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.
Stephen168 said:
Does that mean you include same-sex unions but arbitrarily exclude pedophile unions?
Click to expand...
Arbitrarily? There is legitimately something wrong with you. It means that I include same sex unions but don’t include pedophile unions because children are not old enough to make lifelong decisions.
 
livingwordunity said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is the original definition? Original definition in what culture? Is there a book with the original definition? If you say it is the Bible I can assure you that marriage predates the Bible, so that would be wrong. So what is the original definition of marriage and where is your source for it?
 
interestedman said:
Arbitrarily? There is legitimately something wrong with you. It means that I include same sex unions but don’t include pedophile unions because children are not old enough to make lifelong decisions.
Click to expand...
The law and culture can change. Yes, I don’t see a rational logical reason to exclude pedophile unions while you include same sex unions. It is arbitrary.
 
Stephen168 said:
The law and culture can change. Yes, I don’t see a rational logical reason to exclude pedophile unions while you include same sex unions. It is arbitrary.
Click to expand...
OK, it is arbitrary that you don’t include same sex marriage as part of your marriage definition.
 
Stephen168 said:
It also predates the state, so relying on the state for a definition would be wrong, too
Click to expand...
Who said that I relied on the state? Everyone keeps talking about “traditional marriage” around here but traditional in what culture? Should we adopt the marriage of ancient Rome? Maybe ancient sumaria? India? China? Mesopotamia?’
 
interestedman said:
Who said that I relied on the state? Everyone keeps talking about “traditional marriage” around here but traditional in what culture? Should we adopt the marriage of ancient Rome? Maybe ancient sumaria? India? China? Mesopotamia?’
Click to expand...
You would be the first supporter of same-sex marriage that I’ve communicated with that did not look to the state for the random definition of marriage that they approved of. see post #78 for example. Do the ancient cultures of Rome, India, China, or sumaria have anything in common in regard to marriage?
 
Stephen168 said:
Does that mean you would include same-sex unions and pedophile unions in your definition of marriage?
Click to expand...
Common consent plays a part in it…are you claiming that the sexual victimization of a child by an adult is equal to two adults who chose to form a sexual realationship?

Tell me…because we have opposite sex marriage…does that now allow an adult male to take a female child as his or her sexual partner…I would think…if it follows one…it would follow the other…🤷
 
Publisher said:
Common consent plays a part in it…are you claiming that the sexual victimization of a child by an adult is equal to two adults who chose to form a sexual realationship?

Tell me…because we have opposite sex marriage…does that now allow an adult male to take a female child as his or her sexual partner…I would think…if it follows one…it would follow the other…🤷
Click to expand...
By my definition of marriage it would not follow. What is your definition of marriage?
 
Stephen168 said:
By my definition of marriage it would not follow. What is your definition of marriage?
Click to expand...
My definition of marriage would be rejected…so why go down that path with you? 🤷

Here is A Quaker definition…or a stance…

Quaker marriage
Quakers strongly believe in the sanctity of marriage but also recognise the value of non-marital relationships and the single life.
Their weddings are very informal compared to those from other traditions and there is no priest or minister to lead the couple as they make their vows.
When a Quaker couple decide to marry, they make a commitment to each other in the presence of God, their family and friends.
Quakers believe that no one but God can join a couple in matrimony. They see marriage as more than a legal contract - it is a religious commitment.

“The right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priest’s or magistrate’s; for it is God’s ordinance and not man’s…we marry none; it is the Lord’s work, and we are but witnesses.”
George Fox, 1669

The couple promise to be loving companions and take each other as lifelong partners in a spirit of freedom and equality.
 
Publisher said:
My definition of marriage would be rejected…so why go down that path with you? 🤷

Here is A Quaker definition…or a stance…

Quaker marriage
Quakers strongly believe in the sanctity of marriage but also recognise the value of non-marital relationships and the single life.
Their weddings are very informal compared to those from other traditions and there is no priest or minister to lead the couple as they make their vows.
When a Quaker couple decide to marry, they make a commitment to each other in the presence of God, their family and friends.
Quakers believe that** no one but God can join a couple in matrimony**. They see marriage as more than a legal contract - it is a religious commitment.

“The right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priest’s or magistrate’s; for it is God’s ordinance and not man’s…we marry none; it is the Lord’s work, and we are but witnesses.”
George Fox, 1669

The couple promise to be loving companions and take each other as lifelong partners in a spirit of freedom and equality.
Click to expand...
On what basis do Quakers believe now that God joins or ever joined a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, in matrimony? Friends or Quakers did not believe this until a movement within the sect in so called ‘unprogrammed’ meetings started to lobby and ‘go with this worldly trend’ in 1992 and after.
Male and female He created them …
Re-packaging does not change the essence of marriage, which is based on a complementarity of sexes, not the pretense of it that same sex couples wish to have in an effort to obtain respectability, and consequently forcing acceptance of an immoral and unnatural union.
,
 
InSearchofGrace said:
On what basis do Quakers believe now that God joins or ever joined a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, in matrimony? Friends or Quakers did not believe this until a movement within the sect in so called ‘unprogrammed’ meetings started to lobby and ‘go with this worldly trend’ in 1992 and after.

Re-packaging does not change the essence of marriage, which is based on a complementarity of sexes, not the pretense of it that same sex couples wish to have in an effort to obtain respectability, and consequently forcing acceptance of an immoral and unnatural union.
,
Click to expand...
On the basis that God is present in each and every individual…on the basis that the prohibitions embraced by the more conservative Christians are based on societal/cultural/historical preconceptions of human sexuality divorced from a much greater understanding of human sexuality and it’s complexities than before was believed…on the basis that homosexuality is one variation of human sexuality and completely normal and natural…and many years of discussion…prayer…meditation on where our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters fit into the life of the Meeting.

“Male and female created He them…”…yes…the diversity of God’s creation in all it’s variations and expressions.

Now…I do not expect you to accept my position…that too is part of the sacred diversity displayed in humans…it is my religious belief that same sex marriage is good and right before God…just as you believe the opposite.

If based on the religious beliefs your eccleial community embraces, same sex marriage is not permitted…base on the beliefs of my ecclesial community it is…but the discussion of same sex marriage as defined by the State does not necessarily take into account either of our religious beliefs…but is a matter of the State’s definition as they are the one’s that are in the process of making it part of our national policy…neither of us has the right to prevent the exercise of the State defined civil rights of same sex couples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top