“All the Baptists you know” might be relevant if you know a sufficient number of Baptists to comprise a representative, unbiased sample, which I doubt is the case. That would be like someone saying “all the Catholics I know are Hispanic” and then becoming befuddled upon meeting a Nigerian Catholic.
If man is the measure of all things why should marriage be an exception?
Most people think of it as autonomy when the harm might befall only themselves. But sometimes passengers are carried. Examining the efficacy of helmets is also to be considered. Neck injuries may have increased while head injuries have decreased.
Does it look moral to you? Homosexuals ask for marriage for tax planning objectives…as far as i know all the financial concesions made for a family have the purpose to promote and consolidate the family as the institution that ensure a natural/normal generation of children. No family, one big step toward anarchism.
I was following you up until your last sentence, which makes no sense.
It is a case of one group conceding one area in exchange for being awarded in another area. Kind of like the principle behind how the farm bill has traditionally been legislated, one groups gets one thing and the other something else.
Yea we did, however that thread was “secular” reasons, thus there’s not much I can say because with secularism people can accept and reject what ever they feel like accepting or rejecting, there is no absolutes, there is no truth.
I can judge it because it was a terrible metaphore for one, and secondly I asked for a definition, not a metaphor. If you can’t provide a clear definition that can be agreed on just say so.
Again, an objectivist can and does take the right to freedom of speech more seriously than a subjectivist or relativist.
Oh, do you mean that “faith based axiom” that says that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
I’ve never known any like that although a founding principle of the faith is freedom of belief, we have no creed apart from accepting Christ so they’re free to do as they choose.
Democracy is about the will of the people, so theoretically anything could happen, but polygamous marriage would require a major shift in most Western societies, and there are strong taboos against incest due to the catastrophic genetic effects on offspring of inbreeding.
Yes, strange how the system sometimes forgets to email, but I think the thread has been quiet anyway.
I’m bad at putting emotional stuff into words. Is love the same between any two people? How can there be agreement if it expresses differently between people?
No, the OP isn’t about that and we’ve already gone over it on the other thread. If you want to debate it with others there are threads you could join or you can start your own.
When I ask you, you evade the question, if I started another thread about it, you would not join it. The question of whether the sexual acts of homosexuality are sinful or not is relevant to “the purpose of marriage” the fact that God created us male and female as Jesus states in the gospel is very relevant to “the purpose of marriage” wouldn’t you agree?
I just don’t understand why you come here to criticize those who are against same sex marriage? There must be something driving it, what is it? what are you thinking? What do you hope to achieve?
In the USA there are tax benefits for having a contract of marriage with some one. There are also legal benefits. For example, under fifth amendment rights one is not obligated to make incriminating testimony against one’s self if charged with something in court. This benefit also extends to one’s spouse (so a husband cannot be forced to testify against his wife). But if two people are not married (or they are married, but end up in court in a state that that does not recognize that marriage) and one refuses to give testimony in court that may be incriminating to ones spouse penalties for obstructing justice could be applied.
We discussed this in depth on a previous thread, Secular argument against gay marriage, and as I’ve told you a number of times both there and here, I’ve got nothing to add to what has already been said.
That’s interesting, thanks. In Spain equal marriage allowed various legal anomalies to be cleared up. For instance although gays had been allowed to adopt for many decades, the adoption could only be in the name of one partner, and if that partner died the other had no automatic legal right to continue as the parent.
In that case it is an invalid argument because a civil relationship should suffice to obtain federal benefits.
The wording of marriage laws differs in each of the USA’s 50 states + territories but tends to be similar. In general changing the verbiage of the law could be done with one line. But there have been some states that have been amending their state laws and constitutions to contain more lines and further anchor their opposition to same sex marriage.
I don’t know if anyone have attempted a mathematical model of a homosexual society to show how fast is going down. It is clear that if everybody is a homosexual means the extintion of that society in a very short time. Homosexuals anyway don’t care because they do not have the burden of the future generation. “Little change” in the marriage laws have no meaning for them other than they can mock the straight persons. Adoptions are not enough for real families that can’t make their own children, so from where do they “want” to adopt them?