Gay marriage

[bybee]

So are many heterosexual unions. The thing is, we humans don't have sex exclusively for procreation, nor do we marry exclusively for it. So all this insistence on procreation as some sort of natural, social, or divine definition of wedlock is nonsense.

You can take that up with mother nature!
I am not insisting on anything other than the definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman.
There are any number of ways to unite. They aren't marriage.

 

[Stripe]

It's not OK to be gay.

 

[PureX]

You can take that up with mother nature!
I am not insisting on anything other than the definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman.
There are any number of ways to unite. They aren't marriage.

That's just semantics. Which you are free to indulge. My point was that it's not based on nature, nor on social necessity, nor on any divine absolute. It's just a simple bias based on a religious dogma, and nothing more.

 

[TracerBullet]

You can take that up with mother nature!
I am not insisting on anything other than the definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman.
There are any number of ways to unite. They aren't marriage.

Marriage has a much broader definition

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm trying to remember ever being at a wedding where part of the vows was anything like, "I promise to sire/bear your children". The vows I remember were always about things like sticking with your spouse no matter what (better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness and health) and being faithful.

You'd think if producing children were such an integral part of marriages, it'd be mentioned in the vows.

 

[bybee]

I'm trying to remember ever being at a wedding where part of the vows was anything like, "I promise to sire/bear your children". The vows I remember were always about things like sticking with your spouse no matter what (better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness and health) and being faithful.

You'd think if producing children were such an integral part of marriages, it'd be mentioned in the vows.

In bygone days it was understood that within marriage the possibility and desirability of bearing children was the norm.

 

[Jose Fly]

In bygone days it was understood that within marriage the possibility and desirability of bearing children was the norm.

But apparently it wasn't important enough to be included in vows, unlike trust, fidelity, honor, and love.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

You'd think if producing children were such an integral part of marriages, it'd be mentioned in the vows.

Marriages without children are a more recent phenomenon - at least as far as choosing not to have children when you are physically capable of doing so.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

If infertile heterosexual unions don't provide the same benefits that fertile heterosexual marriages provide, why should they be promoted as equal?

Producing the children is only half of the unique benefit of heterosexual marriages. Providing the ideal rearing environment is the other half - and if infertile couples want to have children, they can adopt them.

Either way, if certain heterosexual marriages are unable or unwilling to produce children - this doesn't change the fact that heterosexual marriages by nature and by norm provide unique benefits.

which no one is saying

The research papers I cited are precisely claiming that the gender of the parent doesn't matter - that having two dads is just as ideal as having a mom and dad. That is exactly the same thing as saying that having a dad is not uniquely important to child development - or that having a mom is not uniquely important to child development.

If the researchers admitted that having a mom is a uniquely important factor for child development, then they would have to say that placing a child in a homosexual family deprives them of an essential developmental factor - meaning homosexual unions are NOT equal. But, that wouldn't be politically correct...

 

[gcthomas]

Producing the children is only half of the unique benefit of heterosexual marriages.

Unique benefit? I have to tell you that there are other ways to get pregnant than getting married.

 

[M. A. Williams]

Unique benefit? I have to tell you that there are other ways to get pregnant than getting married.

Indeed, but in an ideal and Biblical world, it's something that should be unique to marriage.

 

[gcthomas]

Indeed, but in an ideal and Biblical world, it's something that should be unique to marriage.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that a biblical world is ideal...

But having children has never in the history of the world been unique to marriage, and never will. It was a silly comment and deserved to be called out.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Indeed, but in an ideal and Biblical world, it's something that should be unique to marriage.

Hey M. A. Williams,

Uh, I'm your buddy, but I've got to tell you that you are right. It would be ideal. But it doesn't always happen that way. Abraham was told by Sarah, his wife, to take her handmaiden in place of her, and have a child by the handmaiden, since Sarah could not have her own children. She was barren. After the Lord and angels came to speak to Abraham, Saria, was supposed to be able to be called Sarah and that she would become pregnant. And her child shall be named Isaac. And the son that Abraham had with the handmaiden was called Ishmael. Ishmael was the ancestor of the Arab people, etc. Ishmael and his mother were sent out away from Sarah and Abraham, and the Lord God promised Ishmael that he would also be a father of many. I don't do this story justice and so I won't go more into it. I digress. You see that Abraham was not married to his handmaiden.

God Be With You,

Michael

​

 

[M. A. Williams]

Hey M. A. Williams,

Uh, I'm your buddy, but I've got to tell you that you are right. It would be ideal. But it doesn't always happen that way. Abraham was told by Sarah, his wife, to take her handmaiden in place of her, and have a child by the handmaiden, since Sarah could not have her own children. She was barren. After the Lord and angels came to speak to Abraham, Saria, was supposed to be able to be called Sarah and that she would become pregnant. And her child shall be named Isaac. And the son that Abraham had with the handmaiden was called Ishmael. Ishmael was the ancestor of the Arab people, etc. Ishmael and his mother were sent out away from Sarah and Abraham, and the Lord God promised Ishmael that he would also be a father of many. I don't do this story justice and so I won't go more into it. I digress. You see that Abraham was not married to his handmaiden.

God Be With You,

Michael

​

Good point

Well received.

 

[Cons&Spires]

Or better yet, you call it what you want but in the real world it remains lawful marriage. And yes, wishing to deny a minority group a basic right that you take for granted, is nothing short of homophobic bigotry.

If you don't like it, well tough! What others do within the law is none of your business :thumb:

Let the spite begin

You're argument has no meritible basis, it's basically just saying 'they passed a law, if you don't like it then you're wrong'.

But the LGBT lobby has warped public opinion so much that you, among others, don't realize that. If homosexual marriage is a 'basic right', then by all means, you should have no qualms with a law being passed allowing marrying one's pet.

That's about how natural homosexual marriage is to someone who hasn't been reprogrammed by LGBT bias. The agenda is fueled by an obsessive need for people to make idols of themselves as some paragon of integrity, and not by God or truth- so in a world which has abandoned each, such an agenda is skyrocketed.

Only a real fool, in other words, believes that people on FB for example are putting rainbows on the profile pictures out of some sincere interest in the rights of homosexuals. You won't find one gay person with it on their screen, because it's not what it insists itself to be. In fact, you won't find many men with it at that- I wonder why?

 

[gcthomas]

But the LGBT lobby has warped public opinion so much that you, among others, don't realize that.
...
That's about how natural homosexual marriage is to someone who hasn't been reprogrammed by LGBT bias. The agenda is fueled by an obsessive need for people to make idols of themselves as some paragon of integrity, and not by God or truth-

More and more of the population are realising that they have close friends, trusted colleagues or loved family members that identify as LGB or T as people live more openly. If you make bigotry against their friends, colleagues and family an essential requirement of Christianity, then you will find the recent gentle trend away from christianity in the US will become a flood. Most people are too nice to accept that being openly discriminating and intolerant of good people is a suitable way to behave.

 

[TracerBullet]

Producing the children is only half of the unique benefit of heterosexual marriages. Providing the ideal rearing environment is the other half - and if infertile couples want to have children, they can adopt them.

Define ideal.

Either way, if certain heterosexual marriages are unable or unwilling to produce children - this doesn't change the fact that heterosexual marriages by nature and by norm provide unique benefits.

single race couples are also the norm but interracial couples can still marry

What are these unique benefits do you keep talking about?

The research papers I cited are precisely claiming that the gender of the parent doesn't matter

Your actual claim was: If we say that homosexual unions are the same thing as heterosexual marriages, we are promoting the idea that fathers are not important to a child's development - and that mothers are not important to a child's development.

Which no one is saying

- that having two dads is just as ideal as having a mom and dad. That is exactly the same thing as saying that having a dad is not uniquely important to child development - or that having a mom is not uniquely important to child development.

What the studies have and continue to show is that children raised by same gendered couples fair just as well across the board as those raised by opposite sex couples.

If the researchers admitted that having a mom is a uniquely important factor for child development, then they would have to say that placing a child in a homosexual family deprives them of an essential developmental factor - meaning homosexual unions are NOT equal. But, that wouldn't be politically correct...

By this same 'logic' a child whose parent was killed while on active military duty is being deprived an essential developmental factor.

Rejecting this would indicate that you have set up a double standard where you want your justification of discrimination to apply only to the people you want to discriminate against. It also would indicate that your position has nothing to do with children and everything to do with your personal prejudices

 

[Hedshaker]

You're argument has no meritible basis, it's basically just saying 'they passed a law, if you don't like it then you're wrong'.

I know you are banned at this time but just in case you return here after your forced hiatus:

No, I'm saying if you don't like it then tough! Because the vast majority of people in the free world now see prejudice against minority groups , that harm no one, as wrong.

But the LGBT lobby has warped public opinion so much that you, among others, don't realize that. If homosexual marriage is a 'basic right', then by all means, you should have no qualms with a law being passed allowing marrying one's pet.

That you seriously post something like that says far more about you than it ever will about your adversaries.

That's about how natural homosexual marriage is to someone who hasn't been reprogrammed by LGBT bias. The agenda is fueled by an obsessive need for people to make idols of themselves as some paragon of integrity, and not by God or truth- so in a world which has abandoned each, such an agenda is skyrocketed.

You wouldn't know "Truth" if it bit you on the rear!

Only a real fool, in other words, believes that people on FB for example are putting rainbows on the profile pictures out of some sincere interest in the rights of homosexuals. You won't find one gay person with it on their screen, because it's not what it insists itself to be. In fact, you won't find many men with it at that- I wonder why?

I have no idea what you are talking about.