Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

A human doesn't need to be married to procreate. That ability is a biological construct. Marriage is an archaic system to assure the male will be legally around to support the female and to keep the male from screwing around and for the male to attain more property. It was created because women had no rights and males did.
God was not married to Mary yet impregnated her.. So he was a hit and run sort of God.

 

Do you believe a 90 year old couple can reproduce IN PRINCIPLE?

Marriage is what the government says it is.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It is a civil contract between two persons.

If religious organizations want to make up a new one that has to do with imaginary spirits they are free to do so — but wont have governmental benefits so I doubt they will go that far. You could call it ‘holy matrimony’.

 

I brought up historical analogies for a reason, and yet you STILL applied Christian beliefs to what existed, before Christianity did. You are the one setting the background for what marriage should be based on YOUR beliefs. Your beliefs do not necessarily apply to those who do not follow Christianity.

Marriage is not necessarily based upon procreation. While I don't necessarily like it, there is a great deal of procreation going on without marriage involved, or even on the horizon. However, to deny people who wish to have a marriage, i.e. legally be recognized as married, based on procreative abilities is pretty sad.

 

I'm not saying that 90 year olds can still reproduce, but Male/Female relationships are capable of reproduction in principal.

The government doesn't define marriage. False Authority Fallacy.

Redefinition Fallacy.

Inversion Fallacy. It is GOVERNMENT that has redefined the term, not religious organizations. YOU could call homosexual relations "civil unions"...??

 

If your argument is that government does NOT define marriage, then a church or other individuals CAN define what is marriage, and Unitarians have no problem with two men or two women being married in their holy services.

 

Remember that the Christian God existed long before Christianity did, or anything else for that matter. Christians believe that God knows the end from the beginning.

It is based on the possibility of procreation.

Correct.

No it's not. It's simply adhering to the definition of the term. If people wish to have civil unions, so be it. I can't control the actions of others. But those civil unions are NOT marriages, nor will they ever be.

 

No, the Christian God was the Hebrew God - He did not become the Christian God until after Christ. And the Hebrew God believed that marriage was between one man and lots of women at the same time.

 

So infertile people should be allowed to benefit only because of the group to which they belong but not because of actual merit. That seems unconstitutional to then deny others based on the same premise. Is that really your argument?
Illogical fallacy

Who defines marriage then?
Let me guess, magical invisible sky beings that created law they knew would have to be overwritten and then committed suicide to rewrite said law by impregnating a minor against her will?
Insanity fallacy

Wrong again
Stupidity fallacy

Government redefined it because they are the authority.
If they were not the authority then they could not have redefined it.
Religious people relinquished the right to it in exchange for government benefits (aka money).
Greed fallacy

We tried to call homosexual unions civil unions but the religious right didn’t like that either and had such unions declared unlawful.
So they started a war of definitions, then lost the war, now they want a do over.
Hell no fallacy

You use the word fallacy often for your entire post to be a fallacy.
Ironic fallacy

 

It doesn't.

Yup.

Good for them. They are calling something a marriage that is not a marriage, however.

 

Yup, the same God is being referenced.

Christianity didn't exist until Christ was born and died.

Not at all.

 

So your definition of marriage is the only one you think counts. Guess what, your opinion doesn’t mean crap in this discussion.

 

It's not my definition; I didn't come up with it.

Bulverism Fallacy.

Are you also attempting to place your opinion above mine?

 

How can i explain this and not cause some sort of Fight.

I voted when living in CA for the homosexuals to get the right to a union. The union actually afforded to said homosexuals rights they wanted. And the CA SC upheld this vote by citizens.

Hell with that said Homosexuals. We DEMAND marriage.

My lifelong view of marriage is it was mostly to protect the children of marriage and part of it to protect the man and woman. A lot more was to protect the woman than the man.

A man is not biologically capable of having sex with any man and the result is the birth of a child. They can at best resort to adopting. This however is not why men marry men, to adopt kids.

I was amazed at the fight put up by homosexuals who at last had legal unions. They would not sit st ill for that. They wanted the marriage rights of men to women.

That did it for me. That was so damned abusive to my vote to help them.

Marriage, and you can look up ancient laws, say Roman laws, and learn that marriage was more about the children than the man or the wife. Men created marriage to hand to their children protection.

 

So your definition of marriage is the only one you think counts. Guess what, your opinion doesn’t mean crap in this discussion. The courts and legislators and public opinion matters, and you are wrong side of all off them

No. Not my opinion. The Supreme Court’s opinion.

 

Daniel, perhaps you can be reasoned with. I have never objected to the one sex marrying the same one sex, male or female so long as it is called a union. Calling it marriage flies in the face of global long standing definitions. Similar to incest. Incest would be called marriage were it legalized. But it is not legal.

What prevents that son of the man his mother adores so much from marrying her son when the father is lost to accident or perhaps cancer or a heart attack? She adored the man she lost and in her son, she sees him. The two agree to marry. Ask my now dead parents say in 1935 to approve this and though Democrats, they would truly not approve. Take our founders. They could never approve it.

Thus this is not a long standing tradition among homosexuals. It is brand new relative to history. Incest at one time was actually socially accepting. Today that is not true.

 

Marriage is not for outsiders thus the discussion that diverted to ones own marriage did not change when homosexual unions or aka marriage was pronounced legal is a false equivalency. And blaming the SC for the ruling is similar to me blaming the same SC for declaring slavery is legal. Even the SC changes it's mind.

 

Speaking of young men married to young women who have no children. They get asked a lot when will they have children. It is normal for such couples to have children. Not true for homosexuals.

 

Yours is the same argument used to try and prevent mixed race marriages. "What-ifs" do not make for good arguments, sorry.

 

so if heterosexuals marry, knowing that they cannot reproduce, is it still a marriage?

In your opinion, based on your beliefs. Which begs the question, if a religion has a different basis for their beliefs, as in multiple deities for example, regardless of heterosexuality or not, they would not be married according to your opinion.

Do you even see the absurdity of your position? It works for you, but you cannot apply your beliefs on others.

 

Why do you connect this farce to mixed race marriages?

 

John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am."

First and foremost, God's will that children should be provided for.

Actually if He's who He said He is, it makes all the difference in the world and then some.

Two adults doing something perverted is one thing; societal approval of that perversion, quite another.

Catering to the delusion of "SSM" indicates a corrupt view of human nature.

 

Several years ago a lesbian told me that love between two women was “phony.” I did not press her for an explanation.

I would later learn that she was apparently referring to “lesbian bed death,” which may be caused by “lesbian fusion,” in which an overly close relationship between women resembles that between family members. This cloud of incest inhibits sexual expression and results in a decline in sexual activity. The love (or at least the passion) was “phony” because it could not be sustained.

Thus, a state-sanctioned marriage of a couple in “lesbian fusion” would be like giving a marriage certificate to mother and daughter or sister and sister.

 

Once again, you are placing YOUR religious beliefs before the possibility of all others.
So, do Pagans only marry to procreate?
Do Muslims only marry to procreate?
Do non-theists marry only to procreate?

I don't 'cater' to any one view - I accept that there are more views in the world than my own, which are just as solid as mine are to me. You cannot claim the same.

 

Pushing boundaries is really how a society develops and grows. If we didn't push these boundaries there wouldn't be a United States, or a Constitution.

That being said, there should always be a reason for pushing boundaries. By which I mean you're pushing against them for the betterment of society not just to be pushing against something.

Rebels with cause build great societies, like the United States. Rebels without cause are just anarchists.

So I get the reluctance to push the boundary, but saying we shouldn't push any because some people do so for no reason is just as destructive. When cultures stagnate they die.

 

So I get that your religion says it's wrong. I won't argue with you about that

But the second reason was a bit strange. If you think same-sex couples are not capable of genuinely loving each other, define genuinely loving each other. What does that mean?