Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 3:27 PM
28 online now:
JonF, PaulK (2 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,865 Year: 11,901/19,786 Month: 1,682/2,641 Week: 191/708 Day: 18/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
94959697
98
99Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6693
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


(5)
Message 1456 of 1484 (855657)
06-21-2019 10:01 AM


Wait, what?
So some are now on the record saying marriage isn't about love?

And marriage is all about raising children? Except when a gay couple have children, but marriage is still about raising children?

And marriage is all about producing children? Except when a heterosexual couple cannot produce children, but it's still about producing children?

You know, people really shouldn't try to make secular arguments against same-sex marriage. They should just stick with, "The god I worship thinks gay marriage is evil," and leave it at that. It wouldn't cut ice with me and wouldn't work as a legal argument, but at least it would limit how much of a fool they make themselves.

Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.


It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1457 of 1484 (855665)
06-21-2019 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1437 by Faith
06-20-2019 3:38 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Faith writes:

I was merely talking about the biological FIT between the sexes.


Then your argument is even more of a failure. If there was no biological "fit" between same-sex couples, there wouldn't be any same-sex couples.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1437 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 3:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1458 of 1484 (855666)
06-21-2019 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1439 by Faith
06-20-2019 4:02 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Faith writes:

No, in the history of the human race marriage is NOT about love.


That's true. In the history of the human race, marriage has usually been about property. Never has it ever been about any silly "biological fit" as you claim.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1439 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 4:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1460 by Chiroptera, posted 06-21-2019 12:25 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1459 of 1484 (855667)
06-21-2019 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1445 by Faith
06-21-2019 12:35 AM


Re: and another thing
Faith writes:

So we need a charade of marriage to validate a charade of parenthood by a charade of man and wife enacted by a gay couple?


The charade is your laughable idea that we have to follow some kind of biological imperative.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1445 by Faith, posted 06-21-2019 12:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6693
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1460 of 1484 (855673)
06-21-2019 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1458 by ringo
06-21-2019 11:42 AM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
In the history of the human race, marriage has usually been about property.

And alliances between families and clans.


It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1458 by ringo, posted 06-21-2019 11:42 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 1461 of 1484 (855676)
06-21-2019 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1451 by Faith
06-21-2019 2:33 AM


Re: and another thing
Faith writes:

Remember that you had made the ridiculous statement that a "stable marriage" was good for children as if a gay couple pretending to be a normal married couple could by getting "married" provide that kind of stability.

They aren't pretending to be a normal heterosexual couple. They ARE a couple. Whether you accept it or not, they are raising families, and they would do so with or without the legalization of gay marriage. All they are asking for is the same legal protections that straight couples enjoy in the eyes of the law. For example, they want the same right to pick up their children from the hospital that other married couples enjoy. They want the same rights to visit their children in their hospital rooms. They want their health insurance to cover their children.

People wanting and pretending to be what they aren't to satisfy some weird need that came from who knows where.

They aren't pretending to be a family. They are a family. All they are asking for is the same protections that other families are afforded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1451 by Faith, posted 06-21-2019 2:33 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1462 of 1484 (855679)
06-21-2019 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1439 by Faith
06-20-2019 4:02 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
No, in the history of the human race marriage is NOT about love. if it were I guess parents could marry children and we could all marry our dogs and cats. No it is not about love, it's about the bioloigical principle I'm talking about.\\
Oh and who is talking about anyone HAVING to get married?????.

Marriage is about a lot of things and means different things to different people and to different cultures. Its somewhat accurate to say that historically marriage isn't about love in some cultures where marriages are arranged for the continuation of bloodlines. Strangely I feel that is somehow preferable to you than two men or two women who genuinely love each other.

But traditionally, in the West, we see arranged marriages as shams that invalidates the feelings and agency of individuals choosing to marry who they love, who they have strong friendship with, who they are sexually attracted and sexually compatible with, who they trust to have their back and, yes, often times who they think will be a good mate in raising happy, healthy children with.

But it isn't exclusive to having children. I know lots and lots of people who are married and who do not want children. Or had children in a previous marriage and do not want more in their new marriage. Happens all the time.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1439 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 4:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1463 by Taq, posted 06-21-2019 3:08 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 1463 of 1484 (855680)
06-21-2019 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1462 by Hyroglyphx
06-21-2019 3:04 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Hyroglyphx writes:

But traditionally, in the West, we see arranged marriages as shams that invalidates the feelings and agency of individuals choosing to marry who they love, who they have strong friendship with, who they are sexually attracted and sexually compatible with, who they trust to have their back and, yes, often times who they think will be a good mate in raising happy, healthy children with.

Wouldn't that be more of a modern, post-Enlightenment view of marriage in the West?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1462 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-21-2019 3:04 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1464 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-21-2019 3:21 PM Taq has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 1464 of 1484 (855682)
06-21-2019 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1463 by Taq
06-21-2019 3:08 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Wouldn't that be more of a modern, post-Enlightenment view of marriage in the West?

I suppose so. My point is that marriage isn't really as one-sided as Faith either believes it to be or wants it to be.

We also shouldn't use traditions as the basis of validation at all. Hell, if she wants to get biblical and traditional then she should be a strong advocate of polyamory. Abraham, the father of three major religions, was a philanderer to the tenth degree. Lot was raped by his own daughters and impregnated them... Moses, the guy who said 'Thou shalt not murder," murdered an Egyptian and hid is dead body in the sand. David couldn't stop being unfaithful to anyone. Paul shunned marriage altogether.

If we're gonna use tradition as the basis for anything, she needs to recognize that traditions morph over time.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1463 by Taq, posted 06-21-2019 3:08 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1465 by Taq, posted 06-21-2019 3:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 1466 by Faith, posted 06-21-2019 5:56 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 1465 of 1484 (855684)
06-21-2019 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1464 by Hyroglyphx
06-21-2019 3:21 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Hyroglyphx writes:

We also shouldn't use traditions as the basis of validation at all.

Exactly. If the only reason to continue doing something is because we have always done it that way then you don't have a reason. All morality should be questioned and argued.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1464 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-21-2019 3:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1466 of 1484 (855690)
06-21-2019 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1464 by Hyroglyphx
06-21-2019 3:21 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
I would have expected you to know this but I guess you don't. The behavior of great men of the Bible in having many wives was forbidden but they did it anyway. They were sinners, at odds with God who decreed one man, one woman for marriage. THAT's the tradition I have in mind. The man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife....

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1464 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-21-2019 3:21 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1467 by ringo, posted 06-22-2019 12:09 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1471 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-22-2019 4:29 PM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1467 of 1484 (855724)
06-22-2019 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1466 by Faith
06-21-2019 5:56 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Faith writes:

They were sinners, at odds with God who decreed one man, one woman for marriage.


There was never any such decree.

Faith writes:

THAT's the tradition I have in mind.


It's a non-Biblical tradition, like most of your theology.

Faith writes:

The man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife....


Cleaving to a wife doesn't preclude the possibility of other wives. Jacob, for one example, already had a wife when he cleaved to his chosen Rachel - yet God chose him to be the father of the nation of Israel.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1466 by Faith, posted 06-21-2019 5:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1468 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 1:28 PM ringo has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1468 of 1484 (855745)
06-22-2019 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1467 by ringo
06-22-2019 12:09 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Are you a total atheist or do you have at least some vague expectation that you are going to have to answer to God for all the false stuff you say here?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1467 by ringo, posted 06-22-2019 12:09 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1469 by ringo, posted 06-22-2019 1:31 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1470 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2019 1:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1469 of 1484 (855746)
06-22-2019 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1468 by Faith
06-22-2019 1:28 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Faith writes:

Are you a total atheist or do you have at least some vague expectation that you are going to have to answer to God for all the false stuff you say here?


That's a pretty empty reply to my post. Why are you always so unwilling (or unable) to show that what you label as "false" is actually false?

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1468 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 1:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1470 of 1484 (855747)
06-22-2019 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1468 by Faith
06-22-2019 1:28 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
quote:

Are you a total atheist or do you have at least some vague expectation that you are going to have to answer to God for all the false stuff you say here?

Since you are the one who saying “false stuff” I’d like to hear your answer to the question.

Ringo is correct, there is no general decree against polygamy in the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1468 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 1:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
94959697
98
99Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019