And that would depend very much on your values. My values would actually require a society to do it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Marriage and sexuality
- Thread starter Kerr
- Start date
Perfect Circle
Just Browsing
You have a very Orwellian view of things Madhatter...
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
the nuclear family???
dude, you're 50 years too late
50 years....
nuclear family, thats hilarious
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Of course we're not required to, you could have saved yourself the trouble. The question is, should we? And the answer, of course, is yes.
enchanted_one1975
Resident Lycanthrope
While we are at it, let's get rid of Social Security, the Veteran's Administration, and the Food Stamp program. While the people on these programs may have been useful at one time, they are not currently helping the typical "nuclear family" at all. Let's just push them all aside and forget about them and just take care of the working, heterosexual, white male. :sarcastic
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
No, no - it's pronounced nu-cu-ler. Nuculer family.
madhatter85
Transhumanist
How does this even apply to the topic?
The latest posts since my response have been nothing but contemptuous, sarcastic drivel and/or personal attacks.
If you are unable to conjure up an argument that has to do with the topic at hand, I would suggest you refrain from posting and concede the debate.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
madhatter seems to think that he's won the thread. Of course, if that were true, he could easily tell us whether heterosexual couples who do not desire to have their own biological children should be allowed to marry. Oddly, he seems reluctant to do so. Why might that be, do you suppose? Perhaps someone would like to remind him that he has neglected this tiny little detail of his argument?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Well, if you were to start actually debating....
You do know that merely repeating yourself ad nauseum and ignoring everything that shows you are wrong is not debating, right?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Delusion springs eternal.
madhatter85
Transhumanist
Nothing presented with any credibility has conflicted with my statements.
The only things people have claimed have been personal opinion or unfounded comments.
enchanted_one1975
Resident Lycanthrope
Cramming your warped prejudiced views into our ears until it spills out of our mouths won't work on this one.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Nothing presented with any credibility has conflicted with my statements.
The only things people have claimed have been personal opinion or unfounded comments.
wrong, I have presented scientific conjecture and evidnece from studies
that are NOT my opinion and COUNTER your statements
You just chooe to ignore them....
but that seems par of the course
Must point out that you have done the same. It is all based in our value system, really, where I come from marriage and relationships is not first hand about children, it is about love. Where I come from sexuality is not just about children either, it can be many things. For pleasure, an expression of love, and so on. Our values are the basis of our opinions and often also shape in what way we look at the truth.Nothing presented with any credibility has conflicted with my statements.
The only things people have claimed have been personal opinion or unfounded comments.
Humanity would not survive if everyone only had sex with the same sex, true (not counting artificial means and so). But homosexuality has never threatened to do this, infact it seems to appear naturally in many places in nature without every causing a specie to go extinct or even be a factor for that. Same sex marriages would not change this.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
you can ignore posts 96, 190, 197, 213, 265, and 270 (just to point out a few) all you want.Nothing presented with any credibility has conflicted with my statements.
The only things people have claimed have been personal opinion or unfounded comments.
However, your ignoring them does not make them go away.
making comments like "Nothing presented with any credibility has conflicted with my statements." with posts like 96, 190, 197, 213, 265, and 270 (just to point out a few) glaring readers right in the face only makes you look even more desperate.
Or perhaps the correct term would be pathetic?
madhatter85
Transhumanist
madhatter85
Transhumanist
That is actually a very good question. However, people seem to think marriage is secular. But that is also for a different debate. The reason i point this out is SSM pundits blatantly disregard not only the full sentence in the Loving v. Virginia ruling, but also forget that the Loving v. Virginia case was about ethnicity, to which homosexuality has nothing in common.
madhatter85
Transhumanist
I did respond to those posts. I cited sources for my arguments. You are the one who refuses to acknowledge them. The actual evidence in the studies posed by YamiB only support my position. The Conjecture however, is simply conjecture.
enchanted_one1975
Resident Lycanthrope
I have explained over and over again how there is no difference between a interracial marriage and a homosexual marriage as far as discrimination goes. You just choose to ignore what you wish. You are losing what little credibility you thought you had with each and every post. I just regret that you are probably a registered voter.