Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 541 of 759 (702851)
07-11-2013 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by Dr Adequate
07-11-2013 8:42 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
It's the principle of the thing, fact that men and women together can make babies unless they aren't fertile. Marriage is for a man and a woman, period, whether they have the current capacity to make babies or not, and clearly this is because they were designed to fit together and make babies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 8:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 8:59 PM Faith has replied
 Message 543 by hooah212002, posted 07-11-2013 9:18 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 546 by jar, posted 07-11-2013 9:49 PM Faith has replied
 Message 555 by PaulK, posted 07-12-2013 1:37 AM Faith has replied
 Message 575 by Taq, posted 07-12-2013 4:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 542 of 759 (702852)
07-11-2013 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by Faith
07-11-2013 8:48 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
It's the principle of the thing, fact that men and women together can make babies unless they aren't fertile.
But why should that be "the principle of the thing"?
You wish to treat differently a heterosexual couple who can't make babies and a homosexual couple who can't make babies, on the basis of the precise reason why they can't make babies. Why? It seems to be an utterly unimportant distinction.
If you issued a driver's license to one blind person but not to another, I'd be surprised. If you then explained: "Ah, the difference is anatomical, the one I rejected was blind because he had no eyes", then I'd think this was a poor basis to make a distinction between them.
---
One in 5000 women is born with Mllerian agenesis, an anatomical inability to conceive. They are clearly not "designed" to have babies. Should they be permitted to marry?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 8:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 9:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 543 of 759 (702853)
07-11-2013 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by Faith
07-11-2013 8:48 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
fact that men and women together can make babies unless they aren't fertile.
They can unless they can't.
Solid argument there, Faith. I was certain until now that this sort of shit only existed as a parody on the internet. But I guess parodies have some basis in reality..... Are you sure you aren't a troll pulling the long con on EvC? You can't honestly seriously think the way you do.
Marriage is for a man and a woman, period,
So then...wait for it...... wait for it...... don't get gay married. How hard is that? Judge not lest ye be judged and all that. I just shot up heroin and fucked 3 men in the ass while choking myself. Did that effect you? Nope. Nor would it if one of those men were my husband. Or my wife. Or my estranged Russian mail order bride. Simply put: other peoples business is none of yours until you choose to make it so. You WANT to be a nosy nancy and be offended by what other consenting adults do.
I've got money that says you do some rather ungodly shit that you wouldn't dare tell your church ninnies.
whether they have the current capacity to make babies or not
That's either your argument or not. Either you care whether a couple can reproduce or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
and clearly this is because they were designed to fit together and make babies.
And those born without the capability to reproduce are designed to......
And those borns with handicaps are designed to........
And those born with Down's are designed to.....
And those born of incest are designed to.....
face it, nothing was designed to do anything. If men weren't meant to get fucked in the ass, it wouldn't feel good and there wouldn't be an erogenous zone deep in a mans ass.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 8:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 544 of 759 (702854)
07-11-2013 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 542 by Dr Adequate
07-11-2013 8:59 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Oh good grief, it's how we were MADE, how can you argue with something so obvious? Two of the same sex can't procreate no matter how fertile they might be with respect to the opposite sex.
Marriage is a Creation Ordinance, established by God, by which a man and a woman become "one flesh" which is expressed in the offspring they create which are literally one flesh out of the two of them. This is said in Genesis 2:24 and quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, and by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:16 and Ephesians 5:31. Although there are certainly conditions that prevent fertility in heterosexuals, they are still by principle able to become one flesh, whereas the rectum cannot conceive a child no matter how much you might wish it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 8:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by hooah212002, posted 07-11-2013 9:30 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 547 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 10:00 PM Faith has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 545 of 759 (702855)
07-11-2013 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 544 by Faith
07-11-2013 9:25 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Oh good grief, it's how we were MADE, how can you argue with something so obvious? Two of the same sex can't procreate no matter how fertile they might be with respect to the opposite sex.
So then infertile women should NOT be able to marry. Gotcha.
Marriage is a Creation Ordinance, established by God, by which a man and a woman become "one flesh" which is expressed in the offspring they create which are literally one flesh out of the two of them. This is said in Genesis 2:24 and quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, and by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:16 and Ephesians 5:31. Although there are certainly conditions that prevent fertility in heterosexuals, they are still by principle able to become one flesh, whereas the rectum cannot conceive a child no matter how much you might wish it.
Good thing no one wants to be gay married in the eyes of your god. No, this is a legal matter. Your religion plays no role other than to be bigoted and hateful and trample human rights and freedoms.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 9:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 546 of 759 (702857)
07-11-2013 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by Faith
07-11-2013 8:48 PM


Making whoopee.
Just in case you hadn't noticed, humans can make babies without being married.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 8:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by AZPaul3, posted 07-11-2013 10:05 PM jar has not replied
 Message 550 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 10:08 PM jar has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 547 of 759 (702859)
07-11-2013 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 544 by Faith
07-11-2013 9:25 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Oh good grief, it's how we were MADE ...
And a woman with Mllerian agenesis is MADE anatomically infertile. That seems to be either a plain sign from God that she isn't intended to marry anyone ... or a plain sign that your argument is rubbish.
Although there are certainly conditions that prevent fertility in heterosexuals, they are still by principle able to become one flesh, whereas the rectum cannot conceive a child no matter how much you might wish it.
Nor can the vagina of a woman with Mllerian agenesis.
---
I do not in fact spend any time wishing that rectums could conceive children, there are enough religious fundamentalists already.
Marriage is a Creation Ordinance, established by God, by which a man and a woman become "one flesh" which is expressed in the offspring they create which are literally one flesh out of the two of them. This is said in Genesis 2:24 and quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, and by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:16 and Ephesians 5:31.
But there is no reason why people don't share your religious views should be bound by them. Jews can't stop me eating bacon, Muslims can't stop me from drinking beer ...
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 9:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 10:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 548 of 759 (702862)
07-11-2013 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 546 by jar
07-11-2013 9:49 PM


Re: Making whoopee.
Ohhh, jar, that's a no-no. Shame, shame. You're making the baby jesus cry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by jar, posted 07-11-2013 9:49 PM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 549 of 759 (702863)
07-11-2013 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by Dr Adequate
07-11-2013 10:00 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
You're talking about a disease, which doesn't change the principle of how men and women were made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 10:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 10:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 550 of 759 (702864)
07-11-2013 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 546 by jar
07-11-2013 9:49 PM


Re: Making whoopee.
Marriage was instituted to legitimize it. Obviously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by jar, posted 07-11-2013 9:49 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by jar, posted 07-11-2013 10:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 551 of 759 (702865)
07-11-2013 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by Faith
07-11-2013 10:08 PM


Re: Making whoopee.
Bullshit.
Did God marry Mary?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 10:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 552 of 759 (702866)
07-11-2013 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by Faith
07-11-2013 10:07 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
You're talking about a disease, which doesn't change the principle of how men and women were made.
It's the principle on which a woman who has it is made. Y'know, anatomically unable to conceive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 10:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(2)
Message 553 of 759 (702868)
07-11-2013 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Faith
07-11-2013 12:03 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Okay, Faith, there are two things that you have stated in this thread that I cannot let go...and for the sake of argument, I will agree with your idea of a 6,000 year old Earth for this discussion. Mainly for the history point.
1. Now the first point is when you stated this:
Faith writes:
Oddly enough, I don't recall using Biblical reasoning at all in this discussion. If I have perhaps you can point it out?
I then pointed out where you had stated that the Old Testament may have condoned polygamy, even endorsed, but the New Testament rescinded this approval, thus marriage is defined as one man and one woman. You said that was not to prove your point, but because it shows how the views changed, or something along those lines, please let me know if I am wrong.
So, I thought I would bring to attention a second use of the Bible to defend your views used in this very thread as well. In fact, on the very same page in my setup of twenty messages a page where you said you never used the Bible in this thread.
Faith writes:
First of all I don't hate gay people, and second the New Testament also identifies homosexuality as sin, in more than one place. Along with heterosexual sin and many others.
Whether or not something is a sin should not define the legal status that the individuals who practice it are afforded. The damage done to other indivduals or other's property is what should be considered when legal consideration is given. Same Sex Marriage cannot be denied based upon the fact that homosexuality is a sin to the Christian Church.
So, two places where your arguments against same sex marriage required your use of the Bible. It may not have been your main argument, but your secondary arguments used to prop up the original argument are certainly a factor on whether or not your opinion stems from religion.
However, you want to claim you have History on your side! Well, shoot....maybe you do, I mean I can think of a lot of cultures where only one man and one woman were married...I mean, especially after Jesus talked about it. Wait, using a 6,000 year old Earth, Jesus only talked about it 2,000 years ago. Plus worldwide, I keep reading that while still legal in many regions of the World, polygamy was only banned in some countries as recent as the 1900's. So we have the Old Testament giving polygamy the go ahead for most of the first 4,000 years...Gotta build that tribe size.
Then, we have other cultures around the world who currently still practice polygamy and have for a long time, so we can say basically 6,000 years of history for them.
Now some banned it very recently, I'll give you benefit of the doubt and place the average at 1100 CE. How does that sounds...it even accounts for Judaisms ban on polygamy in 1000 CE.
So, we have 4,000 years from Christianity, 6,000 years from a far larger number of countries, including most Islamic countries, and we have 4,900 years from other countries that banned it throughout History. Last I heard, the more amount of time spent in one system would mean it is the most common form of marriage in History, so your argument fails to meet the demand for evidence. Marriage should include Polygamy if you are only making a Historical argument.
Plus, your beloved Martin Luther said that according to the Sola Scriptura there is no reason he cannot join a man and more than one wife in marriage.
Source: putting this here, even though Faith will just claim Wikipedia is biased
So, could you again tell me how your ideas are based on the commonly held traditional view of marriage throughout History and not based upon the Christian defined definition that at most has a history of around 2,500 years as being the only way to define marriage (and that is generous of me). Last I learned 3,500 is bigger than 2,500.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 12:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 12:34 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 554 of 759 (702871)
07-12-2013 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 553 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
07-11-2013 11:24 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Okay, Faith, there are two things that you have stated in this thread that I cannot let go...and for the sake of argument, I will agree with your idea of a 6,000 year old Earth for this discussion. Mainly for the history point.
1. Now the first point is when you stated this:
Faith writes:
Oddly enough, I don't recall using Biblical reasoning at all in this discussion. If I have perhaps you can point it out?
I then pointed out where you had stated that the Old Testament may have condoned polygamy, even endorsed, but the New Testament rescinded this approval,
I did NOT say that, Tempe, please go back and reread. I said that God did not approve of the polygamy that was practiced in the Old Testament, in other words it was sin, it was NOT condoned, it was NOT endorsed, so there was nothing to be rescinded in the New Testament, God's Creation Ordinance of one man and one woman becoming one flesh was simply emphasized.
thus marriage is defined as one man and one woman. You said that was not to prove your point, but because it shows how the views changed, or something along those lines, please let me know if I am wrong.
You are wrong. The ordinance of God did not change, but Jesus made it clear that polygamy in God's eyes is sin, as it was in the OT as well.
And again, I was answering a side issue here and not arguing my case against gay marriage which was not based on the Bible.
So, I thought I would bring to attention a second use of the Bible to defend your views used in this very thread as well. In fact, on the very same page in my setup of twenty messages a page where you said you never used the Bible in this thread.
Faith writes:
First of all I don't hate gay people, and second the New Testament also identifies homosexuality as sin, in more than one place. Along with heterosexual sin and many others.
OK, perhaps there you have found my using it as I had forgotten, but again I don't think so: again this was said in answer to something someone else raised about the Bible, confining the laws against homosexuality to the Old Testament, while my usual argument was not based on the Bible but on history. I don't care if I did use the Bible in my argument, it's just that I believed I didn't, and left it to you to show me if I did, but what you have shown me doesn't seem to be about my argument, merely an attempt to answer others' arguments.
Whether or not something is a sin should not define the legal status that the individuals who practice it are afforded. The damage done to other indivduals or other's property is what should be considered when legal consideration is given. Same Sex Marriage cannot be denied based upon the fact that homosexuality is a sin to the Christian Church.
I didn't claim it should be. Again, I was answering a specific question. But to answer your claim here, there is such a thing as general damage to the body politic or society as a whole by redefining something as basic and ancient as marriage to accommodate something that has been regarded in all times and places as a sexual aberration.
So, two places where your arguments against same sex marriage required your use of the Bible. It may not have been your main argument, but your secondary arguments used to prop up the original argument are certainly a factor on whether or not your opinion stems from religion.
Sigh. But I did not use them as props in any sense whatever, I was merely answering specific arguments of others. THEY brought up the religious factor, I didn't.
AGAIN, not that it matters except as a point of FACT.
However, you want to claim you have History on your side! Well, shoot....maybe you do, I mean I can think of a lot of cultures where only one man and one woman were married...I mean, especially after Jesus talked about it. Wait, using a 6,000 year old Earth, Jesus only talked about it 2,000 years ago. Plus worldwide, I keep reading that while still legal in many regions of the World, polygamy was only banned in some countries as recent as the 1900's. So we have the Old Testament giving polygamy the go ahead for most of the first 4,000 years...Gotta build that tribe size.
In the Bible it was clearly sin and NOT condoned by the Bible for that reason. And as far as history goes just how common has polygamy been anyway?
Then, we have other cultures around the world who currently still practice polygamy and have for a long time, so we can say basically 6,000 years of history for them.
Now some banned it very recently, I'll give you benefit of the doubt and place the average at 1100 CE. How does that sounds...it even accounts for Judaisms ban on polygamy in 1000 CE.
So, we have 4,000 years from Christianity, 6,000 years from a far larger number of countries, including most Islamic countries, and we have 4,900 years from other countries that banned it throughout History. Last I heard, the more amount of time spent in one system would mean it is the most common form of marriage in History, so your argument fails to meet the demand for evidence. Marriage should include Polygamy if you are only making a Historical argument.
Honestly I have no idea what you are trying to prove. What is your point? Concerning history ALL I believe I have claimed is that homosexuality has in all times and places been regarded as an aberration, far from giving it the legitimacy of marriage. I don't recall saying anything about polygamy in history and what would be your point about that? Polygamy is heterosexual, no?
Plus, your beloved Martin Luther said that according to the Sola Scriptura there is no reason he cannot join a man and more than one wife in marriage.
I would have to investigate that further because the New Testament is very clear that monogamy is God's plan, making it very odd if Luther said otherwise.
So, could you again tell me how your ideas are based on the commonly held traditional view of marriage throughout History and not based upon the Christian defined definition that at most has a history of around 2,500 years as being the only way to define marriage (and that is generous of me). Last I learned 3,500 is bigger than 2,500.
Again, first, homosexuality is the topic, not polygamy, and my claim still holds that across all cultures through all time homosexuality has been treated as an aberration; and second, it is not at all clear just how common polygamy has been anyway, but why should it matter if it's common since I'd expect God's laws to be violated by fallen humanity. And there I AM arguing from the Bible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-11-2013 11:24 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-12-2013 10:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 555 of 759 (702873)
07-12-2013 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 541 by Faith
07-11-2013 8:48 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
quote:
It's the principle of the thing, fact that men and women together can make babies unless they aren't fertile.
In other words, people who CAN'T have children ARE permitted to marry. People can marry and CHOOSE not to have children and yet remain legally married even when they get to the point where they can't.
So there is NO principle saying that having children - or even the potential to have children is a legal or social requirement for a marriage.
ANd of course we all know that. It's impossible to say whether you were knowingly repeating a lie or were to prejudiced to think about it (but when you started trying to divide fertility from the potential to have children you should have figured it out).
So let's be honest - the only PRINCIPLE you're following is that you object to gay sex and THEREFORE you think that gays should be treated as second-class citizens.
That's not a principle worth following.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 8:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 556 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 1:44 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024