Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Is marriage in the United States a legal institution or a Christian spiritual one? It cannot be both.

If it is a legal institution then what the bible states is immaterial
If it is a Christian spiritual one then what would you say to people married in the view of other religions, or people on their second third fourth marriage, or people marrying for money, or immigration status, or impure unions of non-virgins? Why is the church not stepping in and dissolving this unholy unions?

 

Well "family" would be able to be redefined even without same-sex marriage. However, yes, I believe part of the campaign was to dilute 'marriage' and move away from its religious roots. However, as Christians we shouldn't be afraid of any such attempts. Any such fear is having a lack of faith in the strength of what we see as real marriage. Do you really think that real marriage is so weak that it can be weakened by a change in law? I have way too much faith in it to believe that.

 

I have no problem with legal same sex marriage, however, I don't see it as true marriage.

 

LOL. Well YES of course! But you didn't specify that! You just said that they "would be qualified to perform a Christian wedding!" What was I suppose to think!

Well for a start, I would assume that you would say that they have to believe in the Biblical definition of marriage - between a man and a woman. I'm guessing that you wouldn't say that Christian Pete Buttigeig would have the qualifications to perform a Christian wedding.

 

Then you are denying incestual couples the right to marry based on procreation issues. I thought that marriage wasn't about procreation??

You are continuing to argue irrationally, refusing to clear your paradox, so for every future instance that you make an argument regarding this paradox, I will simply label it as "irrational argumentation", as further discussion is not possible once someone begins making irrational arguments and is unwilling to clear them.

Inbreeding IS a type of breeding. It is procreation, all the same. You are effectively trying to argue that, since a skittle is red instead of blue, it is no longer a skittle.

No, you are simply arguing irrationally.

See above.

Fallacy Fallacy. No strawmans on my part, no paradoxes on my part. These are your issues, not mine. Inversion Fallacy.

Continued irrational argumentation, mixed in with several aforementioned fallacies.

Strawman Fallacy.

Strawman Fallacy.

Polygamists, BY DEFINITION, marry as many wives or husbands as they want.

Yes, they can procreate. Yes, they can marry. My support or rejection of such procreation/marriage/relations is irrelevant to defining the word marriage. You keep trying to distract away from the main point, which is that only male/female relationships can procreate. They are unique that way. A child is the embodiment of this very specific union called "marriage", since in the very process of having a child, two separate persons become "one".

 

Yes, because YOU keep repeating your same initial arguments over and over instead of responding to mine. That is known as the Argument by Repetition Fallacy. If you give me the same argument over and over, I can only keep giving you the same response.

 

The motivations for procreation are irrelevant. All that is relevant is that procreation is, in principle, possible.

I didn't understand the argument presented here.

Continued irrational reasoning from earlier posts.

 

Correct.

Yup, through a male and a female... The ONLY way it can be done...

Correct that it is not necessary to marry in order to procreate.

Marriage is neither.

 

Correct.

Non Sequitur Fallacy. The ability for incestuous couples to procreate does not necessarily make me a supporter of incest. It merely means that I would consider an incestuous couple to be married. Remember, we are discussing the definition of the word marriage, not my feelings about various types of relationships.

Same non sequitur from above. It merely means that I would consider each male/female couple to be a marriage. You are really grasping for straws here...

Wrong. Completely wrong. Marriage specifies one MAN and one WOMAN, not relations between multiple species. You are REALLYYYYYY grasping for straws here.

Correct. The ability to procreate (in principle).

But I am not denying that such a union is a marriage. It IS a marriage.

You are conflating 'definitions' with 'morals'. My support or rejection for such a union has no effect on the definition of marriage.

A marriage from the perspective of each woman; 36 marriages from the perspective of the guy.

Wrong. One MAN and one WOMAN does not allow for multiple species.

 

Of course you could never substantiate anything you say. ...but you can make your mouth say most anything.

 

He is if they make Him a part.

 

I see your point. We do have a role in influencing the culture. The culture does influence young ones and that is a fact. I know Christian marriages where the young couples, not so grounded in the Word are considering divorce. Why? Because so many are fine with it. It's the go along with the crow/world stigma. When there is an opportunity to share my values, I do it. I try not to answer questions people aren't asking, but you saw the title to this thread I assume. I am not afraid. Just doing the job I am called to do.

 

How do you feel the words husbands and wives" apply to same sex marriage? Always thought those words were inseparable from marriage. Since the culture has redefined "marriage" perhaps the next step will be to drop those from the language. Why confuse the children?

 

Why would He not be as much a part of that as He is of any other marriage?

 

Because the couple don't even believe in Him and hence have not made Him a part of their marriage - why else?

 

I've substantiated everything I've said in this thread, lol.

 

Children are not confused, they understand the issue perfectly

Is marriage in the United States a legal institution or a Christian spiritual one? It cannot be both.

If it is a legal institution then what the bible states is immaterial
If it is a Christian spiritual one then what would you say to people married in the view of other religions, or people on their second third fourth marriage, or people marrying for money, or immigration status, or impure unions of non-virgins? Why is the church not stepping in and dissolving this unholy unions?

 

Your making too big a deal out of this. Marriage has always been between a husband and a wife UNTIL the courts decided to include same sex unions. Why didn't they come up with a new word? Words have meaning. So what is it now....two husbands?....two wives? A husband and a pretend wife?

 

That is false, marriage has been between only people of the same color, only between people of the same religion, between a man and numerous women, between man and his slave and between two men in several ancient societies (but usually only rich men or royalty).

Why didn’t they come up with a “new” word?
Well they did — civil unions — which republicans banned and then they banned any union that sought to replicate the institution of marriage.

None of your points are factual.


Now feel free to answer the question you skipped over.

 

It is a cultural question. Our culture for most of it's existence in our 250+ years , marriage has been between one man and one women. I do not in anyway support the racial discrimination of the past. The culture in America was based almost soley on Judeo Christian values and I know that just eats you to the core. Your best defense I realize is to deny it. Your efforts are to undo and remake the culture I realize. You don't like resistance do you?

 

Oh so when you said “always” you meant “only 250 years”.

Noticed you are still dodging the question?
Why is that?

And you are free to “resist” all you want — your efforts seem to be ineffectual.

 

You can wed whatever you want to, I could care less.

 

Why are you participating in a thread called “Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?” in the Gay and Lesbian Rights subsection under the Civil Rights section if you “could care less”?

Also you just referenced some kind of “resistance”...

You certainly seem to care.

 

Well, the words apply in the form of marriages between two husbands and marriages between two wives.

I don't see why. From what I know, same sex married couples call eachother husbands and wives.

 

Aren't you afraid that the term "marriage" is being or has been diluted? I thought that was your point.