- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,967
- Reaction score
- 1,530
- Location
- Somewhere in Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
“On the contrary, you - not me - is the one attempting to imply something that isn't there, specifically the type of marriage. Your error stems from...” – Singularity
From my post no. 107:
“The court decision specifically dealt only with heterosexual marriage.
If Warren wanted to make it plain that his remarks pertained to homosexual marriage he could have quite easily have done so.
However, since the case in no way considered homosexual marriage but only heterosexual marriage his remarks must be seen in that light.
You are attempting misconstrue Warren’s comments to imply something that simply isn’t there.”
“Based on the article I linked to you, written by Professor Frakes.” - Singularity
From my post no. 107:
“While homosexual liaisons were certainly practiced, there is no evidence that there was anything of a homosexual marriage in Roman times.”
“On the contrary, the reputable source I linked specifically said that unions were not legislated against, which you in turn mistakenly to mean that none existed. This means people were free to engage in the type of…” – Singularity
From my post no. 107…again:
“Currently, there are no laws that prevent the space shuttle from landing on my head. This in no way suggest that the space shuttle has ever landed on my head...there are just no laws against it.”
And while I hate to point out the painfully obvious, the absence of a law against something is not proof that something actually existed.
Hello?
“Which proves my point exactly, that marriage between same sex couples did exist.” – Singularity
From the very source you provided I was able with very little effort to call into question a number of the observations made by your source.
In addition, the author of your source is a known homosexual and gay advocate who, by his own body of work demonstrates his own bias on this subject.
So, once again, your source is weak and most certainly questionable.
And, at the end of the day, it does not change the fact that across time, continents, countries, cultures, religions, backgrounds, etc., marriage has existed between men and women exclusively.
Even if you could find a “credible” source demonstrating that a some remote tribe of Africans did actually engage in homosexual "marriage", so what? One small insignificant group has never had any impact on the fact that marriage has historically always been between men and women.
Even in Africa today--where homosexual marriage is legal in many areas--it remain quite predominantly between men and women.
“Your error stems from your failure to recognize that 'marriage' has always been a malleable institution…” – Singularity
From my post no. 101:
“There have certainly been polygamous instances where one man has been married to more than one woman and even rarer cultures that have allowed one woman to be married to more than one man. But in every instance this was still a marriage between men and women.
And these marriages were meant to last a lifetime. That all changed with the introduction of no-fault divorce in 1970 (at least in this country). Prior to that, divorce was very rare.
It’s only been in the last fifteen years or so that marriage between the same-sex has even been considered.
So, once again, marriage throughout time, culture, country, religion, etc has been between one man and one woman for life (with the notable exception mentioned above).
Homosexuality has not played a part in marriage history.”
“I am referring to the fact that marriage has always been a malleable institution depending on historical time period, whereas you believe marriage has always been an institution defined by your particular belief systems.” – Singularity
See above.
“No, the article specifically says it is marriage. Pederasty is an entirely different construct.” – Singularity
Pederasty
“sexual relations between two males, esp. when one of them is a minor.”
I don’t care how you or your “source” care to spin it, but pederasty is pederasty.
And that is not a “marriage”.
It’s a felony.
“Again, you mistakenly define 'marriage' according to your belief system. This is question-begging, as you automatically assume that the act of consummation which one culture holds as a tenet of marriage eliminates those unions who did not practice it for every marriage. As I mentioned all along, marriage is defined differently according to historical cultures.” – Singularity
Then by your reasoning and example we could find a tribe in Africa where men have a “special” relationship with their pet dog and can be “defined” as a marriage, too.
But then, by your standards, a marriage could be anything, right?
“Their counseling has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality being 'wrong' or 'mentally imbalanced'. I'm sure you've read Captain Courtesy's post on this. It's quite legendary on this board.” – Singularity
Yea, he and I have been back-and-forth on this issue.
“No, but it kills your argument that the behavior is 'unnatural' or indicative of something mentally wrong with homosexuality.” – Singularity
So although eating your young and killing your mate after copulation is natural and in no-way indicative of mental or emotional imbalance?
Okay….
“Your belief that Judeo Christian ideals should dictate our country is fine as long as it is mere opinion. Since I am not a Christian, I am happy to keep 'separation of church and state' and the…” – Singularity
So go vote.
I know I will.
“Your denial illustrates that you are not interested in learning, you are more interested in solidifying your position despite whatever evidence is…” – Singularity
Guess what?
You just got boring.
From my post no. 107:
“The court decision specifically dealt only with heterosexual marriage.
If Warren wanted to make it plain that his remarks pertained to homosexual marriage he could have quite easily have done so.
However, since the case in no way considered homosexual marriage but only heterosexual marriage his remarks must be seen in that light.
You are attempting misconstrue Warren’s comments to imply something that simply isn’t there.”
“Based on the article I linked to you, written by Professor Frakes.” - Singularity
From my post no. 107:
“While homosexual liaisons were certainly practiced, there is no evidence that there was anything of a homosexual marriage in Roman times.”
“On the contrary, the reputable source I linked specifically said that unions were not legislated against, which you in turn mistakenly to mean that none existed. This means people were free to engage in the type of…” – Singularity
From my post no. 107…again:
“Currently, there are no laws that prevent the space shuttle from landing on my head. This in no way suggest that the space shuttle has ever landed on my head...there are just no laws against it.”
And while I hate to point out the painfully obvious, the absence of a law against something is not proof that something actually existed.
Hello?
“Which proves my point exactly, that marriage between same sex couples did exist.” – Singularity
From the very source you provided I was able with very little effort to call into question a number of the observations made by your source.
In addition, the author of your source is a known homosexual and gay advocate who, by his own body of work demonstrates his own bias on this subject.
So, once again, your source is weak and most certainly questionable.
And, at the end of the day, it does not change the fact that across time, continents, countries, cultures, religions, backgrounds, etc., marriage has existed between men and women exclusively.
Even if you could find a “credible” source demonstrating that a some remote tribe of Africans did actually engage in homosexual "marriage", so what? One small insignificant group has never had any impact on the fact that marriage has historically always been between men and women.
Even in Africa today--where homosexual marriage is legal in many areas--it remain quite predominantly between men and women.
“Your error stems from your failure to recognize that 'marriage' has always been a malleable institution…” – Singularity
From my post no. 101:
“There have certainly been polygamous instances where one man has been married to more than one woman and even rarer cultures that have allowed one woman to be married to more than one man. But in every instance this was still a marriage between men and women.
And these marriages were meant to last a lifetime. That all changed with the introduction of no-fault divorce in 1970 (at least in this country). Prior to that, divorce was very rare.
It’s only been in the last fifteen years or so that marriage between the same-sex has even been considered.
So, once again, marriage throughout time, culture, country, religion, etc has been between one man and one woman for life (with the notable exception mentioned above).
Homosexuality has not played a part in marriage history.”
“I am referring to the fact that marriage has always been a malleable institution depending on historical time period, whereas you believe marriage has always been an institution defined by your particular belief systems.” – Singularity
See above.
“No, the article specifically says it is marriage. Pederasty is an entirely different construct.” – Singularity
Pederasty
“sexual relations between two males, esp. when one of them is a minor.”
I don’t care how you or your “source” care to spin it, but pederasty is pederasty.
And that is not a “marriage”.
It’s a felony.
“Again, you mistakenly define 'marriage' according to your belief system. This is question-begging, as you automatically assume that the act of consummation which one culture holds as a tenet of marriage eliminates those unions who did not practice it for every marriage. As I mentioned all along, marriage is defined differently according to historical cultures.” – Singularity
Then by your reasoning and example we could find a tribe in Africa where men have a “special” relationship with their pet dog and can be “defined” as a marriage, too.
But then, by your standards, a marriage could be anything, right?
“Their counseling has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality being 'wrong' or 'mentally imbalanced'. I'm sure you've read Captain Courtesy's post on this. It's quite legendary on this board.” – Singularity
Yea, he and I have been back-and-forth on this issue.
“No, but it kills your argument that the behavior is 'unnatural' or indicative of something mentally wrong with homosexuality.” – Singularity
So although eating your young and killing your mate after copulation is natural and in no-way indicative of mental or emotional imbalance?
Okay….
“Your belief that Judeo Christian ideals should dictate our country is fine as long as it is mere opinion. Since I am not a Christian, I am happy to keep 'separation of church and state' and the…” – Singularity
So go vote.
I know I will.
“Your denial illustrates that you are not interested in learning, you are more interested in solidifying your position despite whatever evidence is…” – Singularity
Guess what?
You just got boring.