Defending Traditional Marriage

[aclausen]

The behaviour of other species would seem to be irrelevant. The State agrees and does not offer them marriage licenses.

The corollary of your remarks seems to be that all manner if arrangements should attract State recognition and endorsement and be called 'marriage". Or perhaps none?

I think the state retains an interest in marriage, particularly in the civil aspects revolving around estates, medical and economic issues. But it has no business granting one particular group a monopoly on decreeing what is a legitimate marriage, simply because that group proclaims “We know what God thinks.”

 

[Rau]

I think the state retains an interest in marriage, particularly in the civil aspects revolving around estates, medical and economic issues. But it has no business granting one particular group a monopoly on decreeing what is a legitimate marriage, simply because that group proclaims “We know what God thinks.”

Only you have introduced God.

I agree that there may be a case to provide a legal framework that supports persons who want to cohabitate, share income and assets, care for each other, define inheritance priorities and so forth. But the relationship of two men seeking that support, or 3 elderly sisters, all equally valid candidates, is not marriage.

 

[aclausen]

Only you have introduced God.

Yes, because it’s the unspoken reason for denying homosexuals the right to enter a civil marriage.

I agree that there may be a case to provide a legal framework that supports persons who want to cohabitate, share income and assets, care for each other, define inheritance priorities and so forth. But the relationship of two men seeking that support, or 3 elderly sisters, all equally valid candidates, is not marriage.

Then by all means advocate for these other combinations. For now, a number of countries have decided that marriage can be two people of different sex, or two people of the same sex.

 

[Rau]

Yes, because it’s the unspoken reason for denying homosexuals the right to enter a civil marriage.

Is it?

Then by all means advocate for these other combinations. For now, a number of countries have decided that marriage can be two people of different sex, or two people of the same sex.

Two men (or women) is in fact the combination you addressed - so I have advocated for them, and in a manner not unjustly discriminating against any other!! See my last post.

I know what some States have done. It’s nuts.

 

[aclausen]

Is it?

Yes, it is, because Natural Law is just simply a human construct.

Two men (or women) is in fact the combination you addressed - so I have advocated for them, and in a manner not unjustly discriminating against any other!! See my last post.

I know what some States have done. It’s nuts.

Some states have called it marriage. I’m presuming that’s what you don’t like.

 

[Rau]

Yes, it is, because Natural Law is just simply a human construct.

Some states have called it marriage. I’m presuming that’s what you don’t like.

So far, you have appealed to Gid and to Natural Law. What dude of this debate are you on??

 

[aclausen]

So far, you have appealed to Gid and to Natural Law. What dude of this debate are you on??

Are you not the one that wrote this:

“The legal arrangements support marriage, they are not supposed to define or create it! Our nature as male and female does that!”

 

[Rau]

Are you not the one that wrote this:

“The legal arrangements support marriage, they are not supposed to define or create it! Our nature as male and female does that!”

Yes. One does not have to be religious to observe this. One only needs eyes!

 

[aclausen]

Yes. One does not have to be religious to observe this. One only needs eyes!

And yet human behaviour, historical and extant, demonstrates that there have always been exceptions, and a significant enough minority of the population who are homosexual to suggest that these claims that it is a “natural” state are little more than wishful thinking.

 

[Rau]

And yet human behaviour, historical and extant, demonstrates that there have always been exceptions, and a significant enough minority of the population who are homosexual to suggest that these claims that it is a “natural” state are little more than wishful thinking.

Exceptional behaviours are what they are. But I’m happy to look past that, as I indicated previously how the State can act rationally and justly towards those desiring state support for their arrangements.

 

[aclausen]

Exceptional behaviours are what they are. But I’m happy to look past that, as I indicated previously how the State can act rationally and justly towards those desiring state support for their arrangements.

When at least one in ten individuals demonstrate those behaviors, they cease to be exceptional.

And how is adjusting the civil definition of marriage not dealing with the issue? Societies determine what legitimate marriages are, and that is what is happening.

 

[Rau]

When at least one in ten individuals demonstrate those behaviors, they cease to be exceptional.

And how is adjusting the civil definition of marriage not dealing with the issue? Societies determine what legitimate marriages are, and that is what is happening.

At least one in ten? Does that include teenage boys experimenting with masturbation together?

Given the functioning of our bodies, what is exceptional is clear to see (it only requires eyes).

But the circle in the discussion is now closing… Marriage is defined by our maleness and femaleness. Other requirements ought be met by other means.

 

[aclausen]

At least one in ten? Does that include teenage boys experimenting with masturbation together?

Good grief…

Given the functioning of our bodies, what is exceptional is clear to see (it only requires eyes).

We are not simply reproduction machines.

But the circle in the discussion is now closing… Marriage is defined by our maleness and femaleness. Other requirements ought be met by other means.

Marriage is defined by human societies, and in the societies in countries like the US, Canada, Ireland and the UK, among others, it is now defined as between two adults; regardless of genders.

 

[Rau]

…in the societies in countries like the US, Canada, Ireland and the UK, among others, it is now defined [by the State] as between two adults; regardless of genders.

I lnow, it’s nuts. And the discussion repeats itself…

 

[clem456]

And yet human behaviour, historical and extant, demonstrates that there have always been exceptions, and a significant enough minority of the population who are homosexual to suggest that these claims that it is a “natural” state are little more than wishful thinking.

This argument is absurd.
It begins “And yet human behavior…”
Before you get to the rest of your argument, can you tell us what it means to be human?

 

[tifischer]

Hi guys.
I see many things about Homosexual Marriage like love, rights, freedom, equality, etc on the internet. I would like to hear some arguments to defend Traditional Marriage in a secular way, including what people with these homosexual attractions should do. I know, talking about God is very compelling and defends it well, but I know this wont work for too many.

Any (name removed by moderator)ut appreciated.

Linguistics would tell us that the meaning is a relationship of a man and woman by origin and definition.

‘Marri-age’, - marriage. Marita=married woman, mariti=married couple, maritus=married man. This is the etymology of the words Mari, marry, marriage and married. A man would ask a woman, “Would you ‘Mari’ me? Which is to say, “I ‘propose’ that we go through the unification process so that you can be given to me as a pure virgin in the same way Mari (Maria/The Blessed Mother) gave herself to God”. His Holy Spirit espoused the Blessed Mother Mary. Now we have Marri-age or Marriage. The origin of the meaning is from the relationship of a male and female.

This is further supported by another term for marriage used interchangeably, Matrimony.
Matrimony is derived from the Latin word Matrimonium that translates to a man taking a woman to be a mother. Matrimony clearly by definition can only be between a man and a woman by definition.

So you see the same-sex matrimony or marriage is not possibly by definition…it is a contradiction of terms.

God help us. Blessed Mother Mary pray for us. In Jesus name, Amen.

 

[tifischer]

This argument is absurd.
It begins “And yet human behavior…”
Before you get to the rest of your argument, can you tell us what it means to be human?

You just proved that humans have a natural tendency to sin. Just because people naturally choose to sin does not make it ok. Most theologist call that the stain of original sin, thus we repent and get baptized or reconcile if already baptized. Amen. clem456 Amen?

 

[aclausen]

Linguistics would tell us that the meaning is a relationship of a man and woman by origin and definition.

.

Linguistics also tells us words and concepts are not static in meaning.

 

[aclausen]

This argument is absurd.
It begins “And yet human behavior…”
Before you get to the rest of your argument, can you tell us what it means to be human?

Specifically a member of Homo sapiens, though I could happily extend it to any member of genus Homo

 

[tifischer]

Linguistics also tells us words and concepts are not static in meaning.

That’s like saying father means mother it why the meaning of contradiction was invented. R u going to redefine contradiction too? Cause u would need to.