How do supporters of so-called "same-sex marriage" define marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
interestedman said:
Why can’t you just give your definition of marriage?
Click to expand...
Because, the subject of the thread is: How do supporters of so-called same-sex marriage define marriage?

I asked you a point of clarification on your definition of marriage and for some reason you refuse to answer it. I can only assume your answer, like your previous one, would appear to be arbitrary.
 
livingwordunity said:
Here’s God’s definition - Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
The way I see it; people who do not support same-sex “marriage” are defending their position all over CAF. This is the one thread where you have given the supporters of same-sex “marriage” a chance to take a position and defend it. So far their position seems to be very weak. About half have not even taken a position and only one has made any attempt to defend it.
 
Stephen168 said:
I didn’t say someone, I meant the relationship is sterile by design. Same sex unions and pedophile unions are sterile by design. Should those relationships be included in your definition of marriage?
Click to expand...
“Sterile by design” is a cop out. Every person is different. If a woman has a hysterectomy her relationship is sterile…it doesn’t matter if theoretically if she didn’t have a hysterectomy that her marriage could produce children. As it stands, a woman with a hysterectomy cannot have children naturally. Her having vaginal sex “open to life” is going to accomplish the same thing as gay or lesbian sex…a show of love for their partner with no hope for conception.

But, either way, it doesn’t matter. My definition of marriage has nothing to do with having children. So your argument of “sterile by design” has absolutely nothing to do with my definition of marriage. It might have something to do with your definition, but as it stands you refuse to give your definition.
 
interestedman said:
Did Adam and Eve really exist?
Click to expand...
And that to a great extent IS the question of the day concerning same sex marriage…the State defines marriage for it’s citizens…NOT based on the religious beliefs of it’s citizens…Adam and Eve are as much of an arguement against same sex marriage as saying “God doesn’t like same sex marriage”…that is a religious belief…Adam and Eve are mythic characters…other than mythic religous writings…their existence really carries no weight to the arguement…because we live in a secular society…based on secular law…not religious law.

If the State choses to embrace same sex marriage…it bases it’s decisions not on religious beliefs…but on how the Constitution is understood and what rights the State defines it guarantees.
 
interestedman said:
Did Adam and Eve really exist?
Click to expand...
‘Mitochondrial Eve’: Mother of All Humans Lived 200,000 Years Ago
Click to expand...
ScienceDaily (Aug. 17, 2010) — The most robust statistical examination to date of our species’ genetic links to “mitochondrial Eve” – the maternal ancestor of all living humans – confirms that she lived about 200,000 years ago. The Rice University study was based on a side-by-side comparison of 10 human genetic models that each aim to determine when Eve lived using a very different set of assumptions about the way humans migrated, expanded and spread across Earth.
Click to expand...
For full article:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817122405.htm
Click to expand...
It’s very interesting that science can find DNA evidence for Eve but can’t find any evidence for the existence of a “gay gene”.
 
livingwordunity said:
It’s very interesting that science can find DNA evidence for Eve but can’t find any evidence for the existence of a “gay gene”.
Click to expand...
LOL…evidence of eve? Ughhh, no, evidence of a common ancestor.

I am sure that there is scientific evidence that this “eve” that lived 200,000 years ago talked to a snake too?
 
interestedman said:
LOL…evidence of eve? Ughhh, no, evidence of a common ancestor.

I am sure that there is scientific evidence that this “eve” that lived 200,000 years ago talked to a snake too?
Click to expand...
We call her Eve, you may have a different name for her. But whatever name one wishes to name her, she fits the description of Eve, the original woman. And science has proven her existence through DNA. While you are laughing, why don’t you explain why science can’t find a so-called “gay gene”? And how about telling me how you define marriage?
 
interestedman said:
“Sterile by design” is a cop out. Every person is different. If a woman has a hysterectomy her relationship is sterile…it doesn’t matter if theoretically if she didn’t have a hysterectomy that her marriage could produce children. As it stands, a woman with a hysterectomy cannot have children naturally. Her having vaginal sex “open to life” is going to accomplish the same thing as gay or lesbian sex…a show of love for their partner with no hope for conception.

But, either way, it doesn’t matter. ** My definition of marriage has nothing to do with having children.** So your argument of “sterile by design” has absolutely nothing to do with my definition of marriage. It might have something to do with your definition, but as it stands you refuse to give your definition.
Click to expand...
Not a cop out at all. I once had a very nice chair. During a long distance move, a leg was broke off by the moving company. I kept the chair for almost two years while trying to find a guy that could fix it. Finally I threw it away. By design it was a chair, when the leg broke, it was still a chair. It did not become something else.

Heterosexual unions are reproductive by design, even if one is broken, they are still reproductive by design. By design same sex unions and pedophile union are sterile. Should these sterile relationships be included in your definition of marriage? Can I assume by the bolded part of your post that the answer would be yes?
 
Stephen168 said:
Not a cop out at all. I once had a very nice chair. During a long distance move, a leg was broke off by the moving company. I kept the chair for almost two years while trying to find a guy that could fix it. Finally I threw it away. By design it was a chair, when the leg broke, it was still a chair. It did not become something else.

Heterosexual unions are reproductive by design, even if one is broken, they are still reproductive by design. By design same sex unions and pedophile union are sterile. Should these sterile relationships be included in your definition of marriage? Can I assume by the bolded part of your post that the answer would be yes?
Click to expand...
However the State defined “definition” of marriage HAS removed the reproductive aspect of marriage…the religious ceremonies, sacraments and rites of religious marriage are not what the State is seeking to provide it’s same sex citizens who wish to enter into a State contracted state of marriage…that does not carry with it the requirement of “reproduction by design.”
 
Stephen168 said:
Not a cop out at all. I once had a very nice chair. During a long distance move, a leg was broke off by the moving company. I kept the chair for almost two years while trying to find a guy that could fix it. Finally I threw it away. By design it was a chair, when the leg broke, it was still a chair. It did not become something else.

Heterosexual unions are reproductive by design, even if one is broken, they are still reproductive by design. By design same sex unions and pedophile union are sterile. Should these sterile relationships be included in your definition of marriage? Can I assume by the bolded part of your post that the answer would be yes?
Click to expand...
Your “heterosexual unions are reproductive by design” is a stupid argument because many heterosexual unions have 0% chance of producing a baby. So those relationships are exactly the same as gay marriage in terms of chances for a baby.

OK, how about I flip your arguments on you. Your definition of marriage involves people. So any marriage involving people must be ok with you, right?

Do you see how stupid that sounds? I said nothing about sterility in my definition. You keep on bringing up child birth and sterility and it has absolutely nothing to do with my definition of marriage. So why do you keep bringing it up?

Also, my definition implies that the parties are over the age of consent…if it doesn’t than I will include that. Children can’t make life decisions like marriage.
 
Publisher said:
However the State defined “definition” of marriage HAS removed the reproductive aspect of marriage…the religious ceremonies, sacraments and rites of religious marriage are not what the State is seeking to provide it’s same sex citizens who wish to enter into a State contracted state of marriage…that does not carry with it the requirement of “reproduction by design.”
Click to expand...
Does that mean you would include same-sex unions and pedophile unions in your definition of marriage?
 
interestedman said:
Your “heterosexual unions are reproductive by design” is a stupid argument because many heterosexual unions have 0% chance of producing a baby. So those relationships are exactly the same as gay marriage in terms of chances for a baby.
Click to expand...
Right and my chair had zero chance of functioning as a chair, yet it was still a chair. I’m just looking for consistence. I’m sure NAMBLA supports your definition of marriage, too.
 
Stephen168 said:
Right and my chair had zero chance of functioning as a chair, yet it was still a chair. I’m just looking for consistence. I’m sure NAMBLA supports your definition of marriage, too.
Click to expand...
When I said “2 people that love and care for each other” I meant adults. If you want to get into semantics than I will alter my definition to include adults.
 
interestedman said:
When I said “2 people that love and care for each other” I meant adults. If you want to get into semantics than I will alter my definition to include adults.
Click to expand...
So you are placing limits to how marriage should be defined. But we are called bigots for saying it should be limited to the original definition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top