Redefining Marriage

[The Voice of Reason]

Oddly the lack of a source was my problem. He provided no source to validate his claim of



And he provided no evidence or study to justify blaming homosexual marriages on the dismal born out-of-wedlock statistics.

Not to worry, Nessa. I'm sure someone will be along shortly, to accuse you of hypocrisy.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

This is anything but an honest two-way dialogue...

The dishonesty comes from those that desire to defend their position with anecdotal stories, while making claims that should be easy to substantiate, if they are based in facts.

If you are offended that others do not find extremely conservative publications to be "unbiased", then find other, more centrist publications that support your position. Better yet, find some peer reviewed, scientific studies that have been published in reputable magazines.

If you can't find such sources for your position, you really ought to have the strength of character to admit that it's possible that your position is indefensible.

 

[Father Heathen]

OK I'm done with this thread. I should have known better than to post here. This is anything but an honest two-way dialogue. Any source I give that doesn't favor the gay-marriage view is unacceptable. I doubt any source is good enough, if it doesn't favor your view. Yes, the National Review is conservative. Obviously that means it's garbage.

It wasn't because the article was conservative (although the bias was blatant), it was because it made unsubstantiated claims without citing the sources for it's data. It didn't even bother to explain the supposed links between gay marriage and children out of wedlock. Correlation doesn't imply causation. Overall, the article just didn't make any sense. How could you honestly expect us trust the credibility of such a dubious, unprofessional article? All it was is people grasping for straws in futile desperation to justify their opposition to gay marriage. Btw, posting a link to a propaganda site is hardly considered "two-way dialog". If I posted an anti-mormon article from an anti-mormon site, would you honestly give it an objective look and some serious consideration? I highly doubt it.

But it does represent the opinion of an awful lot of people in this country of ours. Again, that means nothing.

It does indeed mean nothing since it's based on religious rubbish which should have no bearing on the rights and liberty of others.

 

[DallasApple]

One time...at band camp.... met this guy .(he was straight)...and I was like "he's cute"...then I was 14 givign birth to a BABY OUT OF WEDLOCK!! ...Of course the m-effer ran off...My parents sued him for paternity ..ya dee da de da...

Now I'm married to him..he kisses my behiny and keeps trying to have more sex with me...(25 years later)

(we MUST be gay)....

Love

Dallas

 

[rvipac]

Hello, Im still newbie here in this forum although i already registered a long time..

I will just give my opinion regarding marriage:

I CORINTHIANS 7:12-15
"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. "

In the first Christian Church, there are members who's wife/husband is not a member of the church.. so it is not an argument if marrying should have the same religion or not..

 

[DallasApple]

Hello, Im still newbie here in this forum although i already registered a long time..

I will just give my opinion regarding marriage:

I CORINTHIANS 7:12-15
"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. "

In the first Christian Church, there are members who's wife/husband is not a member of the church.. so it is not an argument if marrying should have the same religion or not..

This is great scripture...And it can be used any way I see fit..

I GET to DECIDE if my husband is a believer or not..and he me...

Do you UNDERSTAND that...???

Who DECIDES???

Love

Dallas

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Hello, Im still newbie here in this forum although i already registered a long time..

I will just give my opinion regarding marriage:

I CORINTHIANS 7:12-15
"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. "

In the first Christian Church, there are members who's wife/husband is not a member of the church.. so it is not an argument if marrying should have the same religion or not..

Just out of curiosity - how do you interpret that passage? Do you read it to say that homosexuals shall not marry?

 

[McBell]

Interesting article.

Stanley Kurtz on Gay Marriage on National Review Online

"When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared."

Wow.
Interesting how same sex marriage has scared heterosexuals from marrying.
Wonder why that is?

OK I'm done with this thread. I should have known better than to post here. This is anything but an honest two-way dialogue.

Interesting that you source dishonest articles and then complain about honesty....

Any source I give that doesn't favor the gay-marriage view is unacceptable.

This is a cop out if I ever heard one.
One would think that by now you should know that if your source makes the same claims as you without sourcing anything that it will be discarded.
Why?
Because it no more useful than you making unsubstantiated claims.

I doubt any source is good enough, if it doesn't favor your view.

And this is any different with you, how?

Yes, the National Review is conservative. Obviously that means it's garbage.

i could care less if it is conservative, liberal, satanic, Christian, Muslim, etc.
If it does not have sources listed it is no better than your own un-sourced claim.
It seems that you fail to understand that you needs source something other than un-sourced opinion columns.

But it does represent the opinion of an awful lot of people in this country of ours. Again, that means nothing.

You are correct.
I do not buy into appeal to popularity fallacies, appeal to number fallacies, or even appeal to authority fallacies.

 

[Alceste]

I do think you are twisting the words somewhat. The point was

Some natural things are bad

There was no equating the homosexuality with the need for sympathy, or cannibalism etc. The point was as tastefully put as could be done, and whether or not you are inclined to agree with it, it was certainly a bit needless for you to get offended by it.

I'll go ahead and decide for myself what offends me, if that's alright with you. If there was no equating homosexuality with "bad" things in nature deserving our sympathy (cannibals? Poor sweet things!), why bring those things into it at all? I think, MC, it may actually be you who missed the point. Set out simply, it was "some natural things are bad. Therefore homosexuality is a bad thing. Therefore we should pity the homosexuals." Not only offensive, but logically unsustainable.

Edit: It's also worth a mention that nobody is campaigning to prevent cripples, cannibals or people with birth defects from marrying, so it's irrelevant to the thread anyway.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I'll go ahead and decide for myself what offends me, if that's alright with you. If there was no equating homosexuality with "bad" things in nature deserving our sympathy (cannibals? Poor sweet things!), why bring those things into it at all? I think, MC, it may actually be you who missed the point. Set out simply, it was "some natural things are bad. Therefore homosexuality is a bad thing. Therefore we should pity the homosexuals." Not only offensive, but logically unsustainable.

Edit: It's also worth a mention that nobody is campaigning to prevent cripples, cannibals or people with birth defects from marrying, so it's irrelevant to the thread anyway.

I still think your reason for offense is a result of stretching the words of the post beyond their intended meaning. By all means I would also be offended if the poster had said what you are implying was said. Perhaps the poster can be invited to explain the intention behind the words and clarify.

But yes, the point was on something of a tangent from the original topic.

 

[Troublemane]

I think one of the reasons for the decline in marriage is due to women's presence in the workplace, pursuing careers and not feeling the need to be married. Plus, more women are having children out of wedlock, here's a quote:

"In the United States, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that in 1992, 30.1 percent of births were to unmarried women. In 2006, that number had risen to 38.5 percent.Until recently, children born outside of marriage were termed illegitimate and suffered legal disadvantages and social stigma. In recent years the legal relevance of illegitimacy has declined and social acceptance increased, especially in western countries."

So, actually theres been a decline in marriage in all western countries, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

[Sunstone]

Me, I blame it on the women. But, then, I blame everything on women.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Me, I blame it on the women. But, then, I blame everything on women.

Me too. Of course, I have the good taste not to mention it to my wife ...

 

[Sunstone]

Of course, I have the good taste not to mention it to my wife ...

A wise move. IMHO, this country has gone downhill ever since the Second Amendment right to bear arms was extended to women.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

A wise move.

Let me assure you that it is a sagacity born of experience.

IMHO, this country has gone downhill ever since the Second Amendment right to bear arms was extended to women.

My wife told me the other day: "I just love the sound of that cast iron skillet, when it "pings" off your forehead".

I think she was kidding, but you never really know. They are devious little people, these women.

I outweigh her by almost 100 pounds, am 8 inches taller, and she has never lifted weights or boxed in her life. All this, and yet, somehow, she seems to be impervious to my bluster. Am I losing my touch?

 

[Alceste]

So, actually theres been a decline in marriage in all western countries, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Probably far more to do with birth control than anything else. Used to be we took the risk of unintentionally starting a "family" every time we went in for a bit of slap and tickle. Not that it stopped anyone...

It's also worth a mention that the article hangs its (unsubstantiated) "decline" of marriage on churches flying rainbow flags, when in fact the vast majority of Norwegians are atheists or agnostics. It's extremely unlikely religion over there has any influence on anything of note, whether or not they decide to "tolerate" everybody regardless of who they love.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Probably far more to do with birth control than anything else. Used to be we took the risk of unintentionally starting a "family" every time we went in for a bit of slap and tickle. Not that it stopped anyone...

It's also worth a mention that the article hangs its (unsubstantiated) "decline" of marriage on churches flying rainbow flags, when in fact the vast majority of Norwegians are atheists or agnostics. It's extremely unlikely religion over there has any influence on anything of note, whether or not they decide to "tolerate" everybody regardless of who they love.

Excellent post - and I just LOVE the "slap and tickle" line. I'll have to borrow that one, if you don't mind.

 

[Alceste]

Excellent post - and I just LOVE the "slap and tickle" line. I'll have to borrow that one, if you don't mind.

Actually, I read an article a while back that the birth rate overall in Northern European countries is declining. Just goes to show you that given the choice, and without the influence of religion, women prefer not to have to make new people all the time just to get a little sump'm sump'm. link

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that without religion, we may not be able to continue our drive to overpopulate the planet to the bursting point?

Tragic, that.

 

[Sunstone]

If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that without religion, we may not be able to continue our drive to overpopulate the planet to the bursting point?

Tragic, that.

The bursting point was reached at about 3 or 4 billion. We are now consuming at an unsustainable rate. I blame the women for that.