You think Jesus approves of homosexual acts?
The word is not redefined. It is deformed by many, but you cannot ever change the very nature of marriage. You can call a horse a leaf, but it is still a horse.
Your position is so illogical that you fail to grasp it.
Again you make a false comparison.
He wouldn’t have begrudgingly told people they’re irrational, as was my point. Also, Jesus didn’t speak out against polygamy or incest, which you seem to not support for whatever reason.
Where did marriage originate? Which religion? Who were the first man and woman married and who ratified the marriage?
You sentence reads better backwards, that is you failed to grasp it that it seemed illogical to you.
I like this new theme of yours, ignoring the argument and telling me I don’t understand
And the Bible is quite silent on whether that was a good thing. That God could bring good out of it is a different story. There are also questions of whether the term “sister” was used precisely as we use it today.
Why would our Lord lie? Irrational beliefs are wrong. There is nothing rational about encouraging two same sex persons to act like husband and wife. Also, the idea that Jesus supported any sin is absurd. I have no idea how you come to these assertions.
Marriage predates the Church and modern society. Do you really not understand what marriage is?
This is why I mentioned rationality. Any innocent six year old knows the difference between male and female and what marriage is and is not. Now we need “proof” to appease those that seek to disrupt society. The problem is no proof is acceptable to those that refuse to be convinced.
What does baptizing humans, adult or child, have to do with two men pretending to be married?I like this new theme of yours, ignoring the argument and telling me I don’t understand
Why R u being sexist?? Theres nothing wrong with women voting. Abraham had a kid with his wife Sarah?? And they were very closley related; that’s is just plain gross, digusting, and vile in my opinion. Why didn’t God condemn that kinda in the days/times of the old testament??
Keep in mind, what you define as irrational is not absolute. There are many, many people that believe religion is irrational, that is irrational to clasp your hands and murmur to someone you may not even know exists. I believe in God, but there are many that don’t. I’m not silly enough to attack them and call them irrational for not believing as I do, and you should do the same.
Exactly, which means there is no absolute singular definition. Marriage, according to several anthropologists, most likely began as a property transaction. We don’t believe in that definition, do we?
Correct, but you’re assuming that we all agree that homosexuality is evil and corrupt; I disagree. I think gluttony, divorce, and hypocrisy are corrupt, sins that are often overlooked by those who feel the need to stand on a soapbox and profess their judgments without analyzing their own.
It was to illustrate that what you consider an aberration (two men marrying) could be said about baptisms.
I suggest reading John Boswell’s book “Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe”, which talks about gay marriages performed during the Roman Empire.
You’d have to take that up with God.
Exactly, this is my point.
I’m curious if you also advocate for legal marriage between non-romanitcally involved friends and siblings. If not, can you please explain why and help clear up my issues with those who promote the one but not the other?
Consider this…if marriage is between a man and a woman, then why is it wrong for a brother to marry his sister, or an adult male to marry a post-pubescent teenage girl for the purposes of procreation? Perhaps you could “help clear up my issues with those who promote the one but not the other”? After all, did the Bible even speak out against pedophilia? I’m not trying to open a pandora’s box of issues, but this is relevant to the discussion of the various forms of relationships.
Surely one can get consent from their immaginary friend or their fav stufffed animal without question…even if no one else can hear it…Well said. But ah, my friend, why should a little thing like consent stand in the way, when Divine and natural law are now irrelevant! And extending the absurdity, if naturally complementary genders are irrelevant, why should a pulse be relevant- or even any material suppositum at all? Why should number be relevant? (I’ve always had a schoolboy crush on zero, such an elusive and mysterious quantity) And when the extraterrestrials finally arrive- if they haven’t already- what better way to welcome them to the family than with a shotgun wedding?
Imagine if ultimately, everybody were married to everybody else- and everything else! The possibilities are endless! (Except, perhaps continuation of the species and the natural family- but these are trifling details!).
Sorry, I do tend to belabor the point.
Assuming this is a close enough rough guess, it also takes quite a bit of time before a tradition started long, long, ago and of significant importance is allowed to change. So for those who want to change it, I suggest you be realistic in your timeframe (like not in your lifetime nationwide that’s for sure).
Perhaps I wasn’t clear, so I’ll say it again, marriage has changed and means different things to different people in various different places around the world. Also, I’m certain gay marriage will pass nationwide in my lifetime, and that is being generous, considering that in 2004 we had our first state (Massachusetts) legalize gay marriage, and in 2012, it’s now 9…three of which happened in the last election. Thus I humbly suggest the focus be on divorce, gluttony/obesity, and other various issues.
Also, not that it matters much, but you need not sign your posts on an internet forum, it’s a bit akin to signing off during a telephone conversation
Well, if you believe that the reason to have legal marriage is about the procreation and raising of future citizens it is a well documented fact that birth defects and other abnormalities are much more common in children born from those who are closely related to each other. If you care about raising happy healthy citizens then it makes perfect sense to exclude those who are more at risk of having children with such medical abnormalities.
But what I cannot understand or accept is the idea that legal marriage should be based on whether or not people are having sex. That gives the government too much power and authority over an area of life which is intrinsically private.Here is one thing that has always confused me. Does marriage, by definition, always include/involve sexual elements???Well, if you believe that the reason to have legal marriage is about the procreation and raising of future citizens it is a well documented fact that birth defects and other abnormalities are much more common in children born from those who are closely related to each other. If you care about raising happy healthy citizens then it makes perfect sense to exclude those who are more at risk of having children with such medical abnormalities.
But that is all entirely besides the point, not least of all because I have nowhere said what I personally think the governments involvement should be. What I have brought up is my problem with people who think it should allow ss marriages but not non-sexual relationships because I do not think it is the governments place to dictate romantic/sexual relationships as such. I can much better understand why a person would choose between a man and woman who are not closely related, or between any two (or more) people who wish to commit themselves to sharing their lives with each other. Heck, I can neven understand the viewpoint of someone who wants to get the government out of the marriage buisness altogether. Thats certainly what I used to think at one point, although now I am still wavering back and forth between the different ideas, I’m still not sure which is best.
Why would that be ethically and morally wrong, a platonic marriage between two best friends of the same gender??? It wouldn’t. Why???
It depends on what you think marriage is.
So are you against anyone breeding children who has less than ideal genetics, be that of diabetes, dwafism, a higher risk of heart disease, etc?Well, if you believe that the reason to have legal marriage is about the procreation and raising of future citizens it is a well documented fact that birth defects and other abnormalities are much more common in children born from those who are closely related to each other. If you care about raising happy healthy citizens then it makes perfect sense to exclude those who are more at risk of having children with such medical abnormalities.
Thus, if it is private, then why are religious people so adamant on stamping a seal that everyone must fall under? Also, why are you dictating why someone does or does not get marriage? If it was only due to procreation, would you be against older people marrying? Or someone who’s sterile?
You’re using circular logic and are not realizing it.
No, I’m not, but I can understand why some would want to restrict marriage to those who are not related.
Why are you asking me about religious people in general? It sounds to me like you are making all sorts of assumptions about what I think is true just because I label myself as a Catholic and do not agree with your position. If you had actually taken the time to go back and read my earlier posts on this thread you would see that I specifically included all people who are unable to reproduce in that first scenario.
I find it kind of funny that you seem to think you know what I think about this topic when I myself am not even 100% convinced on any particular conclusion. I was asking you a question about something which you seem to hold but which you have completely ignored and instead have started to try and attack some complete construct in your own imagination about what I believe is true. I repeat again, I am not decided yet as to what I think should be the criteria for legal marriage. Having said that I also cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want the government to have control over a legal construct that is based solely on a persons private sexual relationship. So far as I can understand, this is what the idea of extending the construct of legal marriage to SS couples without also extending it to any group of people who wish to commit to living a shared life together ultimately boils down to and to me it seems like the worst idea on the planet. I would appreciate it if you would actually answer my question, but even if you refuse to do that at the very least stop making assumptions about what I believe.