Gay Marriage

[FoolKiller]

Isn't gonna happen. Homosexuality is an abnormal, useless-to-the-species, genetically end-of-the-line behavior. There is no justification for its use as the basis of a household union. It has no place in the upbringing of our children. It is inconceivable that its acceptance into mainstream society can produce useful results for humanity as a whole.

I have an issue here. I know many homosexuals and even have a gay cousin who had a committment ceremony with her life partner in her church (a very liberal church). Some of these cases, such as my cousin, I know they felt this way their entire life, or at least since they were old enough to get beyond the "they have cooties" stage and develop attractions and crushes. Because of this, as far as I am concerned this is naturally occuring. I believe you even said that they think they may have found a gay gene, making it genetic.

Seeing as how our bodies have naturally adapted (or were designed) for sexual activity to be performed with the opposite sex, thus increase reproduction, I can see how you could argue that it is a sort of disorder or genetic abnormality, if you wish to call it that.

Since when did someone with any kind of disorder or genetic abnormality deserve less rights than the rest of us? Unless that disorder would cause them to not be able to recognize human rights and violate others (schizophrenic, psychopathic, etc) we grant them equal rights all around.

I was born with a heart condition which is the result of inheritance from both parents. It is most likely genetic. Do I deserve less rights? Should I not have the same access to doctors and healthcare as everyone else? Should I not be allowed to have children? If homosexuals are a genetic dead-end then I am a step backwards as I have a likely chance of having children with a heart defect (something my wife and I both think about often).

Or, since my case is almost not outwardly noticable, what about someone with a mental disorder? They barely grasp the concept of love, rights, and marriage, but they do. Should we prevent them from marrying and having kids? That used to be a common idea because "they will just have more retarded babies."

If you refuse to believe it is natural and think that it is a choice, then what about other chosen and "immoral" or "sinful" behaviours? How do we treat premarital sex or alcoholism or drug addicts or smokers? Do we start limiting everyone's righst that makes decisions that the majority doesn't agree with? What makes a homosexual person's sin so much worse than any other sin that they must be given les rights?

And then if we are going to argue over whether it can be called marriage or not, WHO CARES? It is symantics, nothing more. Let them call it what they will. It doesn't matter. In my cousin's case they were able to go through much legal paperwork to give each other the same rights to each other as legal spouses.

I do understand the possible religious implications of allowing the term marriage to be used and the only stipulation I would have is it be made so that religious institutions, such as churches, cannot be sued for discrimination when they refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for a homosexual couple. Someone is probably thinking that isn't necessary, but in this PC society I can see a spiteful couple that would do it just to be a couple of asses and raise media hell.

I can't imagine any situation where putting it in the wrong 'un would cause the fall of a civilisation spanning a third of the planet. Though the Romans did believe that buggery caused earthquakes.

The only case I can think of where a society did collapse due to sexual beliefs/acts of some sort is the Shakers. But they believed that all sex is evil and you can't grow with that idea. They required conversion to grow their numbers and I bet that is a hard case to make.

 

[Alex.]

marriage is a traditionally sacred event shared between a man and woman who love eachother, with the idea of kids not far along the line.

not a fan of gay marriage me..

 

[Famine]

She (he?) would still be a man. Everything has been changed cosmetically or through hermone treatment. It's still a man no matter what the birth certificate says. I believe marriage should only take place between a "real" man and woman.

So we need a quick genitalia and Barr body check before every marriage, just to make sure that the birth certificate tallies?

What about Turner's Syndrome (XO), Klinefelter's Syndrome (XXY), or supermales (XYY)? They (usually) can't reproduce and wouldn't pass a sex test (Turner's - no Barr bodies = genetically male, but physically female and with no Y chromosome; Klinefelter's Syndrome - one Barr body = genetically female, but physically male and with one Y chromosome)?


My Dominican Republic reference, though slightly veiled, is important too. Because of the prevelance of the 5ARD gene, the Dominican Republic has a legally recognised third gender state (the guevedoches). Where do they fit?

marriage is a traditionally sacred event shared between a man and woman who love eachother

My marriage will be many things - fun, important, hilarious (in parts - I have plans... ), expensive, special and, in all likelihood, drunkeness - but sacred? Not a hope.

 

[Swift]

My marriage will be many things - fun, important, hilarious (in parts - I have plans... ), expensive, special and, in all likelihood, drunkeness - but sacred? Not a hope.

But sacred is not even relative to your perspective of how you live. Is it Famine?

 

[Duke]

Since when is supreme entitlement healthy for an individual, group, or society?

You're making several fundamental mistakes here that unfortunately invalidate most of what you're saying, Pako.

We have guys that want to be on womans tennis teams, we have guys wanting to work at Hooters, we have woman wanting to play in Men's League sports.

All of these issues stem from physical differences. Obviously a man is not a woman, and therefore should not be allowed to play in a Women's league. That's simple: there are separate leagues because of physiological differences between the players. It is simple logic that if a man enters a Women's League, it is no longer a Women's League. End of story. But NOTHING prevents a man and a woman from playing tennis against each other if they wish to. It's not illegal. Nobody is proposing Constitutional amendments banning Mixed Doubles tennis.

Now we have homosexuals wanting to play husband and wife. I'm sorry but we are NOT entitled to certain things, unpopular to politically correctness. Don't you dare compare the Womans Rights movement or the freeing of slaves to what we're talking about here. What we have is a bunch of whiny, spoiled brats stomping on the ground, throwing these temper tantrums like little kids. Well I gotta tell ya, sometimes life just isn't fair. You were born a guy that wants to play womans tennis, sucks to be you, deal with it.

I've already agreed with your last sentence here. Wanting to defy the simple reality of physical existence is not an option, and all the weeping and gnashing of teeth does no good.

BUT:

Marriage is NOT a simple reality of physical existence. Marriage is an arbitrary definition made by people. If you choose to define that "a marriage must be between a man and a woman", well then, DUH, a homosexual cannot be married.

But again, that definition is completely arbitrary. There is absolutely nothing inherent that defines it like that, unlike your Women's League Tennis example.

Why should the ideals of a family unit be compromised just because it will make someone else feel better about the choices they have made, or more so, just for a tax brake or better insurance?

I'm sorry, but none of you have satisfactorily proved that the values of a family unit are inherently compromised by homosexuality. You've made assertion that they are - founded only on the assertions themselves. You've said, effectively, "homosexuality weakens the family unit because homosexuality weakens the family unit." Bald, unsupported assertion is call a fiat, and it is logically valueless.

Family values matter!

Sure they do. I've already stipulated that a child has the greatest chance of success coming from a stable household. Now it's your turn to prove that heterosexual couples are inherently more stable and homosexual couples are inherently less stable.

It's the same people crying for civil rights for gay marriages that also have devalued relationships and family responsibilities. If it feels good, do it. If it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem? Take a look at the moral decline of our country in the last 30 years alone. There's a lot more to the issue than just gay marriages. It's just one more notch against the moral fabric that this country was founded on.

I'm sorry, this is simply wrong thinking. You are mistaking the rise of the gay civil rights movement as the cause of the general increase in permissivity and promiscuity of the '70s. You've got the cause and effect reversed. The gay civil rights movement came into being because of the rise in permissivity, not the other way around.

I spent a lot of time in wfooshee's post above debunking his point that the life-long pairing was an inherent, biological advantage bordering on the imperative. That's not to say that are not any social advantages to monogamous pairings. It's clear that there are, as many of today's issues demonstrate.

But unless you're going to prove that homosexual couples are inherently less stable than heterosexual couples, you're drawing your dividing line perpendicular to it's true direction. Instead of dividing it heterosexual | homosexual, it actually separates monogamous | promiscuous (or, stable | unstable). Again, your premise about the 30-year decline and fall of Western civilization is based on a fundamental confusion of cause and effect.

If you think that every one is equal in everything and is entitled to everything you are gravely mistaken.

Nor do I think that, ever.

Christian or not, a marriage is the public union of a man and a woman.

...when arbitrarily defined that way.

If you want to change that then just get rid of 'marriage' all together because once you compromise that, it is no longer 'marriage' but something entirely different.

Again, you've utterly failed to prove how homosexuality compromises the concept of a committed, stable family relationship. You've asserted that it does, just like you've asserted that a marriage cannot include a same-sex couple: by arbitrary fiat, with no justification.

If you made the argument along the lines of hedonism vs. responsibility, I could (and would) buy it. But you haven't done that.

I'm 42 years old. I have 2 kids and I'm a responsible parent. I'm involved in their schooling and extracurricular activities and I make sure they're both good students. I don't smoke, don't drink, don't sleep around. I work full time, put away 10% or more for the future, and I'm planning for their college costs as well. I've shown them when luxuries have to wait until necessities are covered.

Absolutely NONE of that would change if I was gay.

How did trying to satisfy every hearts desire help the Greeks and the Romans? It eventually lead to the fall of a once great culture.

Please prove that it was rampant homosexuality that led to the decline and fall of these great cultures, rather than a general tend towards decadence. Last I heard, homosexuals didn't overspend, overeat, overdrink, or overscrew more than heterosexuals did.

 

[Duke]

But sacred is not even relative to your perspective of how you live. Is it Famine?

Probably not - but then again, no one is trying to force your church to perform homosexual marriages, either. So you're free to keep to what your church considers sacred.

That doesn't imply the right to dictate to others what they must feel is sacred.

 

[Pako]

There's a difference between entitlement and wanting the equal application of the law guaranteed by our constitution. Wanting others to provide you with something is borderline criminal. Wanting to force someone to hire you against their will, or allow you into their sports league against their will, is force, and it's morally wrong.

Wanting the government to stop discriminating is the same thing that women and blacks have been fighting for for decades.

Again, I'd ask you to stop monopolizing the term marriage. You don't have the final say in it's definition. Perhaps you're an authority on Christian marriage, but the rest of us (and logic, rationality, and the constitution) have a say in what stands as "Legal" marriage.

Monopolizing the term? It is what it is. I'm not making this stuff up, honest. Changing what 'marriage' is, is forcing me to change my ideals of what marriage is. What you are asking me to do is to accept a change in what I value in a marriage by force. It is criminal and I tell you it is the same thing as the other examples I provided. Marriage is an elite league of heterosexual life partners. It's an exclusive club. What you are talking about is taking away that exclusivity. If you do that, then don't call it marriage any longer. That's all I'm trying to say. Sorry, marriage is a heterosexual club, not a homosexual club. You want to recognize homosexual Civil Unions? If you want to write law to give certain advantages to Civil Unions, that's fine by me but don't ask me to change my value of marriage.

 

[Mark T]

So we need a quick genitalia and Barr body check before every marriage, just to make sure that the birth certificate tallies?

What about Turner's Syndrome (XO), Klinefelter's Syndrome (XXY), or supermales (XYY)? They (usually) can't reproduce and wouldn't pass a sex test (Turner's - no Barr bodies = genetically male, but physically female and with no Y chromosome; Klinefelter's Syndrome - one Barr body = genetically female, but physically male and with one Y chromosome)?


My Dominican Republic reference, though slightly veiled, is important too. Because of the prevelance of the 5ARD gene, the Dominican Republic has a legally recognised third gender state (the guevedoches). Where do they fit?



My marriage will be many things - fun, important, hilarious (in parts - I have plans... ), expensive, special and, in all likelihood, drunkeness - but sacred? Not a hope.

I don't believe you should be able to change your birth certificate if you have had a sex change. If on the other hand you have a genetic disorder where no sex can be identified then it is obviously a different case. I assume that when you have one of the syndromes mentioned above you are assigned a sex on your birth certificate. I believe that due to the syndrome you should be able to change your sex on the birth certificate later on in life but this is an exceptional circumstance.

As for the Dominican "guevedoches" I'm going to have to do some Googling before I post my opinion.

 

[kennythebomb]

There is some really good debate here. I'm afraid I can't add much to the christian side as anything I will say has already been refuted on a different point of view.

I do find it worth thinking about though, some of you are putting up some challenging arguments. Perhaps the definition of marriage in today's society needs to be changed.

 

[Swift]

Monopolizing the term? It is what it is. I'm not making this stuff up, honest. Changing what 'marriage' is, is forcing me to change my ideals of what marriage is. What you are asking me to do is to accept a change in what I value in a marriage by force. It is criminal and I tell you it is the same thing as the other examples I provided. Marriage is an elite league of heterosexual life partners. It's an exclusive club. What you are talking about is taking away that exclusivity. If you do that, then don't call it marriage any longer. That's all I'm trying to say. Sorry, marriage is a heterosexual club, not a homosexual club. You want to recognize homosexual Civil Unions? If you want to write law to give certain advantages to Civil Unions, that's fine by me but don't ask me to change my value of marriage.

That's just about what I think right there.

Also, Duke, among physiological differences. How about a handicapped student in a wheel chair forcing their way onto a track with able-bodied students? That's a clear physiological difference being supported by the state.

I do find it worth thinking about though, some of you are putting up some challenging arguments. Perhaps the definition of marriage in today's society needs to be changed.

No it doesn't.

Look, as twisted, sick and perverse as I think homosexuality is. If two people feel that strongly about it then fine. Just don't call it marriage. Because it's just not the same. By pure physical differences that Duke described. Two men or two women is not a man and a woman. Do not change and in my view degrade what marriage has stood for in this country for two centuries.

@FK: I care very much what they call it. Because it puts me, my parents and everyone married that I know into the same arena as their relationship. And again, by pure physiological differences, it's not the same.

 

[Duke]

Monopolizing the term? It is what it is. I'm not making this stuff up, honest. Changing what 'marriage' is, is forcing me to change my ideals of what marriage is. What you are asking me to do is to accept a change in what I value in a marriage by force. It is criminal and I tell you it is the same thing as the other examples I provided. Marriage is an elite league of heterosexual life partners. It's an exclusive club. What you are talking about is taking away that exclusivity. If you do that, then don't call it marriage any longer. That's all I'm trying to say. Sorry, marriage is a heterosexual club, not a homosexual club. You want to recognize homosexual Civil Unions? If you want to write law to give certain advantages to Civil Unions, that's fine by me but don't ask me to change my value of marriage.

I don't define marriage as exclusively heterosexual. By what right are you imposing your definition on me?!

Again, no one is requiring you to revise your church's definition of marriage, or even your personal one. But legally, the law must account for individual differences within a broader framework.

What if someone only defined "marriage" as being the union between a dark-haired man and a blonde-haired woman, who MUST be the same age as he is? Would they be justified in imposing their definition of marriage on you?

 

[Famine]

I don't believe you should be able to change your birth certificate if you have had a sex change. If on the other hand you have a genetic disorder where no sex can be identified then it is obviously a different case. I assume that when you have one of the syndromes mentioned above you are assigned a sex on your birth certificate. I believe that due to the syndrome you should be able to change your sex on the birth certificate later on in life but this is an exceptional circumstance.

It's not really the case that no sex can be identified, rather than the already pretty thin line between the sexes is quite blurry. Parts of one, bits of the other and almost no hope of reproduction. In either case you might find a man and a woman marrying and both have penises. Or neither do. It's certainly a long way from a "real" man and woman.

It has been demonstrated that transsexuals have brains more typical of their assigned gender than their birth gender - indicating that transsexualism is genetic... In either case, if a male-to-female transsexual marries a man, it's not a homosexual "marriage" and should, according to some arguments in this thread, be acceptable.

Would a male-to-female transsexual marrying a female-to-male transsexual - both starting as different genders and both ending as different genders - be more or less acceptable than this?

As for the Dominican "guevedoches" I'm going to have to do some Googling before I post my opinion.

Nevertheless, there exists a third, legally-recognised gender state. in the Dominican Republic. How would this sit with God?

 

[Danoff]

Monopolizing the term? It is what it is. I'm not making this stuff up, honest. Changing what 'marriage' is, is forcing me to change my ideals of what marriage is. What you are asking me to do is to accept a change in what I value in a marriage by force. It is criminal and I tell you it is the same thing as the other examples I provided. Marriage is an elite league of heterosexual life partners. It's an exclusive club. What you are talking about is taking away that exclusivity. If you do that, then don't call it marriage any longer. That's all I'm trying to say. Sorry, marriage is a heterosexual club, not a homosexual club. You want to recognize homosexual Civil Unions? If you want to write law to give certain advantages to Civil Unions, that's fine by me but don't ask me to change my value of marriage.

Religiously speaking you're mostly correct - marriage is a heterosexuals-only club. But not all religions refuse to acknowledge homosexual marriage, you have to prove that your religion is somehow superior/more correct than theirs - not an easy task in a nation built upon religions freedom and tolerance.

But legally speaking you have no grounds. Legally speaking this nation's government is supposed to recognize people equally. The legal institution of marriage is a property/guardianship-based institution. It's called marriage because the word marriage has a definition beyond the basic "two people comitting to each other for life". It also means:

"a blending or matching of different elements or components"

That's why when I was playing poker the other day folks said I was "married to this pot", or why I can refer to a car as a "marriage of power, style, and agility".

The word itself basically means a melding - that's what makes it a perfectly practical legal term to describe he legal melding of property rights and guardianship rights over children (and yes, homosexual couples can have children).

You seem completely incapable of understanding that the term "marriage" is not a strictly religious term. I don't know why that's so difficult for you, but it's important in this discussion.

Also, @Swift, that was a completely inadequate attempt to prove that this nation is built upon the concept of the family and fundamentally short changes all people without children or families and their role in society. I'll get into that more later.

 

[Pako]

I don't define marriage as exclusively heterosexual. By what right are you imposing your definition on me?!

Again, no one is requiring you to revise your church's definition of marriage, or even your personal one. But legally, the law must account for individual differences within a broader framework.

What if someone only defined "marriage" as being the union between a dark-haired man and a blonde-haired woman, who MUST be the same age as he is? Would they be justified in imposing their definition of marriage on you?

I'm not imposing anything on you. Like I said, 'marriage' is what it is. THE LAW states that a legal marriage is between a man and a woman. Here's a two second google result on "The legal definition of marriage".

MARRIAGE - A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

I really am not making this stuff up. By getting married and signing your own marriage license, you have adopted the definition of marriage as defined by the law. Unless it was a shotgun wedding, I'm pretty sure it was done by your own free will and not by force.

Sorry, but here's another short 1.2 second google result:

marriage n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace, or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in several). The standard age for marriage without parental consent is 18 except for Georgia and Wyoming where it is 16, Rhode Island where women can marry at 16, and Mississippi in which it is 17 for boys and 15 for girls. More than half the states allow marriages at lesser ages with parental consent, going as low as 14 for both sexes in Alabama, Texas and Utah. Marriages in which the age requirements are not met can be annulled. Fourteen states recognize so-called "common law marriages" which establish a legal marriage for people who have lived together by agreement as husband and wife for a lengthy period of time without legal formalities.

 

[Duke]

Also, Duke, among physiological differences. How about a handicapped student in a wheel chair forcing their way onto a track with able-bodied students? That's a clear physiological difference being supported by the state.

If they're trying to enter a running event, they should not be allowed to do so, since they are not physically running. But if they want to throw in the shotput, and they can do it from their wheelchair without going outside the throwing circle, then there's absolutely no reason they should be prohibited.

Look, as twisted, sick and perverse as I think homosexuality is. If two people feel that strongly about it then fine. Just don't call it marriage. Because it's just not the same. By pure physical differences that Duke described. Two men or two women is not a man and a woman. Do not change and in my view degrade what marriage has stood for in this country for two centuries.

Again, no one is asking your church to accept or perform homosexual marriages. But the law of the land is larger than that, and must be larger than that.

 

[Swift]

Nevertheless, there exists a third, legally-recognised gender state. in the Dominican Republic. How would this sit with God?

It doesn't. Next question.

 

[kennythebomb]

No it doesn't.

Look, as twisted, sick and perverse as I think homosexuality is. If two people feel that strongly about it then fine. Just don't call it marriage. Because it's just not the same. By pure physical differences that Duke described. Two men or two women is not a man and a woman. Do not change and in my view degrade what marriage has stood for in this country for two centuries.

@FK: I care very much what they call it. Because it puts me, my parents and everyone married that I know into the same arena as their relationship. And again, by pure physiological differences, it's not the same.

Certainly the Biblical definition of marriages only accounts for man and woman, obviously God doesn't approve of homosexual activity.

But this nation isn't a theocracy, and so a legal marriage isn't run exclusively by the church. Which means that if I support a bill to make gay marriage illegal, I am discriminating against people by means of my religion. My opinion that it is perverse. And if the majority of people in this nation wanted to declare homosexual marriage as a criminal act, then it would become a law as so. But... my religious opinion doesn't hold in the courts, and neither can I enforce it on others. So I would like to see that sort of bill get passed but I realize it is inherently discriminatory.

And yes currently the definition of marriage only accounts for a man and woman... but it is not rigid and set in stone that way in the sense of national law. By God's law, yes it is immutable. But human law is dependent on changing social structures. If the majority of people called for change, then the law would accomodate that.

 

[Swift]

If they're trying to enter a running event, they should not be allowed to do so, since they are not physically running. But if they want to throw in the shotput, and they can do it from their wheelchair without going outside the throwing circle, then there's absolutely no reason they should be prohibited.

Here you go
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/preps/track/2006-04-19-wheelchair-racer_x.htm

Again, no one is asking your church to accept or perform homosexual marriages. But the law of the land is larger than that, and must be larger than that.

Actually, you're asking all churches to marry people into the same institution as homosexuals.

Also, @Swift, that was a completely inadequate attempt to prove that this nation is built upon the concept of the family and fundamentally short changes all people without children or families and their role in society. I'll get into that more later.

Then what is it built on Dan? The bill of rights? If you say this statement here: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Then you acknowledge that this country is built on some kind of spiritual basis and I know you don't think that. So, again, what is it?

 

[Danoff]

I'm not imposing anything on you. Like I said, 'marriage' is what it is. THE LAW states that a legal marriage is between a man and a woman. Here's a two second google result on "The legal definition of marriage".

The law also used to say that Black people have no rights and that they don't count as a whole person from a census point of view. I guess the law isn't the final say on what's right.

Again, I'd like to point out that in this case the concept of marriage and the legal standing behind it is at odds with the founding principle of this nation - that all people be treated equally under the law.

Actually, you're asking all churches to marry people into the same institution as homosexuals.

There is zero chance that I would support a law requiring that. I'm guessing Duke and Famine are with me on that one.

 

[Duke]

I'm not imposing anything on you. Like I said, 'marriage' is what it is. THE LAW states that a legal marriage is between a man and a woman. Here's a two second google result on "The legal definition of marriage".

THE LAW also used to state that a negro was 3/5ths of a person. I suppose that didn't need changing, either.

Really, Pako, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your LAW INSISTS argument is very very weak. We all know that stupid laws have exosted for thousands of years.

 

[Mark T]

Nevertheless, there exists a third, legally-recognised gender state. in the Dominican Republic. How would this sit with God?

I'm not a religious man so I can't really comment.

 

[Famine]

It doesn't. Next question.

Why not?

 

[Duke]

Here you go
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/preps/track/2006-04-19-wheelchair-racer_x.htm

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I'm not really getting the relevance. Again, it's a physical issue - if you can't run, you can't participate in a running race. It's not parallel with an arbitrary legal definition of "marriage".

Actually, you're asking all churches to marry people into the same institution as homosexuals.

Not at all! Your church's institution of marriage is to wed a man and a woman, using the Pentecostal Christian service, into a Pentecostal Christian marriage. I have no desire to change that, and there is no authority to do so if I wanted to.

That should not be confused with the only possible definition of marriage outside the Pentecostal Christian faith.

 

[Swift]

Why not?

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Next Question please.

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I'm not really getting the relevance. Again, it's a physical issue - if you can't run, you can't participate in a running race.

Well, it's a physical issue. A man is not a woman and vice versa. A marriage is between a man and a woman.

Not at all! Your church's institution of marriage is to wed a man and a woman, using the Pentecostal Christian service, into a Pentecostal Christian marriage. I have no desire to change that, and there is no authority to do so if I wanted to.

That should not be confused with the only possible definition of marriage outside the Pentecostal Christian faith.

Yes at all. It doesn't say "Christian Marriage" on the marriage certificate. It would be the same thing by definition.

 

[Duke]

Well, it's a physical issue. A man is not a woman and vice versa. A marriage is between a man and a woman.

You're failing - or refusing - to grasp that this is a 100% purely arbitrary definition.

Yes at all. It doesn't say "Christian Marriage" on the marriage certificate. It would be the same thing by definition.

Then you're also going to be married into the same institution as any hippy stoners who are married by another hippy stoner who got his (or her) legal ordination from a classified ad in the back of Rolling Stone magazine.

Right? But that's not a problem, apparently, BY TRADITION since it is a man and woman so it upholds the sanctity of the legal definition of marriage.

 

[Famine]

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Next Question please.

Couple of minor points.

First, I'm talking about a third, legally recognised gender state. Not mankind, nor womankind.
Second, that's Leviticus. The one where it tells you not to eat prawns, which you've told me before was swept away with the coming of Jesus.

 

[Swift]

You're failing - or refusing - to grasp that this is a 100% purely arbitrary definition.

I'd say failing.

Then you're also going to be married into the same institution as any hippy stoners who are married by another hippy stoner who got his (or her) legal ordination from a classified ad in the back of Rolling Stone magazine.

Right? But that's not a problem, apparently, BY TRADITION since it is a man and woman so it upholds the sanctity of the legal definition of marriage.

Yep. Do I like the whole hippy thing? nope. But it is a man and a woman. Just because man and woman choice to be hippies doesn't change anything.

Couple of minor points.

First, I'm talking about a third, legally recognised gender state. Not mankind, nor womankind.
Second, that's Leviticus. The one where it tells you not to eat prawns, which you've told me before was swept away with the coming of Jesus.

I remember that conversation. But what you failed to remember is that(or maybe I didn't mention it in that particular conversation) the laws don't change, it's the penalties that changed. Except for the sabbath day. I got into this deep with danoff over pm's.

Second, God has no recognition of a third gender state. Just because a state does doesn't mean that God automatically has to.

 

[kennythebomb]

I'd say failing.



Yep. Do I like the whole hippy thing? nope. But it is a man and a woman. Just because man and woman choice to be hippies doesn't change anything.

You totally just set yourself up...

*watches*

 

[Duke]

You totally just set yourself up...

*watches*

No, I wasn't preparing any sort of elaborate logical trap.

I'm just saying that I can't understand the unilateral support for perceived low-quality heterosexual marriages and the utter denial of committed, loving, stable, life-long homosexual ones. Like I said above, I think that the opponents are drawing their division line vertically when they should be drawing horizontally.

 

[Famine]

I remember that conversation. But what you failed to remember is that(or maybe I didn't mention it in that particular conversation) the laws don't change, it's the penalties that changed.

So the penalty for being gay hasn't changed, but the penalty for eating oysters has? Whereabouts was this written?

Second, God has no recognition of a third gender state. Just because a state does doesn't mean that God automatically has to.

To introduce a Creationist argument as to why the Bible doesn't mention Jupiter, I don't recall the Bible specifically stating that there's no other gender than man and woman. Perhaps you can direct me to the part where it says that God won't recognise any other genders. After all, He created snails, and they're hermaphrodites.