Should benefits intended for people raising children be exclusive to people raising children? Yes.
Marriage is not one of those benefits though. As we just finished demonstrating yet again, this time with the use of statistics.
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Should benefits intended for people raising children be exclusive to people raising children? Yes.
Marriage is not one of those benefits though. As we just finished demonstrating yet again, this time with the use of statistics.
zoo22
Well-known member
Of course I'm aware of that. What's your point?
you don't know what you are doing
zoo22
Well-known member
Why?
That's what comes from living by the anecdotal...and in a plague zone, one presumes.
lain:
Yup. But it goes down to what is moral. Somebody voiced their objection to my posts in the reps--->You use the Torah to defend your hate but convinently leave out all the other abominations like eating catfish or arrogance. I would like to answer that objection. First of all I am not Jewish. Symbolic dietary laws don't apply. Pointing out immortality is not arrogance.
Our culture has gotten to the point where it not only endorses homosexuality, but it punishes people who do not accept it. It marginalizes people who disagree like this poster who doled out the neg reps. This is just plain wrong.
Are sexual sins victimless? Listen to this issue of Bob Enyart Live--->http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75494
In one segment he discusses the consequences of sexual sin. We now have a venereal super bug in Japan.
Depends on how you go about doing it.
Given there are only a couple of states where, to stay on point, homosexuals even have the same rights as heterosexuals, that seems a bit unsupportable.
How, exactly, does it do that?
I agree that it's wrong to punish someone because they differ with you, if in differing with you they work no harm against your right. And, coincidentally enough, that's why I'm on the other side of this issue from you, our agreement on the sin notwithstanding.
:e4e:
thanks
I know of ten households with no children
now
but
they collectively raised 27 children
it is irresponsible to not take advantage of the benefits derived from a state recognized marriage
they are there to help protect the child
Marriage isn't necessarily about having or protecting children no matter how many times you're willing to say it is.
lain:
Marriage isn't necessarily about having or protecting children no matter how many times you're willing to say it is.
do you believe it does help protect the child?
I believe that I've answered you on this point more than once and illustrated the deficiency in your approach.
I draw up a contract. As a part of that contract I include protections relative to the parties should a certain event occur. It does not rationally or reasonably follow that the point of the contract is to make those protections, which are contingent and unnecessary for the contract's operation.
but you didn't draw up this contract
and
it isn't a contract
it is a commitment or a vow to stay together
do you agree that staying together helps to protect the child?
zoo22
Well-known member
What??
Okay.
lain:Wait, no, WHAT??
Seriously. What in the world point are you trying to make? ... That married couples did have or will have children? Yes. That's often the case. Married couples often did have or will have children. It's great. Sometimes they already had them and sometimes they will have them in the future. And sometimes they won't have them at all.
Are you trying to "prove" that male/female married couples can or will have children? Okay... That's great!! I concede!!
lain:I don't think anyone will deny it.
So now that that's settled, what about those married folks who don't have and won't have children? They don't have them, and they won't have them! ... Are they even married? That seems fishy. Also, what about the same-sex couples who already have or want to have children? What?!? Also fishy. What are the rules, anyway?? This is moral chaos and it's just a matter of time before we all are marrying dogs or parakeets. What's to stop us!?!
Last edited:
don't you mean
never had
and
never will have
there is no way to determine this
and
that group consists of those who can't and those who won't
why waste our time on this when we already know that when a man and a woman get married they are very likely to have children
you know that just from the people you know
zoo22
Well-known member
And what's your point? That married couples have children? That unless a marriage will result in children it shouldn't be considered a marriage? Make a point.
Do you have a point about same-sex marriage?
- Status