Reply With Quote
No ?Same-sex unions, from a functional perspective, have never been the norm. They have been more or less tolerated in some societies, but mostly as an union between a woman and another women.
You mean sexuals have always been a minority?
Amazing!
Let's sum this up so far:
BacktoBasics: Marriage was wrongfully redefined by organized religion in the first place. This is simply allowing the union to be what it was originally intended to be.
Me: Huh? Can you provide some data that sustains your stance?
BacktoBasics: Sure!! Here's an article stating that same-sex unions were tolerated in a theocracy! And here's another one stating same-sex unions were tolerated in Europe during the middle-ages, when the power and influence of the Catholic Church was at his peak.
Me: .......
BacktoBasics: I hate churches, I hate Christians, it's all their fault, bla, bla, google it, everybody knows, I hate them, bla bla.
This is another historical and factual inaccuracy.The entire basis of what currently defines a marriage is rooted in the so called word of Christ.
Another one. Same-sex unions, from a functional perspective, have never been the norm. They have been more or less tolerated in some societies, but mostly as an union between a woman and another women.Man/Man Woman/Woman Man/Object Man/Animal those unions have existed and were accepted in many societies before and after Christ
Bull . There are many people opposed to the state-sanctioned sexual marriages who don't base their POV in any kind of religious arguments. You can read every one of my posts and I bet you won't find a single theological-based argument. In fact, I think one would have trouble to find someone who mentioned religion and churches more than you about this issue.I don't need to provide a correlation because its their argument. Its all we hear. "A marriage in Gods eyes is between a man and a woman"..."The bible says..."..."Jesus intended a marriage to be".
In my view this isn't a religious issue de per si, rather a political one. Ironically (but not surprising), you're the one framing it from a religious perspective. Why isn't it surprising? I understand you have some very deep and personal hostile feelings towards religions, churches and Christians. I couldn't care less, but you are as much as a fanatic as one of those crazy fundamentalists. As a French communist famously said to Engels, "enfin, l'athéisme c'est votre religion" - and I'd say that for any defender of the cause of liberty, you are no less repugnant than a totalitarian theocrat.
However, the fact that this isn't a religious issue doesn't make arguments based on religion less valid. Laws are always informed by ethics and morals. And ethics and morals have always been, before and after Christ, motorized by religious thought. The idea that the public (political) discussion should be verboten territory to religious arguments is totalitarian in itself and would basically lead to the exclusion of a majority of the people and existent doctrine from the public sphere. And as guys like Stalin could explain, it's not only a bad idea but one that doesn't even work.
Finally, there's a risible component on your argument: the focus on the Christian religion. I mean, have you never thought what's the dominant religion on countries where sexuality tends to be more tolerated? Have you never thought a second about this? If there are societies opened to same-sex marriage are those with a prevalence of Christians. Some schools of Hinduism may be au par, but that's all. And this is what makes your arguments, more than inaccurate, completely at odds with reality.
No ?Same-sex unions, from a functional perspective, have never been the norm. They have been more or less tolerated in some societies, but mostly as an union between a woman and another women.
You mean sexuals have always been a minority?
Amazing!
one man + one woman for life. Becoming one.
Once again you assume and insinuate. Let's stay on marriage between people of the same sex. It has nothing to do with being afraid of two people of the same sex becoming in a union and calling it a marriage.
So what are you afraid of?
That explains a lot, your being afraid of fictional characters and all. Many of your fears are imagined and based on make-believe.
Seriously, I find it stunning that Heritage thinks that the health and survival of thousands of marriages of God-fearing, churchgoing families is completely dependent on the government's refusal to allow gays to marry.
Is that really the foundation of those marriages?
Actually I think you left some stuff out.
one man + one woman + laws forcing everyone to abide by my definition of marriage + politicians who think like i do, for life*.
* "life" being defined as either all the time before death, or for as long as the man and the woman fee like. Whichever comes first.
I hope you seriously are not interpretting it like that. You need to reexamine that data.
What other way is it to be interpreted?
Tell me exactly how you interpret the Heritage article.
Didn't this same Heritage Foundation project us being out of Iraq something like 3 months after invasion?
Typical religiot response. HEY!!! We don't need more people. We've got 7 BILLION of them already. In 25 years, people won't even care about oil. They'll be begging for clean drinkable water and food.
Only religions want people to breed like rabbits to keep their particular sect growing. Logical people recognize that there is a finite amount of space and resources on this planet.
is this in the context of making for a productive society or is it more of a religious view?
also, is happiness a factor in your definition of 'healthy' or is it irrelevant?
Is happiness ever a factor of marriage?
yes.
is it always a factor in your defnition of healthy?
LOL, the inevitable famine, the pest and the plague! Malthusianism will never die, it seems, no matter for how long reality proves it wrong.
The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world
Sorry. Bad joke. Happiness is definitely apart of healthy. Large amounts of being unhappy is probably as unhealthy as you can be.
Ain't it awful?
my point coming is based on you answering the other question.
Are you making up your definition from a religious view or a productive society view?
at two dudes wanting to get married. GAY!!!!!!!!!!!
The religious aspect.
But, wait -- you've argued that the reason that we need marriage to be defined as a union between a man and a woman is to ensure propagation of the species and maintain a familial unit for the purposes of child rearing. If that's the overarching justification for your definition, it sure seems to me that facts demonstrating that: (a) marriage is no guarantee of reproduction -- both because unmarried couples reproduce and because heterosexual married couples may choose not to reproduce or may be unable to do so; and (b) state after state recognizes that same sex couples are adequately situated to raise children. What's curious about this "debate" to this point, is that you've offered nothing to counter either of those propositions, both of which run contrary to the fundamental point of your argument. That leaves me to believe -- reasonably, I think -- that you disagree with the prospect of redefining marriage to include same sex couples not on some logically principled ground, but on the basis of either your own subjective religious belief or some unfounded fear.
Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. I am not trying to redefine. I just do not find any argument valid enough for redefining it. There are many studies done about the effects of a break down of the traditional family unit. With all this "let people live their life and be happy", I just found it interesting to see these stats.
a. Being married has nothing to do with procreating. However a man and woman can make a baby. The same sex cannot.
b. The state allowing non-married couples, gay couples or straight, to raise children could be a bi-product of the lowering of our morals and value; or the fact that their problem of having children raised without parents are far worse than raised by a family out of wedlock.
Most of my objection to gay marriage comes from my belief in what my religion teaches what marriage starts off as to what it becomes and finally what it turns into. Furthermore, is my belief that your sexual preference is just that-a preference. I feel people choose to have relationships with the same sex. Finally is the fact that the justification many people say about redefining marriage is that it holds no meaning as it is now. That should
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
