For Christians

[shuamort]

Marriages and civil unions are regulated by state laws. That is why, for example, Reno, Nevada became the divorce capital of the nation.

Your answer is not responsive.

Unlike marriage, gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships are invalid outside the state in which they occur and do not provide any federal marriage benefits. Federal protections conferred by marriage include 1,138 laws and policies, such as Social Security, family medical leave, federal taxation and immigration policy.

 

[Fantasea]

Unlike marriage, gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships are invalid outside the state in which they occur and do not provide any federal marriage benefits. Federal protections conferred by marriage include 1,138 laws and policies, such as Social Security, family medical leave, federal taxation and immigration policy.

If that's the case, then it's too bad, isn't it. It seems as if every lifestyle has its own cost/benefit equation, doesn't it?

Equality, as I see it, means that anyone who meets the established criteria cannot be excluded. It does not mean that those who refuse to meet the established criteria are entitled to change the established criteria to suit their purposes.

 

[shuamort]

If that's the case, then it's too bad, isn't it. It seems as if every lifestyle has its own cost/benefit equation, doesn't it?

Equality, as I see it, means that anyone who meets the established criteria cannot be excluded. It does not mean that those who refuse to meet the established criteria are entitled to change the established criteria to suit their purposes.

Established criteria at one point in time meant having white skin. Or a penis. Or lots of money. Is it too bad for the blacks, the women, and the poor not to have equality too?

 

[Bigbird]

Do you support bestiality? This isn't meant to be flippant, but many arguments used by liberals in support of homosexuality can be made in support of bestiality; to show how actually selective liberals are in their applications of their rules.
a) it doesn't harm any person
b) if it's done in private, why should it concern you.

By the way I had this argument with a friend of mine who is homosexual. He said that the animal does not 'consent'. I asked him if he was a vegetarian. He replied in the negative. I then said well the animal doesn't consent to being eaten, either.


I agree. That is the statement I made in the opening post. There must be a clash of ideas. You (if you were a Christian) must choose a side.

If the law of the land is that homosexual relationships are 'legal' and so on, so be it. I will protest away, as is my right.

The animal may not agree ot being eaten, but Having sex with an animal doesn't have anything to do with survival. The bible says a man shall not lie with a man as he does a woman. So does the church have a problem with lesbians or no? Why does it say to stone your neighbor if he works on the sabbath or the things about selling your daughter into slavery? or if a member of the church has a sexual disease he/she may no approach the alter.


Why is it that you choose to enforce some rules and not others. Take some of what the bible syas literally and others symbolically. When i say you i mean religous groups as a whole who are against homosexuality.

I support your right to protest against whatever you like, but im betting i wont see a lot of people protesting against divorce, or stoning their neighbors becuase they worked on a sunday. So what's so special about homosexuality that it needs to be protested when there are so many other MORE worthwhile causes out there you could be fighting for?

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
If that's the case, then it's too bad, isn't it. It seems as if every lifestyle has its own cost/benefit equation, doesn't it?

Equality, as I see it, means that anyone who meets the established criteria cannot be excluded. It does not mean that those who refuse to meet the established criteria are entitled to change the established criteria to suit their purposes.

Established criteria at one point in time meant having white skin. Or a penis. Or lots of money. Is it too bad for the blacks, the women, and the poor not to have equality too?

I do not see the connection between the circumstances you mention and same-sex marriage. To carry your premise forward, there should be no limits on anything anyone demands because to deny anyone anything would be infringing on the desires of that individual.

"I want what I want when I want it and I want it now", is no justification to trash the tradition of marriage by altering its essence.

 

[shuamort]

I do not see the connection between the circumstances you mention and same-sex marriage. To carry your premise forward, there should be no limits on anything anyone demands because to deny anyone anything would be infringing on the desires of that individual.

No, the point being that your argument has been used to justify these types of discriminatory behaviors of the past.

"I want what I want when I want it and I want it now", is no justification to trash the tradition of marriage by altering its essence.

Yeah, how dare the founders of country demand that they trash the tradition of government and the monarchy by having a new form of government based on democracy. See how that silly that sounds?

 

[Naughty Nurse]

"I want what I want when I want it and I want it now", is no justification to trash the tradition of marriage by altering its essence.

I think the dreaded Britney has already done that! Too late!

 

[shuamort]

to trash the tradition of marriage by altering its essence.

By the way, what is its essence? Love? Fidelity? Monogamy? Creating a family?

Or is it just one penis and one vagina and that's it? I'd like to think the essence more than that.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
I do not see the connection between the circumstances you mention and same-sex marriage. To carry your premise forward, there should be no limits on anything anyone demands because to deny anyone anything would be infringing on the desires of that individual.

No, the point being that your argument has been used to justify these types of discriminatory behaviors of the past.

I have never argued that the discriminatory behaviors you mentioned were justified. They were not remedied soon enough. However, as I said, I see no connection between them and same-sex marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
"I want what I want when I want it and I want it now", is no justification to trash the tradition of marriage by altering its essence.

Yeah, how dare the founders of country demand that they trash the tradition of government and the monarchy by having a new form of government based on democracy.

An apple and an orange.

See how that silly that sounds?

The only thing that sounds silly is trying to justify one man marrying another man on the basis of equality.

 

[shuamort]

I have never argued that the discriminatory behaviors you mentioned were justified. They were not remedied soon enough.

So, it's only if you like or dislike the discrimination and not its merits. Well, now we know.

However, as I said, I see no connection between them and same-sex marriage.An apple and an orange.

A fruit by any name tastes just as sweet.

The only thing that sounds silly is trying to justify one man marrying another man on the basis of equality.

No, quoting a mythology that society hasn't shaken as justification for prejudices is the silly part.

 

[Fantasea]

So, it's only if you like or dislike the discrimination and not its merits. Well, now we know.


A fruit by any name tastes just as sweet.


No, quoting a mythology that society hasn't shaken as justification for prejudices is the silly part.

Your argument has reached the "Did not! Did too!" stage. Are you able to come up with anything new?

 

[shuamort]

Your argument has reached the "Did not! Did too!" stage. Are you able to come up with anything new?

Actually, it would seem that we've sussed out your prejudices.

You're not upset that gays are demanding equality now. You're mad that they're asking for it at all. You're trivializing what they want and using your religion as your cloak and daggar. You've admitted that you see no problem with blacks or women demanding their rights and said that it took too slowly (paraphrasing here). But when comes to homosexuals, WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAA! How dare they demand their rights so quickly? Your reasons, rationale, and religion are baseless. You come up with a honest reason and post it, maybe then we can talk.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Actually, it would seem that we've sussed out your prejudices.

You're not upset that gays are demanding equality now. You're mad that they're asking for it at all. You're trivializing what they want and using your religion as your cloak and daggar. You've admitted that you see no problem with blacks or women demanding their rights and said that it took too slowly (paraphrasing here). But when comes to homosexuals, WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAA! How dare they demand their rights so quickly? Your reasons, rationale, and religion are baseless. You come up with a honest reason and post it, maybe then we can talk.

Ah, but our beloved Fantasea has never yet come up with an honest reason for any of his/her many odd ideas, so why would you expect any change now?

 

[Fantasea]

Actually, it would seem that we've sussed out your prejudices.

You're not upset that gays are demanding equality now. You're mad that they're asking for it at all.

As I see it, homosexuals are males and females just as heterosexuals are males and females. The fact that they choose to advertise their bedroom proclivities to the world is no reason to treat them any different than the males and females which they are.

You're trivializing what they want and using your religion as your cloak and daggar.

I know you are not much for challenges, but I challenge you to cite a single post of mine in which I cite religion as a reason for rejecting one man marrying another man.

You've admitted that you see no problem with blacks or women demanding their rights and said that it took too slowly (paraphrasing here).

At least you managed to get one thing right.

But when comes to homosexuals, WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAA! How dare they demand their rights so quickly? Your reasons, rationale, and religion are baseless. You come up with a honest reason and post it, maybe then we can talk.

From an earlier post:

"I want what I want when I want it and I want it now", is no justification to trash the tradition of marriage by altering its essence.

 

[shuamort]

As I see it, homosexuals are males and females just as heterosexuals are males and females. The fact that they choose to advertise their bedroom proclivities to the world is no reason to treat them any different than the males and females which they are.

So men and women should be able to marry any other man and woman they please then? Why should their gender make a difference? You're refusing to answer that. Your: "I want what I want when I want it and I want it now", is no justification to trash the tradition of marriage by altering its essence. because you're not defining what the essence of marriage is. You can tiptoe around the questions without directly answering a question, so I'll repeat my previous questions:

By the way, what is its essence? Love? Fidelity? Monogamy? Creating a family?

Or is it just one penis and one vagina and that's it? I'd like to think the essence more than that.

I know you are not much for challenges, but I challenge you to cite a single post of mine in which I cite religion as a reason for rejecting one man marrying another man.

How about this:

I'm all in favor of two consenting homosexual adults being accorded all of the rights, privileges, and religious blessings of marriage so long as one of them is a man and the other is a woman.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantasea
As I see it, homosexuals are males and females just as heterosexuals are males and females. The fact that they choose to advertise their bedroom proclivities to the world is no reason to treat them any different than the males and females which they are.

So men and women should be able to marry any other man and woman they please then? Why should their gender make a difference? You're refusing to answer that. Your: "I want what I want when I want it and I want it now", is no justification to trash the tradition of marriage by altering its essence. because you're not defining what the essence of marriage is. You can tiptoe around the questions without directly answering a question, so I'll repeat my previous questions:

By the way, what is its essence? Love? Fidelity? Monogamy? Creating a family?

Or is it just one penis and one vagina and that's it? I'd like to think the essence more than that.

As far back as recorded history goes, the norm for marriage has been one man and one woman. You know the rest of my story.

Originally posted by Fantasea
I know you are not much for challenges, but I challenge you to cite a single post of mine in which I cite religion as a reason for rejecting one man marrying another man.

How about this:

Originally posted by Fantasea
I'm all in favor of two consenting homosexual adults being accorded all of the rights, privileges, and religious blessings of marriage so long as one of them is a man and the other is a woman.

This is acceptance, not rejection. Surely, you can see the difference.


__________________

 

[shuamort]

As far back as recorded history goes, the norm for marriage has been one man and one woman.

There's a norm for marriage?

There are many references to polygynous marriages in the Bible: Lamech, in Genesis 4:19, became the first known polygynist. He had two wives.
Subsequent men in polygynous relationships included: Esau with 3 wives;
Jacob: 2;
Ashur: 2;
Gideon: many;
Elkanah: 2;
David: many;
Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth;
Rehaboam: 3;
Abijah: 14.
Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.

From the historical record, it is known that Herod the Great (73 to 4 BCE) had nine wives.

Levirate Marriage: The name of this type of marriage is derived from the Latin word "levir," which means "brother-in-law." This involved a woman who was widowed without having borne a son. She would be required to leave her home, marry her brother-in-law, live with him, and engage in sexual relations. If there were feelings of attraction and love between the woman and her new husband, this arrangement could be quite agreeable to both. Otherwise, the woman would have to endure what was essentially serial rapes with her former brother-in-law as perpetrator.

A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave: As described in Genesis 16, Sarah and Abram were infertile. Sarah owned Hagar, a female slave who apparently had been purchased earlier in Egypt. Because Hagar was Sarah's property, she could dispose of her as she wished. Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as a type of wife, so that Abram would have an heir.

A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: A man could keep numerous concubines, in addition to one or more wives. These women held an even lower status than a wife.

A male soldier and a female prisoner of war: Numbers 31:1-18 describes how army of the ancient Israelites killed every adult Midianite male in battle. Moses then ordered the slaughter in cold blood of most of the captives, including all of the male children who numbered about 32,000. Only the lives of 32,000 women - all virgins -- were spared.

A male rapist and his victim: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist.

A male and female slave: Exodus 21:4 indicates that a slave owner could assign one of his female slaves to one of his male slaves as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction.


So where was this norm?

You know the rest of my story.
This is acceptance, not rejection. Surely, you can see the difference.

I see that as rejection of marriage between two consenting and loving adults who happen to be of the same sex.

And for some reason, for the second time you didn't address the simplest of the questions about family:
By the way, what is its essence? Love? Fidelity? Monogamy? Creating a family?

Or is it just one penis and one vagina and that's it? I'd like to think the essence more than that.

 

[JustineCredible]

By the way, what is its essence? Love? Fidelity? Monogamy? Creating a family?

Or is it just one penis and one vagina and that's it? I'd like to think the essence more than that.

I would second those as well. The funny thing is, even if she/he isn't utilizing her religioin, she's relying on the "natural law" falicy as well.

Which I believe is well fought out in the "Can gay people have babies..." thread.

 

[Fantasea]

So where was this norm?

Whether you realize it or not, you are citing the exceptional situations, not the norm.

I see that as rejection of marriage between two consenting and loving adults who happen to be of the same sex.

What you toss off as a minor point, happenstance, is actually the heart of the matter.

And for some reason, for the second time you didn't address the simplest of the questions about family:
By the way, what is its essence? Love? Fidelity? Monogamy? Creating a family?

Or is it just one penis and one vagina and that's it? I'd like to think the essence more than that.

You may, of course, think what you wish. In the crude sense in which you put it, you are anatomically, legally, and, if you like, ecclesiastically correct.

However, a more polite way of stating it would be, one man and one woman who promise to love, honor, and, obey each other, until parted by death. In the event that no offspring are forthcoming, either person may seek an annulment to invalidate the marriage which would render both free to marry.

 

[shuamort]

Whether you realize it or not, you are citing the exceptional situations, not the norm.

Exceptional situations or not, they were common enough to warrant their mentions in the bible as examples marriage.

What you toss off as a minor point, happenstance, is actually the heart of the matter.You may, of course, think what you wish. In the crude sense in which you put it, you are anatomically, legally, and, if you like, ecclesiastically correct.

Not so. Marriage in Massachusetts is legal between two people of the same gender. That's one state you might say. But it's 2% of the nation. Which is also one of the assumed numbers of the homosexual population.

However, a more polite way of stating it would be, one man and one woman who promise to love, honor, and, obey each other, until parted by death. In the event that no offspring are forthcoming, either person may seek an annulment to invalidate the marriage which would render both free to marry.

So homosexuals may then marry and should they not procreate with those confines, they may seek annulment.

 

[Fantasea]

Exceptional situations or not, they were common enough to warrant their mentions in the bible as examples marriage.


Not so. Marriage in Massachusetts is legal between two people of the same gender. That's one state you might say. But it's 2% of the nation. Which is also one of the assumed numbers of the homosexual population.


So homosexuals may then marry and should they not procreate with those confines, they may seek annulment.

It seems to me that the discussion is now reaching the point at which you are trying to pick out fly specks from pepper.

 

[JustineCredible]

It seems to me that the discussion is now reaching the point at which you are trying to pick out fly specks from pepper.

Well it's better than the Broad stroke, generalizing arguments you make.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Well it's better than the Broad stroke, generalizing arguments you make.

What, the lovely Fantasea do such a shallow thing? Oh, surely not!