Thanda
Well-Known Member
Likewise Gays can have a civil union and not have a "marriage".
-
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!
Traditional Marriage, Why It Matters, All Churches, Christians, Islam and Jews only please?
- Thread starter Norman
- Start date
muichimotsu
Holding All and None
It doesn't have to be a religious thing, though it's not much different when it's done by totalitarian fiat in China. You don't have evidence to suggest that most people disapprove of gay marriage: bring up statistic,s if you want to try.
Not when their concerns are based in irrationality. They're afraid of perceived shadows that look like monsters when all it is are the shapes of hands, they miss the forest for the trees in their fear of anything different, which is not something we should support.
muichimotsu
Holding All and None
Civil union isn't marriage, but, more importantly, it isn't a necessary distinction when marriage, as many have argued in the last 10+ pages, isn't a uniquely religious institution by any means. You're trying to solve a problem by accommodating theocrats in America and thinking that gay people will be fine with an off brand version of marriage.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
They don't discuss noses, - they have a male and female screw**g, for procreation purposes, - and no words around the verse meaning marriage!
Grow up, and stop this bull.
*
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Are you asking for statistics about America, China or the world?
muichimotsu
Holding All and None
Whichever one you want to throw your hat in, I'm remaining skeptical anyway, especially since one study is usually not representative of the whole in any case, you HAVE to get aggregates of the studies. World opinion on gay marriage might be the most ambitious, so let's try that one, even if it's not germane to the discussion about American recognition of same sex marriage rights.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
LOL! I was including Heathen.
Trying to bring up My beliefs - is just a red herring on your part.
It does not matter if any of us are religious, or not.
Your moral ideas taken from your religion, - have no standing when it comes to common sense human rights.
Heterosexuals have the right to marry, so should homosexuals have the same right to marry.
Your objection - from your religion - has no standing - as it of course, should not.
This is not about - beliefs - it is about equal human rights.
You have no logical argument to prevent their marriages - My religion thinks it is immoral - has no logical standing in law.
*
Thanda
Well-Known Member
It is you who needs to grow up. It is you who started this argument. You took a position and based on the Bible not saying something about it. Now I just showed you that your argument makes no logical sense since on that basis I could just as well say that Adam didn't have a nose and didn't wear shoes. Just because the Bible did not say something it doesn't mean it didn't happen. The book of Genesis covers over 2000 years of History. I have no doubt Moses left out a lot of detail in that relatively short summary. How was he to know that 3 500 years later you and I would be having an argument about whether or not Adam was married. If he knew I'm sure he would have considered stating explicity stating the fact. The fact is it was an arranged marriage.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
LOL! You continue to mix things that can HURT YOU, with consensual sex - which does not.
You mix two things that do not belong together.
You continue to ignore that Legal Consent has to do with age related brain function. It is decided by science, to prevent pedophilia etc.
It has nothing to do with heterosexuals, or homosexuals deciding to marry. Or either deciding to never marry, etc.
Deciding when the brain reaches a point where it can make logical reasoned decisions, has NOTHING to do with homosexuality being moral or not.
We are discussing Human Rights issues, not what YOU think is moral.
EDIT - Forgot to add - you keep bringing it back to your religion! Your religion has no standing in a Human Rights issue.
Should Muslims be able to force their religious marriage laws on YOU???
A little Sharia Law to make your life miserable?
*
Last edited:
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Yes but "my religion believes" is more like "we in my religion believe". People of common belief come together and form a group. Therefore people decide what they will believe. If a people set of beliefs include a belief in the supernatural then their beliefs become "religious". But unless you believe their beliefs actually come from God then you have to accept that their beliefs are just their beliefs - like yours.
Other than my religious beliefs I believe gay marriage is wrong because it devalues my concept of marriage and it's purpose. The primary purpose of marriage according to me is procreation and the rearing and nurturing of future generations. It is also about passing down possessions to future generations. There is not doubt that we have progressed to where we are now as a society not because of gay unions but because of heterosexual unions. So opening up marriage to gay people means that some of the meaning of marriage has been lost. Indeed you may say, but what about people who can't have children? Well they usually don't know that until they are married - and it's the thought that counts.
What about those that don't want to have children? Well that is where the problem actually started. Gays are not the first people to try and devalue marriage. Marriage has been taking a battering for a long time now - no fault divorces, couples not wanting to have children, decriminalization of infidelity etc. So it is only natural that the time has come when it is finally devalued to the point of allowing gay marriage. Funny enough, as hard as gay people are fighting for the right to marry the time is soon coming when few will actually get married as people are already calling the whole institution into question. Many are questioning it's relevance in a "modern and enlightened" society.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
I guess there must be not a lot of agreement about the brain functions since the age of consent varies between 14 and 18 in the US alone.
muichimotsu
Holding All and None
So much wrong with this recent post: how is your marriage devalued because two people who love each other and may even have children also get married but they're of the same sex? And what if someone gets married who elects not to have children? Is that insulting your matrimony as well?
A purpose of marriage is procreation and family, but that doesn't mean it is required of a couple to be able to procreate or want to have children. Marriage is bigger than that and reducing it to state granted breeding rights is dehumanizing.
No one is saying gay people can have children by homosexual intercourse, you're creating an absurd strawman here. No one is encouraging people to not have children, that's one of their rights in the constitution, same as marriage.
The meaning isn't lost, it's merely sharing the purpose alongside something deeper than procreation: fidelity. If you didn't have fidelity, procreation would be little more than breeding without limits or constraints in the slightest.
Your target isn't just gay marriage then by your own admission, you're just picking that because it's an easy target.
Not wanting to have children is not comparable to the present system of no fault divorce, which wasn't mean tot be unilateral divorce by one partner. Do a little research and you'll see how the intent was actually to complement the already existing fault system of divorce.
They're questioning your antiquated ideas of marriage as just having babies and raising them when not all married couples should be compelled by social pressure to have children to begin with. It should be their choice, not something you insist on because otherwise it hurts your little feelings.
A purpose of marriage is procreation and family, but that doesn't mean it is required of a couple to be able to procreate or want to have children. Marriage is bigger than that and reducing it to state granted breeding rights is dehumanizing.
No one is saying gay people can have children by homosexual intercourse, you're creating an absurd strawman here. No one is encouraging people to not have children, that's one of their rights in the constitution, same as marriage.
The meaning isn't lost, it's merely sharing the purpose alongside something deeper than procreation: fidelity. If you didn't have fidelity, procreation would be little more than breeding without limits or constraints in the slightest.
Your target isn't just gay marriage then by your own admission, you're just picking that because it's an easy target.
Not wanting to have children is not comparable to the present system of no fault divorce, which wasn't mean tot be unilateral divorce by one partner. Do a little research and you'll see how the intent was actually to complement the already existing fault system of divorce.
They're questioning your antiquated ideas of marriage as just having babies and raising them when not all married couples should be compelled by social pressure to have children to begin with. It should be their choice, not something you insist on because otherwise it hurts your little feelings.
muichimotsu
Holding All and None
Methinks that age of consent isn't just about the individual, but including their parents, such as one of my cousins who got married when she was around 13 or 14 because her parents signed the relevant documents. She couldn't do it herself, that's how consent is limited in regards to minors.
I'm gonna do somehin' special, just for you. It only happens so often, because it's really hard to do. We're gonna time-travel!
This is you, were you born some 60 years ago!
You don't own marriage as a concept. No society does. It's older than your religion, older than my religion, ect. 'Marriage' has encompassed situations that 99% of us would find downright deplorable. Not too long ago, marriage was just a means by which a man was compensated for the loss of a farm-hand. It has been many different things through many different eras. It's a fluid concept. It can, will and does change with time.
You should, too.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Excuse me.
Is 54% "most people?"
I believe 54% would comprise "most people".
Well, according to Pew Research Center, 54% of Americans support gay marriage.
So, folloing your logic, it's important to take their concerns into account ....
=============================================================================================
Your problem again was you keep referring to people as christians. Do you know that interracial marriage was illegal in America? What religion was that? This wasn't a christianity thing. It was a belief thing. Most people believed interracial marriage was wrong. Now I must make a distinction here. Most people not linking a certain thing and most people believing something was wrong. Most people don't like golf. But they don't believe playing golf is wrong. People not liking same sex marriage was not important. People believing interracial marriage was wrong was important. If those people were in the overwhelming majority then it became important take their concerns into account.
Your problem again was you keep referring to people as christians. Do you know that desegregation was illegal in Southern States? What religion was that? This wasn't a christianity thing. It was a belief thing. Most people believed desegregation was wrong. Now I must make a distinction here. Most people not linking a certain thing and most people believing something was wrong. Most people don't like golf. But they don't believe playing golf is wrong. People not liking desegregation was not important. People believing desegregation was wrong was important. If those people were in the overwhelming majority then it became important take their concerns into account.
Your problem again is you keep referring to people as christians. Do you know that Women's Suffrage was illegal in America? What religion is that? This isn't a christianity thing. It was a belief thing. Most people believed Women's Suffrage was wrong. Now I must make a distinction here. Most people not being a certain thing and most people believing something was wrong. Most people don't like golf. But they don't believe playing golf is wrong. People not liking Women's Suffrage is not important. People believing Women's Suffrage was wrong is important. If those people are in the overwhelming majority then it becomes important take their concerns into account.
Your problem again is you keep referring to people as christians. Do you know that owning the Bible was illegal in Stalin Russia? What religion is that? This isn't a christianity thing. It was a belief thing. Most people .believed owning the Bible was wrong. Now I must make a distinction here. Most people not being a certain thing and most people believing something was wrong. Most people don't like golf. But they don't believe playing golf is wrong. People not liking owning the Bible is not important. People believing owning the Bible was wrong is important. If those people are in the overwhelming majority then it becomes important take their concerns into account.
Your problem again is you keep referring to people as christians. Do you know that Christianity was illegal in Imperial Rome? What religion is that? This isn't a christianity thing. It was a belief thing. Most people believed. Christianity was wrong. Now I must make a distinction here. Most people not being a certain thing and most people believing something was wrong. Most people don't like golf. But they don't believe playing golf is wrong. People not liking Christianity is not important. People believing Christianity was wrong is important. If those people are in the overwhelming majority then it becomes important take their concerns into account.
Your problem again is you keep referring to people as christians. Do you know that emancipation was illegal in South America? What religion is that? This isn't a christianity thing. It was a belief thing. Most people believed emancipation was wrong. Now I must make a distinction here. Most people not being a certain thing and most people believing something was wrong. Most people don't like golf. But they don't believe playing golf is wrong. People not liking emancipation is not important. People believing emancipation was wrong is important. If those people are in the overwhelming majority then it becomes important take their concerns into account.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
No - we were debating the subject. You are the one throwing out immature one-two -liners to people whom you don't agree with.
And why do you continue to equate things the Bible does not discuss, - with Adam and Cha'vah whom it does?
I did not take a position from it not discussing it. I took a position from a text which we DO have - that does not in any way mention or infer marriage.
It says what it says. A male and female were brought together for procreation purposes.
Anything beyond that is just you folks making up stuff.
*
Thanda
Well-Known Member
I agree. It will change. I don't necessarily like the fact that it will change (and I will resist it) but I accept that it will. But I don't like the idea of it being changed against the will of the people.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
NO! It does not give them the same legal rights that heterosexual couples have.
And that is a human rights issue, and just wrong.
*
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
No more red herrings.
No more trolling.
The brain function argument was 21 for drinking. It was an example that these rules are not just "made up". It's not the "popular opinion" you think it is. This goes for marriage, sex consent laws, driving cars, drinking alcohol, speed limits, what drugs are controlled or illicit or legal, and how often you can flush your toilet. Most laws are made the way they are made for a reason.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
As usual you bring it back around to YOUR beliefs, which are formed by your religion.
Gays marrying does not in any way devalue marriage. It is just more loving couples marrying.
Do you wish for the odd religious rituals and beliefs of other religions to be forced on you?
Is it logical or even right to force their religious beliefs on you?
As I said earlier - would you like to be forced under Muslim marriage Sharia Laws???
How about Ultra-Orthodox Jewish marriage beliefs - like shaving all of the hair off your head??
Pretty stupid to expect others to be forced under a RELIGION's religious ideas about marriage, - don't you think?
How about a nice black cover-up clear down to your feet? Must be a respectable wife.
*