Homosexuality
- Thread starter Beefy
- Start date
Socrtease
Verified User
Arguing that marriage has meant one man and one woman for centuries does not mean that it must remain that way. For Centuries governments were run by kings with absolute rule over their subjects. From the settlement of this country until 1865, being a citizen with all rights and privileges attributed thereto belonged only to white men. Hell white women weren't even included until 1920. Things change, definitions change, it is the result of revolutionary ways of thinking. Our founders changed the way we were governed without much thought to the fact that for centuries we always had a king. What you really don't like, much like the conservatives of the civil rights era, is that you are on the wrong side of history.
Socrtease
Verified User
You are sooooo clever aren't you. You KNOW that your position is the losing position as far as public opinion and the addition of one state after another in the gay marriage column. I understand you think that civilization is losing, but when a society becomes freer, civilization wins.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
if your child is an alcoholic, should you let them follow their natural path to drinking?.....
I seldom concern myself with what "public opinion" dictates, I am more concerned with mundane things like Liberty, the Constitution and creating REAL job growth in this country.
I am amused by the proposition that becoming dependent wards of the State equates to freedom or a "win" by civilization.
Why shouldn't it? What purpose is there for any other type of marriage? Are you suggesting that two people who are not planning to procreate, or cannot due to physical issues, cannot live happily together or love each other if they do not get a piece of paper from the Government?
I feel smarter having read this now.
I am amused that you think Liberty loving Constitutionalists like myself are on the wrong side of history. How so?
If we look at societies/cities dominated by Progressive Liberal ideological views, we see high rates of unemployment, massive deficits, malaise and failure. How's that being on the winning side?
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
Pretty much this. The bible is not a very good source of morality at all, actually.
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
If anything the idea of a social contract plays into the idea of our morality more heavily than the bible does.
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
Absolutely! Priests and their treatment of....(Rule 12B)
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
Thankfully the more conservative parts of the Judeo Christian faith are in decline. I was talking to a mother of a student at my sons high school while we were both waiting for our children after school. She and her 15 year old daughter have both given up Christianity for paganism, and feel that it is the right choice. Nice thing to live in a free society where we do not control peoples beliefs.
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
This would be correct!
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
Not really. But I have two sons who are straight, ages 15 and 20. I am not exactly making a photograph in my mind of what they are doing when they are alone with their girlfriends. I am just not that worried about what anyone is doing in their bedroom, even my own sons.
And I would not be worried if they were with a dude rather than a chic. That's their business, not mine.
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
....and as a society becomes more just, it wins. Why would we deny gay people the right to love who they choose? Or be married to who they choose?
Canceled.2014.1
New member
The purpose for gay marriage is the same as for straight marriage, namely to join two people in a committed relationship.
The state licenses people to marry all the time who cannot procreate due to physical issues. If it is all about having children, the straight couples who cannot procreate should not be allowed to marry either.
maineman
Banned
both as a product, and as a parent.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
I've seen you bring up that particular point of several threads now, and not a once has anyone been able to provide an answer.
Wrong; marriage is a religious ceremony, it is a solemn vow to commit two people under God to the relationship for the purpose of procreating and raising children.
Anyone can have a committed relationship without the piece of paper. Suggesting otherwise is absurd.
Wrong; the State should not even be in the business of marriage licenses. Remember separation of church and State?
Apparently you missed what that I already stated that; but it is not about "allowing" them to marry, but why should they bother? Now if you are going to adopt children, then by all means, get married.
Sun Devil
Death and Taxes
Commenting on the above bold....
Wrong marriage is state sanctioned and licensed by the state without religious interference. The religious aspect of marriage comes from the couples desire to get married in either a church, mosque, or snyagouge or whatever. Marriage is hardly religious and if it was it would violate the constitution.
Commenting on bold (2)
Separation of Church and State involves governmental matters. Issuing marriage license is a governmental matter. The governmental is an arbitrator on issues concerning people and rightfully so because often times religions and their dictation of morality and other customs are subjective and the idea of morality and/or religious customs vary so you need an arbitrator to dictate issues objectively.
How am I wrong; marriage IS a religious institution not a State institution. The State should not be in the business of handing out marriage licenses for any purposes.
Marriage IS a religious institution long before Governments were formed. Apparently you need to brush up on your history dude. Why get married in a church if it is not?
Marriage IS a religious ceremony which is why I stated that the State should not be in the business of handing out marriage licenses.
Marriage is not a human institution devised in the dim past of human history as a convenient way to sort out social responsibilities. If marriage were a human invention, then different types of marriage could have equal value. Polygamy, the taking of several wives, may serve an agricultural society better than an industrialized society; polyandry, the sharing of a wife by several husbands, may prove to be more efficient and economical in a highly technological society. Monogamy, the lifelong union of one man to one woman, would have no more intrinsic value than any other type of marriage. Some could legitimately argue that monogamy has served its purpose as the ideal norm of society and should now be replaced by serial monogamy, the taking of a succession of husbands and wives. In fact, for many today the latter better satisfies the quest for greater self-fulfillment and gratification.
A Divine Institution. The Bible presents marriage as a divine institution. If marriage were of human origin, then human beings would have a right to decide the kind of marital relationships to choose. Marriage, however, began with God. It was established by God at the beginning of human history when He "created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). As the Creator of marriage, God has the right to tell us which principles should govern our marital relationships.
If God had left us no instructions about marriage after establishing it, then marriage could be regulated according to personal whims. But He has not left us in the dark. In His revelation contained in the pages of the Bible, God has revealed His will regarding the nature and function of marriage. As Christians who choose to live in accordance with God’s will, we must study and respect those Biblical principles governing marriage, divorce, and remarriage. In some instances, the laws of a state regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage ignore or even violate the teachings of the Bible. In such cases, as Christians, "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/1.html
Sun Devil
Death and Taxes
Again, as I've argued marriage is a social construct in which many religions in particular, the Judeo-Christian and Islamic faith have described and designated such unions according to their traditions. The problem with assigning the definition of marriage according to religious tradition is such that because this country has a lot of people of different backgrounds you cannot define marriage according to the principles of one faith. Hence is why I'm sure based on that understanding the government becomes the arbitrator because there are many people of different faiths whose religion believes in polygamy/polyandry. In essence marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two people and even if we took the idea that marriage is sacred under God, why is the divorce rate so high among heterosexuals?
Even religious people, for example Christians, are divorcing at a high rate. Marriage is nothing sacred nor is it "Godly" as the perfect example by heterosexuals who are divorcing have demonstrated this.