Well, I know my sisters very well. All too well.lain:
You can know someone from the time you were born, however, you still have no knowledge of everything that goes on inside a couple's marriage.
The “no difference” theory is dead: Same sex parenting
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
You can know someone from the time you were born, however, you still have no knowledge of everything that goes on inside a couple's marriage.
TracerBullet
New member
Why do you oppose polygamy and/or incestuous marriage?
PureX
Well-known member
So far, I do not see these as attempts at "redefining" marriage. Only attempts at expanding inclusion.
In fact, it seems to me it's the religious right that wants to actually redefine marriage; based on the idea that marriage should be for the purpose of avoiding the sin of fornication, and for encouraging procreation. These are not the current standard reasons for the institution of marriage in our society, and they are not the current defining legal imperatives, either. The fundamental definition of marriage in our society is to facilitate pair-bonding, in both the social (functional, ethical) and economical (protective, legal) sense. "Sin" and procreation are not currently a significant concern of the institution of marriage in our society. It's the religious right that wants to change the definition of marriage, to change that. Not those who simply want everyone to have equal access to the practice.
Actually the comparison needs to be made to both adopted and biological families.
And those who have one biological parent in a same-sex relationship should also not be forgotten.
GFR7
New member
True points.........
Well, throwing my question under the bus in an effort to score a cheap point works in the short term.....I suppose. :idunno:
Again, is this rather a case of broadening the notion of marriage of which the religious right holds (unjustly) a special interest in maintaining it's narrow focus? Rather, the whole "redefining" movement is merely a right-wing political stratagem, effectively instilling common conservatives with a unfounded sense of indignation and encrouchment upon their belief.
Strong in conservative opposition is the prescriptive assumption that homosexuality is a sin i.e. an elective choice, one that is morally wrong and must be purged or kept from social/official recognition. The problem here is that there is a conspicuous lack of equivilent nor compelling secular argumentation as to why a secular government should partake in such an dubious, special-interested view ....wholly unlike the current pologamy and incestuous campaigns for marriage inclusion.
Last edited:
Christians don't :idunno:
there's no scriptural support for ending a marriage based on abuse
oatmeal
Well-known member
It is clear that same sex sex is a gross perversion of the norm.
There fore it corrupts the relationships of peoples involved in it, and those close to them
Poison is poison
GFR7
New member
You have a point there. Not for adultery, either. :think: I don't recall what I said that in response to......Oh, I think Town asking me if my daughter were being beaten half to death....
He was setting a trap, perhaps.
adultery is the only justification for ending a marriage
he's a tricksy hobbits, that town is
GFR7
New member
Some Christians believe it is not.
GFR7
New member
It is. And yet somewhere on TOL - cannot recall just now where - someone made a very strong case that under a proper translation, fornication and adultery are separate , with the latter not being cause for divorce. Sorry I cannot recall where :idunno:
Do not forget Jesus said "Moses gave you the law of divorce due to the hardness of your hearts".
The New Testament presents a problem in understanding both what the text says about divorce and its pastoral implications. Jesus appears to say that divorce is allowed only if adultery has occurred: "Whoever divorces a wife, except for sexual indecency, and remarries, commits adultery" (Matt. 19:9). However, this has been interpreted in many different ways. Most say that Jesus allows divorce only for adultery. But some argue that Jesus originally didn't allow even that. Only in Matthew does he offer an out from marriage: "except for sexual indecency."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/october/20.26.html
And:
There are NO Biblical Grounds for DIVORCE!
God NEVER forsakes or disowns His own! Why should it be any different in the Christian family, or marriage? I am dismayed, and saddened, that so many believers, even preachers, think that it's ok for someone to file for divorce if a spouse commits the sin of adultery. Does God forsake us when we sin? No, Hebrews 13:5 clearly states that God has PROMISED never to forsake or leave us. Yet, hypocritically, professed Christians fail to follow the example which Jesus Christ has set for the Church to follow. It is a woeful sin for anyone to abandon their spouse, by filing for divorce.
What About Continued Adultery?
I love Dr. John R. Rice, and he is one of my personal heroes; BUT, I couldn't disagree with him more concerning the matter of divorce. Brother Rice published a booklet titled, Divorce, in which he teaches that a person may Biblically divorce their spouse if guilty of what he terms "continued adultery." He also teaches that such a person if Biblically free to remarry. Now, that's not Biblical, for several reasons, and I'll explain each of them to you:
The Word of God Teaches Unlimited Forgiveness. Matthew 18:21,22 states... "Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven." 7 x 70 = 490 times! In other words... unlimited forgiveness! I know a woman who divorced her husband, because he had commit fornication on numerous occasions. Although her husband begged her in tears for forgiveness, and told her he still loved her, and didn't want a divorce, she divorced him anyway. That wife sinned horribly, and must give account to God for breaking her marriage vows, quitting, and abandoning her husband who objected to the divorce.
It is the epitome of self-righteous hypocrisy and unforgiveness for a person to file for divorce, when the guilty spouse is repentant, and is begging for mercy, but there is none. What if God did that to the Christian who sins repeatedly? If God did, we'd all be burning in Hellfire where we deserve to go, because we are ALL guilty sinners! There is NOT a day that passes, but that each believer is guilty of committing sins... repeatedly! So what gives one the sanctimonious right to bring down the iron-fist of judgment on their spouse, by divorcing them for sins committed?
Clearly, a person cannot genuinely offer forgiveness to their spouse, while mercilessly divorcing them at the same time. Divorce is synonymous with unforgiveness, and God will not forgive those who refuse to forgive their spouse, by committing the sin of divorce (Matthew 6:15). There must be reconciliation (Matthew 5:23,24). Divorce is NEVER the Christian answer to marriage problems.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/no_grounds.htm
Truths4yer
New member
Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Paul Sullins of "The Catholic University of America" is the sole author of the study in this "British" journal, which has no apparent impact factor at all, is edited by 5 Americans and a person from China (?British) and was only created in 2011. Sullins' few other papers in publications with similarly non-existent impact factors include one entitled "American Catholics and Same-Sex 'Marriage'", published by "Catholic Social Science Review".
Below are some extracts from the study; Dr Paul Sullins, 2015, British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, DOI:10.9734/BJESBS/2015/15823
"The present study examines combined 1997-2013 NHIS data... The NHIS sample included 2,751 same sex couples—2,304 cohabiting and 447 spousal... For this study, same-sex couples were identified as those persons whose reported spouse or cohabiting partner was of the same sex as themselves... for each family that includes children under age 18, detailed supplemental health information is collected for one child chosen at random".
"Emotional problems were over twice as prevalent (minimum risk ratio (RR) 2.4)... for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents... Biological parentage nullified risk alone and in combination with any iteration of factors."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537
The study's table 2 shows that the mean age of the kids was 8.5. Joint SS couple adoption was only legal in one state in 1997. This study is therefore not a study of same-sex adopters or even of artificial inseminators given that 30% of the same-sex parents were male and given the rarity of that, even among lesbians at the time.
The study is actually a comparison of the progeny of failed heterosexual relationships who's parents are now in a cohabiting same-sex relationship versus progeny from a population of largely intact, married couples. An accurate and impartial comparison would require heterosexual adopters and artificial inseminaters to be compared to homosexual ones. Heterosexual couplings involving a homosexual may also be more prone to conflict on average if formed due to social pressures, rather than genuine, mutual attraction.
Sullins notes "the increased emotional and adjustment problems evidenced by children in single-parent, divorced and blended families".
GLAD's Partial Timeline of Adoption Rights for LGBT People:
1997 – “New Jersey becomes first state to expressly authorize joint adoption by gay couples.”
https://www.glad.org/30years/pdfs/adoptiontimeline.pdf
Gina Kolata, 30/01/1989, The NY Times, Lesbian Partners Find The Means to Be Parents:
"R. James Fagelson, a director of the Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition International, based in Washington, said a recent survey of the group's 30,000 American members revealed that 5 percent of the lesbians had babies by artificial insemination. Three years ago, the figure was 1 to 2 percent. The group's membership continues to be made up mostly of homosexuals who had children in previous heterosexual relationships."
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/30/us/lesbian-partners-find-the-means-to-be-parents.html
I skim read some discussion of slippery slope fallacies so I'll share a link to my essay on that, which demonstrates that, if anything, the evidence suggests that acceptance of same-sex relationships is protective against polygamy/incest. Polygamy is biblically sanctioned & never condemned btw. The only prohibitions are for clergymen (1 wife only) and Kings (not too many).
http://homoresponse.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/slippery-slope-fallacy.html
How is that a trap? It's a legitimate question. I am assuming that you love your child and would wish to do EVERYTHING in your power to protect him/her. IF he/she were being beaten by their spouse, I can't understand any parent/sibling/relative/friend/co-worker advising them to stay. To be beaten more ... and possibly killed.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
He wasn't setting a trap. Common sense dictates that a victim of an abusive relationship should have a 'get out' clause including marriage.
You're both thick and nuts, aren't you?