toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[chrysostom]

So you DO agree that a couple (including those who are Christian) who find out after marriage that they can't have children should be required to divorce?

You do agree that the old "In sickness and in health" goes out the window and is trumped by "You promised me babies. Get out of my home, you cancerous wench!"?

no to both

 

[Rusha]

no to both

How can you disagree considering your stance that marriage is produce babies?

 

[chrysostom]

How can you disagree considering your stance that marriage is produce babies?

as I indicated in a previous post it is practical to treat all marriages the same
and
it doesn't make sense to monitor what they are doing

 

[Town Heretic]

Like I said, marriage as a positively aided status before the government is not a mere contract between two parties. It's simply a fact. :e4e:

And as I continue to note, it depends on the individual. The state's relation is in contract. The additional import follows that individual.

:e4e:

 

[Rusha]

as I indicated in a previous post it is practical to treat all marriages the same
and
it doesn't make sense to monitor what they are doing

Why do you refuse to answer the question directly?

Is marriage, IYO, for the main purpose of procreation?

 

[Four O'Clock]

I haven't read all the responses but I'll go with Elton John's view about 3-4 years ago.
We all know his lifestyle. He said (and I paraphrase):
"I'm against same-sex marriages. The tradition of marriage spans thousands of years and should not be changed. I would only support a civil-union bonding, specifically allowing the partner of a terminally ill gay person full visitation rights and carte blanche decisions regarding their estate and holdings."

Actually why should an atheist hetero-couple be bound by any church or religious dictate regarding marriage? Virtually all of them get married in a civil ceremony. I would only support a civil-union bonding among samesexers but with all the rights that I mentioned before.

Why is that so difficult to deal with? Is Western Civilization going to collapse over this???

Geez-o-pete, a hetero couple with greedy big bucks can fly to Vegas, get ****-faced, do a drive thru wedding, performed by some wacko Elvis-impersonator, fly home and get a divorce or annulment the next day!! Given our Lord's word on marriage, is that any better than a civil union bonding???

 

[zippy2006]

Like I said, marriage as a positively aided status before the government is not a mere contract between two parties. It's simply a fact.

And as I continue to note, it depends on the individual. The state's relation is in contract. The additional import follows that individual.

:e4e:

The additional import is objective. e.g. tax benefits

 

[zippy2006]

How did you determine that homosexuality is disordered in view of natural law?

here

 

[zippy2006]

Here is one study that supports genes for male homosexuality being a "buffer effect" against human extinction. For an interesting article that looks briefly at the implications of the study see Sexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality.

It's merely a theory, it notes itself that no evidence for for an actual homosexual gene has been found. :idunno:

2. It has been essentially unanimously agreed that it precisely wouldn't be unassailable at all if that were the case.

On what grounds would you condemn God's design of mankind?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Romans 9:20.

:chuckle: Do men sin? Are we fallen creatures?

 

[Town Heretic]

The additional import is objective. e.g. tax benefits

Rather, that's the contractual inequity existing at present and without justification from any but a religious angle--which isn't the proper role of the state. Current circumstances have overridden the fundamental and foundational issue of equity. They will eventually fall for that reason.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

So any individual, including couples, who are incapable of procreation should not be allowed to marry?

I like Alan's response to this question.

Alan Keyes on Gay Marriage

 

[Granite]

We actually have people other than the peanut gallery starting to post in this thread, so the thread has become more interesting.

:rotfl:

Sure. Well that's good: next time you swear off another gay thread I'll just assume the topic's too darn interesting for you to ignore.

In other news, gay people continue to get married and the sky hasn't fallen yet. If adults love one another and want to demonstrate this to the rest of the world, the worst thing someone could do is stand in their way.

Naturally, Christians are doing that.

Antagonist hard-core and extreme Christianity's been on the wrong side of every single social advancement in this country since slavery. You cannot beat that kind of consistency.

 

[zippy2006]

Rather, that's the contractual inequity existing at present and without justification from any but a religious angle--which isn't the proper role of the state. Current circumstances have overridden the fundamental and foundational issue of equity. They will eventually fall for that reason.

It isn't a contractual inequity. The government acting as a 3rd party in a contract is different from the government entering into the contract itself (as it does with marriage).

The government enters into the contract itself by aiding couples in a marriage because of the procreative status of the couple in question. That status simply doesn't exist elsewhere, and therefore the government clearly has no obligation to those parties. See One eyed Jack's clip

 

[Sherman]

Sure. Well that's good: next time you swear off another gay thread I'll just assume the topic's too darn interesting for you to ignore.

Wrong conclusion. This thread is finally getting interesting posters in it. I like having intelligent discussion, Not just having a mud flinging contest. It gets tiresome.

I like Alan's response to this question.

Alan Keyes on Gay Marriage

I like the way Alan puts it. The worm in the apple does change it from being apple. Sterility in the marriage doesn't change it from being a marriage. The function of marriage from the outset is to form family unit. But the homosexual union never has the potential from the outset of producing children or forming a proper family unit.

 

[Town Heretic]

It isn't a contractual inequity.

It's the very definition of contractual inequity in foundation, which is what discrimination always boils down to--an unequal allowance/denial of right without cause.

The government enters into the contract itself by aiding couples in a marriage because of the procreative status of the couple in question.

No. You don't have to have children to obtain advantages and you don't have to procreate to have children if you want them. You are aware we're talking about the secular law here and not Catholic dogma, no?

That status simply doesn't exist elsewhere, and therefore the government clearly has no obligation to those parties.

The government has a fundamental obligation to the proposition that all men stand equally before the law and in right. Here, they don't and, again, for the same reason I can't buy a lottery ticket in Alabama.

:e4e:

Bonus: the odd thing is that many of the people championing this notion's continuance are equally inflamed by the thought of Islamic religious belief insinuating itself in the law...lain:

 

[warren clark]

For it.
Although I would prefer if "marriage" wasn't apart of the law.
Its unconstitutional, according to the religious.
"Marriage" is a religious practice, so it shouldn't be a part of the law either way.
Lets insert civil union contracts for consenting adults.

 

[Zeus]

I like the way Alan puts it. The worm in the apple does change it from being apple. Sterility in the marriage doesn't change it from being a marriage. The function of marriage from the outset is to form family unit. But the homosexual union never has the potential from the outset of producing children or forming a proper family unit.

That puts you in the untoward position of supporting the concept of marriage for heteosexuals who choose not to have children or biologically cannot, while prohibiting homosexuals from marrying eventhough they may actually have children that they are raising. When the class that a person belongs to means more to you than the particular circumstances, you open yourself up to the appearance that you are bigotted or otherwise cognitively impaired.

 

[Sherman]

That puts you in the untoward position of supporting the concept of marriage for heteosexuals who choose not to have children or biologically cannot, while prohibiting homosexuals from marrying eventhough they may actually have children that they are raising. When the class that a person belongs to means more to you than the particular circumstances, you open yourself up to the appearance that you are bigotted or otherwise cognitively impaired.

There you go with the childish assumptions. Just because I don't approve of your behavior doesn't mean you can name call. I am not replying to any more of your mud flinging. I am not interested in who can fling the most mud. I am interested in discussion.

 

[Zeus]

There you go with the childish assumptions. Just because I don't approve of your behavior doesn't mean you can name call. I am not replying to any more of your mud flinging. I am not interested in who can fling the most mud. I am interested in discussion.

Yet, you've failed to bring the discussion forward at all -- in favor of "slinging mud!" :rotfl:

It is true that I have characterized your position as limited. You call mine childish. Why can't you address the actual main point that I have offered? :think:

 

[Rusha]

The function of marriage from the outset is to form family unit. But the homosexual union never has the potential from the outset of producing children or forming a proper family unit.

So, unless someone is has the potential of producing children as a couple, they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Wowza, that leaves many heterosexuals out also.