• 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?

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
This is where my Church stands on same-sex marriage. I concur with Elder Perry.
Where do other Churches stand on ths issue?....................
Hello Norman.
I have not replied to your thread before, because you excluded me and half the world from it.
But now I notice that atheists are replying, so I guess that a deist might respond as well?
In England, same-sex couples can marry in some churches now.
They might not be able to marry in your churches, because you make up rules as written down in the bible. But you cherry-pick your rules, don't you? Or are you saying that you give full attention and obeisance to all bible rules?
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
So because I am religious you are going to label all my beliefs as religious even when I specifically say "Other than my religious beliefs"? Well then I guess I can't win with you. I'm a Christian so my opinion doesn't count if it disagrees with yours since my opinion must of necessity be born out of my religious affiliation.

....

You are using the word immoral as your reason for not wanting Gay marriage!

You have provided no logical reason for no Gay marriage!


You just give us your religious backed - moral excuse.

*
 

muichimotsu

Holding All and None
Morality shouldn't automatically be associated with a religious perspective, you can just as easily appeal to morality in a secular philosophical worldview, technically speaking. Religion does it more often, but let's not start stereotyping.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Morality shouldn't automatically be associated with a religious perspective, you can just as easily appeal to morality in a secular philosophical worldview, technically speaking. Religion does it more often, but let's not start stereotyping.

True, :) but he? she? has given no scientific, or even logical reason for homosexuals not being able to get married.

Especially as he says he has a religion, and we just keep getting the word "immoral," with no science or logic behind it.

*
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium 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.
Huh. Respect where it's due. You took that far better than your peers tend to.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
Did Thanda cite religious beliefs as the basis of his opposition? The posts were coming so fast, I may have missed one or two. What I personally observed he used was cultural beliefs rather than religious.

She has decided that since I'm Christian all my views are based on Christianity and are therefore invalid - at least to her views based on religion are invalid and should never make it to law.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
That is obviously the law brought about by testing and observation. What is your point?

Back to you have no right to force your religious beliefs into human rights.

*
Please show this testing and observation - specifically I would like you to show the part where the number 18 shows up as being the optimum age. We need evidence here.

And what are these Human Rights? Since when did humans become anything more than talking animals? What makes them so special that they should have a rule other than the survival of the fittest? Where do you get these "beliefs" of yours. They are not scientific. They are based on sentiment and emotions. They should have no place in US law!
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
True, :) but he? she? has given no scientific, or even logical reason for homosexuals not being able to get married.

Especially as he says he has a religion, and we just keep getting the word "immoral," with no science or logic behind it.

*

Indeed, I must have missed that part where immorality became a scientific field of study.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
Hello Norman.
I have not replied to your thread before, because you excluded me and half the world from it.
But now I notice that atheists are replying, so I guess that a deist might respond as well?
In England, same-sex couples can marry in some churches now.
They might not be able to marry in your churches, because you make up rules as written down in the bible. But you cherry-pick your rules, don't you? Or are you saying that you give full attention and obeisance to all bible rules?

He specifically said that his view is not based on Bible exegesis. He said his rule is based on modern revelation. In other words he is saying his view is based on what God is teaching today, not what he taught thousands of years ago.
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
You are using the word immoral as your reason for not wanting Gay marriage!

You have provided no logical reason for no Gay marriage!


You just give us your religious backed - moral excuse.

*

I think this needs a valid answer. What is a logical reason or valid moral reason for banning gay marriage? Why is it immoral?

Please show this testing and observation - specifically I would like you to show the part where the number 18 shows up as being the optimum age. We need evidence here.

And what are these Human Rights? Since when did humans become anything more than talking animals? What makes them so special that they should have a rule other than the survival of the fittest? Where do you get these "beliefs" of yours. They are not scientific. They are based on sentiment and emotions. They should have no place in US law!

Good questions. I'll let the one you posed these questions to have a crack.

Indeed, I must have missed that part where immorality became a scientific field of study.

 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Please show this testing and observation - specifically I would like you to show the part where the number 18 shows up as being the optimum age. We need evidence here.

And what are these Human Rights? Since when did humans become anything more than talking animals? What makes them so special that they should have a rule other than the survival of the fittest? Where do you get these "beliefs" of yours. They are not scientific. They are based on sentiment and emotions. They should have no place in US law!

LOL! If there are no human rights - then anyone can pack you off as a slave.

Obviously we have come up with legal ages from observation and statistics.

Survival of the fittest went out with the cave men.

And if you are referring to Darwin - you don't understand what he wrote. The fittest are not necessarily the strongest, biggest, etc. They might be the smallest if that is what is need to survive the extinction event.

My question to you is - why do you keep twisting this conversation into red-herrings?

What is your scientific and or logical reason for not wanting gay people to have the same human rights as you enjoy?

*
 
Last edited:

Thanda

Well-Known Member
So what is your scientific and logical reason for not wanting Gay people to be able to get married like heterosexual people?

*

I have stated it before, it devalues marriage. Let us take an MBA for example. There are certain requirements to getting one. It is valued because we all know what it takes to have it and we know it is not easy. We know that a person with that certification can do certain things and can contribute in a specific way to a company and society as a whole. Marriage used to be similar. It used to speak to the circle of life. The continuation, increase and progress of the human family. It raised hopes for the rise of a new generation. That's why in almost every culture - even where marriages are arranged and there is no love involved - marriages are usually the biggest festivals and are celebrated greatly. The hype is died down in recent years, especially in western culture. People get married but don't want to have children. Cheating is no longer considered a crime. A husband has no duties to his wife and a wife has no duties to her husband. You can get divorced for any reason. Indeed gay marriage is quite a late arrival to the devaluation of marriage. But it does devalue it nevertheless.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
LOL! If there are no human rights - then anyone can pack you off as a slave.

My question to you is - why do you keep twisting this conversation into red-herrings?

What is your scientific and or logical reason for not wanting gay people to have the same human rights as you enjoy?

*


Yes they can and they have to some. Human rights are a human construct. We decided - at some point - that there should be certain basic rights. This is not something that exists objectively and it cannot be scientifically proven. Human rights are based on humans feelings of empathy and a sense of justice. Basically it is a result of human's sense of morality. Morals change and so do rights. They change according to the minds and will of the people. Therefore gay marriage is a basic right only as far as the people believe marriage should be a basic right for all.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
I think this needs a valid answer. What is a logical reason or valid moral reason for banning gay marriage? Why is it immoral?



Good questions. I'll let the one you posed these questions to have a crack.




I'm at work so I can't watch the video. I guess people need work don't they, they'll make a field of study out of anything:).

I have already answered your first question in two posts to Ingledsva.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Yes they can and they have to some. Human rights are a human construct. We decided - at some point - that there should be certain basic rights. This is not something that exists objectively and it cannot be scientifically proven. Human rights are based on humans feelings of empathy and a sense of justice. Basically it is a result of human's sense of morality. Morals change and so do rights. They change according to the minds and will of the people. Therefore gay marriage is a basic right only as far as the people believe marriage should be a basic right for all.

Of course they change with time, - we become smarter, - have better science, - and a better understanding of world human rights.

So what is your point?

We have human rights at this point - voted on, and sanctioned by the majority of the world.

You have the right to marry - logically so should they - especially as you can show no logical reason why they should not.

I will ask again -

What is your scientific or logical reason for Gay people not being allowed to get married?

*
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Marriage used to be similar. It used to speak to the circle of life.

Your marriage may still speak of the circle of life. If that is what gives your marriage meaning, that can be respected. In fact, I see that as quite beautiful. But that has only to do with your marriage and with those who share your wonderful view of marriage. It has nothing to do with anyone else's marriage; and neither do their marriages have anything to do with yours.

The continuation, increase and progress of the human family.

Gay couples are a family. Many are adopting and raising offspring. Some bring offspring from previous heterosexual encounters and include them in a family. There are many orphans and children worldwide who need better homes than what they currently have. They can find that home and find a family with two parents of the same gender. Or with a single parent. Or with heterosexual barren parents. Or with heterosexual "traditionally married" parents who wish to give a child opportunities they wouldn't ordinarily have had.

It raised hopes for the rise of a new generation.

That's not marriage. That is procreation.

That's why in almost every culture - even where marriages are arranged and there is no love involved - marriages are usually the biggest festivals and are celebrated greatly.

Each celebration took place for different reasons. As an example, an "arranged marriage" between Dark Ages/Middle Ages civilizations sealed agreements of ending wars, cease fires and alliances. So the belief that the celebrations were always about the married couple may not always be accurate.

People get married but don't want to have children.

Maybe they have good reason. Maybe one is emotionally challenged and they don't feel they would be good parents. Maybe their society is troubled to the point that they don't wish to bring children into the hardship. Maybe they believe that their financial resources are inadequate to give a child the future they deserve. Maybe one or the other carries a genetic defect that they don't want to risk passing on to a child. There are many reasons why a couple would choose to not have children. Maybe some of these reasons are actually selflessness, instead of the selfishness you perceive them to be.

Cheating is no longer considered a crime.

But even in places where it's not considered a "crime", it is still considered "immoral".

A husband has no duties to his wife and a wife has no duties to her husband.

In many societies, the spouses decide for themselves what each other's duties to each other are. While this may not fit with tradition, this may have a beauty of its own.

You can get divorced for any reason.

This is because of misogyny and concerns of domestic abuse. It may not be an entirely different thing.

Indeed gay marriage is quite a late arrival to the devaluation of marriage. But it does devalue it nevertheless.

I fail to see how my hypothetical (sadly nonexistent) same sex marriage devalues your marriage; which you have described to me to have a stunning depth and beauty of its own. My own marriage -- the commitment between two people who wish to be partners and see each other through the joys and pains of life to the very end; regardless of and blind to gender; has its own unique value that is separate and a non-statement on the value of your marriage.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
I have stated it before, it devalues marriage. Let us take an MBA for example. There are certain requirements to getting one. It is valued because we all know what it takes to have it and we know it is not easy. We know that a person with that certification can do certain things and can contribute in a specific way to a company and society as a whole. Marriage used to be similar. It used to speak to the circle of life. The continuation, increase and progress of the human family. It raised hopes for the rise of a new generation. That's why in almost every culture - even where marriages are arranged and there is no love involved - marriages are usually the biggest festivals and are celebrated greatly. The hype is died down in recent years, especially in western culture. People get married but don't want to have children. Cheating is no longer considered a crime. A husband has no duties to his wife and a wife has no duties to her husband. You can get divorced for any reason. Indeed gay marriage is quite a late arrival to the devaluation of marriage. But it does devalue it nevertheless.

You THINKING it devalues marriage - does not make it so.

The section I highlighted in RED - which you see as devaluing marriage - in no way actually does so.

There is obviously still a circle of life when Gay people marry.

Gay people have children, and adopt - and raise - all those throw away children, - thus the same continuance and progress of the human family.

Why are you bringing back in the red-herrings? Already existing Heterosexual marriage problems? Which sound awfully religious orientated I might add?

*
 

muichimotsu

Holding All and None
First off, the most glaring problem here is that you mistakenly think people don't regard infidelity as bad, which I'd say is completely the opposite of what is considered general morality. Taking pop culture in America is no better than people generalizing Africans because of bad info.

Just because people don't have children doesn't mean they don't want them entirely, There are economic factors to consider, which is a strong reason whythere's less children in America,. Japan's birth rate is a whole other thing and I don't think it has anything to do with no fault divorce, cheating is seen as bad and I don't believe they have gay marriage, so that already undermines your argument.
 
Top