciples would have reacted as they did, if in fact Jesus was not teaching what He appears to be teaching? As they heard these words of Jesus, they immediately concluded that this was a hard saying. Jesus taught that marriage is for life. He likewise taught that divorcing a mate (for a cause other than sexual immorality) and marrying again is sinful. Was this statement hard because it was difficult in interpretation? No. It was hard because it was painful in application.
By David Thomley
From Expository Files 3.10; October 1996
http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-matthew-19-9.htm
The Reaction to Jesus' Teaching on Marriage and Divorce
Matthew 19:9
I know of no one who would deny it. Jesus was radical in the religious arena of the first century world. His life began in the womb of a woman not yet married. He was not degreed from a prestigious rabbinical school, yet He never hesitated to engage the scribes and lawyers in fierce verbal confrontations. He did not pay tribute to the hallowed traditions of men. He rowed against the tide of current religious thought during His entire ministry and for a finale, He died the de able death on the cross.
Repeatedly, the Lord heralded the message, "My kingdom is different." In the Greco-Roman world of first century Palestine, a person could not have found someone more openly counter-cultural in both lifestyle and philosophy than was Jesus of Nazareth. One would come to expect anything Jesus said to be expressed in radical terms.
The marriage question has been a controversial religious issue for years, even during the first century. The scribes and Pharisees were forever trying to entrap Jesus with their questions, attempting to force Him to take a position which they, in turn, could effectively destroy. In Matthew 19, their question was erroneously focused on the legalities and technicalities of divorce. My Lord, in response, focused on God's purpose and intent in marriage. Rabbi Hillel was the champion of liberals, advocating a broad position of divorce for every cause. Rabbi Shammai, on the other hand, was the hero of the conservative wing, holding the line on what seemed to be an extremely narrow interpretation of the law regarding divorce. Jesus of Nazareth was publicly challenged to show His colors and declare one way or the other. It seemed to be the perfect challenge. No matter which of the two positions Jesus took, those holding the other view would devour Him
You already know that less did not take either of the two positions on divorce. Instead, He stated the law of God concerning marriage. According to the Lord, marriage was God's idea. It was designed for one man and one woman, ins uted from the time of creation. God said that the duration of the relationship established between a man and woman in marriage would be lifelong. Furthermore, God said that sundering a marriage was sin.
While the listeners were still reeling from the rigidity of these comments on marriage, Jesus boldly asserted a divine message about this matter of divorce. To the ears of these listeners, it was the most radical statement of all.
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9).
Who can believe it?
Who can accept it?
When this confrontation began, it was the Pharisees who were challenging Jesus. As Jesus expresses the at ude of heaven toward marriage and divorce, it is the disciples not the Pharisees who react to Jesus' teaching.
Today, when a Christian teaches that divorce for every cause is sin and those who thus divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery, he likely will hear some folks say, "That's too hard!" Be advised, that is exactly what the disciples of Jesus said almost two thousand years ago (Matthew 19:10). The disciples understood what Jesus was saying. They understood the implications of that teaching. In fact, in their turmoil they concluded that if His rigid, obdurate statement is indeed the divine Word on marriage, then it would be far better for a man not to marry. "It's hard. It requires so much. It's so inflexible. It's radical!" But what did they expect? What less can you expect in a kingdom born of a crucified King. This is the King who demands a loyalty to Him that exceeds loyalty to one's own flesh and blood (Matthew 10:34-39). If God can require of us our very lives, He can surely require of us certain relationships in life.
Did you ever wonder why the disciples would have reacted as they did, if in fact Jesus was not teaching what He appears to be teaching? As they heard these words of Jesus, they immediately concluded that this was a hard saying. Jesus taught that marriage is for life. He likewise taught that divorcing a mate (for a cause other than sexual immorality) and marrying again is sinful. Was this statement hard because it was difficult in interpretation? No. It was hard because it was painful in application.
By David Thomley
From Expository Files 3.10; October 1996
http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-matthew-19-9.htm
so what about the people who aren't christians? where do they fall?
They're going to anyway so it's a moot question.
I support gay marriage, but I don't use pla udes about love and consenting adults and equality to dismiss the line-drawing argument. Whether you like to admit it or not, not all relationships are treated equally . . . even the ones that are between consenting adults.
There are certain prohibitions that everyone can agree with. No children (but under what age?) and no animals. The rationale being that children and animals are not capable of understanding, much less consenting to, a marital relationship. But that surely is not the only line to be drawn.
Adult siblings can be consenting adults who love each other. Sure, their offspring will often be re ed or otherwise harmed, but who are we to force them not to marry? How paternalistic. And what about sterile siblings? What possible reason is there to deny them marriage? Similarly, what about gay siblings? After all, if you're going to allow gay marriage, what possible reason can there be to deny marriage to gay siblings, who are effectively sterile?
What right does the government have to deny polygamists legal marriage? These are consenting adults. You may not like the choice they've made, and maybe you can't even comprehend why a woman would want to be one of many wives. But it's not your life, and these are consenting adults who love one another.
Point being, if gay marriage supporters are going to talk about consenting adults they need to be consistent. If it's only about consenting adults, then incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage should surely be legal. I happen to think polygamy should be legal, and incestuous marriage should be illegal. But I acknowledge my unprincipled and highly bigoted line-drawing. Incest is just plain gross, even when the people involved are sterile.
Ok, take out kids and animals. See doobs post.
Where you gettin' your information, sparky?
If you are referring to civil unions, here's the deal - and I've talked to quite a number of people in the lgbt people who agree with me on this: If we were to make all legal marriages called civil unions, with all the same rights, and reserve the word "marriage" for religious ins utions to bestow or not bestow, as they see fit - that would be fine. But that is a much bigger legal and bureaucratic hassle at this point, and the reason why most people object to same gender marriage is because they don't really understand the difference between the legal contract of marriage and the religious ins ution.
This speech elucidates that difference beautifully, and with humor.
I wouldn't. I mean I would think it's ed up but at the same time, it wouldn't have the slightest bit of impact to me personally if they wanted to do it.
It's been done before in human history, usually among royalty, even in the bible. I mean well, obviously the children of both Adam and Eve. Not to mention Adam and Eve inbreeding with their own children. They simply had to do some inbreeding to populate the human race. And I am sure science will verify that early sapiens inbred at some point. Because at some point the only ones in existence were all siblings. We are the result of a genetic mutation, or variation if you like, and it's highly unlike the same mutation occurred between totally unrelated individuals. Great Apes do it, and since we are a great ape, without a doubt at some point we did it. Everyone in the world is a blood relative of everyone in the world...I think it's that we're all like 11th cousins or something.
Charles Darwin himself was married to his first cousin.
I think it's been proven that brother sister incest is actually the most common form of incestual activity reported privately by people..and there are some other interesting facts, like a brother a sister that are raised together as infants will actually have a biochemical barrier against attraction, but a brother and sister raised apart will have a genetic sexual attraction to one another. This is usually the dynamic at work between cousins as well.
This is social primarily...there are cultures in the world for instance:
Where the father take the daughter for the first time.
The mother takes the son.
There is a tribe in New Guinea where the rite of passage for boys to become men involves the men taking the boys off for the weekend and the boys perform oral sex on the men and swallow their semen to become men.
There's one tribe in Africa where the rite of passage to manhood is to eat out a cow's snatch.
Marriages between brothers and sisters occured countless times in antiquity usually among royalty. Mostly in Egypt.
In the mid-east and at times in British history intermarriage between cousins was not just acceptable, but actually preferred.
In war torn cultures where the women outnumber the men polygamy almost always becomes acceptable, and and polyandry when the men outnumber the women. It is a survival mechanism.
This is social more than anything else...
Techcnically speaking, a female is biologically ready to bear children when she begins mensturating and a male is ready once he reaches puberty, and for most cultures throughout human history and including Judaism, Christianity and Islam, that is the age when it became acceptable for them to have begin having sex(assuming they got married). That age is usually around 12.
It's all about survival...
So my question for you...
If you have a sister and you and her were the last two people on earth the job of saving the species was yours and yours alone, would you do it?
Some numbers off the top of my head...
I think there is a like a 3 percent chance of a child inheriting a recessive gene from two non-related indivifuals.
It jumps to 5 or 6% between 1st cousins.
10% between Uncles/Aunts and Nieces and Newphews
30% or so between parent child and siblings.
Last edited by whottt; 12-07-2009 at 07:39 AM.
Yeah, marrying your pets and sister are exactly the same as gay marriage?
Incest marriage and bestiality marriage probably shouldn't be legal. However, how do gays feel about polygamy? If gays can get married, then why not let polygamists get married too? Besides, what's wrong with a person having some extra love? If gay marriage is legal, polygamy should be too. Besides, polygamists should have just the same rights as regular heterosexual married couples do. We have to be fair to everyone, not just gays.
Damn Whott, TMI.
What is the benefit for our society if gay couples got married? What is the benefit for the change of marriage to call them all unions? Nothing. It is against the natural law. It is against all cultural and social norms. Where is the highest aids cases from?
Since there is no evidence that proves people are born gay, then you cannot prove that it is not a choice. Why should we change a cultural norm? One man and one woman. The only beneficial way for our society to advance.
That government shouldn't be in a position to penalize people for living their social lives as they see fit.
I already addressed this. Separate but equal does not work because it's easy to change one and not the other.What is the benefit for the change of marriage to call them all unions?
Nothing.
If that's true, then how did it ever start?It is against the natural law.
Who gives a about cultural norms? In the United States you do not have the right to not be offended by what others say and do. That's the ing price you pay for living in a free society.It is against all cultural and social norms.
Almost certainly shared IV drug use, since you're directly injecting others' blood into your system.Where is the highest aids cases from?
Since there is no evidence that proves people are born gay, then you cannot prove that it is not a choice. Why should we change a cultural norm? One man and one woman. The only beneficial way for our society to advance.
Even if it is a choice, why does that give the government the right to discriminate against them? Why do you want an authoritarian government sticking it's nose into people's personal business? The United States is not supposed to be about protecting only the rights of the majority. It's going to be funny in 30-50 years when you're the minority in this nation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
