Well there is logic, and the body of laws. Other than that, no not that I’m aware of.
Actually, men didn’t buy wives, they got paid to take the woman off her parents’ hands traditionally (a dowry)
. But that’s besides the point. Certain aspects of marriage may have changed over the years (some for better, some for worse), however it has constantly never been between people of the same sex.
You also forgot **precedent, **the bane of sound reasoning and a source of faulty tradition.
Wrong. Sure recipe for the elimination of marriage as something important in society. The countries’ leadership means a lot and the country needs to value genuine marriage if it is to have a stable society - but, then again, the homosexual agenda is all about eliminating marriage despite the facade about “rights.”
Marriage has been between one man and one woman since… forever.
It’s great! You go for it. If you search these threads you will see the same homosexual apologists promoting the same tired and unsubstantiated arguments. You have quickly grasped the fallacy behind Tlaloc’s statement. Tlaloc or previous iterations such as “Ken” or “Zoot” come on CAF frequently. So far they’ve not fooled anyone but give’em credit for trying.Actually, men didn’t buy wives, they got paid to take the woman off her parents’ hands traditionally (a dowry)
Contraception has distorted our view of marriage geatly. Nowadays, we see marriage as two people who love each other, have sex with each other, and want to spend the rest of their lives together (until they stop getting along at least). The contraceptive mentality has removed the procreative aspect from marriage. If you remove procreation from marriage, gay marriage becomes logical. When procreation is an aspect of marriage, gay marriage makes no sense. Until contraception, procreation was always intrinsically part of marriage, even marriages without the kind of love we associate with it today (like political royal marriages). This is why homosexual marriage wasn’t even a concept until recently (along with “homosexual” becoming a class of people, instead of homosexual acts simply being sins).
As for your dictionary definition, that just shows how the word “marriage” is used today, it doesn’t have any moral authority over what marriage should be.
This is like my second post ever, I hope it’s good!!
It was constantly not between people of different races too, until we realized that was a stupid prejudice and allowed it.Actually, men didn’t buy wives, they got paid to take the woman off her parents’ hands traditionally (a dowry)
A good example of how marriage has changed in recent years. I’m glad you admit gay marriage is logical by our new standards of what marriage involves.
Of course not, I only posted it because someone went on about how marriage in English means one man and one woman. He was wrong. The dictionary shows that clearly, but no the dictionary is by no means an authoritative source on the real issue being discussed.
I think it’s fine…for what that’s worth.
Brad, so long as the church is in government then the government is going to be in the church. it’ll never go only one way. If you want to preserve your church’s rituals (which is a fine goal) then you have to keep it separate from the body of laws.
Um did you notice that all of your examples of a positive male confirmation revolve around complimenting the girl’s appearance? You might want to think about that for a minute.
Okay you’ve been watching way too many 50s sitcoms. Life doesn’t work that way anymore, in fact it never did.
While that’s admirable it’s compromised by your extremely dated sense of child psychology. Tell you what, why not take a summer course through a local community college on developmental psychology?
No it doesn’t mean you hate them, but it does mean you have a prejudice. Not all slave owners hated blacks, but they still operated under prejudices. It took a long time for those prejudices to get addressed by our society. Consider carefully before you embrace a prejudice, at least wait until you’ve seen a bit more of the world. Please.
No, those same studies show that stability is critical. Polyamory is not unlike the situations children in foster care go through; rotating authority figures, each one having a differnet philosophy of child rearing.
Granted, this was illegal in America and I assume Europe as well, but it was not constantly everywhere. In fact, in Africa there were many interracial marriages especially between Ethiopians and Egyptians in ancient times. Here is book that deals with it somewhat:
Psychiatrist’s have been known to prescribe a “stable environment” for hyperactive or wild kids growing up in a dysfunctional environment (including a homosexual household).
Uh that depends on the polyamory. It can mean a stable family unit comprised of more than two adults in an intimate relationship. It can also mean more free form attachments too.
No but we are confining ourselves to the western european powers or else homosexual marriage was also allowed historically (Sparta for instance).
That analogy doesn’t follow. Slave owners, even if they loved blacks, still viewed them as property and as subhuman. They loved them as one would love a pet or something.
Funny because according to the APA the data doesn’t show homosexual parents are any worse than heterosexual parents. They do comment that the prejudices of society can cause problems (in case you’ve forgotten that was exactly the point I made above).
This is false. Marriage, even in Sparta and the rest of ancient Greece, was between man and woman. Men engaged in homosexual activity with other men, but this was not marriage. Marriage was still between and a man and a woman. Any homosexual activity was done before marriage or outside of marriage.
Homosexuals are viewed as inferior here. There is an automatic duality in christianity: sinners and saved. The saved are of course superior to sinners, they are loved by god and rewarded in the afterlife. The sinners are ignored by god and condemned to eternal punishment in hell. By comparison simply viewing them as property would probably be a step up. I know you don’t like to hear it put in those terms because you like to think of your religion as egalitarian but it’s not. Just as some were more equal than others in Soviet russia some are more equal than others under Christianity. There’s simply no two ways around that when you have a religion that believes in a strict objective morality to the universe.
Actually I can. And I did. I understand that you don’t see calling homosexuality a mental illness is degrading and dehumanizing, but it is. Try a bit of role reversal. I’ll tell you that Catholicism is a form of mental illness and should be compulsorily treated with lithium. On top of that the country is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban Catholics from getting married. If you admit to being a Catholic your kids can be taken away from you. Oh yeah and you can also be fired from your job for being Catholic with no legal recourse. Now try and tell me you wouldn’t feel just a tiny bit like you were seen as subhuman.
Funny how people don’t recognize the myriad ways they rationalize their prejudices.