God Hates You.......

@Foxfyre,

4) I have not argued against gay marriage ever--I have argued for keeping the many millenia old definition of marriage.

[/quote]

Whose definition that has been kept over the millenia?

You mean that no society since civilization began has sanctioned gay marriage?

Even if this was true, which it obviously isn't, what are you saying? Things shoud never change?

That's right, let's keep everything exactly as is, no rocking the boat.

I still wonder, on an individual basis, why anyone would care what the people next door are doing, if it has nothing to do with them getting up in the morning and going through their day.

Ridiculous.

2 Replies

@chai2,

Quote:

I still wonder, on an individual basis, why anyone would care what the people next door are doing, if it has nothing to do with them getting up in the morning and going through their day

Which makes one wonder why you are so vehement in your opinions on the subject.

Personally, other than the fact that marriage had a great deal to do with procreation and the institution of family, I am not really concerned whether gays (I personally don't like that tag) live together. In fact, I would think that more heterosexual people live together than get married.

3 Replies

@Intrepid,

Quote:

Re: chai2 (Post 3520595)
Quote:

Quote:
I still wonder, on an individual basis, why anyone would care what the people next door are doing, if it has nothing to do with them getting up in the morning and going through their day

Which makes one wonder why you are so vehement in your opinions on the subject.

Hahaha.
It's really not ridiculous chai.
Christians believe that marriage is divine, they also believe that being gay isn't a correct lifestyle choice in the eyes of god, therefore the conclusion is perfectly logical.
I have no problem with Fox believing in this, I was just picking holes in the way she tried to justify it.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Now St Nick hates you.

... and he'll take me straight to hell. Well, at least I'll be in interesting company.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Quote:

In fact, I would think that more heterosexual people live together than get married.

This may well be true, and in fact, in England, demographic studies done before and after the First World War showed that the majority of child-bearing couples lived together without benefit of clergy. For most of human history, the institution of marriage, although children may have been a desired result, was about the preservation of and transmission of rights in property. People didn't care if the poor and the working class married because they hadn't any property which powerful people in society were interested in.

It was only the rise of evangelical Protestantism which lead to campaigns for all parents to be married, although their success was rather indifferent. But given the effect of the preservation of rights in property, whatever the intent, marriage by homosexuals makes a good deal of sense.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

a. I don't think, in this mind-set, that St Nick is going to hell, so it is unlikely he will be taking you there.

b. I don't think saints get to sit on the judgment seat. He's propbably limited to making your christmases suck. How WAS your christmas, btw? Lots of coal in your wee stocking?

0 Replies

@chai2,

I don't make it my business to care what anybody next door (or anywhere else) is doing so long as it does not intentionally or unintentionally hurt others. I certainly don't think a loving homosexual relationship hurts anybody nor do I have any problem whatsoever with gay people who are and/or have been among my close friends, family, acquaintances, business and social circles. I also don't have any problem with heterosexual people who chose to live together either or those who chose to live alone, etc.

The traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has endured for all the millenia that marriage has been acknowledged or recognized though it has been mostly in the more recent millenia that it has been restricted to one man and one woman. It is the same definition as currently acknowledged and preferred by George W. Bush, by Barack Obama, and well in excess of 60% of the population wherever the issue has been put to a vote. That I join with the majority in my preference to protect the traditional definition of marriage makes me neither a monster nor prejudiced nor bigoted nor homophobic.

Those who elect to place such labels on me seem to lack the intellect to understand that my wish to preserve the traditional definition of marriage has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my opinions or feelings about gay guys or gals or anybody else who live their lives outside a traditional marriage. Two different things entirely.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Quote:
Personally, other than the fact that marriage had a great deal to do with procreation and the institution of family,

Married gays can certainly believe in the institution of family, as they can obviously procreate.

Even before the days of petri dishes and turkey basters, one could, whether straight or gay, have intercourse with the opposite sex to get a baby.

Oh, gays don't want to have sex with another gender?

Yeah, I guess every hetero that wanted a baby wanted to have sex to get it. How many women (and men) have endured having sex with someone they didn't feel physically attracted to in order to get a child? I don't know, do you?

You wonder why I'm so vehement about it?

Oh, I guess it has something to do with letting people live fulfilling lives with someone they love, the same way you get to do.. Just a minor thing.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

Quote:

Christians believe that marriage is divine, they also believe that being gay isn't a correct lifestyle choice in the eyes of god, therefore the conclusion is perfectly logical.

Christians aren't the only one's that believe marriage is divine. And not all Christians agree it is wrong.

What's that flying out the window?

oh....your logic.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has endured for all the millenia that marriage has been acknowledged or recognized though it has been mostly in the more recent millenia that it has been restricted to one man and one woman. It is the same definition as currently acknowledged and preferred by George W. Bush, by Barack Obama, and well in excess of 60% of the population wherever the issue has been put to a vote. That I join with the majority in my preference to protect the traditional definition of marriage makes me neither a monster nor prejudiced nor bigoted nor homophobic.

So, something like 40% of the population feels gay marriage is fine?

That doesn't sound like the traditional definition as you state it.

In fact, if this 60/40 split has "endured through the millenia" it really doesn't seem the 60% had much of an edge.

90% of people are right handed. 10% are lefties. At various times through the millenia, left handed people have been forced to use their right hands. Today, we're going through an enlighted stage where we don't care at all if you're left or right handed.

The vast majority of 90% of the right handed people couldn't care less about such a small percentage of the populations handiness. Why should 60% of the population care about what basically an equal number of people do? Same with brown eyed people, who are the majority of the population on earth.

Yet, lefties and people with blue, green, gray and hazel eyes have strong beliefs about family, community and marriage.

You should have stopped after your first sentence foxfyre. "I don't make it my business to care what anybody next door (or anywhere else) is doing so long as it does not intentionally or unintentionally hurt others."

Serious question....

What exactly do you think would happen if all people were allowed to marry whom they chose? Specifically, what horrible things would happen in this world if people were left to make their own decisions about their lives?

1 Reply

@chai2,

Quote:

Serious question....

What exactly do you think would happen if all people were allowed to marry whom they chose?

I think marriage would become something very different from what it is and I see that as neither beneficial nor necessary. And I think marriage as it is currently defined is worth preserving for all the reasons that I have previously outlined and will elect not to repeat here.

Serious question:

Why are you so resistant to keeping the definition of marriage that most people want to keep and instead working to develop a way for those who cannot or choose not to marry to form themselves into legally and universally recognized family groups with the benefits and protections that they need?

1 Reply

I've actually taken a road trip to their church just to goof around in front of their building and protest. You should do it once. No matter the day of the week it seems you'd have company.

If the WBC is a total downer, the Patriot Gaurd Riders are totally a pick me up. Before and after legal action was taken to keep protesters away from the burials of gay soldiers, this group would come (many of which are retired vets) on their motorcycles and create a human shield and giant flag barrier to give those attending services shelter from the WBC sickos there to harass them. Some of the pictures I've seen are amazing. These guys only creed is to honor the fallen. They don't care if they were gay, straight, Christian, Muslim... etc.

I can't tell you how much I'd love to shake one of these guy's hands.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Serious question....

What exactly do you think would happen if all people were allowed to marry whom they chose?

I think marriage would become something very different from what it is and I see that as neither beneficial nor necessary. And I think marriage as it is currently defined is worth preserving for all the reasons that I have previously outlined and will elect not to repeat here.

Serious question:

Why are you so resistant to keeping the definition of marriage that most people want to keep and instead working to develop a way for those who cannot or choose not to marry to form themselves into legally and universally recognized family groups with the benefits and protections that they need?

Because I'm not resistant to change.

You see making this change as neither beneficial or necessary. You do not say it will be detrimental.

Who will it not be beneficial for? You? If others say it will benefit them, and you don't believe it will be detrimental, what's the point of resisting change?

You're just fearful of change. Change may cause you to reconsider your beliefs. You're afraid to make that examination.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

This crap comes right out of my back yard.

Fred Phelps is a sick man. I remember this **** from my teens, and it has just grown bigger in 20+ years.

The Patriot Guard rocks...

0 Replies

@chai2,

I'm not resistant to change that is beneficial either. I am resistant to change that has proved itself to be not beneficial. There is benefit in a sense of family tradition and belonging. There is benefit in consistent experience of positive male and female role models in order to understand ones own sexuality. And there is benefit in the traditional family as an institution as, almost without exception, those communities in which the traditional family is the norm rather than the exception enjoy greater prosperity, more stability, less crime, better schools, more community cooperation and progress, and the children are far less likely to be school drop outs or get into serious trouble. You can attempt to dispute that with anecdotal examples or the inevitable exceptions that are invariably trotted out by some who chose other than traditional marriage, but you won't be able to dispute it with any reliable statistics or evidence.

I know gay parents who are excellent parents. I know single parents who are doing a terrific job raising their kids. That in no way changes the fact that on average, children benefit from having a responsible mom and dad in the home, and I see no reason to further weaken the institution that encourages that situation. I believe changing the definition would do just that.

If you think that makes me a terrible person, well I can't be responsible for what you think. But so far, no body has come up with any kind of reasoned argument for how I am wrong about traditional marriage.

1 Reply

@chai2,

Actually, 'traditonal marriage' has changed ... over the centuries.

At least in the so-called "Western societies".

The US marriage lawis is based on English marriage law. English marriage law is the the product of Canon Law.
Canon Law is a "Christian variety" of the ancient Roman Law.
IN the traditional marriage in Rome, we had three forms of marriage: confarreatio, coemptio and usus.

I've no problem at all whoever defined marriage in what way ... if that is done as a traditional ceremonial festivity in a church or similar or different.

But since we all live in countries where state and church are separated, and - to my knowledge - no A2K'er lives in a theocracy - "marriage" is regulated by country/state law.
And that's just a registration.

I know, of course, that from time onwards civil authorities registered the human life they only carried on what the church had done before.
However, over the centuries they changed a lot, made different laws: divorce became possible, wives and children got rights, etc.
And authorities abandoned some church ceremonies: there's no civil first communion/confirmation for instance.

I'm sure that it won't happen tomorrow, but in the not to far future 'marriage' will just be a registration of two persons by a state authority .... and perhaps something different, "traditional" in churches, with one man and oine woman, or with ...

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Marriage as recognized by law has never required a religious ceremony. It could be confirmed by a Justice of the Peace, a judge, a ship's captain, filing the document with the city clerk, or in some states simply by common law (recognized because the two live together as husband and wife for a time with no license or ceremony involved at all.)

The state, however, has long recognized the benefits of traditional marriage to children, the population as a whole, and the communities in which traditional marriage is the norm, in all of which the state has reasonable and practical interest. For that reason the state recognizes, sanctions, and provides attractive incentives to encourage the institution. The state also includes certain laws governing the legality of the marriage contract to ensure that persons too closely related won't marry, that persons too young cannot be forced into marriage, etc.

None of that has any bearing on necessary benefits for those outside traditional marriage to have visitation privileges in hospitals, enjoy certain tax benefits, right of inheritance etc. in a less complicated manner than now exists. For that reason I would strongly support a new institution that would be available to everybody just as marriage is available to everybody. People could add religious ceremonies and their own traditions to such new institution just as they have with marriage.

2 Replies

@chai2,

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Christians believe that marriage is divine, they also believe that being gay isn't a correct lifestyle choice in the eyes of god, therefore the conclusion is perfectly logical.

Christians aren't the only one's that believe marriage is divine. And not all Christians agree it is wrong.

What's that flying out the window?

oh....your logic.

That doesn't prove anything.
We are talking about christians, so whether or not other people/religions find it divine is irrelevant, and if some christians believe homosexuality is wrong, based on biblical 'evidence' then it is logical to want to keep it within the confines of heterosexuality.

I personally think the Bible is a socially constructed book of twaddle, but there are phrases which can be arranged to clearly point out that God doesn't want gay people to marry. What your personal faith is, and which bits of the bible you choose to believe is another matter.
Lots of people choose to brush the old testament aside, but like Set pointed out, Jesus believed in it.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I should amend my comments that in MOST communities/societies, the law does not require a religious ceremony in order for people to marry. I can't say that has always been the case everywhere. It is certainly the case in all states in the USA.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

PQ writes

Quote:

I personally think the Bible is a socially constructed book of twaddle, but there are phrases which can be arranged to clearly point out that God doesn't want gay people to marry.

Being reasonably familiar with the content of the Bible, I can assure you that those who wrote it never had any thought or comments on gay people marrying as they never at any place or at any point saw marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman, however many wives the guy might have. It would never have crossed their mind that marriage was anything else. Yes, certain passages have been mistranslated or are misused to condemn homosexuals, but in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of most Christians at least in the modern world, most do not use those passages to bash gays. And it would be a real stretch to attach any definition of marriage as involving gays in any fashion.

0 Replies

God Hates You.......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know