Someone correct me if I’m off base here, I was thinking about this thread earlier, and may not understand all the facts in the right context.
Question: Is the gay marriage issue a legal one or a religious one(or both?)?
As in, it should be illegal for gays to get married, or that there needs to be a law passed for it to be allowed.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What is so special about heterosexuals…[/quote]
The propagation of the citizenry. Hell, the species.
The next person that asks this gets put on ignore. I will not pretend you’re actually this stupid. You’re not. So, stop stalling the discussion, and act like an adult. If this has to be argued (yet again, so soon), it’s going to be an honest argument this time. I’m tired of the emotional blabbering, with zero justification, over state recognized homosexual marriage. Stop pretending.[/quote]
So we need state recognized marriage and tax breaks in order to propagate the species?
As I said earlier:
Some of us see marriage as nothing more than a contract between two people who want to tether their lives together. If marriage disappeared tomorrow people would still couple, reproduce and rear children. State recognition and tax benefits wouldn’t make or break that. You see committed parents and monogamous relationships in non-rational animals as well.[/quote]
Maybe your focus should be on fixing the tax code and not on redefining marriage.
[/quote]
Maybe you should come up with a cogent argument against gay marriage. 13 pages in and still none that haven’t been refuted.
[/quote]
Well how about this.
Why don’t you and your same sex partner go dress up in tuxedos and visit your local Unitarian Church and have the minister perform a marriage ceremony.
Have some pictures taken and take out an ad in the wedding section of your local newspaper to publicly announce your marriage.
Wouldn’t that be sufficient?
Certainly you would not need some piece of paper issued by your county clerk to make your marriage more legitimate than the love you two have for each other already makes it.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Maybe you should come up with a cogent argument against gay marriage.[/quote]
Then you haven’t read the thread. So far all I see are proponents failing to provide the irreplaceable, absolutely essential, critical function which homosexuality provides, in order to justify discriminating in it’s favor by elevating it above all other human forms of arrangement and relationship (excepting the present one). Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow, curious news story. Heterosexuality? Disaster.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow, curious news story. Heterosexuality? Disaster.
[/quote]
But it hasn’t.
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
Well how about this.
Why don’t you and your same sex partner go dress up in tuxedos and visit your local Unitarian Church and have the minister perform a marriage ceremony.
Have some pictures taken and take out an ad in the wedding section of your local newspaper to publicly announce your marriage.
Wouldn’t that be sufficient?
Certainly you would not need some piece of paper issued by your county clerk to make your marriage more legitimate than the love you two have for each other already makes it.
[/quote]
So did you come up with this during recess or after practicing your multiplication tables?
Certainly you would not need some piece of paper issued by your county clerk to procreate and rear children?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Maybe you should come up with a cogent argument against gay marriage.[/quote]
Then you haven’t read the thread. So far all I see are proponents failing to provide the irreplaceable, absolutely essential, critical function which homosexuality provides, in order to justify discriminating in it’s favor by elevating it above all other human forms of arrangement and relationship (excepting the present one). Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow, curious news story. Heterosexuality? Disaster.
[/quote]
I have read the thread, you’re just choosing to ignore points.
This standard that your setting where it has to be ‘absolutely essential’ in order to justify it’s legalization is one that I reject. Legalized gay marriage increases the number of intact homes for children and thus provides a net benefit to society. If you honestly care about the welfare of children you will support it.
Why don’t you just say you’re a bigot and we can move on? Or wait, maybe want to ask why it’s okay to discriminate against polygamous marriage for the 5th time?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Maybe you should come up with a cogent argument against gay marriage.[/quote]
Then you haven’t read the thread. So far all I see are proponents failing to provide the irreplaceable, absolutely essential, critical function which homosexuality provides, in order to justify discriminating in it’s favor by elevating it above all other human forms of arrangement and relationship (excepting the present one). Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow, curious news story. Heterosexuality? Disaster.
[/quote]
So far all we have seen is failed attempts to explain why marriage MUST remain unchanged. However faulty our logic seems, yours seems the same when read by us.
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
Well how about this.
Why don’t you and your same sex partner go dress up in tuxedos and visit your local Unitarian Church and have the minister perform a marriage ceremony.
Have some pictures taken and take out an ad in the wedding section of your local newspaper to publicly announce your marriage.
Wouldn’t that be sufficient?
Certainly you would not need some piece of paper issued by your county clerk to make your marriage more legitimate than the love you two have for each other already makes it.
[/quote]
Every one of the items listed on that page are not met by the ritual you described.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Maybe you should come up with a cogent argument against gay marriage.[/quote]
Then you haven’t read the thread. So far all I see are proponents failing to provide the irreplaceable, absolutely essential, critical function which homosexuality provides, in order to justify discriminating in it’s favor by elevating it above all other human forms of arrangement and relationship (excepting the present one). Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow, curious news story. Heterosexuality? Disaster.
[/quote]
I have read the thread, you’re just choosing to ignore points.
This standard that your setting where it has to be ‘absolutely essential’ in order to justify it’s legalization is one that I reject. Legalized gay marriage increases the number of intact homes for children and thus provides a net benefit to society. If you honestly care about the welfare of children you will support it.
Why don’t you just say you’re a bigot and we can move on? Or wait, maybe want to ask why it’s okay to discriminate against polygamous marriage for the 5th time?
[/quote]
A bigot? Mr. I’d-still-support-laws-that-discriminate-against the polyamorous and non-romantic relationships of any shape or number calling someone a bigot? Oh, I know, you caaaan’t pooosssibly be bothered to support changes in the law to accommodate those folks. Your activism ends with homosexuality, after all. Why, because you’re obsessed with a relationship you can’t objectively prove to be any more critical than a couple of bffs? Because I’m not emotionally and irrationally attached to your stupid fad? Once more, because it demonstrates just how intellectually shallow you folks are…Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow…shrug. Heterosexuality, disaster. Exchange rings, or whatever. Introduce him as your wife-husband, or whatever the practice is. But that relationship does not deserve to be stamped with approval and recognized by the state as a critical and privileged status above Sally and her best friend. Get emotional somewhere else.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Maybe you should come up with a cogent argument against gay marriage.[/quote]
Then you haven’t read the thread. So far all I see are proponents failing to provide the irreplaceable, absolutely essential, critical function which homosexuality provides, in order to justify discriminating in it’s favor by elevating it above all other human forms of arrangement and relationship (excepting the present one). Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow, curious news story. Heterosexuality? Disaster.
[/quote]
So far all we have seen is failed attempts to explain why marriage MUST remain unchanged. However faulty our logic seems, yours seems the same when read by us. [/quote]
Because marriage doesn’t need to be changed, it needs to be reinforced. It’s not some institution for the expression of your individualism. If that’s what it was, we wouldn’t have the state recognize ANY marriage. You’d just introduce yourself as being married. One and done. But, the state does have a vested interest in PROMOTING privileging one form of marriage. Not for the benefit of the individual, but for the very health of the nation. It has/does/will serve the most critical function for this nation…serving to promote and order procreation and child-rearing within intact homes (that means with both biological parents). And THAT provides the justification for discriminating against ALL other forms of human arrangement and relationship through the provision of specific privileges and exclusive status. The pro-gay marriage side is a selfish, childish, emotional hot mess judging by this thread.
And again: Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow…shrug. Heterosexuality, disaster. Blame nature for all things not being equal.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
A bigot? Mr. I’d-still-support-laws-that-discriminate-against the polyamorous and non-romantic relationships of any shape or number calling someone a bigot? Oh, I know, you caaaan’t pooosssibly be bothered to support changes in the law to accommodate those folks. Your activism ends with homosexuality, after all.[/quote]
I have explained this several times. Here is my response from page 3
[quote]therajraj wrote:
We allow people to own handguns, rifles and semi-automatics, but we don’t allow them to own automatic weapons or nuclear weapons. We CAN make an arbitrary stopping point. The slippery slope argument FAILS because we can decide this is the limit. And every time you want to move the line, a new debate must take place.
The real question is where do we set the limit to encourage everyone else’s freedom and rights? In my opinion that line is drawn at two consenting adults who want to tether their lives together regardless of their sex. If they agree to enter a contract to attain certain benefits, that’s good enough for me. Denying that right to someone who chooses a person of the “wrong” gender is an injustice that needs to be corrected.
Lastly, the way marriage is setup currently, laws surrounding marriage can be easily adapted around two people regardless of sex. If marriages of 3, 5 or 7 people were to take place, many laws would have to change and you would literally have to overhaul the whole thing. Can you imagine a divorce proceeding where 2 people in a polygamous marriage of 7 want out? On Impracticality alone we can draw an argument that marriage should stay between two people. [/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why, because you’re obsessed with a relationship you can’t objectively prove to be any more critical than a couple of bffs? Because I’m not emotionally and irrationally attached to your stupid fad? [/quote]
Did you read the part about intact homes for children?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Heterosexuality, disaster. Exchange rings, or whatever. Introduce him as your wife-husband, or whatever the practice is. But that relationship does not deserve to be stamped with approval and recognized by the state as a critical and privileged status above Sally and her best friend.[/quote]
And yet homosexuality is here to stay.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Get emotional somewhere else.
[/quote]
No, I’m getting frustrated at you continually glossing over my rebuttals to your arguments. It’s getting old and until you directly respond to what I’m saying there’s really no point in containing this discussion.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And again: Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow…shrug. Heterosexuality, disaster. Blame nature for all things not being equal.
[/quote]
Why do you keep saying this, the same could be said about African American’s when they had their civil rights movement, if they all turned white tomorrow, no big deal.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And again: Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow…shrug. Heterosexuality, disaster. Blame nature for all things not being equal.
[/quote]
Why do you keep saying this, the same could be said about African American’s when they had their civil rights movement, if they all turned white tomorrow, no big deal.[/quote]
For cripe’s sake.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And again: Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow…shrug. Heterosexuality, disaster. Blame nature for all things not being equal.
[/quote]
Why do you keep saying this, the same could be said about African American’s when they had their civil rights movement, if they all turned white tomorrow, no big deal.[/quote]
LOL! Well put.
Here’s a good test for arguments against gay marriage. If it can be used as an argument against interracial marriage it’s not a good argument.
The marriage of one man and one woman for life is the earthly illustration if Christ’s love for his church bride. (Ephesians 5) THAT is what makes it the one and only legitimate expression of sex and family. All this bickering about how socially and economically expedient it is(which it is) will go nowhere for the rest of our natural lives. Not even the people in this thread claiming the name of Jesus as their own will defend the actual godly meaning of marriage and family. No wonder the world doesn’t give a flyin fart about the gospel. The visible church (little c Christopher) doesn’t even care. Why should they?.
Anybody who thinks the people who founded this country recognized the marriage of one man and one woman as the only acceptable model primarily because of the societal benefit is deluded. Thunderbolt you oughta know better. They believed the protestant biblical prescription of new covenant family was the only moral one. Deny that. Go ahead.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The marriage of one man and one woman for life is the earthly illustration if Christ’s love for his church bride. (Ephesians 5) THAT is what makes it the one and only legitimate expression of sex and family. All this bickering about how socially and economically expedient it is(which it is) will go nowhere for the rest of our natural lives. Not even the people in this thread claiming the name of Jesus as their own will defend the actual godly meaning of marriage and family. No wonder the world doesn’t give a flyin fart about the gospel. The visible church (little c Christopher) doesn’t even care. Why should they?.
Anybody who thinks the people who founded this country recognized the marriage of one man and one woman as the only acceptable model primarily because of the societal benefit is deluded. Thunderbolt you oughta know better. They believed the protestant biblical prescription of new covenant family was the only moral one. Deny that. Go ahead. [/quote]
Sometimes you sound the craziest but you still make the most sense somehow.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
Well how about this.
Why don’t you and your same sex partner go dress up in tuxedos and visit your local Unitarian Church and have the minister perform a marriage ceremony.
Have some pictures taken and take out an ad in the wedding section of your local newspaper to publicly announce your marriage.
Wouldn’t that be sufficient?
Certainly you would not need some piece of paper issued by your county clerk to make your marriage more legitimate than the love you two have for each other already makes it.
[/quote]
Every one of the items listed on that page are not met by the ritual you described.[/quote]
I understand now, as you are portraying it, the same sex marriage primary agenda is to qualify for more government handouts
Nice one - you really make a great case for your side
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The marriage of one man and one woman for life is the earthly illustration if Christ’s love for his church bride. (Ephesians 5) THAT is what makes it the one and only legitimate expression of sex and family. All this bickering about how socially and economically expedient it is(which it is) will go nowhere for the rest of our natural lives. Not even the people in this thread claiming the name of Jesus as their own will defend the actual godly meaning of marriage and family. No wonder the world doesn’t give a flyin fart about the gospel. The visible church (little c Christopher) doesn’t even care. Why should they?.
Anybody who thinks the people who founded this country recognized the marriage of one man and one woman as the only acceptable model primarily because of the societal benefit is deluded. Thunderbolt you oughta know better. They believed the protestant biblical prescription of new covenant family was the only moral one. Deny that. Go ahead. [/quote]
Sometimes you sound the craziest but you still make the most sense somehow.[/quote]Allow me to explain. This will sound arrogant no matter how I say it. What I believe IS the gospel of Jesus Christ. 1st Corinthians 1:18 [quote]<<< For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. >>>[/quote]What I say SHOULD sound crazy to the sinful world, BUT it is the power of God unto salvation to them that are being saved. You have two natures friend. Both inherited from father Adam. The old one before sin that kinda begrudgingly says to itself “this guy does kinda make sense SOMEHOW” and the new one after sin that screams “THAT’S @#$#*@% Crazy”. I don’t expect that you’ll be falling on your face in joyous and tearful repentance before your God now that I’ve explained this to you but that IS the explanation. The light in your spirit that allows you to make your above statement is called “common grace”. God restrains the sin in every man. Believer or not.
Please forgive the brief hijack, but I couldn’t take it anymore. I now pompously return this thread to it’s regularly scheduled meaningless wrangling.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I caught your post, Gambit, and appreciate them and the sentiment is certainly reciprocated.
I am not going to do what TBG used to call the “PWI shuffle,” here, I’ll just try and succinctly answer all of your points here.
Some of what I said above was a counter to a bunch of distractions that were being hurled every which way. To keep things simple: The government is not getting involved in ideals unless they extend the scope of “marriage” beyond what it presently is. Currently, they are involved in the business of promoting the survival of society and the species (promoting, not saving). The current model is ideal because it is necessary. That’s the key, and all future suggested arrangements can be easily tested against it. Sloth said it very well a couple of times above. If homosexuality stopped existing tomorrow, it would hardly issue as more than a tiny, distant blip on he radar screen of human history. If heterosexuality stopped existing tomorrow, there would no longer BE a human history.
Btw, see the PWI pow-wow thread. Chushin and I hooked up last weekend, finally, and had a great time. We talked about you, and wondered if you were ever going to get down south for a visit. [/quote]
Thanks for the response. I don’t think we’ll ever really agree on this, but it is good to try to understand your points. So thanks again. If I understand you, you believe state-sponsored marriage is ideal and necessary because it promotes the survival of society and the species. It does this by providing a model for the “best” method of raising children. Where I am confused is why you say this is not, in your opinion, an ideal but the law itself is ideal. I get more confused when you talk about homosexuality disappearing and being “only a blip.” To me, this sounds like an impossible dream.
I guess maybe I see myself as being a “realist” in that we as society(ies) have to deal with the reality that the “best” way to raise children OFTEN cannot be for a lot of reasons. And thus, “lesser goods” ARE good and have value to society that should be recognized.
To exemplify, a close family member work for a large southern state to place children in foster homes (and sometimes adopted homes). According to her, this job is extremely difficult, especially with abused children and children with other “issues” (mental/physical). She has had to send children to sort of institutions or out-of-state in order to place them at all. IMO, a homosexual married couple, even if you are correct and they are not “ideal” (or whichever word you would prefer), would be superior to institutionalization or abusive parents. Bluntly, IMO, in some cases, “two dads” or “two moms” might actually be superior for some children: A girl who was abused, for example; or a “large” 15 year old boy with mental and anger issues for a converse example. I hope I’m making sense here. WHile this is only a small example of what I see to be a number of societal benefits to the legalization of gay marriage, I hope I’m being clear.
Also, to continue the tangent a little further, this is one of the reasons I get so angry when “the left” attacks Michelle Bachmann (sp?) personally or calls her a bad person. She deserves a LOT of respect and admiration for what she has done with foster children. I don’t want her to be president, but I’m glad she has done all the good she has done.
–
Oh well, I’ve been off on a tangent for awhile now, my thoughts seem pretty scattered here, and the wife’s alarm clock just went off so I have no time to order them. I’m going to run over to the pow-wow thread quick before all my time is up. lol. Have a good one.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What is so special about heterosexuals…[/quote]
The propagation of the citizenry. Hell, the species.
The next person that asks this gets put on ignore. I will not pretend you’re actually this stupid. You’re not. So, stop stalling the discussion, and act like an adult. If this has to be argued (yet again, so soon), it’s going to be an honest argument this time. I’m tired of the emotional blabbering, with zero justification, over state recognized homosexual marriage. Stop pretending.[/quote]
So we need state recognized marriage and tax breaks in order to propagate the species?
As I said earlier:
Some of us see marriage as nothing more than a contract between two people who want to tether their lives together. If marriage disappeared tomorrow people would still couple, reproduce and rear children. State recognition and tax benefits wouldn’t make or break that. You see committed parents and monogamous relationships in non-rational animals as well.[/quote]
Maybe your focus should be on fixing the tax code and not on redefining marriage.
[/quote]
Maybe you should come up with a cogent argument against gay marriage. 13 pages in and still none that haven’t been refuted.
[/quote]
Because a cogent argument against gay marriage would require an understanding that the marriage covenant is based on the JudeoChristian belief system which this country was founded on and you reject.
Without that underlying absolute understanding of what marriage fundamentally is, you have chosen to redefine it to suit your liberal agenda of removing that belief system from the public domain