Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

[glassjester]

Like you, I am subject to the wishes of God.
I am weak against God's overwhelming power.
Into God's hands I put my trust.

Then trust His Word.

So the stuff you make up about me...... is just stuff.

I hope so. I hope I was wrong, and you do trust Scripture - whether or not in conforms to your personal opinion.

 

[Eeset]

18.

I think a couple of the states have a slightly higher age limit. Maybe only by a year or two.

16 in Kentucky with one parent consenting.

 

[glassjester]

16 in Kentucky with one parent consenting.

Yes, that goes for most of the states. I said 18 as the age for marriage without any parental consent.

 

[dodge]

Nah........ It's good for people.

Sure it is it is good for a man and a woman. The reason scripture is man woman specific is because same sex is an abomination to God.

 

[eider]

Lipstick does.

No it doesn't!
I can think of heterosexual men who need to use lipstick....!
Let your mind wander around that fact in freedom from dogma, and you will see that I am right.

 

[eider]

18.

I think a couple of the states have a slightly higher age limit. Maybe only by a year or two.

Rubbish! Absolute rubbish!


EDIT: I see, further down, that you have been corrected.

And so children can marry in the USA, which is perfectly reasonable for folks in love who sincerely believe that they can stick together.

 

[glassjester]

Rubbish! Absolute rubbish!


EDIT: I see, further down, that you have been corrected.

And so children can marry in the USA, which is perfectly reasonable for folks in love who sincerely believe that they can stick together.

!8 is the age when someone's allowed to marry freely.

With parental consent, the age limit differs by state. But there still is a limit.
We don't allow a 45-year-old man to marry a 6-year-old boy, for example.
Why do you suppose that is?

Anyway, what is your point?

 

[glassjester]

No it doesn't!
I can think of heterosexual men who need to use lipstick....!
Let your mind wander around that fact in freedom from dogma, and you will see that I am right.

Whatever.

...maybe we have two different definitions of lipstick.

 

[ok doser]

We don't allow a 45-year-old man to marry a 6-year-old boy, for example.

I-durrr would argue that if they were in love, they should be allowed to, because Jesus would want them to be happy :dizzy:

 

[glassjester]

I-durrr would argue that if they were in love, they should be allowed to, because Jesus would want them to be happy :dizzy:

He should really take this opportunity to disagree with you.

 

[glassjester]

I-durrr would argue that if they were in love, they should be allowed to, because Jesus would want them to be happy :dizzy:

Strange, though, that none of our laws about marriage make any mention of love. They do, however, correlate 1:1 with who is and isn't allowed, by social standards, to have sex with each other.

 

[MrDante]

I also said Freddie Mercury was a great singer. So... you're wrong.

except I'm talking about an entier population and you are tryiing to use a singular example. so get real.

And be real, Mr. Dante. Society only bans marriages between people whose sexual union is deemed to be immoral.

Like interracial marriage

We don't let pedophiles marry kids. Why? Because it's immoral to have sex with kids. We don't allow siblings to marry. Why? Because it's immoral for siblings to have sex with each other.

It's actaully based on the concept of consent.

That's what it's based on. Sex.

again with your obsession

So when we're discussing the morality of homosexual marriage, it inevitably becomes a conversation about the morality of homosexual activity.

Deal with it.

)Only becasue you are incapable of talking about it in any other terms.

Is your marriage only about sex? Of course not.
I get why you insist on focusing only on sex, doing so while refusing to acknowledge love and commitment and family allows you to promote hate by presenting this group as something less than human beings, they exist only because of their animalistic instincts and demonstrating that they could never be capable of "true" love. Racists do the same thing.

 

[MrDante]

18.

I think a couple of the states have a slightly higher age limit. Maybe only by a year or two.

Most states allow for girls to marry at much younger ages.
In Virginia, a girl can be married at age 12 if she is pregnant.

 

[glassjester]

I get why you insist on focusing only on sex, doing so while refusing to acknowledge love and commitment and family allows you to promote hate by presenting this group as something less than human beings, they exist only because of their animalistic instincts and demonstrating that they could never be capable of "true" love. Racists do the same thing.

You've accused me of this before.

The first time, you may have been mistaken.
I corrected you. Which means now it is just plain dishonest.

Please show me where I ever said that homosexuals are incapable of love or commitment.
I'll save you some time - I've never said it. Because I do not believe it.

What I do believe, however, is that marriage cannot be regulated solely on the basis of "being in love."

Do you believe it should be?

 

[eider]

!8 is the age when someone's allowed to marry freely.

And so minors can marry..... yes?

With parental consent, the age limit differs by state. But there still is a limit.
We don't allow a 45-year-old man to marry a 6-year-old boy, for example.

Never...... I never could have guessed. You were just so instructive yesterday.
Did you think that an 18yr old lady could marry a 6tr old boy, by any chance.

...... it might be best for you to just quote your States/Country's legislation, because most everything you write about it is horribly misleading.

 

[eider]

Whatever.

...maybe we have two different definitions of lipstick.

No........ lipstick is the same.
Our definitions do differ, but not about lipstick, more about open-mind.

You must worry so much about how you dress, cut your hair, walk, sit, talk........ I mean, any bigot could look, get the wrong idea and point finger at you, shouting their prejudice.

 

[eider]

I-durrr would argue that if they were in love, they should be allowed to, because Jesus would want them to be happy :dizzy:

Hello dosey!
Why does my heart give a little jump for joy, every time I see your posts?


Dosey...... there might be somebody, somewhere in the world who can make love muddier, dirtier and nastier than you can ...... but I doubt it dosey! :chuckle:

Lesson for today:- ummmmm...... oh, yes!
1 Peter 2:1


I like you, dosey!

 

[eider]

He should really take this opportunity to disagree with you.

Oh...... no!
Disagree with Dosey?
What would be the point of that?

Your mind surely cannot have figured that I would ever support the idea or prasctice of very young folks marrying?

What was it? 45-6 ? Who would even think like that...... you?

 

[eider]

Strange, though, that none of our laws about marriage make any mention of love. They do, however, correlate 1:1 with who is and isn't allowed, by social standards, to have sex with each other.

Of course they don't!
A marriage service repeats the word a few times.
But come on, just think, and then tell us all why common-sense legislation would omit any definition of, or use of, or inclusion of..... the word 'Love'.

 

[eider]

except I'm talking about an entier population and you are tryiing to use a singular example. so get real.

You want these folks to get real?
I've read about miracles, but that really would be pushing credibility. :chuckle:

Like interracial marriage

Wasn't that unlawful in some States, only 50 years ago?
I guess somebody had read something in their translation of the Bible, back then, to outlaw that as well.

Only becasue you are incapable of talking about it in any other terms.

It's fascinating...... how some folks, a very few Christians even, can turn a beautiful condition into a cess-pit?

I get why you insist on focusing only on sex, doing so while refusing to acknowledge love and commitment and family allows you to promote hate by presenting this group as something less than human beings, they exist only because of their animalistic instincts and demonstrating that they could never be capable of "true" love. Racists do the same thing.

We are our thoughts?