Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
563

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I don’t know how many times now you, Sloth, me and others have said this exact same thing in just this one thread. For page after page after page.

Instead of once acknowledging this and attempting to deal with it…
[/quote]

They can’t. Flat out, they can’t. Tradional marriage, without even looking at it from a moral view, easily justifies the discrimination (exclusive state recognition) afforded to it. Homosexual marriage doesn’t. They can’t offer what we’ve been asking for which is the fundamentally critical service that homosexuality offers mankind, justifying discrimination (since it’s a whopping expansion of one relationship) in it’s favor.

They have no arguments. What arguments they do have, which don’t address the above, ends up justifying damn near ANY form of relationship between ANY number of adults. When pointed out, they flat out refuse to deal with it. I’ve personally posted my own twist on Forlife’s visitation recount, multiples times. Not once did they deal with it, though they’ve posted many times since. If you’re going to cry bigotry, pine for ‘fairness’, and trot out ‘state recognized romance’ (another form of discrimination between human relationships), you had better deal with it.

If they are the great equality crusaders, the best the anti-bigotry crusaders have to offer, they absolutely owe us an explanation as to why they’re only agitating for homosexual marriage. They need to explain how they can justify slamming the door behind hetero and homo marriage…hell, marriage, period…and not become the antithesis of their own supposedly ‘anti-discrimination’ position. They can’t, because it’s a braindead fad for the non-homosexual and pure selfish immaturity on the part of the homosexual.

I find it telling that the libertarian, who ultimately wants nothing less than the death of state recognized marriage, has adopted the cause. Coincidence? Hardly. Next they’ll side with a ‘non-marital romance on equal footing with marriage’ cause.

I flat out do not respect the participation of the pro side in this debate. They have plainly dodged the underlying questions we’ve been begging them for. They’ve flat out refused to deal with putting their own ‘bigotry’ in the spotlight by tip-toeing around the question of slamming the door shut behind homosexual marriage. Nor, the earlier mentioned “critical service” question.

The fear of dealing with these things has been made plain. For all the emotional malarky they inject into this it’s telling that they’ve yet to post answers–they must surely have–to those fundamental questions. It’s shameful for a movement that wants to so radically transform such a fundamentally important institution to have no idea how to answer us, without looking like hypocrites or desperate (state-recognized romance?!).

And after calling them out with this post for their nonsense, they still won’t. Oh, they’ll respond to ME, but not to those above mentioned questions.

564

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The institution of marriage doesn’t exist. It’s an idea. [/quote]

A 5000 year old idea. And by the way how many long term successful nations in history have included homosexual marriage?

Uh huh.[/quote]

That’s interesting, will have to research. Of course, few nations have survived under ANY circumstances for a long term unchanged. What’s the definition of success?[/quote]

I’ve never heard of any economically successful long lasting civilization which sanctioned gay marriage. I’m not saying that no society ever sanctioned gay marriage, but from what I understand it was usually at, or near the very end of their existence.

565

Personally I would be okay with any arrangement of couples, triples or quadruples and call that marriage and be smugly amused. With the exception of incestual stuff, there certainly is heavy manipulation and mental violence from the parents side involved. The vast majority would still get married the traditional way, as a couple, it’s that important to people, as this thread shows. I would be interesting to see a divorce of a triple, though.

566

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The institution of marriage doesn’t exist. It’s an idea. [/quote]

A 5000 year old idea. And by the way how many long term successful nations in history have included homosexual marriage?

Uh huh.[/quote]

None of which I am aware. How many have tried?

And can you prove or even convincingly suggest that two are in any way correlated?

567

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Traditional marriage: mama can give birth to little Juniors and Princesses[/quote]

Except when mama and papa are either infertile.[/quote]

Except mama and papa are still OPEN TO LIFE. If their infertility were to change, they could still have kids.

And, if someone doesn’t want kids, why in the world get married?

568

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I don’t know how many times now you, Sloth, me and others have said this exact same thing in just this one thread. For page after page after page.

Instead of once acknowledging this and attempting to deal with it, though, forlife has decided, at least in my case, that it is easier to twist my words, intentions, and motivations, invent entirely new lines of argument which better support his own and then attribute them to me,subtly shift the scope of the argument to something that sounds like the point, but isn’t, bludgeon the meanings of concepts until there is hardly anything left of their original meaning,and throw around words like bigot and intolerance and moral repugnance and leave them lying there as latent warnings, lest anyone else have the gall to hold him accountable to his arguments. [/quote]

It’s all too familiar. You quickly realized there is no such thing as a good faith debate of ideas when the world folds into two neat camps: those who agree with Forlife, and bigots. even someone like you - who expressed in clear terms that you have no moral aversion to homosexuality - gets slandered as having an agenda (hilariously, even one you don’t know about!).

Then, of course, our French friend takes a position against gay marriage and gets slandered as a shallow libertine incapable of the “kind of love” at stake in this debate, and told his ideas are discredited as such.

Despite Forlife’s false outrage at people who take issue with his hijinks (like me, who have the audacity to highlight his dishonesty), the only go-to move he has when cornered with different viewpoints is to make the debate extremely personal and sink to unnecessary levels.

I know tons of people advocating gay marriage, some of whom I call close friends and love to debate, and they never stoop the kinds of stuff we’ve seen in this thread (and others). It’s a shame.

569

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Personally I would be okay with any arrangement of couples, triples or quadruples and call that marriage and be smugly amused. With the exception of incestual stuff, there certainly is heavy manipulation and mental violence from the parents side involved. The vast majority would still get married the traditional way, as a couple, it’s that important to people, as this thread shows. I would be interesting to see a divorce of a triple, though.[/quote]

Oh, so now you’re a bigot against those who practice incest? So, it’s okay to have as many people in a marriage as they want, but now that some guy has fallin’ in love with his sister, now it’s not cool?

570

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Traditional marriage: mama can give birth to little Juniors and Princesses[/quote]

Except when mama and papa are either infertile.[/quote]

Except mama and papa are still OPEN TO LIFE. If their infertility were to change, they could still have kids.

And, if someone doesn’t want kids, why in the world get married?[/quote]

See my wifes’ post for the main reason, BC.

“To publicly declare to your family, friends, and society that you love someone so much you want to commit to him/her for the rest of your lives. The End.”

571

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Personally I would be okay with any arrangement of couples, triples or quadruples and call that marriage and be smugly amused. With the exception of incestual stuff, there certainly is heavy manipulation and mental violence from the parents side involved. The vast majority would still get married the traditional way, as a couple, it’s that important to people, as this thread shows. I would be interesting to see a divorce of a triple, though.[/quote]

Oh, so now you’re a bigot against those who practice incest? So, it’s okay to have as many people in a marriage as they want, but now that some guy has fallin’ in love with his sister, now it’s not cool?[/quote]

Yes, I’m a bigot against them getting married. That’s where I draw the line, you know, that’s my opinion and I’m certain you know the reasons.
Some gay couples can be serious and succeed, it certainly can be proven that there are gay couples that have been together for life, I’ve never heard about triples or quintuples or whatever that would have achieved the same. For some reason a pair seem to be the basic entity. Incestuous pairs, well, there are good medical reasons not to sanction them to produce offspring.

572

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< Incestuous pairs, well, there are good medical reasons not to sanction them to produce offspring.[/quote]Wait a minute. Did you just say that marriage sanctions people to produce children?

573

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Traditional marriage: mama can give birth to little Juniors and Princesses[/quote]

Except when mama and papa are either infertile.[/quote]

Except mama and papa are still OPEN TO LIFE. If their infertility were to change, they could still have kids.

And, if someone doesn’t want kids, why in the world get married?[/quote]

See my wifes’ post for the main reason, BC.

“To publicly declare to your family, friends, and society that you love someone so much you want to commit to him/her for the rest of your lives. The End.”

[/quote]

And, as I asked her, why would the state discriminate between friendship and romance? And this IS condoning state discrimination between human relationships, by the way. Further, oddly enough, this form of discrimination doesn’t even justify itself as heterosexual marriage does. For example, thier’s is a friendship, while yours is a romance…and? What does the state have to do with discriminating between the two? Oh, and in the him/her, you forgot “/them.”

574

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< Incestuous pairs, well, there are good medical reasons not to sanction them to produce offspring.[/quote]Wait a minute. Did you just say that marriage sanctions people to produce children?
[/quote]

Well, that’s the only way society has to regulate it? You can’t directly hinder siblings from having sex, especially when there is always some kind of isolation and hiding involved. I would guess that at least here, in the wellfareland, authorities would confiscate :slight_smile: such a child. I don’t know, but I would be amazed if they wouldn’t.

575

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Traditional marriage: mama can give birth to little Juniors and Princesses[/quote]

Except when mama and papa are either infertile.[/quote]

Except mama and papa are still OPEN TO LIFE. If their infertility were to change, they could still have kids.

And, if someone doesn’t want kids, why in the world get married?[/quote]

See my wifes’ post for the main reason, BC.

“To publicly declare to your family, friends, and society that you love someone so much you want to commit to him/her for the rest of your lives. The End.”

[/quote]

I saw it, and it’s been proven to be lacking. The fruit of marriage is children. And marriage is not just about declaring to people that you love someone. Marriage is a bond between a man and woman, where they are open to new life, and do so in that bond for the betterment of the children and the spouses.

I can only think of one reason why someone would think different: moral decay. Moral decay has led to the systematic separation of the procreative aspect from the marital and unitive aspects of the conjugal act. No longer do people recognize the conjugal act as a procreative act, as well. Now, people don’t even recognize it as a marital act, it has become just a unitive act to show one’s love for another.

576

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I don’t agree as to your characterization of my actions here but whatever.

That’s cool, I’m not offended and honestly don’t like starting fights with people here, particularly those I consider my friends.

Take care.
[/quote]

Maybe I was just being overly defensive. I agree with Tiribulus that you’re one of the more polite and constructive posters here.

It’s an issue that affects me in a very personal way, so I’m probably MORE subject to confirmatory bias than anyone else here.

I need to do a better job of staying clear of these discussions, or at least better taking them in stride.

577

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Incestuous pairs, well, there are good medical reasons not to sanction them to produce offspring.[/quote]

I was just told (re-told, and then yelled at through PM) that marriage is to show one’s love for another to society. And, it is not an inherently procreative bond. So, why in the world would we discriminate against incestuous pairs if it is not a procreative bond? If it is just a unitive bond?

If gays can enter marriage, then obviously it is not procreative, because they cannot procreate without going outside the marriage. So, we should not worry about brother and sister marrying – that is according to the ssm argument.

I argue that marriage is not only a unitive bond, but the only procreative bond acceptable for the betterment of children. Because homosexuals are not able to enter a reproductive bond because of form, which is not the same as particular difficulties, in a ssm then it is not even a marriage, but a farse of one.

578

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< Incestuous pairs, well, there are good medical reasons not to sanction them to produce offspring.[/quote]Wait a minute. Did you just say that marriage sanctions people to produce children?
[/quote]

Well, that’s the only way society has to regulate it? You can’t directly hinder siblings from having sex, especially when there is always some kind of isolation and hiding involved. I would guess that at least here, in the wellfareland, authorities would confiscate :slight_smile: such a child. I don’t know, but I would be amazed if they wouldn’t.
[/quote]

I think you missed the point. And, as a mountain billy I have seen my fair share of family babies. Unless someone is underage, the baby isn’t going anywhere.

579

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Incestuous pairs, well, there are good medical reasons not to sanction them to produce offspring.[/quote]

I was just told (re-told, and then yelled at through PM) that marriage is to show one’s love for another to society. And, it is not an inherently procreative bond. So, why in the world would we discriminate against incestuous pairs if it is not a procreative bond? If it is just a unitive bond?

If gays can enter marriage, then obviously it is not procreative, because they cannot procreate without going outside the marriage. So, we should not worry about brother and sister marrying – that is according to the ssm argument.

I argue that marriage is not only a unitive bond, but the only procreative bond acceptable for the betterment of children. Because homosexuals are not able to enter a reproductive bond because of form, which is not the same as particular difficulties, in a ssm then it is not even a marriage, but a farse of one.

[/quote]

For clarity, I haven’t sent you any PM’s, the only PM’s I have ever sent here have been to Orion, Varqanir, Lixy and Katzenjammer, and not one has been related to on-going debates. I’m vain, you know.
In essense I agree with you, but that’s idealism and the world looks wery different. I’m very much more interested in the functional. and I see that as wasted energy to fuss about fringes. Undoubtedly marrage would be for many gsys just a party among others, but not for all, it’s just a party for many heteros as well. What can I say, I have made my point and I’m sure everyone understands it, even though they do not necessarily agree.

580

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Personally I would be okay with any arrangement of couples, triples or quadruples and call that marriage and be smugly amused.[/quote]

Yeah, and I’m okay with any sort of combination of people. Large groups of say more than 100 not so sure as it would look more like a militia and a little less like a marriage. Um, and people with animals (if they own them out right). And people with inanimate objects like say garden equipment, household appliances and things of that nature. Incestual couples? Sure why not? Why don’t those people have a shot at romance sanctioned by the state? Come on let’s not be “incestuphobic”.

We now live in bizzaro land and two homosexuals can call themselves “married” in a few states. So I’m sure the other stuff won’t be many years behind. It’s now just a matter of those groups organizing and calling anyone who disagrees with them names (polygphobic, bestaphobic, incestuphobic, you get the idea. The model has already been created by homosexuals). You can say what you want about homosexuals but they really know how to silence their critics with this nonsense. And of course if the other perverse groups get Hollywood behind them, well that will certainly help their cause.

581

428×570 21.4 KB

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I saw it, and it’s been proven to be lacking. The fruit of marriage is children. And marriage is not just about declaring to people that you love someone. Marriage is a bond between a man and woman, where they are open to new life, and do so in that bond for the betterment of the children and the spouses.

I can only think of one reason why someone would think different: moral decay. Moral decay has led to the systematic separation of the procreative aspect from the marital and unitive aspects of the conjugal act. No longer do people recognize the conjugal act as a procreative act, as well. Now, people don’t even recognize it as a marital act, it has become just a unitive act to show one’s love for another.[/quote]Absolutely right on. I do NOT agree with the Catholic view that every act of intimacy must have the potential to produce life. No way. Ephesians 5 makes clear that the one flesh relationship is directly analogous to Christ’s covenant relationship with His church. Sex and marriage are also for the enrapturing of one man and one women in total glorious oneness as is the Lord with His church bride.

However, reproduction IS IS IS a primary function of that beautiful gift and any attempt to detach the bearing of children from sex by design, denigrates ONE OF it’s primary purposes and thereby it’s sanctity. It is not by accident that God decreed one of the most, if not THE most intensely pleasurable and self sharing experiences in life also be for the purpose of bringing forth and nurturing new people created in His image. Praise His holy name. Wadda loving God indeed He is.

I disagree about the part of your statement that sex is now “just a unitive act to show one’s love for another”. That’s far too optimistic. It’s been and is continuing to be further reduced to simple hedonistic recreation. Moral decay indeed though. You hit it again there. Faithful families cannot survive and indeed ARE NOT surviving this cesspool of self serving carnality. As we have discussed many times. The country goes wherever the families go.

582

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Incestuous pairs, well, there are good medical reasons not to sanction them to produce offspring.[/quote]

I was just told (re-told, and then yelled at through PM) that marriage is to show one’s love for another to society. And, it is not an inherently procreative bond. So, why in the world would we discriminate against incestuous pairs if it is not a procreative bond? If it is just a unitive bond?

If gays can enter marriage, then obviously it is not procreative, because they cannot procreate without going outside the marriage. So, we should not worry about brother and sister marrying – that is according to the ssm argument.

I argue that marriage is not only a unitive bond, but the only procreative bond acceptable for the betterment of children. Because homosexuals are not able to enter a reproductive bond because of form, which is not the same as particular difficulties, in a ssm then it is not even a marriage, but a farse of one.

[/quote]

For clarity, I haven’t sent you any PM’s, the only PM’s I have ever sent here have been to Orion, Varqanir, Lixy and Katzenjammer, and not one has been related to on-going debates. I’m vain, you know.
In essense I agree with you, but that’s idealism and the world looks wery different. I’m very much more interested in the functional. and I see that as wasted energy to fuss about fringes. Undoubtedly marrage would be for many gsys just a party among others, but not for all, it’s just a party for many heteros as well. What can I say, I have made my point and I’m sure everyone understands it, even though they do not necessarily agree.[/quote]

Ftr, neither I nor Greeny pm’d BC.

Edit: I meant to quote BC. My apologies.