SkinWalker Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Marriage has existed long before any modern church. Christianity is a relatively new religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 No. Marriage predates the Judeo-Christian religions by centuries, if not millenia, and was mostly a secular socio-political and/or economic affair and institution, rather than a romantic one. The Church getting involved in marriage is actually a fairly recent trend, I believe. EDIT: D'Oh! Skin's too fast for me! My post is in reply to the post above him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo_92 Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I honestly think that God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I honestly think that God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Not only does this post not make any sense, but it's entirely irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Whoever first said that phrase should have copyrighted it, they'd have made a fortune!! On a more serious note: Its come to my attention that one of the first lesbian couples to get married is now splitting up. This is disgraceful Divorce is a sacred institution that is meant to exist between man and women... allowing homosexuals to get divorced devalues the institution of divorce and makes a mockery of the whole thing!! God divorced Adam and Lilith, not Madam and lilith!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I honestly think that God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Your un-evidenced beliefs notwithstanding, in this forum we actually have discussion and posts consisting only of "lol" and "I know" are typically considered spam. Should you care to discuss further the relevance of xian beliefs with regard to homosexual marriage, we're all eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo_92 Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Its not right Besides if gays were supposed to be together they would be able to reproduce same for lesbos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 "It's not right" doesn't really say a lot. Why isn't it "right?" Furthermore, what about those that are unable to reproduce? There are a lot of men and women who simply aren't capable of reproduction. Moreover, what has the need to reproduce to do with whether or not two people who love each other should be afforded the same rights and guarantees that are afforded to a male/female who marry? Also, I'll have to point out that this is coming full circle in this thread, as all these arguments have already been covered and those against same-sex marriage have flat-out lost the debate. There simply is no logical reason to disallow it. None has been mentioned that wasn't easily refuted. The worst part of your argument is "supposed to be together," which implies that there is some cosmic plan or destiny. There is no evidence that such "plans" exist or that there is anything in nature that is "supposed" to do anything. Things simply are. Evolution has no plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo_92 Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 sure i agree the few men and woman who can't reproduce is the same as the Entire Freaking population of gays and lesbos can't reproduce right. C'mon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 sure i agree the few men and woman who can't reproduce is the same as the Entire Freaking population of gays and lesbos can't reproduce right. C'mon! Legislation. Serious Business. If you're going to make an argument for making law, it must cover all ground or else it's just bull**** tyrannical non-sense. So if a senator proposes we completely ban gay-marriage on the fact that they as a couple cannot reproduce, then it must also carry to heterosexual couples not being allowed to marry if one, or both, of them cannot reproduce. Also, what about couples completely unwilling to have kids? Should they not be married since they won't **** for Jesus' love? To bless the world with more of gods little miracles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 One thing I neglected to mention was that gay couples aren't incapable of reproducing. They just cannot reproduce with each other. They can seek alternative methods of reproduction in the same manner as over 9 million women each year through fertility clinics (in vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood); moreover, they can adopt. The bigoted arguments against homosexual couples simply don't hold up to scrutiny. It can only boil down to bigotry: you don't like them, therefore they shouldn't seek happiness. The pursuit of happiness is only for those in who are in complete agreement with the bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 sure i agree the few men and woman who can't reproduce is the same as the Entire Freaking population of gays and lesbos can't reproduce right. C'mon! From Wikipedia: About 15% of all total couples cannot reproduce due to either one or both of the partners being infertile. 4-5% of the total population in America is homosexual. So pretty much, there are more men and women who cannot reproduce than there are homosexuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Plus I can quite happily reproduce outside marriage. The two aren't linked. Plus a large proportion of married couples use contraception, or one or the other has had "the snip" so they can't have kids anymore, or they are too old to have kids. So i guess that if marriage is linked to having kids then all sex outside marriage should be illegal. Plus it should be illegal to use contracteption or have the snip. Plus any couples who can't have kids shouldn't be allowed to get married. And once they get over 60 they should have to get divorced since there is no longer a need to be married. its not right Yes it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 So i guess that if marriage is linked to having kids then all sex outside marriage should be illegal. Plus it should be illegal to use contracteption or have the snip. Hmmm... there are factions in the world that would have absolutely no problem with any of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Besides if gays were supposed to be together they would be able to reproduce same for lesbos There's more to being together than having kids. Another argument I hear is the "slippery slope". "We allow gays to marry, then what's next? We've got bigamists and people wanting to marry children and animals now!" Well... So the Heck what? Take the bigamy, beastiality, and child-loving as it comes. It's no reason not to ban homosexual marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Another argument I hear is the "slippery slope". I got that from several family members. Personally, I think it's a bunch of bull. Homosexual marriage involves two consenting human adults. Beastiality does not, and there are laws against "child-loving." As for bigamy... don't really care to get into that, let it stay in the little cult-towns, that's fine with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 But why? What if three consenting adults want to have a loving relationship sanctioned by law? Or four? Why make an arbitrary cutoff at two? Also, how do you feel about close heterosexual relationships (incest)? What if two consenting first cousins want to get married? Siblings? Parent and offspring? I'm not saying this decides it one way or the other, but if the "two consenting human adults" is all it takes, there can be other things to consider as well, as there are people out there who wish to be married, but are not legally allowed, (and many who have their physical relationships anyway). The "slippery slope" is a fallacy yes, but these are valid questions. Saying homosexual marriage would lead to beastiality marriage and necrophilia marriage (and therefore since those things are gross, we shouldn't allow homosexual marriage for fear of the other things happening) is the slippery slope, but those hardly compare to incestous heterosexual relationships (which were once legal in many parts of the world and a few places still are, though the degree of closeness allowed varies), child brides (which were legal in many parts of the world and a few places still are, and of course the ages vary), and polygamy/polyandry (again, were legal in many places and still are in some, even in our own country). What it gets down is to the definition of "marriage." If it's just two consenting adults (two include a pair of homosexual partners of the same gender) then you need to consider these other options, from groups that want to have their relationships legally recognized. Unlike beastiality and necrophilia (and "underage" child brides), many of the same arguments used to approve gay civil unions/homosexual marriage can be used to appeal to the legality of incestous relationships. Laws, shmaws. Gay marriage isn't legal in most states, and people arguing precisely that, that the laws should be CHANGED. And yes, you have people like NAMBLA (whom most people consider to be disgusting of course) who wish to have age of consent laws not lessened (they are not universal anyway) but REMOVED, so any relationship is allowed. Of course psychologists can argue (rightly I think) that children can't properly give consent to adults, neither can non-human animals give consent to humans, thus those kinds of relationships will inevitably be a type of rape. And if rape is a violation, it should be illegal to protect the innocent. We have laws against gay marriage (and gay sex, that are slowly being overturned) because it was commonly assumed by American society that marriage was between a man and a woman. The "one man and one woman" thing lead to persecution and threats against the Mormons, a group that sanctioned polygamy, to the point where they were forced to change their beliefs to conform with the laws of those around them (of course various split off groups still practice polygamy in defiance of everyone else, but that gets into the debate of "enforceability" of sex laws and such). So we have the definition of marriage, the definition of consent, and all that stuff. Marriage has legal benefits and sacred connotations (though there is a secular equivalent, and it's really up to the couple and the community how much religious stock they put into it). But it's an institution. What people are calling for is a radical reform, reorganization or reform of this institution and others are disagreeing how it should be done or if it should be done at all. Making "same sex civil unions" a new seperate legal institution apart from "marriage" (heterosexuals only) is an interesting issue of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo_92 Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Resectivly speacking are you gay? i'm certainly not so i don't support them and my religion has a lot to do with my beliefs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Resectivly speacking are you gay? i'm certainly not so i don't support them This post wreaks of bigotry. That's about all there is to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 I support them although I'm heterosexual. Contrary to some peoples' beliefs, you don't have to be gay to support homosexuality. You only need the conviction that they're not hurting anyone, nor attempting to do so, and you're all set. Religion's Mythology's thoughts on the matter is completely irrelevant to me. Unless you follow the Bible word-for-word, they should be for you, too (you don't 100% abide by the Holy Book, so how can you make others do?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Resectivly speacking are you gay? i'm certainly not Strange how everyone who bashes gays has to underline at the start that they certainly aren't gay. Hmmm. I'm not black so i don't support equal rights for black people. ANd assuming your religion is christianity then you shouldn't be allowing women out of the house with their head uncovered either.. or letting them speak in church. but then i'm not christian, so i don't support your right to get married either. and my religion has a lot to do with my beliefs But what do your beliefs have to do with the lives of non-believers? Are athiests allowed to get married? Yes. Are muslims allowed to get married? Yes. Why should christian law apply to non-christians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Resectivly speacking are you gay? i'm certainly not so i don't support them and my religion has a lot to do with my beliefs Reminds me of the anti-black rights junk back in the 40's-70's. I remember one of the most popular in regards to interracial marriage had something to do with tying two different colored oxen to the same yoke being bad and blasphemous. Or some other such nonsense. Basically, religion has no place in affairs of social structure unless in a religious social setting. And as far as I can remember, America isn't to have a nationally established religion, since the idea was it is the land of the free. You can practice your faith without anyone telling you otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Resectivly speacking are you gay? i'm certainly not so i don't support them and my religion has a lot to do with my beliefs Come to think of it, most within this thread are heterosexual(myself included). So it's not really that we are homosexuals looking out for ourselves, but just that we just have some rational sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo_92 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 this is another reason if you lived back in th 1500 hundreds you would almost never hear of a gay person and if you did you would've been appauled. That just shows that this generation has been morally declining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 this is another reason if you lived back in th 1500 hundreds you would almost never hear of a gay person and if you did you would've been appauled. That just shows that this generation has been morally declining. YUP. Because burning witches at the stake = MORAL FAMILY VALUES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.