Defend Marriage Between a Man and a Woman!

[nnmartin]

It is natural marriage - a bringing together of two to make one.

When we have man-made marriage, this is only a representation of Nature's work.

Think of how we put plants inside our homes - this is a symbol of the real nature which exists outside.

Man must copy nature in order to thrive long term.

 

[Viker]

It is natural marriage - a bringing together of two to make one.

When we have man-made marriage, this is only a representation of Nature's work.

Think of how we put plants inside our homes - this is a symbol of the real nature which exists outside.

Man must copy nature in order to thrive long term.

That would be redundant. We can't copy what we already accomplish without ever realizing it.

There is no "natural marriage" out there cut in stone and issued by expectation of higher authority. Marriage is strictly a human contrivance or interpretation. It's really about your #4. But rest assured, marriage is a natural draw.

 

[nnmartin]

#4 - Convenience

this is what I've been harping on about in other threads recently; people only seem to get married these days for purposes of convenience - hence a sham.

A good reason to abolish this outdated quaint practice.

 

[darkendless]

#4 - Convenience

this is what I've been harping on about in other threads recently; people only seem to get married these days for purposes of convenience - hence a sham.

A good reason to abolish this outdated quaint practice.

Then all marriage should be abolished. This has no relation to gay marriage.

 

[Kathryn]

My husband and I got married in our forties, and since I've had a hysterectomy, we knew we we would never have kids together. Was it against the Law of Nature for us to get married?

What about people who find out after they're married that they are physically unable to have kids? Should they get a divorce so their current spouse can go revel in the Laws of Nature with someone who can beget children?

 

[blackout]

My husband and I got married in our forties, and since I've had a hysterectomy, we knew we we would never have kids together. Was it against the Law of Nature for us to get married?

What about people who find out after they're married that they are physically unable to have kids? Should they get a divorce so their current spouse can go revel in the Laws of Nature with someone who can beget children?

It's nothing personal Kathryn.
nnmartin doesn't think there should be legal marriage for anyone.

it's, at least, significantly less disingenuous than the stance that
some should have legal marriage rights, and some shouldn't.

 

[9Westy9]

1 and 4 would be possible, yes.

However, the Law of Nature determines that the two people must have the ability to have children together.

Homosexuality IS natural.

 

[McBell]

However, the Law of Nature determines that the two people must have the ability to have children together.

says who?
You have certainly made this unsubstantiated claim ad naseum, but you have not been able to substantiate it.

 

[waitasec]

"science" hehehehe......... I could pull up "scientific" studies which support almost any perversion in existence including adultery. Forgive me if I don't bow at the feet of everyone carrying a doctorate

support =/= how


science explains how...it doesn't support anything

 

[tumbleweed41]

It is natural marriage - a bringing together of two to make one.

When we have man-made marriage, this is only a representation of Nature's work.

Think of how we put plants inside our homes - this is a symbol of the real nature which exists outside.

Man must copy nature in order to thrive long term.

We don't copy nature.

We are a part of nature.

Any description of human action as "unnatural" is as ridiculous as describing same sex pair bonding in some animals as "unnatural".

 

[tumbleweed41]

1 and 4 would be possible, yes.

However, the Law of Nature determines that the two people must have the ability to have children together.

So a heterosexual couple that is unable to have children is unnatural?

The only Laws of Nature are the Laws of Physics.

 

[Sunstone]

Make sure your so called "scientific studies" are peer reviewed and have passed successfully through the entire scientific method.




Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke....

Spot on!

 

[Me Myself]

In nature, the ones who take care of the baby many times are a group of female apes and the father lost all interest in the babies.

So in nature, you could say lesbian mothers would be as good as it gets.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Providing a well reasoned, substantiated argument is preferable to simply going "nuh-uh".

I've played that game on this forum. Nobody involved really seems open to changing their mind. They come into the debate with their mind already made up and then run to the appropriate websites to post the "science" which supports their position. I can damn well guarantee you that for the most part their minds had already been made up before they ever read one "scientific" report on this subject. They just ran to the reports that provided a means to justify themselves in the eyes of others. The reality is that sex has become a god in the West. People literally worship it in the sense that they'll rearrange their whole lives in order to have it and that includes ignoring any responsibility that their actions may carry with them. We're talking about what people trust to bring them happiness. What a surprise that there are people with doctorates who try to justify every perversion under the sun. What an even bigger surprise they can find peers to agree with them. Science in the context of this discussion isn't examining something people have no stake in like spore germination of fungi. On the contrary, their very lives are at stake. I also find it interesting that, in general, as the morals shift in society, "sciencific findings" conveniently shift to justify those morals.

 

[Me Myself]

Mine definetely wasn't I saw the data and then it was.

I was never against homosexuals, but I didn't know if maybe there could be psychological reasons for why they could or could not take care of a child.

Now, I see there is plenty of evidence saying they can and do a good job.

Anyways, the option is orphanages. That's the option. Even if they couldn't make as good of a job as two parents, I am damm sure they can make better job than an institution to care and love for some human beings.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Mine definetely wasn't I saw the data and then it was.

I was never against homosexuals, but I didn't know if maybe there could be psychological reasons for why they could or could not take care of a child.

Now, I see there is plenty of evidence saying they can and do a good job.

Anyways, the option is orphanages. That's the option. Even if they couldn't make as good of a job as two parents, I am damm sure they can make better job than an institution to care and love for some human beings.

What about on the issue of fornication or the effects of porn on society? Are you telling me that if I post science that suggests that such behaviors are harmful that people who engage in such behavior are going to seriously reconsider partaking in it, generally speaking of course? Or do you think they'll flock to the "scientists" who are conveniently saying exactly what they want to hear? People have to understand that when it comes to "sin" issues, that there will always be someone with a doctorate attempting to justify the behavior that people trust to satisfy them.There has to be a better way of discerning truth than just looking at someone's degree

 

[Me Myself]

What about on the issue of fornication or the effects of porn on society? Are you telling me that if I post science that suggests that such behaviors are harmful that people who engage in such behavior are going to seriously reconsider their position, generally speaking of course? Or do you think they'll flock to the "scientists" who are conveniently saying exactly what they want to hear? People have to understand that when it comes to "sin" issues, that there will always be someone with a doctorate attempting to justify the behavior that people trust to satisfy them.There has to be a better way of discerning truth than just looking at someone's degree

I would have to see if the studies are from reliable sources. the way they say the did the experiment, the date the sample, etc.

Actually, studies show that looking at boobs is literaly healthy It is so because it promotes testosterone generation and testosterone has a lot of healthy effects to health.

Masturbation helps prevent cancer too, without talking about the stress relief effects.

If you want tomake a thread about how they are bad, by all means do, we'll discuss it there.

Haven't answered my question:

do you really believe that an orphanage is better for a child that two loving gay parents with good economical and emotional stability?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I would have to see if the studies are from reliable sources. the way they say the did the experiment, the date the sample, etc.

Actually, studies show that looking at boobs is literaly healthy It is so because it promotes testosterone generation and testosterone has a lot of healthy effects to health.

Masturbation helps prevent cancer too, without talking about the stress relief effects.

If you want tomake a thread about how they are bad, by all means do, we'll discuss it there.

Haven't answered my question:

do you really believe that an orphanage is better for a child that two loving gay parents with good economical and emotional stability?

You've just illustrated my point perfectly. As far as your question, admittingly it's a tough one to answer. To me it seems like a choice between the lesser of two evils.

 

[Me Myself]

You've just illustrated my point perfectly. As far as your question, admittingly it's a tough one to answer. To me it seems like a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Checking info is a GOOD thing. By all means start your thread.

Abou the lesser of two evils, well, then start embracing, because there are too many kids in orphanages that are waiting and begging to be adopted.

It is even known that gay people are more prone to adopt those kids that are less likely to be adopted. Kids that have disabilities, or that are of the not "american dream" race or that are older than what couples are generaly looking for, etc.

Thank God for this couples. I can garantee you that this kids and teens pray every night to bed thanks to God because he gave them parents that love them.

 

[Draka]

You've just illustrated my point perfectly. As far as your question, admittingly it's a tough one to answer. To me it seems like a choice between the lesser of two evils.

So a loving and stable home with two parents is an "evil" comparable to getting lost in the shuffle of an orphanage or bounced around to group homes? I think that shows your fears and issues far more than anything else really.