NuMarvel wrote: » I don't see a problem with Christians who wish to frame their opinions on social issues in secular terms, instead of Biblical. In fact, in this thread, we've often asked Christian posters to do just that. If someone is able to convey their opinion in a manner that applies to everyone, and not just members of a particular faith, then I welcome it.
cloudatlas wrote: » I haven't read through the whole thread. What I said wasn't a reply to anything. You decided to pounce on it and put words into my mouth. Good day to you have an awesome time.
Zombrex wrote: » Can you name a single way in which the set up is different that actually changes the relationship (ie something which we would recognise with heterosexual relationships which is absent with homosexual ones)
Festus wrote: » Children.
Bannasidhe wrote: » My son will be surprised to hear he doesn't exist.
MrPudding wrote: » Which is awesome, but the bible should have no place in shaping legislation, which means if christians want to discriminate against a class of person usi g state law, they can't use the bible as justification. MrP
Festus wrote: » if he is the result of homosexual activity then he probably doesn't if does help to reply in context.
Bannasidhe wrote: » He is the offspring of homosexuals.
Bannasidhe wrote: » But once again we are back to the fact that procreation is not a requirement of marriage, nor does homosexuality have any baring on ability to procreate plus the fact that not all heterosexuals are capable of procreating nor are any of their legal rights based on their potential to procreate at some point in their future so look - it's a red herring.
Festus wrote: » really? do his mother and father live together? was he conceived naturally? or was he engineered? No, it's not a "requirement" - no one is stopping a 20 year old male from marrying a 50 yr old woman. Nor is it a red herring. It's about society and what same sex marriage means for marriage in the context of society. if same sex marrige is allowed it means that marriage is worthless. Do same sex couples want a worthless union?
Festus wrote: » or was he engineered?
Festus wrote: » really? do his mother and father live together? was he conceived naturally? or was he engineered?
Benny_Cake wrote: » Mod note: Another remark such as this will result in a holiday. No child should be described as engineered, for reasons which should be obvious. More generally, if someone wants to tall about their family life, they may do so. Personal queens such as those above are none of anyone's business, frankly.
efb wrote: » freudian slip?
Benny_Cake wrote: » Oops.. A) 4:05 in the morning Crappy phone C) Edited. I hope that anyone who knows me would know that I would only use that word in relation to chess or royalty/Game of Thrones.
Festus wrote: » Most basic laws are based on the Bible - murder, theft, slander, libel, lying under oath, conspiracy to theft (coveting in case some can't make the connection).
Festus wrote: » Disallowing marriage to homosexuals is no more discrimination than laws disallowing hebephiles from marrying their prefered partner.
Most basic laws are based on the Bible - murder, theft, slander, libel, lying under oath, conspiracy to theft (coveting in case some can't make the connection).
Links234 wrote: » Do you seriously think that before the bible there were no basic laws? seriously?
Quatermain wrote: » Code of Ur-Nammu - c. 2100–2050 BC. Laws of Eshnunna - 1930 BC. Code of Hammurabi - 1772 BC. Hittite Cuneiform Laws - ca. 1650–1100 BCE. Draco's Constitution of Athens - 622 BC. Etc, etc, etc...
Zombrex wrote: » Never let, you know, history and facts and reality get in the way of a good faith based premise
Bannasidhe wrote: » You mean facts like the fact that the Fénechas (better known as the Brehon Laws) pre-date Christianity and are considered by scholars to be among the oldest systems of verifiable jurisprudence in the world? Edit to add: I have found only two references to male homosexuality in the Fénechas both are in reference to marriage and state that if a husband is unable to sexually satisfy his wife due to being homosexual or impotent she may divorce him (there were 11 recognised grounds for a woman to divorce her husband). If the husband was aware that he was homosexual prior to marriage to a woman she could keep the 'house' as part of the divorce as he fraudulently entered into the contract. This tells us Gaelic society was aware of homosexuality and had no issue with it. The legal issue was with a man not fulfilling the terms of the marriage contract. Note: It is clear the inability to sexually satisfy were the grounds for divorce - it makes no mention of procreation. There seem to be no references to lesbianism presumably possibly because it is easier for a woman to 'fake it' or more likely because men did not need any legal grounds to divorce beyond the fact that they wanted to.
I don't see how a marriage between parents could be considered special at all if 'marriage' is 'not' special!!
Is polygamy ok too?
What is 'family'? Is it not a biological parent, but a parent who finds other partners, or several or anything else, and how can the law cover these people?
but I don't see why the building block of society, the 'family' should be compromised
lmaopml wrote: » I'm quite sure Bannasidhe, that there are plenty of historical facts etc. and tales of years gone by, sure there are plenty in Scripture too. My concern is not so much with 'blocking' another, but with the legal issues concerning 'marriage' between a male and female and their children. I might add that I don't see how a marriage between parents could be considered special at all if 'marriage' is 'not' special!! or considered something that is the same legally for every single person who cannot conceive a child together, and I don't mean any slur by saying that. If 'marriage' is for people who love eachother merely and only considered from a persons sexual preference than why couldn't polygamy be considered too if it suits the people as regards their sexual preferences and not as regards their offspring? Is polygamy ok too? What is 'family'? Is it not a biological parent, but a parent who finds other partners, or several or anything else, and how can the law cover these people? and why should it cover only some people that a parent introduces and not all? I just don't understand this. I can't see why anybody would disregard 'marriage' between biological parents ( whether they can, or find out that they can't conceive ) as something that is merely 'superficial' stuff, and NOT something that is very very important, and should be considered as important and a responsible thing before introducing dependent children. I know things don't always work out 'perfecto' in marriage - but I don't see why the building block of society, the 'family' should be compromised just because things don't always work out for some.
tommy2bad wrote: » lmaopml, so many presumptions in your post that it's hard to answer properly. First; How dose allowing same sex marriage compromise the 'special' status of marriage, and what makes you think it has a 'special' status other than what is in the Constitution?
Different issue, polygamy is all to often associated with abuse. Apart from that I don't see a logical reason to outlaw it, in fact it's legal in several countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#Countries_that_recognize_polygamous_marriages
The law already covers many permutations of family, married, married with children, natural, and adopted, married with step children and so on. Not getting your point here. The presumption here being that 'family' is a male and female with their biological offspring. Which it isn't and never was defined as such.
tommy2bad wrote: » Oh for God's sake, polygamy is a non runner, ever, and as a counter argument to same sex marriage is about as valid as claiming that we can all marry our cats now.
@lmaopml, I'm kinda seeing where your coming from but as I'v pointed out marriage is prescriptive not descriptive. It isn't based on what is a family but on what we define as a valid marriage. Ok now you'll go back to polygamy and say so why not polygamy. My point is that our definition of what constitutes marriage is just that, a definition. Changing the definition to include couples of the same sex won't change what is already defined by marriage, it will add to it. This isn't a zero sum game where marriage is less for one couple if another couple can avail of it.
I actually agree that once we allow same sex marriages then marriage becomes something else, what I disagree with is the presumption that it becomes something lessened. It will in fact become something better as now it will reflect the love the marriage is based on not the sexual probabilistic of procreation.
lmaopml; I think this is important - I can't help but think it shouldn't be easily reduced to merely a contract between people who are lovers just now..but not tomorrow. It's not about just 'sex'.
lmaopml wrote: » Neither Tommy am I saying that if people love eachother that it isn't 'love' - I'm saying that 'Marriage' is different because it is not about only a couple and their love but also their children. Thanks Tommy, I think it becomes something different too, that's why I feel so strongly, not because I have a 'hatred' or any such thing for others - I think we will not be witnesses of it right here and now either, that's something we leave to the next people.. I come from a different stock that thinks that marriage is long and hard sought after throughout time, it's not to be messed with, it's important because it involves taking responsibility for children, and for a couple too, even during dry times etc - and is the cornerstone of the family. I think this is important - I can't help but think it shouldn't be easily reduced to merely a contract between people who are lovers just now..but not tomorrow. It's not about just 'sex'. Sex is great, I love it, but kids are more important than that - no apologies.
