No one is saying that any two people cannot be a loving couple But you missed the point, the institution of marriage as far as society is concerned, is for reproduction, to formalize family ties, to recognize lineage over time that is the basis for history, the interconnected web of relationships. Back to the premise of this thread, an infertile coupling by its nature does not fit into the social definition of marriage.
I always suspect organizations with pretentious, seemingly beneficial names like Dignity. After all, a euthanasia organization calls itself Dignitas. Without going into their loving, caring blah blah, I would like to point out that a package of values is precisely what aggressive liberals promote. It can be understood that same sex attracted people should not be shunned or discriminated against for “whom they love”. But is it “love” to accept and promote people mutilating themselves to be transgendered? If you accept the premise of the first doesn’t mean that everything that follows is acceptable but that is exactly what the social engineers are doing, pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes, or at least trying to, not me, anyway.
I would not believe anything from an organization that promotes self mutilation as in changing one’s gender, or at least its outward appearance. The Roman Empire fell precisely because of its moral collapse. There may have been something to what Moslems may or may not have been doing. It doesn’t make it right however or something to emulate.
That should be ‘some states’. And here’s a heads up. Even though some people marry for convenience or even money, the vast majority do it for…love. Did you ask your Dad? Or anyone else? In fact, let’s see if anyone reading this who is currently married did not consider it of prime importance.
Must be fifty something then. Or even older!
When I wrote State, I was talking about Civil Authority. “Love” is not a requirement, or the degree of emotional involvement between two people for the State, or Government. They don’t ask if the two “love one another”.
It doesn’t really matter, does it. Civil authorities as well as states within many countries all over the world allow same sex marriage. You may have noticed the steady increase in the numbers. You may be surprised to know that you are part of the reason why that is so.
But you were quite insistent on claiming that marriage is not based on love. If it’s not based on love in any way, then it’s not important.
So would you like to change your position? Here’s an easy question for you (which somehow I don’t think will get answered): do you think that love IS important when two people decide to get married?
More countries don’t than do. The biggest ones don’t like China and India. And Russia has totally outlawed homosexualist propaganda. Africa is bravely resisting the corruption of the West even when it comes with a price tag: *give up your morals or you don’t get money from us. * Conceivably Boko Haram could have been nipped in the bud early on if Nigeria capitulated to the pressures of the US.
What part of “institution of marriage” do you not understand? I am clearly talking about and reiterated many times that to formalize a union with civil authorities love is not a requirement.
My personal life is none of your business. You don’t know my position and I am not going to tell you.
Well you’ve already told me your age and your marital status so you don’t seem to be too reticent. But I’m not asking you for personal details. I’d simply like to know if you think that love forms a major part of the decision of almost everybody when it comes to marriage. Ask your husband and see what he thinks.
Sure Bradski, throw in a little ambiguity to make a point.
How convenient. But a quick search of CAF finds the words anal + sex in 860 other posts, so obviously most posters don’t find grown-up words offensive, and it was you who raised the subject of sexual practices anyway.
It is always heart-warming to find opponents of equal marriage aligning themselves with ID, as it means a few more moderate Catholics might decide to support equal marriage rather than encourage the teaching of pseudo-science to children.
Hey, Peter. Haven’t seen you around for a while.
So you’re claiming that heterosexuals don’t have any preference or orientation? Are you not confusing heterosexual with bisexual? Surely a heterosexual male has a preference towards women, and a heterosexual female an orientation towards men?
So you’re advocating that monasteries must admit women, and nunneries must admit men, and there must be women priests, as otherwise it’s fundamentally discriminatory from the beginning.
Thanks, I really cringe when having to answer this sort of argument. Such people try to corner you into nitpicking technicalities that they won’t let go of while letting the bigger issues slide.
I wish people would wake up to that term which has slipped under the radar to be almost universally used “orientation”. It is as though people are animals or plants with no control over what they are attracted to.
Also “discrimination” should stop being considered a dirty word and “egalitarian” to reclaim reducing everything to the LOWEST common denominator.
I find the two words when put together offensive, or at least indelicate. I said certain practices were unhealthy so would really stop there and not go into detail. I do come from a time when even grown-ups would not talk about such things.
Pseudo science is “born that way” or a “gay gene” that so far no one has seen. Also sexual “orientation” is ridiculous. It implies a whole smorgasbord of acceptable orientations without any scientific basis except in psychological terms, that is, the result of trauma or abuse.
Most people only have control over their actions, not over what they are attracted to, or over what they like or dislike, etc. For example, there are certain foods that I strongly dislike the taste of, and I can’t just decide that tomorrow, through an act of will, I’m going to love the taste of those foods and will want to eat them.
People can also like smoking, drugs and alcohol. They can like little boys or girls. They can like torturing or even killing.
That’s true. People can like all those things and acting on them can be harmful or immoral. But that does not mean that people who like to do those things can stop wanting to do them through an act of will. That is why when someone becomes an alcoholic, they will probably always be an alcoholic and might need to spend the rest of their life going to AA meetings and avoiding situations where they might be tempted to drink. People who like torturing and killing others obviously have a personality disorder. They will need psychiatric treatment and might need to be locked up for the rest of their lives to make sure they don’t act on those urges and torture or kill anyone.