100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: If... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Oh,I see. To be quite honest, if I read a report about a 50 yr old man having sex with any minor, my first thought would be curiosity about the man. What would make a 50 yr old man think sex with a 12/14/16 year old sound like a good idea? Does it offend my sensibility to consider such a thing, (minors having sex) of course it does, but in the past it was not considered all that unusual for girls of 14 to be married and have children by the time they were 16 or 18. Although, I thing the age differential was not that great. Do I want to see a return to that, no I don't. But there still exit tribes of people today for whom it works. This is what I would expect most people to say, only because of what I perceive as the "norm". But why would it offend your sensibility? Is this something you have a logical reason to be offended by? Or is it simply a matter of preference? No it's not a matter of preference it's a matter of how gender and roles have evolved. At a time when having only an 8th grade education was normal and most poeple were farmers, children moved into adult roles much sooner. When women were helping in the fields 6 & 7 year olds were babysitting their little brothers and sisters. By the time a young girl was 10 she knew more about babies, birthing and survival than a lot of young adult women do today. Even into the late 19th and early 20th century there was little room in the 'role' of women for education and not much more for the vast majority of men. Again thier childhood was very short as kids were often required to take on huge responsibities very young. Even into the 1970's the roles had not changed much, and most men were able to go to work and make a living. What HAD changed was child labor laws and a vast public school system.... This is getting longer than I wanted and it doesn't even begin to put dent in the reasoning. But at least it's enough to let you know there is REASON behind the reply I made, not just an gut responce. But couldn't "gender and roles" be used as an agument against gay marriage too? To me, "gender and roles" is a matter of public opinion. Although it's politically correct to take into account public opinion, it's not a logical reason on which to base one's decision. I will also have to shoot down "existing laws" as an aguement too as there are current laws prohibiting gay marriage as well. What about immediate harm? There is no more than if 2 adults were doing the same thing. What about long-lasting harm (emotional)? Hard to say... I would think that only those who experienced harm would be the ones identified, thus making any surver or study biased. All I'm trying do is show you that opinions are allowed to be gut reactions. There is no logical thought process which accounts for taste. I think my example may have hit the nail on the head with the terminology you used (offends my sensibilities). |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
KerryO
on
Sat 08/21/10 05:32 PM
|
|
The whole idea of marrying someone that you haven't even lived with yet seems like a ludicrous idea to begin with. I like the Witch's traditions of handfasting for a year-and-a-day. I couple basically marry for a year-and-a-day to see how things are going to work out. After that time they can either decide to continue to consummate their relationship, or simply part ways. Of course, the idea is not to have any children during that time. Doesn't mean they can't have "sex". They should just be responsible about it. One of the Precepts of Zen Buddhism is "I vow not to misuse sexuality". So much of Judeo-Christian sexual mores harks back to the time when women were considered chattel, a place they 'earned' in the hierarchy by being of the gender who visited 'Original Sin' upon the poor unsuspecting Adam. The O.T. is full of sex if you go looking for it. And is probably NOT the type of book you want to hand to a precocious child who asks difficult questions. Heaven knows, Holy Men themselves seem ill-equipped at times to deal responsibly with their own sexuality. Why should they be considered teachers on the subject? -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should ban heterosexuals from marrying and having children until they can show they are capable of raising children free from any form of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and free from any form of neglect. Also, until heterosexuals prove they can reliably not conceive children out of wedlock, they should not be allowed to have the right to marriage. Also, until heterosexuals can demonstrate the ability to stay faithful to each other in the marriage, be free from spousal abuse, stay committed to one another and their families for the long term, and raise loving, compassionate, responsible children, they should not be allowed to marry.
As far as I am concerned, heterosexuals should be the ones banned from the right to marry and have children. In my opinion...just saying. What is it now, 50% divorce rate? I feel for those kids who have to deal with that feeling of abandonment/or who had to deal with parents that mistreated each other/hated each other/didn't love each other/or just plain didn't care enough to work it out. It would be interesting to have that statistic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if marriage is only about love, I go back to my original question of why we dont also allow siblings in love to marry, or teenagers in love with adults to marry, In this country, marriage is about love. How often have we ever seen otherwise? Furthermore, this ‘original question’ has been addressed several times. What part of the question remains after reading the following? First of all that’s not possible – everyone has somewhere between 7 to 10 recessive traits (allele) and when you limit the possibility of how those will line up, the risk of producing a child with severe defects, mental retardation, and rare genetic diseases increases by 40%. The adults can certainly undergo genetic testing, but no one can guess how those genes will line up when egg and sperm unite. So the alternative would be to test the embryo – and then what? A 40% chance of abortion – now in that area, definitely some religious problem. Of course one or both siblings can offer to be sterilized – but that does not address the reason they want to be married in the first place. What caused the normal aversion mechanism that prevents siblings from desiring sexual intimacy with each other? To take it even further there is an extreme amount of information with which scientists & medical and psychological professionals agree, that incest within a nuclear family unit (First degree consanguinity) is abnormal and creates very harmful effects on the family members involved. All of that information, and more, is what leads to critical evaluation of the issue. Note that religious beliefs are not required to enter into this critical thought process because even if a religion held the belief that sibling marriage was permissible – they could not practice it because it is illegal. And in another response First, in the case of incest - genetics if far from the only argument. EVERYONE has recessive genes but when the gene pool is broadly diversified the odds of the SAME two recessive genes is very rare. Many of these inherited diseases are known to exist in a specific gene pool, for example Tay-Sachs disease is most prevalent in people of Ashkenazi (eastern and central European) Jewish heritage. So in the diverse ethnicity of US it’s rare that two people of this same heritage who have both received the same order of recessive genes from on of their parents is even more rare – but it happens. Now for the problem of incest. There is little diversity in the gene pool- and the closer the degree of relatedness the less diversity exists. In the case of siblings or parent, child the egg and the sperm have the same two genetic strands thereby creating a 40% greater opportunity of any one of the existing recessive or dysfunctional genes that exist on BOTH strands to come together and cause severe problems for the baby. As you say, there is no certainty but the percentage is great enough to warrant concern – don’t you think? But whether you do or not – marriage and incest are incompatible, incest occurs within a family – marriage occurs to unite a family. A brother and sister do not need marriage to be part of the same family. So if a question remains – what ‘exactly’ is the question? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sat 08/21/10 11:12 PM
|
|
would it be acceptable to people if we mandated that such couples first receive birth control to make sure they didnt produce children with defects? would it be acceptable if we took out the procreation altogether and just looked at the love aspect and the union without children brother and sister who cant have kids...ok? father and daughter who cant have kids ...ok? There are many issues with respect to marriage and incest, only ONE of which is the degree of incest and its effects on offspring. In fact, unless love is considered an agreed upon essential aspect of marriage, which the poster rejects, then the question is irrelevant to begin with. Any response to the questions quoted does not address the whole issue of incest nor does it address what the essential aspects marriage are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
everyone that goes to church is a sinner, I just think a christian should be making an attempt to turn from sin rather than defend it or define themself by it I oppose promoting gay sexual activity though, which causes me to oppose gay marriage(marriage is understood to be 'consummated') So there is only one kind of sex that can consummate a marriage contract and that sex must be between a male and female AND it must have the potential of creating life. Therefore, sperm released in vagina is the only true form of consummation. Which brings up several questions: What if the man always wears a condom? What if, after a few years of trying to become pregnant the woman is found to be impotent (infertile) – has consummation taken place? What if the man or woman is impotent (meaning no consummation can exist between them) should they be allowed to be married? So that leads us to the real question: If consummation is an essential part of marriage which serves to validate the contract and if consummation is defined as sex between a male and female AND it must have the potential of creating life then – shouldn’t there be medical tests required and documented to prove that consummation is even possible? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myself, I'd think it would be ironic if the Fundies got everything they asked for vis-a-vis marriage. I'd like to see the return of Hawthrone's Scarlet Letter, where adulturers had to have an "A" on their foreheads. Some Holy Men would look pretty hypocritical sporting one of those while in the pulpit. :)
And we won't even get into impure thoughts... -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh,I see. To be quite honest, if I read a report about a 50 yr old man having sex with any minor, my first thought would be curiosity about the man. What would make a 50 yr old man think sex with a 12/14/16 year old sound like a good idea? Does it offend my sensibility to consider such a thing, (minors having sex) of course it does, but in the past it was not considered all that unusual for girls of 14 to be married and have children by the time they were 16 or 18. Although, I thing the age differential was not that great. Do I want to see a return to that, no I don't. But there still exit tribes of people today for whom it works. This is what I would expect most people to say, only because of what I perceive as the "norm". But why would it offend your sensibility? Is this something you have a logical reason to be offended by? Or is it simply a matter of preference? No it's not a matter of preference it's a matter of how gender and roles have evolved. At a time when having only an 8th grade education was normal and most poeple were farmers, children moved into adult roles much sooner. When women were helping in the fields 6 & 7 year olds were babysitting their little brothers and sisters. By the time a young girl was 10 she knew more about babies, birthing and survival than a lot of young adult women do today. Even into the late 19th and early 20th century there was little room in the 'role' of women for education and not much more for the vast majority of men. Again thier childhood was very short as kids were often required to take on huge responsibities very young. Even into the 1970's the roles had not changed much, and most men were able to go to work and make a living. What HAD changed was child labor laws and a vast public school system.... This is getting longer than I wanted and it doesn't even begin to put dent in the reasoning. But at least it's enough to let you know there is REASON behind the reply I made, not just an gut responce. But couldn't "gender and roles" be used as an agument against gay marriage too? To me, "gender and roles" is a matter of public opinion. Although it's politically correct to take into account public opinion, it's not a logical reason on which to base one's decision. I will also have to shoot down "existing laws" as an aguement too as there are current laws prohibiting gay marriage as well. What about immediate harm? There is no more than if 2 adults were doing the same thing. What about long-lasting harm (emotional)? Hard to say... I would think that only those who experienced harm would be the ones identified, thus making any surver or study biased. All I'm trying do is show you that opinions are allowed to be gut reactions. There is no logical thought process which accounts for taste. I think my example may have hit the nail on the head with the terminology you used (offends my sensibilities). But couldn't "gender and roles" be used as an agument against gay marriage too? Certainly, an individual or group could create an argument against gay marriage by linking personal opinion about ‘gender and role’ to the issues. That’s exactly what happens when people are given information in a biased format. The problem is that many people hear information represented in this way, and accept it as a valid response in support of their own bias(confirmation bias). The information may contain some element of truth but in the biased format it is blatantly misrepresented. It becomes difficult for others, especially the group being referenced, to determine if an individual spreading information in this way, is doing so in support of their own bias, or as a means to instill bias in others, or if the person is just parroting what they have heard. We often find in this kind of bias some very broad and generalized statements. Example: the male male , female female bond has plenty of arguments against it, (marriage) namely how much more LIKELY those activites are to cause physical illnesses , physical SPREADABLE diseases. The first antagonistic remark in the quote above is “those activities”, which is a reference to the intimacy of sex. However, stated in this manner it becomes clear that the speaker does not consider what occurs within a homosexual relationship as either intimate or sex. The idea is to show that no similarity exists between heterosexual and homosexual intimacies without coming out and saying so. This is the first indication that the speaker will be presenting biased information. Now that 'the group' being reference has been dehumanized, we are further informed that Those activities cause physical illnesses and physical SPREADABLE diseases. One is left to wonder what horrors ‘those people’ must be practicing and what terrible diseases must be running wild through “their” population. (notice the broad claim and the generalizations in the quote) Individuals in the audience who relate to a bias do not stop to wonder “what is a physical spreadable disease and why do only ‘those people’ have it? Instead they become hooked to the misinformation only because it confirms their own bias. THe facts show over the years those numbers have increased. BUt of course there is no absolute way to say that is the only reason What does it mean to strike comments from the record in a court of law? It means that the jury is to pretend they never heard the words, and they are not be used when considering a verdict. Lawyers have been known to bias jurors and change verdicts by forcing ‘evidence’ to be heard, when it is otherwise inadmissible. Once the testimony has been spoken and received, can it really be totally disregarded (stricken from the record)? The facts show ----- if these are facts then what is the purpose of making a disclaimer and what are the facts? – BUt of course there is no absolute way to say.. When these misrepresentations are pointed out by others and specific information detailing any relevent element of truth is presented in rebuttal, we would expect a response in one of three ways. Further rebuttal with more detailed and specific information which now narrows the broad generalizations to focus on specific details, or Further rebuttal (off-hand justifications) including more broad and generalized statements that often stray from the narrow and focused discussion or A total denial of the facts presented and a persistence in propagating the original information in its biased format. So you see, when it comes to the purely subjective (I like short hair, or cabbage is gross) there is no accounting, or substantiation, required for the opinion beyond subjective reasoning (I like short hair, it just seems clean cut or cabbage is gross, it smells foul.) But when it comes to supporting opinions in which objective facts play a part, there is some logical process of thought which accounts for the opinion – except in the case where bias prevents the individual from making the logical connections or refuting them with substantive logic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 08/22/10 12:56 PM
|
|
Oh,I see. To be quite honest, if I read a report about a 50 yr old man having sex with any minor, my first thought would be curiosity about the man. What would make a 50 yr old man think sex with a 12/14/16 year old sound like a good idea? Does it offend my sensibility to consider such a thing, (minors having sex) of course it does, but in the past it was not considered all that unusual for girls of 14 to be married and have children by the time they were 16 or 18. Although, I thing the age differential was not that great. Do I want to see a return to that, no I don't. But there still exit tribes of people today for whom it works. This is what I would expect most people to say, only because of what I perceive as the "norm". But why would it offend your sensibility? Is this something you have a logical reason to be offended by? Or is it simply a matter of preference? No it's not a matter of preference it's a matter of how gender and roles have evolved. At a time when having only an 8th grade education was normal and most poeple were farmers, children moved into adult roles much sooner. When women were helping in the fields 6 & 7 year olds were babysitting their little brothers and sisters. By the time a young girl was 10 she knew more about babies, birthing and survival than a lot of young adult women do today. Even into the late 19th and early 20th century there was little room in the 'role' of women for education and not much more for the vast majority of men. Again thier childhood was very short as kids were often required to take on huge responsibities very young. Even into the 1970's the roles had not changed much, and most men were able to go to work and make a living. What HAD changed was child labor laws and a vast public school system.... This is getting longer than I wanted and it doesn't even begin to put dent in the reasoning. But at least it's enough to let you know there is REASON behind the reply I made, not just an gut responce. But couldn't "gender and roles" be used as an agument against gay marriage too? To me, "gender and roles" is a matter of public opinion. Although it's politically correct to take into account public opinion, it's not a logical reason on which to base one's decision. I will also have to shoot down "existing laws" as an aguement too as there are current laws prohibiting gay marriage as well. What about immediate harm? There is no more than if 2 adults were doing the same thing. What about long-lasting harm (emotional)? Hard to say... I would think that only those who experienced harm would be the ones identified, thus making any surver or study biased. All I'm trying do is show you that opinions are allowed to be gut reactions. There is no logical thought process which accounts for taste. I think my example may have hit the nail on the head with the terminology you used (offends my sensibilities). To me, "gender and roles" is a matter of public opinion. Although it's politically correct to take into account public opinion, it's not a logical reason on which to base one's decision. How are you defining “ matter of public opinion”, as inclusive of all public or as opinion of individuals? Why do you say it's not a logical reason on which to base one's decision ? I will also have to shoot down "existing laws" as an aguement too as there are current laws prohibiting gay marriage as well. Because that quote has taken from the context in which it was delivered it’s impossible to make any connection between it and the point you are trying to make. Can you rephrase to make your point clearer? What about immediate harm? There is no more than if 2 adults were doing the same thing. What about long-lasting harm (emotional)? Hard to say... I would think that only those who experienced harm would be the ones identified, thus making any surver or study biased. Both the question and the response in the above are very broad and generalized statements. In their original context was any factual information provided which would have narrowed or focused these generalizations into a viable discussion? We are not even sure if there was a point or opinion being expressed or if this was just a general discussion about some questions that might play a role in forming an opinion. All I'm trying do is show you that opinions are allowed to be gut reactions. There is no logical thought process which accounts for taste. Yes, and I have agreed, on the basis of the purely subjective, such qualities as affects our physical senses in ways which are known only to the self. There are even times when we are asked to provide our instantaneous gut reaction, about an objective issue, based only on a limited amount of information. However, it is understood that the information is limited. This is actually a valid format through which discussion and even debate about an issue begins. Obviously we are use to this type of format because we use it consistently here in our forum discussion. The point of instigating such discussion is to allow everyone an opportunity to air their opinion – but also to gain new insight through the information that others provide as they support their conclusions with various facts and examples. I think my example may have hit the nail on the head with the terminology you used (offends my sensibilities). The statement (offends my sensibilities) is a subjective one which actually offers no opinion beyond the gut feeling of the individual. There is no pretense of it being anything else. On the other hand, in the context in which the statement was made, there was not enough information given to support an objective response. Therefore, more information was presented regarding possible questions surrounding such an issue to indicate that there is a possibility of examining all the facts and drawing more logical conclusion besides that of my initial subjective response. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myself, I'd think it would be ironic if the Fundies got everything they asked for vis-a-vis marriage. I'd like to see the return of Hawthrone's Scarlet Letter, where adulturers had to have an "A" on their foreheads. Some Holy Men would look pretty hypocritical sporting one of those while in the pulpit. :) And we won't even get into impure thoughts... -Kerry O. Naw - it would be so prevalent that it would just become a fad and pretty soon WalMart would be selling the latest fashions clealy labeled with Designer "A" proudly displayed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ago it was actually advantageous to have large families. People often farmed as a family and the more 'family worker' the better. So having large families was actually 'financially' or productively better. However, today with our societies that are dependent upon a social economy and working for companies having large families is actually quite expensive and often not even a reasonable thing to do. Especially if the family is going to have to put the kids through college, hoping they do well there, and then hoping they do well in the work place. For contrast we could look at how China’s social structure, especially related to marriage and family, functions. While population control is a fairly recent governmental initiative, there still exist broad extended families of siblings, aunts & uncles and cousins. In this society there are no social safety nets and the only social entitlements are reserved for the extremely limited elites of society – Politcal party officials and University professors, and the highly educated who work through government controlled agencies. So families remain very close even when physical distance separates them. Because of the population control initiative and due to the lack of social safety nets it is extremely necessary that the population view sex as secondary in relationships – making premarital sex a huge cultural taboo. Divorce, while not outlawed, is also uncommon and logically so. One of the greatest responsibilities that permeates the culture is that children care for and support their parents though the aging process and often any single aunts and uncles who have no child on which to depend. There is another quality which contrasts greatly with our own and the at it strict adherence to gender role modeling. The equality of women with men pretty much ends with education. Females are subordinate to males in almost every other way. A woman’s time, no matter the level of her education, must be organized so that her duties as mother, homemaker, and family care taker are not neglected. So even if a woman has the same education as her husband, it is expected that she will not have a similar job because it is likewise expected that men should gain the highest positions through experience which includes long hours of dedication to their job. Thus, proverbially speaking, a woman’s place is in the home, but having a limited number of children still leaves the educated woman time to pay her debt to the government, which has funded her education and will fund her social security, by working for the government. So in contrast we can are better able to understand how cultures and attitudes surrounding marriage and family are formed. But it must also be remembered what that culture and its people sacrifice in terms of freedoms and liberty, basic security, and individuality, so that this ideal can be maintained. Through this contrast we can also understand why our own society has evolved in another direction. Our population includes a broad diversity of ethnicity making adherence to a single set of cultural norms impossible. Thus we thrive on the unique qualities of individuality rather than depend on strict models related to role or gender. By contrast our constitution supports our governmental role of responsibility to create entitlements and provide social safety nets, while in China that responsibility is placed on families. So the importance of marriage and family in our society is maintained through a very different standard. This is the reality of our social and cultural structure and within this structure the same values which China places on marriage and family were not possible to maintain nor are they possible to achieve without giving up freedoms and liberty, basic security, and individuality. If we really face these facts, then individually we should come to the conclusion that it is our freedom that allows us to place whatever individual values we would like to ascribe to marriage and family and we are free (within the limits of the law) to uphold those values as individuals and in our individual life. By the same rule of freedom it must be admitted that every individual has the same right to assign and live up to whatever values they choose to place on marriage and family. Logically, preventing same-sex marriage, when there is no other valid legal limitation, would be an obstruction to a basic right – that right is the freedom to assign whatever value is individually ascribed to marriage and family. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should ban heterosexuals from marrying and having children until they can show they are capable of raising children free from any form of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and free from any form of neglect. Also, until heterosexuals prove they can reliably not conceive children out of wedlock, they should not be allowed to have the right to marriage. Also, until heterosexuals can demonstrate the ability to stay faithful to each other in the marriage, be free from spousal abuse, stay committed to one another and their families for the long term, and raise loving, compassionate, responsible children, they should not be allowed to marry. As far as I am concerned, heterosexuals should be the ones banned from the right to marry and have children. In my opinion...just saying. What is it now, 50% divorce rate? I feel for those kids who have to deal with that feeling of abandonment/or who had to deal with parents that mistreated each other/hated each other/didn't love each other/or just plain didn't care enough to work it out. It would be interesting to have that statistic. This post has made some excellent points to some of the more illogical reasons that others have used to support their opinion that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. Unfortunately, these illogical connections normally stem from an underlaying bais or homophobia, and the only rebuttal will be other more broad and generalized statement of opinion to substantiate the origianl illogical conclusion. One point though - the impact of the first paragraph might prove stronger if the second paragraph had provided acutal facts and better examples and had been less opinionated. (I don't want anyone to think I only ATTACK those whose opinions are in opposition of my own)  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Link to information on divorce rate in America and other resources:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/divorce.html Link to information on divorce and it's possible effects on children, with resources for divorcing parents with children: http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?name=Children+And+Divorce§ion=Facts+for+Families |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should ban heterosexuals from marrying and having children until they can show they are capable of raising children free from any form of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and free from any form of neglect. Also, until heterosexuals prove they can reliably not conceive children out of wedlock, they should not be allowed to have the right to marriage. Also, until heterosexuals can demonstrate the ability to stay faithful to each other in the marriage, be free from spousal abuse, stay committed to one another and their families for the long term, and raise loving, compassionate, responsible children, they should not be allowed to marry. As far as I am concerned, heterosexuals should be the ones banned from the right to marry and have children. In my opinion...just saying. What is it now, 50% divorce rate? I feel for those kids who have to deal with that feeling of abandonment/or who had to deal with parents that mistreated each other/hated each other/didn't love each other/or just plain didn't care enough to work it out. It would be interesting to have that statistic. This post has made some excellent points to some of the more illogical reasons that others have used to support their opinion that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. Unfortunately, these illogical connections normally stem from an underlaying bais or homophobia, and the only rebuttal will be other more broad and generalized statement of opinion to substantiate the origianl illogical conclusion. One point though - the impact of the first paragraph might prove stronger if the second paragraph had provided acutal facts and better examples and had been less opinionated. (I don't want anyone to think I only ATTACK those whose opinions are in opposition of my own) MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A MAN NOR A WOMAN AND WOMAN. Marriage is a joining of two people. ============================================= Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; Mark10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh Mark10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ==================================================== Notice "God made them male and female" and "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE." Doesn't say a man and a man, doesn't say a person and person. It specifically says MAN and WOMAN. ==================================================== Leviticous 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. ==================================================== This shows that a man and a man are not to have a sexual relationship. So what would the point of getting married be? No marriage isn't all about being able to have a sexual relation with a spouse. But that's what makes marriage special, because that is the ONLY person you are suppose to do that kind of action with. Since marriage is for the joining of two people making them one flesh, and will spend eternity with that person. Why do homosexuals wish to get married when it's obviously an abomination to be homosexual in the first place, and God obviously won't recognize a homosexual marriage as a true marriage since it specifically states MAN and WOMAN. What are homosexuals trying to gain from being supposedly married? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^And you should abide by it if you believe it Cowboy.
But you have no right to tell anyone else how to live. Let adult marry whoever they want as long as both are adult and of sound mind. If there is a god, which I am sure there isn't, he/she/it will judge those who defy him/her/it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 08/22/10 06:08 PM
|
|
Link to information on divorce rate in America and other resources: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/divorce.html Link to information on divorce and it's possible effects on children, with resources for divorcing parents with children: http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?name=Children+And+Divorce§ion=Facts+for+Families MOST EXCELLENT COME BACK! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should ban heterosexuals from marrying and having children until they can show they are capable of raising children free from any form of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and free from any form of neglect. Also, until heterosexuals prove they can reliably not conceive children out of wedlock, they should not be allowed to have the right to marriage. Also, until heterosexuals can demonstrate the ability to stay faithful to each other in the marriage, be free from spousal abuse, stay committed to one another and their families for the long term, and raise loving, compassionate, responsible children, they should not be allowed to marry. As far as I am concerned, heterosexuals should be the ones banned from the right to marry and have children. In my opinion...just saying. What is it now, 50% divorce rate? I feel for those kids who have to deal with that feeling of abandonment/or who had to deal with parents that mistreated each other/hated each other/didn't love each other/or just plain didn't care enough to work it out. It would be interesting to have that statistic. This post has made some excellent points to some of the more illogical reasons that others have used to support their opinion that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. Unfortunately, these illogical connections normally stem from an underlaying bais or homophobia, and the only rebuttal will be other more broad and generalized statement of opinion to substantiate the origianl illogical conclusion. One point though - the impact of the first paragraph might prove stronger if the second paragraph had provided acutal facts and better examples and had been less opinionated. (I don't want anyone to think I only ATTACK those whose opinions are in opposition of my own) MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A MAN NOR A WOMAN AND WOMAN. Marriage is a joining of two people. ============================================= Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; Mark10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh Mark10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ==================================================== Notice "God made them male and female" and "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE." Doesn't say a man and a man, doesn't say a person and person. It specifically says MAN and WOMAN. ==================================================== Leviticous 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. ==================================================== This shows that a man and a man are not to have a sexual relationship. So what would the point of getting married be? No marriage isn't all about being able to have a sexual relation with a spouse. But that's what makes marriage special, because that is the ONLY person you are suppose to do that kind of action with. Since marriage is for the joining of two people making them one flesh, and will spend eternity with that person. Why do homosexuals wish to get married when it's obviously an abomination to be homosexual in the first place, and God obviously won't recognize a homosexual marriage as a true marriage since it specifically states MAN and WOMAN. What are homosexuals trying to gain from being supposedly married? What difference do all these words make to Christians? What value do Christians really place on these words? What other church have you ever heard or witnessed ostracizing a divorced member of their congregation? What level of respect do Christians themselves give to these words? Do you know of any organized religion besides Mormons and Chistian Scientists who meter out justice to thier congregations? Still, Christians want to hold everyone else accountable to the same morals that they don't even try to live up to themselves. Still, Christians want to have say in defining a legal act based on religious morals and values that are not reflected in their own actions. Still, Christians want to lay claim to a customary tradition practiced world wide regardless of religion. And Christions would shape that tradition to their own specifications when the tradition is not even solely related to Chrisianity. One final question, why don't Christians simply refuse to marry outside of the church? Why do they need to be married under the law of state and country? That way their precious tradition can retain whatever value they want to assign to it. And the public domain contract of marriage can reflect a legal code that does not descriminate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should ban heterosexuals from marrying and having children until they can show they are capable of raising children free from any form of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and free from any form of neglect. Also, until heterosexuals prove they can reliably not conceive children out of wedlock, they should not be allowed to have the right to marriage. Also, until heterosexuals can demonstrate the ability to stay faithful to each other in the marriage, be free from spousal abuse, stay committed to one another and their families for the long term, and raise loving, compassionate, responsible children, they should not be allowed to marry. As far as I am concerned, heterosexuals should be the ones banned from the right to marry and have children. In my opinion...just saying. What is it now, 50% divorce rate? I feel for those kids who have to deal with that feeling of abandonment/or who had to deal with parents that mistreated each other/hated each other/didn't love each other/or just plain didn't care enough to work it out. It would be interesting to have that statistic. This post has made some excellent points to some of the more illogical reasons that others have used to support their opinion that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. Unfortunately, these illogical connections normally stem from an underlaying bais or homophobia, and the only rebuttal will be other more broad and generalized statement of opinion to substantiate the origianl illogical conclusion. One point though - the impact of the first paragraph might prove stronger if the second paragraph had provided acutal facts and better examples and had been less opinionated. (I don't want anyone to think I only ATTACK those whose opinions are in opposition of my own) MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A MAN NOR A WOMAN AND WOMAN. Marriage is a joining of two people. ============================================= Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; Mark10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh Mark10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ==================================================== Notice "God made them male and female" and "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE." Doesn't say a man and a man, doesn't say a person and person. It specifically says MAN and WOMAN. ==================================================== Leviticous 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. ==================================================== This shows that a man and a man are not to have a sexual relationship. So what would the point of getting married be? No marriage isn't all about being able to have a sexual relation with a spouse. But that's what makes marriage special, because that is the ONLY person you are suppose to do that kind of action with. Since marriage is for the joining of two people making them one flesh, and will spend eternity with that person. Why do homosexuals wish to get married when it's obviously an abomination to be homosexual in the first place, and God obviously won't recognize a homosexual marriage as a true marriage since it specifically states MAN and WOMAN. What are homosexuals trying to gain from being supposedly married? What difference do all these words make to Christians? What value do Christians really place on these words? What other church have you ever heard or witnessed ostracizing a divorced member of their congregation? What level of respect do Christians themselves give to these words? Do you know of any organized religion besides Mormons and Chistian Scientists who meter out justice to thier congregations? Still, Christians want to hold everyone else accountable to the same morals that they don't even try to live up to themselves. Still, Christians want to have say in defining a legal act based on religious morals and values that are not reflected in their own actions. Still, Christians want to lay claim to a customary tradition practiced world wide regardless of religion. And Christions would shape that tradition to their own specifications when the tradition is not even solely related to Chrisianity. One final question, why don't Christians simply refuse to marry outside of the church? Why do they need to be married under the law of state and country? That way their precious tradition can retain whatever value they want to assign to it. And the public domain contract of marriage can reflect a legal code that does not descriminate. "What difference do all these words make to Christians?" ---------------------------------- Should have all the difference in the world. The bible is the laws man is to live by. ================================= What value do Christians really place on these words? ------------------------------------------------------ They are the most valuable words. NOTHING is more valuable then the bible. ======================================= What level of respect do Christians themselves give to these words? ------------------------------ Words out of the bible hold the most highest respect of anything. They are the words of God our father which art in heaven. ======================================== Still, Christians want to hold everyone else accountable to the same morals that they don't even try to live up to themselves. ------------------------------- Yes most Christians do fail in following the Lord's word. But the gates are wide and the path is narrow to heaven. Few will only make it, do you not wish to be one of the few? I sure do, that is why i strive so hard to spread the word of God. ========================================== One final question, why don't Christians simply refuse to marry outside of the church? Why do they need to be married under the law of state and country? That way their precious tradition can retain whatever value they want to assign to it. And the public domain contract of marriage can reflect a legal code that does not descriminat -------------------------------- Marriage outside of the church means nothing. The ENTIRE reasoning and why it's done in a church is cause it's a spiritual joining of the two. Making them one flesh in the eyes of the lord. Legal documentation and anything of such means NOTHING. It doesn't matter if two are legally married, or did it behind a barn with their preacher neighbour. The ONLY marriage that holds any kind of power and or is true, is done traditionally. In a church, with the marriage celebration. By a preacher. All other marriages are only real on paper and are pointless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should ban heterosexuals from marrying and having children until they can show they are capable of raising children free from any form of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and free from any form of neglect. Also, until heterosexuals prove they can reliably not conceive children out of wedlock, they should not be allowed to have the right to marriage. Also, until heterosexuals can demonstrate the ability to stay faithful to each other in the marriage, be free from spousal abuse, stay committed to one another and their families for the long term, and raise loving, compassionate, responsible children, they should not be allowed to marry. As far as I am concerned, heterosexuals should be the ones banned from the right to marry and have children. In my opinion...just saying. What is it now, 50% divorce rate? I feel for those kids who have to deal with that feeling of abandonment/or who had to deal with parents that mistreated each other/hated each other/didn't love each other/or just plain didn't care enough to work it out. It would be interesting to have that statistic. This post has made some excellent points to some of the more illogical reasons that others have used to support their opinion that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. Unfortunately, these illogical connections normally stem from an underlaying bais or homophobia, and the only rebuttal will be other more broad and generalized statement of opinion to substantiate the origianl illogical conclusion. One point though - the impact of the first paragraph might prove stronger if the second paragraph had provided acutal facts and better examples and had been less opinionated. (I don't want anyone to think I only ATTACK those whose opinions are in opposition of my own) MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A MAN NOR A WOMAN AND WOMAN. Marriage is a joining of two people. ============================================= Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; Mark10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh Mark10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ==================================================== Notice "God made them male and female" and "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE." Doesn't say a man and a man, doesn't say a person and person. It specifically says MAN and WOMAN. ==================================================== Leviticous 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. ==================================================== This shows that a man and a man are not to have a sexual relationship. So what would the point of getting married be? No marriage isn't all about being able to have a sexual relation with a spouse. But that's what makes marriage special, because that is the ONLY person you are suppose to do that kind of action with. Since marriage is for the joining of two people making them one flesh, and will spend eternity with that person. Why do homosexuals wish to get married when it's obviously an abomination to be homosexual in the first place, and God obviously won't recognize a homosexual marriage as a true marriage since it specifically states MAN and WOMAN. What are homosexuals trying to gain from being supposedly married? What difference do all these words make to Christians? What value do Christians really place on these words? What other church have you ever heard or witnessed ostracizing a divorced member of their congregation? What level of respect do Christians themselves give to these words? Do you know of any organized religion besides Mormons and Chistian Scientists who meter out justice to thier congregations? Still, Christians want to hold everyone else accountable to the same morals that they don't even try to live up to themselves. Still, Christians want to have say in defining a legal act based on religious morals and values that are not reflected in their own actions. Still, Christians want to lay claim to a customary tradition practiced world wide regardless of religion. And Christions would shape that tradition to their own specifications when the tradition is not even solely related to Chrisianity. One final question, why don't Christians simply refuse to marry outside of the church? Why do they need to be married under the law of state and country? That way their precious tradition can retain whatever value they want to assign to it. And the public domain contract of marriage can reflect a legal code that does not descriminate. And if you want to put a title on it "Christian" then go ahead. That name is only put there to please everyone. Because God isn't going to be discriminative, weather you're a Christian or a complete atheist, we WILL ALL BE JUDGED according to our works and faith on earth. Marriage isn't just some legal thing done, it is a spiritual unifying action done by a man and woman in love and wanting to spend eternity together. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Foliel
on
Sun 08/22/10 07:46 PM
|
|
Just because a marriage isn't done by a church does not make it any less of a marriage. A marriage through a justice of the peace is still a marriage.
Why do homosexuals wish to get married? For the same reason heterosexuals wish to get married. They love one another and want to be together for the rest of their lives. I know this concept may seem foreign to christians who only think that marriage is about having children. Just because someone is gay does not mean they can't love someone. If you don't like gay marriage, it's easy, don't marry someone of the same gender. Allowing it doesn't mean you will have to nor does it mean you have to approve since it isn't your wedding to approve of. It also does not mean that you have to allow all kinds of other things that regular people would normally disapprove of. It would just be 2 people who love each other a great deal, getting married and spending their lives together. If God doesn't like it, let him/her take care of it in the long run. It is not for general people to decide who has the right to love and marry someone. |
|
|
|
|
