Gay Marriage: Traditional Marriage Predates State and Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I love how anti-gay marriage advocates LOVE to predicate their arguments with "I know the liberals are all gonna call me a bigot, but thats ok because I’m not and they just call everybody who disagrees with them a bigot.

That way, later in the conversation, they (and their supporters) can freely reveal their strong anti-gay bias… and when you point out their bigotry, they have the prerecorded go-to of “Oh Great! you pulled the bigot card, I KNEW you were gonna do that! You just call everyone a bigot! You’re a bigot against rapists and murderers!”

Sorry guys, ain’t gonna fly.[/quote]

What ain’t gonna fly is turning your back to the facts putting your fingers in your ears and shouting bigot. And the more you do that the less credibility you have.[/quote]

Yeah, and the more you point at those who live a risky lifestyle instead of pointing at those who make YOU pay for it, the less credibility you have.

[/quote]

And the more you blame the government instead of people taking blame for their own actions the less credibility you have.

(Great, now none of us has any credibility -)[/quote]

Why would I want to blame anybody if I do not have to pay for it?

Why would I care?

[/quote]

I see, so with you at least it comes down to how much money the government takes from you to pay for the risky behavior of others. Well, I can’t disagree with that so much. I too resent the fact that I have to pay for others who make poor choices. But there is a humanitarian side of me that wishes to help these people if I could. I don’t like seeing people suffer, not even those I don’t like. [/quote]

Interesting, well I like to see those suffer that I strongly dislike.

Then again, my dislikes, are less, …uhmmm, generic than your dislikes.

I like to dislike people upclose and personal.

Anyhow, you are perfectly to preach in front of gay bars.

You know why?

Wont cost me a dime.

102

“Traditional Marriage predates state and Church”

Great, ever heard of a place called Sparta?

Homosexual unions were “about” a mentoring relationship and strengthening military bonds.

Unions have been “about” a lot of things historically. They’re “about” different things now.

I under stand that conservatism is a useful human trait. If we adopted every crackpot lifestyle without critical thought it would be a disaster for the human race. In this case however, I’m with the progressives.

103

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Train4sport wrote:
From a religious perspective: When you follow the guidelines of a user’s manual for a given product, it results in a more satisfying experience with the product. Although it may not always make sense to the user, the manufacturer has a good reason for the guidelines that are given. I believe the Bible is a user’s manual for life. God has created us and understands our emotional, psychological, and physical needs better than we do. Basically, sin consists of things that are forbidden because they are damaging to us and are outside of the parameters in which we were designed to live. Marriage and sex were designed to be between man and woman, and thus anything outside of that is harmful in some way. I believe that homosexuals are not condemned by God for being attracted to members of the same sex, they are condemned for the homosexual acts they commit. Along the same lines, heterosexuals are not condemned for being attracted to members of the opposite sex but are in trouble if they engage in pre-marital sex or adultery. The temptation is not the sin. It becomes sin when we choose the wrong way of dealing with the temptation. [/quote]

Can you provide me the reference from the user’s manual that endorses the institution of marriage as practiced in our culture. [/quote]

Book of Genesis…and Jesus said something like, no man shall separate what G-d has bound.[/quote]

I’ll simply repeat my question. Where is the endorsement of marriage as practiced in our culture. [/quote]

So you want the address of the verse?

104

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Under the current definition in America[/quote]

Exactly. Current, I don’t think you’d be praising the current definition in the 1850’s in America about blacks. Or, are you such a relativist that if it was the 1850’s you’d just point out that the current definition in America of blacks is a slave, and disagree with those who said that maybe we should free the slaves because it was the ‘current definition in America.’[/quote]

…so because I advocate changing the fucking definition of marriage in Amercia(to include homosexuals) you’re asking if I would have opposed changing the definition of citizen (to include blacks)?

Its too early for this shit. You get several failpoints.[/quote]

Then come up with something better than what shit you dropped on my thread, fucking current definition. Get out of here with that bullshit.

105

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Actually, if anybody would be against emancipation, its your camp, BC.

“But if we broaden the definition of citizen, it will be less meaningful to whites! Whites enjoy the pedestal! Also, if we allow the negro, we would have to allow a dog or a fence to be a citizen, too. Expanding the definition of citizen to include negroes just weakens it, and eventually “citizen” wont mean anything at all, and society will collapse! Whites are superior to negores and need to be in charge of them, its for their own good - it is the will of God, how dare you question that?”[/quote]

Yeah, exactly. That’s why Pope Eugene IV condemned slavery 60 years before Columbus discovered America, stating that, and I quote, “all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of [the] Canary Islands…who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.” The same for Pope Paul III who called those who kidnapped people and enslaved them allies of the Lucifer. And in 1686, the Holy Office of the Inquisition rejected the enslavement of innocent blacks and the trading of those slaves. The Inquisition even said those slaveholders would need to release them and repay them for being held without cause. This went through the 1700’s and 1800’s with various Popes.

A more personal note, that’s why my family fought on the side of the Free-Staters during Bleeding Kansas. Because if anyone is against emancipation, it’s me. Get the fuck out of here with your weak ass straw man.

There is no proof of homosexuality being genetic or biological, it’s an inclination. And, when someone acts on those inclinations they are wrong. And, blacks being free has no effect on white men’s freedom, the reason why slavery was wrong in America (and the general slave trade) was because they were innocent and they were denied their human dignity.

106

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
There is no evidence that allowing gay marriage negatively affects social perceptions of marriage or habits of heterosexuals w/r/t marriage.

[/quote]

Tell that to the marriage rate in Europe, and the declining marriage length.[/quote]

  1. Europe is not the USA. Europe is not a homogenous continent. Europe is a continent with many different countries, languages and customs and can’t agree on minutiae of bureaucracy in the EU, much less such a divisive issue. The view on gay marriage in Italy is as opposed as many parts of America, partly influenced by the Pope and also by conservative values. The same can be said of many Mediterranean and Eastern European countries. Yes if you went to Soho in London you’d imagine differently but Europe is not some free-for-all homosexual nirvana; there are still many homophobic attacks and murders every year and many countries forbid Gay Pride parades.

  2. You cannot ‘marry’ a homosexual couple. You can instead have a ‘civil partnership’ which does not come with the religious connotations of marriage. There is legislation underway to make churches conduct gay marriages but that looks increasingly unlikely.[/quote]

Then tell that to those that bring up gay marriage in Europe. I brought it up, because someone always say look at Europe. Well, I did. And the places where they allow gay marriages, or “unions” aren’t exactly giving faith to what homosexuals actually say about what marriage will do for them.

From what I can see from European civil union statistics, marriage is short, abuse is high, high rates of infidelity, high rates of STDs, multiple marriages per person, as well as other side effects that were said not exist. Like polygamous marriage advocates now requesting to be married to multiple wives, you have bi-sexual people who want to get married to men and women at the same time.

107

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
The rate of divorce has been growing a long time throughout Europe, especially northern europe. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, how could it?[/quote]

Um…what? It definitely correlates, if anyone gets to define marriage, usually the definition of marriage just goes right out the door.

108

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]cvb wrote:

Children need a mom and a dad. Both are extremely important.

[/quote]

I completely disagree with that, there are countless examples of people raised by single parents coming up fine /nitpicking[/quote]

Yeah, and people use the thief on the cross as a rule as well, what both have in common is they are both exceptions. Statistically and traditionally children are better off with both mother and father (even better with elder family members in the household, and even better with multiple siblings). [/quote]

Im with you BC, but better off does not mean need at all.
[/quote]

I don’t get what you’re saying? So we should just allow the worst to happen? I was raised in a volatile household, I came out great. Upstanding citizen, well educated (still getting educated), I am good in business, I take care of my family, I am a great friend, I’m funny, I’m not the least socially awkward, my word is my bond, I’m an officer in several social and fraternal organizations, &c. I’m the exception, because I had a good foundation before I lived in the wreck for some years. However, when someone’s foundation is a wreck, they may or may not be able to change that foundation or be able to be given a solid foundation.

No one needs anything (except G-d), but part of our duty as humans is civilize our own society, not determine what people need and don’t need, because there is very little anyone ‘needs.’ However, we don’t purposely put a child, especially a young child, into a bad situation off the bat or hopefully ever.

109

[quote]doogie wrote:
Zeb,

If homosexual promiscuity causes so many problems, why not encourage gay marriage? What harm could come from a stable, monogamous homosexual union?[/quote]

You mean like in the Netherlands, with the average union lasting 1.5 years between homosexuals? And, where the average homosexual male has eight partners per year (besides their main partner) outside of his ‘monogamous homosexual union’?

110

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s funny, but I get the distinct impression that the only one that is “closed minded” here is you. Thus, end discussion between us.[/quote]

choo…choo!

111

[quote]forlife wrote:
My partner and I are 100% monogamous.[/quote]

Great, so we found the exception to the rule of behavior of a select 2-3% of America.

112

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
it seems gays are hurting no one but themselves.[/quote]

Incorrect. They hurt themselves physically and emotionally and the rest of us financially. Tens of millions of dollars are spent annually not just in health care for homosexuals, but also in research to prevent AIDS.

[/quote]

Don’t tell me we’re spending $$ for gays.[/quote]

Did you know that the Catholic Church gives the largest amount of money to research for HIV/AIDS and to help victims of HIV/AIDS?

113

The gayest argument I’ve ever heard… How gay do you have to be to care if gay people get married? Are you going to tell them they can’t have sex next and record their bedrooms to ensure it? The gay marriage debate has to be the silliest pseudo-religious debate of today.

Why Do You Care If Gay People Get Married?

… This one blows my mind(no pun).

114

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Bishop Thomas Wenski wrote:

Marriage has been primarily about the raising of children (who seem to be hardwired to be best raised by a father and a mother who are married to each other).
[/quote]

Evidence? For the hard-wiring part?

I could not disagree more. See following video.
[/quote]

Well you disagree, but last time I checked 24 < 2000 years of experience. As well, when has placing a child in a household with a high probability of abuse been a good idea, or in a household where the parents routinely have between 5-9 different partners per year then the one that they married. When has having a new step-parent every 1.5 years a good thing for a child?

References:

Somerville, M. (2007). Children’s human rights and unlinking child-parent biological bonds with adoption, same-sex marriage and new reproductive technologies. Journal of Family Studies, 13(2), 179-201.

And, some others, but I don’t have them off hand.

115

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I love how anti-gay marriage advocates LOVE to predicate their arguments with "I know the liberals are all gonna call me a bigot, but thats ok because I’m not and they just call everybody who disagrees with them a bigot.

That way, later in the conversation, they (and their supporters) can freely reveal their strong anti-gay bias… and when you point out their bigotry, they have the prerecorded go-to of “Oh Great! you pulled the bigot card, I KNEW you were gonna do that! You just call everyone a bigot! You’re a bigot against rapists and murderers!”

Sorry guys, ain’t gonna fly.[/quote]

What are you talking about…I never predicated anything. Anyway, it’s not really prediction if you know for a fact it is going to happen.

116

[quote]Eli B wrote:
“Traditional Marriage predates state and Church”

Great, ever heard of a place called Sparta?

Homosexual unions were “about” a mentoring relationship and strengthening military bonds.[/quote]

I think I’ve said this and showed this a few times, but something occurring, doesn’t mean it was accepted as the same as heterosexual unions between a man and a woman.

And about your they are about different things, yeah, society has a funny way of swaying like a pendulum back and forth. Socialism and Fascism. Bigotry and intolerance of anything but absolute tolerance for everything (except intolerance).

Sorry, but there is right and wrong. And just because general social ‘feelings’ tend to be one way or another, doesn’t make it true.

117

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
There is no evidence that allowing gay marriage negatively affects social perceptions of marriage or habits of heterosexuals w/r/t marriage.

[/quote]

Tell that to the marriage rate in Europe, and the declining marriage length.[/quote]

  1. Europe is not the USA. Europe is not a homogenous continent. Europe is a continent with many different countries, languages and customs and can’t agree on minutiae of bureaucracy in the EU, much less such a divisive issue. The view on gay marriage in Italy is as opposed as many parts of America, partly influenced by the Pope and also by conservative values. The same can be said of many Mediterranean and Eastern European countries. Yes if you went to Soho in London you’d imagine differently but Europe is not some free-for-all homosexual nirvana; there are still many homophobic attacks and murders every year and many countries forbid Gay Pride parades.

  2. You cannot ‘marry’ a homosexual couple. You can instead have a ‘civil partnership’ which does not come with the religious connotations of marriage. There is legislation underway to make churches conduct gay marriages but that looks increasingly unlikely.[/quote]

Then tell that to those that bring up gay marriage in Europe. I brought it up, because someone always say look at Europe. Well, I did. And the places where they allow gay marriages, or “unions” aren’t exactly giving faith to what homosexuals actually say about what marriage will do for them.

From what I can see from European civil union statistics, marriage is short, abuse is high, high rates of infidelity, high rates of STDs, multiple marriages per person, as well as other side effects that were said not exist. Like polygamous marriage advocates now requesting to be married to multiple wives, you have bi-sexual people who want to get married to men and women at the same time.[/quote]

This is the best I can find of Blackadder on Youtube but the best line he has is:

“The greatest lie since vows of fidelity were introduced into the French marriage service” (or words to that effect)

Please could you provide some evidence of bisexual people wishing to be married at the same time, because I have never heard of that.

If people are saying there is “gay marriage” in Europe to push for gay marriage in the USA than they are lying.

118

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Bishop Thomas Wenski wrote:

Marriage has been primarily about the raising of children (who seem to be hardwired to be best raised by a father and a mother who are married to each other).
[/quote]

Evidence? For the hard-wiring part?

I could not disagree more. See following video.
[/quote]

Well you disagree, but last time I checked 24 < 2000 years of experience. As well, when has placing a child in a household with a high probability of abuse been a good idea, or in a household where the parents routinely have between 5-9 different partners per year then the one that they married. When has having a new step-parent every 1.5 years a good thing for a child?

References:

Somerville, M. (2007). Children’s human rights and unlinking child-parent biological bonds with adoption, same-sex marriage and new reproductive technologies. Journal of Family Studies, 13(2), 179-201.

And, some others, but I don’t have them off hand.[/quote]

Surely there is a way to screen applicants for adoption aside from just marital status. I would hope this would be the case with heterosexual couples also.

119

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:
“Traditional Marriage predates state and Church”

Great, ever heard of a place called Sparta?

Homosexual unions were “about” a mentoring relationship and strengthening military bonds.[/quote]

I think I’ve said this and showed this a few times, but something occurring, doesn’t mean it was accepted as the same as heterosexual unions between a man and a woman.
[/quote]

It was fully accepted in the society. Institutionalized even.

[quote]
Sorry, but there is right and wrong. And just because general social ‘feelings’ tend to be one way or another, doesn’t make it true. [/quote]

Eh, and I disagree with you on where those boundaries fall. This I guess is where we both go our separate ways.

120

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Under the current definition in America[/quote]

Exactly. Current, I don’t think you’d be praising the current definition in the 1850’s in America about blacks. Or, are you such a relativist that if it was the 1850’s you’d just point out that the current definition in America of blacks is a slave, and disagree with those who said that maybe we should free the slaves because it was the ‘current definition in America.’[/quote]

…so because I advocate changing the fucking definition of marriage in Amercia(to include homosexuals) you’re asking if I would have opposed changing the definition of citizen (to include blacks)?

Its too early for this shit. You get several failpoints.[/quote]

Then come up with something better than what shit you dropped on my thread, fucking current definition. Get out of here with that bullshit. [/quote]

You aren’t even making sense anymore, Chris.