Page 74 of 120 FirstFirst ... 2464727374757684 ... LastLast
Results 731 to 740 of 1200

Thread: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

  1. #731
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,843

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The United States government does not care one bit whether any religious ceremony took place.



    I disagree. This cedes ground to the religious that they own the word. They do not.
    On this I agree. I have a family member who was married this past year to his partner of several years. Being against "gay" marriage has only one basis - religious fundamentalism badly misinterpreted.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  2. #732
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You talk about procreation as if it is key to marriage. What about infertile couples?
    Infertile couples don't change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?. It's still XX + XY

    They meet the existing criteria. Marriage was created for purposeful and specific social, economic and biological reasons. It's the oldest known institution in human history. It's instinctual and biological in animals (unlike homosexuality). If homosexual sex was genetic and planned, evolution would have found a use for it a long time ago and adapted accordingly. Animals in the wild engage in sodomy and other filthy behaviors because of dominance, clash of senses. In other words, it's not rational. There isn't a homosexual instinct in animals to mate.

  3. #733
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,843

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Infertile couples don't change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?. It's still XX + XY

    They meet the existing criteria. Marriage was created for purposeful and specific social, economic and biological reasons. It's the oldest known institution in human history. It's instinctual and biological in animals (unlike homosexuality). If homosexual sex was genetic and planned, evolution would have found a use for it a long time ago and adapted accordingly. Animals in the wild engage in sodomy and other filthy behaviors because of dominance, clash of senses. In other words, it's not rational. There isn't a homosexual instinct in animals to mate.

    Religious beliefs do appear to cause irrational behaviour - and denial of reality.


    I will agree that marriage was created for social and economic reasons but not the biological aspect. When women were once seen as chattel, marriage had many economic implications, procreation was only one of those. Marriage ceremonies didn't apply to more than 90% of the populace for most of history. It was only the elite, the nobility, the One Percenters who used marriage ceremonies to unite families, tribes, clans and nations. In some cultures, the joining of lovers had many permutations. Unlike what we think of as the mediaeval standard, there are recorded joinings in matrimony of two male nobles with the sanction of the Church. In Asia, it is known that some groups used polyandry to maintain their culture - men died too frequently, so women often had more than one husband at the same time. Native American tribes were known to accept the "two-spirited" as natural beings.

    So basically, the whole, "marriage has always been one man and one woman" is historical nonsense.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  4. #734
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Religious beliefs do appear to cause irrational behaviour - and denial of reality.
    I didn't mention religion

    I will agree that marriage was created for social and economic reasons but not the biological aspect. When women were once seen as chattel, marriage had many economic implications, procreation was only one of those. Marriage ceremonies didn't apply to more than 90% of the populace for most of history. It was only the elite, the nobility, the One Percenters who used marriage ceremonies to unite families, tribes, clans and nations. In some cultures, the joining of lovers had many permutations. Unlike what we think of as the mediaeval standard, there are recorded joinings in matrimony of two male nobles with the sanction of the Church. In Asia, it is known that some groups used polyandry to maintain their culture - men died too frequently, so women often had more than one husband at the same time. Native American tribes were known to accept the "two-spirited" as natural beings.

    So basically, the whole, "marriage has always been one man and one woman" is historical nonsense.
    The broad notion that marriage = man + woman is the oldest known definition of an institution in human history. All you can point to are a few Indians. The concept of gay marriage is new. Even the supreme court recognized that fact.

  5. #735
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,843

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    I didn't mention religion



    The broad notion that marriage = man + woman is the oldest known definition of an institution in human history. All you can point to are a few Indians. The concept of gay marriage is new. Even the supreme court recognized that fact.

    You keep saying it but it don't make it true. Mankind has had far more variations from what you and others of your ilk believe to be the norm. Some anthropologists think prostitution is older than marriage
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  6. #736
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    1.)Infertile couples don't change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?. It's still XX + XY

    2.)They meet the existing criteria. Marriage was created for purposeful and specific social, economic and biological reasons. It's the oldest known institution in human history. It's instinctual and biological in animals (unlike homosexuality). If homosexual sex was genetic and planned, evolution would have found a use for it a long time ago and adapted accordingly. Animals in the wild engage in sodomy and other filthy behaviors because of dominance, clash of senses. In other words, it's not rational. There isn't a homosexual instinct in animals to mate.
    1.) sorry facts prove thats not the definition of marriage, post this lie over and over wont change this fact
    2.) more meaningless opinion that impacts the facts ZERO
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #737
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Infertile couples don't change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?. It's still XX + XY
    But they can't procreate. If the ability to procreate is central to marriage, this would be an argument against allowing infertile couples to marry. But now you say it's still ok for infertile couples to stay married or get married, which means that the inability to procreate does not preclude marriage.

    Which means it's not an argument against same-sex marriage at all, so why are we bringing it up?
    They meet the existing criteria. Marriage was created for purposeful and specific social, economic and biological reasons. It's the oldest known institution in human history.
    "The existing criteria" has changed over time, across cultures, etc. "The existing criteria" used to be two people of the same race. People had all sorts of supposed reasons. They even said it was against the will of God, against Natural Law, etc.
    It's instinctual and biological in animals (unlike homosexuality). If homosexual sex was genetic and planned, evolution would have found a use for it a long time ago and adapted accordingly. Animals in the wild engage in sodomy and other filthy behaviors because of dominance, clash of senses. In other words, it's not rational. There isn't a homosexual instinct in animals to mate.
    1) Homosexuality occurs in nature in numerous species. You are just declaring the reasons aren't rational, but what evidence do you have to support that? You are declaring there isn't such an instinct, but the behavior is clearly observed.
    2) Marriage isn't the same thing as sex. Ask any married man. Why are you obsessing over gay sex?
    3) Marriage isn't natural in the first place. If you want to make anything supposedly "unnatural" illegal, don't vaccinate your children and don't set foot on an airplane. Or own a gun. I mean, since you're defining rights based on nature, and all.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #738
    Guru
    brothern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,187
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    If the ability to procreate is central to marriage, ...
    I would say marriage is helpful for all children.

    DBBfxQK.jpg

  9. #739
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by brothern View Post
    I would say marriage is helpful for all children.
    yes all things being equal gay couples raising children is a great thing.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #740
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I would agree to some extent. Which is why my position would be to eliminate the word marriage altogether and call any and all unions that are governmentally sanctioned, civil unions. Gay, straight, whatever. Same name, same rights. Then, if you are "united" in a religious ceremony, you can use the term "marriage". It fits since the term civil union meets the government definition very well.
    No thanks. In this country, religion is one of the major agents of social control. Give them anything, and they'll fight for more. Immediately your designation of "civil unions" will yet again create a 2nd class group. In time, churches will push for "marriage" to have additional rights that the "civil unions" do not, and we repeat this whole charade all over again.

Page 74 of 120 FirstFirst ... 2464727374757684 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •