• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Marriage= Sex, child, heritage, slavery, monophobia or ?

Why not make Amanda Seyfreid clones? Clones are the way to go for sure.
 
Homosexuality has existed throughout history and throughout nature. It wasn't ****ing "created" by modern society.

If you are relieved now, Could you please read that post of mine again and think over it?

Marriage, intelligence, instinct, food, child, security, social life, country etc are the key words here.
 
It is actully the part i want to tease the readers and discover their thoughts and worlds about it.

the part that makes you feel unfinished is actually waiting to continue with you.

Then you might want to include that part of you are opening things up for discussion from that point. Usually people put a concluding question or two at the end like "What is your opinion on what marriage is?". Such things can't be automatically assumed. Logan's Law #4: Common Sense isn't. Neither is Friendly Fire.

Sure it is. You and yours insisted it wouldn't be the next civil/human/perverted right.

And yet the Christians practiced polygamy right up through the 13th century when Pope Innocent (I forget which one, III I think) officially took marriage under the wing of the Catholic Church. At that point he made it a sin not to get married in a church and to have more than one spouse. Prior to that, while they hold no official requirements, the church taught that you shouldn't marry at all, but if you were going to and were a leader in the church then marry only one spouse. All others could still have multiple spouses. The not marrying thing, BTW was a Paul thing, not a Jesus thing.

Irony: Heterosexual dominance in the Histroy, social life etc. let you write those sentences when you try to make a point about homosexuality.

Anyway, Is there any example that homosexuality has given that comfort?

What comfort? I can't see how this word is used in context to the bold quoted parts.

You actually miss the gist of your own argument, anyway.

The benefits of heterosexuality and homosexuality become important; at this point you have to deal with the comfort that heterosexuality gives when you replace it with homosexuality... clear now?

Btw, I am not afraid of looking foolish in the eyes of the ignorant.

That's not any clearer. Can you spell it out a little more. You have this concept in your head and you are writing as if everyone shares it, but I'm willing to be that I am not the only one who is not finding any clear point in your writings. Even looking back at your OP, there is no sense coming out at all. Marriage is not a need. Procreation maybe, but marriage is not a prerequisite for that. It makes for better lineage tracing, yeah, but not required to maintain population.
 
This whole thread is looking like it was made to bait people...

Homosexuality is just as natural as everything else out there.
 
Marriage is not a need. Procreation maybe, but marriage is not a prerequisite for that. It makes for better lineage tracing, yeah, but not required to maintain population.

If i remember correctly in ancient greek populaion, there was no marriage, individuals had sexual intercourse between eachother, even childeren did that with their biological ''parents'', and the same childeren were taken care of by all people in that society.

Why do you think they had given up that policy and started to seek for another one?
 
If i remember correctly in ancient greek populaion, there was no marriage, individuals had sexual intercourse between eachother, even childeren did that with their biological ''parents'', and the same childeren were taken care of by all people in that society.
?

You don't remember correctly, try a different bait.
 
Well you failed and show your low level of intelligence when you inserted the word "created" shortly after suggesting things have changed. Even with your foolish errors, your intent is clear, you feel threatened by homosexuals having marriage rights. Get over yourself, it's only going to get better as each state loses it's "right" to discriminate based on sexual preference.

:lamo

I doubt that his state will be having sodomite "marriage" anytime soon.
 
:lamo

I doubt that his state will be having sodomite "marriage" anytime soon.

You do know that anal sex is popular amongst heterosexuals? Many gays do not indulge in it.
 
:lamo

I doubt that his state will be having sodomite "marriage" anytime soon.

Given that sodomy is any sexual activity other than penis/vagina sex, there are already many sodomite marriages in every state. Care to try again?
 
Given that sodomy is any sexual activity other than penis/vagina sex, there are already many sodomite marriages in every state. Care to try again?

Given that you know what I mean, no.
 
You do know that anal sex is popular amongst heterosexuals? Many gays do not indulge in it.

Which is an irrelevant point since sodomy also includes oral sex and technically mutual masterbation.
 
Given that you know what I mean, no.

I believe that you are among those who claim that "marriage" has only one definition and that others should not seek to change it. Are you now hypocritical that you want to change the definition of sodomy to not include straight couples who engage in other than penis/vagina sex? People who do so are indeed sodomites and they have marriages as you wish it were defined. Thus your statement is proven untrue.
 
I believe that you are among those who claim that "marriage" has only one definition and that others should not seek to change it. Are you now hypocritical that you want to change the definition of sodomy to not include straight couples who engage in other than penis/vagina sex? People who do so are indeed sodomites and they have marriages as you wish it were defined. Thus your statement is proven untrue.

Heterosexual couples can engage in the perverted practice of sodomy, but a marriage between a man and a woman is not inherently ordered to sodomy (a man and a woman can engage in both natural intercourse and sodomy)

Although I would grant that if one or both of the spouses at the time of marriage intended to exclusively engage in sodomy, the marriage would be invalid.
 
Heterosexual couples can engage in the perverted practice of sodomy, but a marriage between a man and a woman is not inherently ordered to sodomy (a man and a woman can engage in both natural intercourse and sodomy)

Although I would grant that if one or both of the spouses at the time of marriage intended to exclusively engage in sodomy, the marriage would be invalid.

If you engage in sodomy, you are a sodomite. It does not matter if you also engage in "regular" sex as well. If both people are sodomites and are in a marriage together, then it's a sodomite marriage. You doubted that his state was going to have sodomite marriages anytime soon. All states allow sodomite marriages, a fact that you cannot refute.
 
If you engage in sodomy, you are a sodomite. It does not matter if you also engage in "regular" sex as well. If both people are sodomites and are in a marriage together, then it's a sodomite marriage. You doubted that his state was going to have sodomite marriages anytime soon. All states allow sodomite marriages, a fact that you cannot refute.

Yes, ignoring what one's opponent actually meant helps win an argument.
 
Yes, ignoring what one's opponent actually meant helps win an argument.

Then maybe the opponent should say what he means and not try to change the definitions of words while complaining about others changing the definition of words
 
Human beings are social entities like some other living entities; Some animals live in groups in nature for food, protection, breed etc.However, thanks to the intelligence, Human beings do not have to follow that path instinctively.

In today's world the marriage has changed a little bit. Women and men created another option, homosexuality.

However, A state/country needs to meet some basic needs to stay alive, just like animals.
What is your point?
 
I'm not sure as to the exact point of the OP but I'll give my opinion on marriage:

Marriage is a social construct which takes the form of a signed contract. It gives certain benefits and certain responsibilities to those that hold it. I don't see it as a basic need for a state/country to stay alive. I also don't see an inherent difference between two people (whether m/m, m/f, f/f) in love with that signed piece of paper and without it. The only difference is how society views them.

ten posts in and I have no idea either
 
If you are relieved now, Could you please read that post of mine again and think over it?

Marriage, intelligence, instinct, food, child, security, social life, country etc are the key words here.

and mean absolutely nohing until you connect them to "SOMETHING"
 
If i remember correctly in ancient greek populaion, there was no marriage, individuals had sexual intercourse between eachother, even childeren did that with their biological ''parents'', and the same childeren were taken care of by all people in that society.

Why do you think they had given up that policy and started to seek for another one?

I'm beginning to think you are SICK
 
If i remember correctly in ancient greek populaion, there was no marriage, individuals had sexual intercourse between eachother, even childeren did that with their biological ''parents'', and the same childeren were taken care of by all people in that society.

Why do you think they had given up that policy and started to seek for another one?

You do not remember correctly.
 
Back
Top Bottom