Should people marry? It seems that God would forbid it.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Greatest I am

Stoic
The Bible also clearly states that Heaven will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:10). No one is going to Heaven, but instead to the Kingdom of God. The Bible says that Heaven suffers from violence, and the violent take it by force (Matthew 11:12). Marriage was put in place so that people would not commit fornication. The Bible states that the children of God should be innocent because the enemy accuses them daily (Revelation 12:10). The Armor of God is the righteousness of a person (Ephesians 6:10-18). The Devil cannot accuse a person that has done no wrong. These are directly linked to the convictions of a person. Marriage as I said was put in place so that a person does not commit fornication which is a sin, and seen as such several times in the Bible. So by getting married a person follows the laws of the land, and are not found guilty because they are fulfilling the laws of man. There won't be any marriage after this life, because the laws of man will no longer apply to those who gained eternal Love, and Life, instead of gaining eternal Damnation, and Death.


Revelation 12:7-12 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the Kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."

Stoic
Isaiah 51:11
Those the LORD has rescued will return. They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

Isaiah 65:17
"See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

Isaiah 66:22
"As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure.

Romans 8:21
that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

2 Peter 3:13
But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

Revelation 6:14
The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.

Revelation 20:11
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.

Revelation 21:1 Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

Shakyamunison

Digi
Originally posted by Greatest I am
I think that frees choice should reign in this issue.

Pretty sure this is all you needed to say. The rest is fluff.

dyajeep
coz here on earth, people have gender... in Christian doctrines, heaven is a spiritual realm, when a person dies, the flesh returns to dust and the spirit goes to God... and a spirit has no gender...

part of it was discussed here:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=601525&pagenumber=5#post14995204

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Digi
Pretty sure this is all you needed to say. The rest is fluff.

laughing out loud Fluff is everything!

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Stoic
The Bible also clearly states that Heaven will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:10). No one is going to Heaven, but instead to the Kingdom of God. The Bible says that Heaven suffers from violence, and the violent take it by force (Matthew 11:12). Marriage was put in place so that people would not commit fornication. The Bible states that the children of God should be innocent because the enemy accuses them daily (Revelation 12:10). The Armor of God is the righteousness of a person (Ephesians 6:10-18). The Devil cannot accuse a person that has done no wrong. These are directly linked to the convictions of a person. Marriage as I said was put in place so that a person does not commit fornication which is a sin, and seen as such several times in the Bible. So by getting married a person follows the laws of the land, and are not found guilty because they are fulfilling the laws of man. There won't be any marriage after this life, because the laws of man will no longer apply to those who gained eternal Love, and Life, instead of gaining eternal Damnation, and Death.


Revelation 12:7-12 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the Kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."

What have we done to be condemned?

Do you think that a judge like God, who sets and accepts bribes and sacrifices, is a judge worthy of judging man?

That judge is a corrupt judge and a man would be quite the fool to accept his judgement.

Right?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why would God care?

The bible says a lot of strange stuff.

That is because everyone will be dead.

It has to do with property, control and money.

I agree. I think Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen. But that is just my belief.

I think marriage should be set free from the control of the state and religion. In other words, we marry who ever we wish to.

No.

If we set marriage free, it will just find a new control mechanism.

We likely would gain nothing.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by dyajeep
coz here on earth, people have gender... in Christian doctrines, heaven is a spiritual realm, when a person dies, the flesh returns to dust and the spirit goes to God... and a spirit has no gender...

part of it was discussed here:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=601525&pagenumber=5#post14995204

If there is no gender in heaven, why does the church show Satan with womanly breasts?

Have a look at the Vatican art.

If there is no gender in heaven then why all those nice breasts?

Regards
DL

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Greatest I am
If we set marriage free, it will just find a new control mechanism.

We likely would gain nothing.

Regards
DL

That is possible; I do not know. Humans are control freaks, after all.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Greatest I am
If there is no gender in heaven, why does the church show Satan with womanly breasts?

Have a look at the Vatican art.

If there is no gender in heaven then why all those nice breasts?

Regards
DL

Michelangelo was a great artist, but he also might have been gay. We are not sure, because being gay in his time would have been a death sentence. People who knew him claimed that Michelangelo was chaste. The breast could have been an invention of Michelangelo's, and not the church. He did a lot of things the offended the church.

Digi
People shouldn't marry, but for reasons wholly unrelated to the OP. I think it's Penn Jillette who's fond of saying, "I'm against gay marriage. But I'm also against straight marriage." I'll happily cosign that sentiment, provided it's not taken out of context to serve bigoted ends.

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Michelangelo was a great artist, but he also might have been gay. We are not sure, because being gay in his time would have been a death sentence. People who knew him claimed that Michelangelo was chaste. The breast could have been an invention of Michelangelo's, and not the church. He did a lot of things the offended the church.

The Church is certainly offensive to many.

Michelangelo was paid to paint as told to paint. He did not paint what he wanted to paint.

Satan being female is just the Church showing that it has always been misogynistic.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Digi
People shouldn't marry, but for reasons wholly unrelated to the OP. I think it's Penn Jillette who's fond of saying, "I'm against gay marriage. But I'm also against straight marriage." I'll happily cosign that sentiment, provided it's not taken out of context to serve bigoted ends.

Who would look after the children if there was no marriage?

Regards
DL

Digi
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Who would look after the children if there was no marriage?

Since when do you need to be married to look after kids?

Digi
3mbLekkkbAk

That's the thesis statement. And at the beginning of this next video, he tells a personal story about why he had to get married:

RFpQUcImEZU

Once they leave the topic of marriage, the rest of the video isn't relevant.

So really, it has less to do with God, and more to do with why the hell I only get a tax break if I jump through a specific government hoop that is arrogant enough to legislate love and f*cking.

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Digi
Since when do you need to be married to look after kids?

Few who are not married look after the kids of others so the question is quite pertinent.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Digi
3mbLekkkbAk

That's the thesis statement. And at the beginning of this next video, he tells a personal story about why he had to get married:

RFpQUcImEZU

Once they leave the topic of marriage, the rest of the video isn't relevant.

So really, it has less to do with God, and more to do with why the hell I only get a tax break if I jump through a specific government hoop that is arrogant enough to legislate love and f*cking.

Governments want children and do not mind rewarding people for providing them. After all, kids are expensive projects.

Regards
DL

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Greatest I am
The Church is certainly offensive to many.

Michelangelo was paid to paint as told to paint. He did not paint what he wanted to paint.

Satan being female is just the Church showing that it has always been misogynistic.

Regards
DL

That's not totally true.

"The scheme proposed by the pope was for twelve large figures of the Apostles to occupy the pendentives. However Michelangelo negotiated for a grander, much more complex scheme and was finally permitted, in his own words, "to do as I liked". His scheme for the ceiling eventually comprised some three hundred figures and took four years to execute, being completed in 1512. It is unknown and is the subject of much speculation among art historians as to whether Michelangelo was really able to "do as he liked". It has been suggested that Egidio da Viterbo was a consultant for the Theology. Many writers consider that Michelangelo had the intellect, the Biblical knowledge and the powers of invention to have devised the scheme himself. This is supported by Condivi's statement that Michelangelo read and reread the Old Testament while he was painting the ceiling, drawing his inspiration from the words of the scripture, rather than from the established traditions of sacral art. There was a total of 343 figures painted on the ceiling."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine_Chapel_ceiling

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Digi
3mbLekkkbAk

That's the thesis statement. And at the beginning of this next video, he tells a personal story about why he had to get married:

RFpQUcImEZU

Once they leave the topic of marriage, the rest of the video isn't relevant.

So really, it has less to do with God, and more to do with why the hell I only get a tax break if I jump through a specific government hoop that is arrogant enough to legislate love and f*cking.

That is not what they legislate.

They legislate against those who would discriminate against people without a just cause.

They legislate against homophobic people who cannot mind their own business and who discriminate without a just cause.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That's not totally true.

"The scheme proposed by the pope was for twelve large figures of the Apostles to occupy the pendentives. However Michelangelo negotiated for a grander, much more complex scheme and was finally permitted, in his own words, "to do as I liked". His scheme for the ceiling eventually comprised some three hundred figures and took four years to execute, being completed in 1512. It is unknown and is the subject of much speculation among art historians as to whether Michelangelo was really able to "do as he liked". It has been suggested that Egidio da Viterbo was a consultant for the Theology. Many writers consider that Michelangelo had the intellect, the Biblical knowledge and the powers of invention to have devised the scheme himself. This is supported by Condivi's statement that Michelangelo read and reread the Old Testament while he was painting the ceiling, drawing his inspiration from the words of the scripture, rather than from the established traditions of sacral art. There was a total of 343 figures painted on the ceiling."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine_Chapel_ceiling

Some pope went and sliced the penis' from many statues. If they did not want breasts on Satan, they would have painted over them.

Satan just shows the Christian misogynistic mind set.

Regards
DL

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Some pope went and sliced the penis' from many statues. If they did not want breasts on Satan, they would have painted over them.

Satan just shows the Christian misogynistic mind set.

Regards
DL

Well, not really. The pope was heterosexual and not gay. Penises are offensive, but breasts are not.

Digi
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Few who are not married look after the kids of others so the question is quite pertinent.

Regards
DL

No, idiots who don't want kids don't take care of them, and those who do, do. Nothing would change because a piece of paper wasn't signed.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
That is not what they legislate.

They legislate against those who would discriminate against people without a just cause.

They legislate against homophobic people who cannot mind their own business and who discriminate without a just cause.

Regards
DL

What is marriage if not love (and ****ing)? It's legislating those things. Period. You can dress it up however you want, but that's what it is.

Your next couple sentences are incredibly confusing. You need to clarify your pronouns, at the very least.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Governments want children and do not mind rewarding people for providing them. After all, kids are expensive projects.

Regards
DL

Anthropomorphizing governments now? Governments don't want anything. They're not sentient.

You misunderstood me, though. Forget kids for a second. If my gf and I got married and nothing else, I'd get a tax break and so would she. The LGBT solution has been to try to equalize it by adding gay marriage. I think equality should be achieved by not incentivizing it in the first place, because it's forcing people (poor people, at that) into a decision. Or the Penn Jillette example about his kids, which is another nefarious incentive and way for them to worm their way into a personal matter.

So let me put it this way: are you defending marriage now, after calling for its abolishment in the OP? And also after saying you think free choice should reign in the issue, which is mitigated by government's selective acknowledgement of marriage AND tax breaks? And do you condone legislating love? Do you think Penn should have had to marry to ensure he'd keep his children if something were to happen to his wife?

Digi
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Few who are not married look after the kids of others so the question is quite pertinent.

Regards
DL

i ran out of edit time on my earlier post, but there's one more thing to add here:

I wonder if you actually watched the videos, because his thesis isn't to remove marriage. It's to remove governmental legislation on marriage. Religious marriage? Still intact. Civil contracts? Still intact. So your objection here presupposes a straw man that neither I not Jillette is advocating. We just want it to be a personal choice, not a nationally acknowledged state with financial, legal, and legislative implications.

Bentley
Originally posted by Digi
because it's forcing people (poor people, at that) into a decision.

Marriage has always been all about money or its equivalent.

Digi
Originally posted by Bentley
Marriage has always been all about money or its equivalent.

And that makes it right to have federal legislation that acknowledges some but not others? And gives arbitrary tax breaks when an equivalent living situation is left in the cold? Again, it's legislating and defining love, arguably the most personal of experiences.

This is a reason it happens like it does, not a reason it should happen like it does. If anyone is taking the other side, I'd present the same questions to them that I did to GIA in the last paragraph a few posts up.

Time Immemorial

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Since we live on earth and earth is rotten and lonely place cause of sin and evil, man is better not to be alone as God said.

Jesus did not marry Mary, you are wrong and stupid to imply that.

The Earth is not a "rotten and lonely place". Evil is in the action, not in the place. Also, there is the Gnostic Gospel of Mary Magdalene, that suggests that Jesus was married. Therefore it isn't stupid to say that Jesus was married. It makes no sense that Jesus was not married. You had to be married in order to be a Rabi.

http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

Digi
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Since we live on earth and earth is rotten and lonely place cause of sin and evil, man is better not to be alone as God said.

Jesus did not marry Mary, you are wrong and stupid to imply that.

You do know he says Mary Magdalene, yeah? Your use of only the first name could easily be confused with his mom.

But really, were you there? He's referring to the gnostic gospels. Which, in terms of empirical evidence for their validity, are on equal footing with the more traditionally accepted gospels. Which is to say, no solid footing whatsoever. But when some clergymen get together to arbitrarily pick the canon, continuity is better than being thorough for the sake of a contrary argument.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Digi
You do know he says Mary Magdalene, yeah? Your use of only the first name could easily be confused with his mom.

But really, were you there? He's referring to the gnostic gospels. Which, in terms of empirical evidence for their validity, are on equal footing with the more traditionally accepted gospels. Which is to say, no solid footing whatsoever. But when some clergymen get together to arbitrarily pick the canon, continuity is better than being thorough for the sake of a contrary argument.



You do realize that the OP is Lucifer the Devil, yes?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You do realize that the OP is Lucifer the Devil, yes?

Stop it. I'm beginning to think that what they say about you is true.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Stop it. I'm beginning to think that what they say about you is true.

Oh please.

Anyways if its half as bad as they say, it for sure to be twice as good as themsmile

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Oh please.

Anyways if its half as bad as they say, it for sure to be twice as good as themsmile roll eyes (sarcastic) laughing out loud

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Digi
And that makes it right to have federal legislation that acknowledges some but not others? And gives arbitrary tax breaks when an equivalent living situation is left in the cold? Again, it's legislating and defining love, arguably the most personal of experiences.

This is a reason it happens like it does, not a reason it should happen like it does. If anyone is taking the other side, I'd present the same questions to them that I did to GIA in the last paragraph a few posts up.


Your challenge was accepted by Thomas Sowell at least 6 years ago, Digi.

I've yet to find anyone who has a genuinely good counter to what he wrote then, excerpted below:





==================================================
==

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries, based on experience with male-female unions.

There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.

Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable phrases as "a pregnant couple" or references to "spouses" rather than husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have many repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.

Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.

In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.

Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?

And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?
==================================================
==


http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2006/08/15/gay_marriage/page/full

Digi
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You do realize that the OP is Lucifer the Devil, yes?

Is this...this is serious, isn't it? Ok. GIA, I disagree with you, but I don't think you're Lucifer. Bonus buddy points??

fdog

But TI, you never answered my question. Were you aware of the distinction he was making, and the texts to which he refers?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

This sounds awfully close to ideal to me, yet it's your boy's worst nightmare.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

Wait, when did children enter into this? I purposefully pulled the conversation away from this a minute ago. Wait, this isn't...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

...yep, it is. *sigh*

Beyond the mischaracterizations of opposing arguments and obliviousness to the bigotry perpetuated through such reasoning, this isn't what we were talking about at all. Go down this rabbit hole with whomever wishes to follow you. I won't be among them.

Time Immemorial
Digi sorry I got distracted and now I'm being lazy watching Alaska off road warriors. Well talk tomorrow.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Should people marry? It seems that God would forbid it.

Christian scriptures say that in heaven, there is no marriage ...



You're asking a Bible question and referring to Christian scriptures; seems only appropriate to respond with what the Bible itself says:





---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Corinthians 7-9



7 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7-9

Bentley
Originally posted by Digi
And that makes it right to have federal legislation that acknowledges some but not others?

Should the government do only things that are right? By which standard?

Did you think that's playing devil's advocate? Wait until you see my next paragraph evil face

Giving incentive to people who might have children is a way of speculating. Is speculation bad then? Are you trying to cause a major market crash Digi?

Digi
Originally posted by Bentley
Should the government do only things that are right? By which standard?

Did you think that's playing devil's advocate? Wait until you see my next paragraph evil face

Giving incentive to people who might have children is a way of speculating. Is speculation bad then? Are you trying to cause a major market crash Digi?

Lol.

We're getting too complicated, though. It's easy to fall into marriage's defense on a legislative level. It's what we've always done, and it's not the hot-button issue that many other controversies are. The point I'm making is simple: there's no reason the government needs to be involved, and several good examples of how it can be a negative (as with the Penn Jillette example, or the far more polarizing LGBT stuff). We're all adults, yeah? Why not just let everyone decide for themselves? Religions can still do their thing, as can anyone else. The operative idea is personal freedom. And slippery slope arguments (marrying animals, etc.) are quickly squashed by informed consent laws.

It's not about right or wrong. If you remove government intervention from the equation, that question ceases to exist. You can only dictate morality from a governmental level if you're legislating it.

On a slightly different topic, I actually have less objection to tax credits for children. That's about financial burden. It's an economic issue, not an arbitrary preferential one.

bluewaterrider
I see that, in the interim between my previous response and this one, you've written a reply that actually acknowledges the reality of children.
However, since I just spent 20 minutes typing it and looking up some of the tax laws (rules for claiming dependents), I'm going to submit what I originally wrote, anyway. Just keep in mind it was written BEFORE your last response:





Originally posted by Digi
... who don't want kids don't take care of them, and those who do, do. Nothing would change because a piece of paper wasn't signed.



Correct me if I'm wrong:
Does that signed piece of paper not help people who want to take care of kids receive government tax breaks?
Or money to help care FOR those kids?




Originally posted by Digi

What is marriage if not love (and ****ing)? It's legislating those things. Period. You can dress it up however you want, but that's what it is.


That's NOT what it is.
It's ALSO child-bearing and child-rearing.

Put differently, marriage is NOT just love and sex, but dealing with life AFTER you've loved and sexed.
Which doesn't seem to be something your calculus considers.



Originally posted by Digi


You misunderstood me, though. Forget kids for a second. If my gf and I got married and nothing else, I'd get a tax break and so would she ...



Your thinking seems to go 1 or 2 steps and then stop right before step 3.

You can't just "forget kids". They are the REASON for many of these laws.
It makes sense to ignore them only if you think it wisdom to ignore what actually happens when millions of people love and live together; what eventually RESULTS from their union.


WHY do you think the government would be giving you a tax break?
What was its purpose for putting clauses for such breaks into writing, often at times when the word "gay" meant "carefree" and "happy"? Think the government wrote those rules so that they could discriminate against people in 2014?

bluewaterrider
double post

Bentley
Originally posted by Digi
The point I'm making is simple: there's no reason the government needs to be involved

From a practical standpoint, there could be no solution as simple as that one. But then you're taking away the benefits married people already have, and how much of the population is that? People are going to feel cheated somehow because social responsability isn't exactly in vogue when you feel rather poor.

I can't say I disagree with your take on it, though.

Many people who tackle this kind of problem will take the kind of stance that I raised in my previous post. You can see it as a simple issue with a straight forward solution, or as the all-encompassing statement that bends the very definition of a government. The problem is that laws are more married to the second kind of reasoning than the first. Somehow is not about solving a single problem but solving every problem at once.

Stoic

bluewaterrider

Digi
Originally posted by bluewaterrider


The quotes you responded to were part of a conversation with someone else. But I'm not sure if you read my last post, but I'll reiterate that I'm not engaging you on this.

Originally posted by Bentley
From a practical standpoint, there could be no solution as simple as that one. But then you're taking away the benefits married people already have, and how much of the population is that? People are going to feel cheated somehow because social responsability isn't exactly in vogue when you feel rather poor.

I can't say I disagree with your take on it, though.

Many people who tackle this kind of problem will take the kind of stance that I raised in my previous post. You can see it as a simple issue with a straight forward solution, or as the all-encompassing statement that bends the very definition of a government. The problem is that laws are more married to the second kind of reasoning than the first. Somehow is not about solving a single problem but solving every problem at once.

To your first paragraph, have a grandfather rule. Problem solved. Everyone else can deal with it.

I literally know people whose mentality is that they'll probably get married to their SO eventually solely for the tax benefits. Neither party has any interest in the title or whatever other importance some people place on it. How is that not kinda f*cked?

But I get it. I'm taking a hardline philosophical stance that's hard to turn into anything practical. It's what internet forums exist for. I'm glad you see the point, though.

Time Immemorial

Bentley
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Bentley, no offense, as I know English is your second language, but you've got nearly exactly the wrong definition going for "practical";

You're very likely right about that, but it's not a language issue, I argue without sticking to strict definitions and use colorful wording in every language I speak. Sometimes I also don't care enough about looking for the right word when I'm going to explain everything in the next paragraph. Thanks for the correction though.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Apparently not

6YugRzMd2gc

Greatest I am needs to watch this video, its right up his alley.

dyajeep
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Should people marry? It seems that God would forbid it.

another stupid interpretation...

"And Jesus said to them, The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage;
But those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,"
Luke 20:34-35

we are allowed to marry... marriage is actually a very sacred thing in the Bible...

"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous."
Hebrews 13:4

people are not prohibited to marry, GIA... wake up...

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, not really. The pope was heterosexual and not gay. Penises are offensive, but breasts are not.

I am not offended by penises and I am a heterosexual male.

You would think a pope would love everything that God created.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Digi
No, idiots who don't want kids don't take care of them, and those who do, do. Nothing would change because a piece of paper wasn't signed.



What is marriage if not love (and ****ing)? It's legislating those things. Period. You can dress it up however you want, but that's what it is.

Your next couple sentences are incredibly confusing. You need to clarify your pronouns, at the very least.



Anthropomorphizing governments now? Governments don't want anything. They're not sentient.

You misunderstood me, though. Forget kids for a second. If my gf and I got married and nothing else, I'd get a tax break and so would she. The LGBT solution has been to try to equalize it by adding gay marriage. I think equality should be achieved by not incentivizing it in the first place, because it's forcing people (poor people, at that) into a decision. Or the Penn Jillette example about his kids, which is another nefarious incentive and way for them to worm their way into a personal matter.

So let me put it this way: are you defending marriage now, after calling for its abolishment in the OP? And also after saying you think free choice should reign in the issue, which is mitigated by government's selective acknowledgement of marriage AND tax breaks? And do you condone legislating love? Do you think Penn should have had to marry to ensure he'd keep his children if something were to happen to his wife?

I did not anthropomorphize the government. I indicated that they give incentives for people who produce offspring.

I did not get a tax break when I got married. I actually lost money as do most who get married.

At least that is what happens in Canada. I would think that the same would apply to gays.

"So let me put it this way: are you defending marriage now, after calling for its abolishment in the OP?"

I never spoke against marriage, read my clear statement in the O.P., --- just before asking a question and not advocating against marriage.

Questions are not statements.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Digi
i ran out of edit time on my earlier post, but there's one more thing to add here:

I wonder if you actually watched the videos, because his thesis isn't to remove marriage. It's to remove governmental legislation on marriage. Religious marriage? Still intact. Civil contracts? Still intact. So your objection here presupposes a straw man that neither I not Jillette is advocating. We just want it to be a personal choice, not a nationally acknowledged state with financial, legal, and legislative implications.

Hard to take the government out of marriage with "Civil contracts? Still intact." That is government is it not?

The problem I see in cutting out the state is that they lose their responsibility to go after the deadbeat dads and perhaps some power as to what happens to the children. Divorce is a state run thing so for the state to be involved in the paperwork from day one seems consistent with good governance.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Bentley
Marriage has always been all about money or its equivalent.

No argument except for the numbers. I would give you 75% of the population. The rest would be love and not the money.

Love will gain as income adjusting or redistribution becomes more prevalent. 30 years I would say until the world become mostly socialistic.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Since we live on earth and earth is rotten and lonely place

B]

I offer my sympathy to you personal situation.

This goes a long way to explain your attitude.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Earth is not a "rotten and lonely place". Evil is in the action, not in the place. Also, there is the Gnostic Gospel of Mary Magdalene, that suggests that Jesus was married. Therefore it isn't stupid to say that Jesus was married. It makes no sense that Jesus was not married. You had to be married in order to be a Rabi.

http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

Thanks for this.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Thanks for this.

Regards
DL

You are welcome.

Greatest I am
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Apparently not

6YugRzMd2gc

My eyes, my eyes. look what you did to my eyes. LOL.

This is definitely God telling us not to marry stupid and religious women.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by dyajeep
another stupid interpretation...

"And Jesus said to them, The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage;
But those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,"
Luke 20:34-35

we are allowed to marry... marriage is actually a very sacred thing in the Bible...

"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous."
Hebrews 13:4

people are not prohibited to marry, GIA... wake up...

I never said they were except in heaven.

Wake up. Or at least pay attention.

How many wives are we allowed? How many husbands?

Some Jews had hundreds and this is the Jewish God.

Regards
DL

bluewaterrider

Greatest I am
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Try King James version.





confused

You're not seriously telling me about what a Muslim group (the Sufis) thinks of 1st Corinthians, are you?






Children naturally result from people satisfying that type of desire in the conventional way. Traditional Marriage increases the likelihood those children will be properly cared for, in ways that have proven superior statistically to nearly every other living arrangement currently researched. I'm not really seeing what you think is wrong with that, from a secular OR religious standpoint.

Actually, I'm not sure you really DO think anything is wrong with that, especially given that you yourself apparently got married in the traditional way.

Yes but I never just screwed my wife. That is why I am not impressed with those who see a marriage licence as a licence to just screw.

If we are to keep all the old traditions that Christianity endorsed, why not start stoning people for fornicating again.

Then again, you might have a good point.

http://christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasachristianrite.html

Regards
DL

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Greatest I am


I am not impressed with those who see a marriage licence as a licence to just screw.



I doubt most actual Christians view a marriage license that way, either.



Originally posted by Greatest I am


If we are to keep all the old traditions that Christianity endorsed, why not start stoning people for fornicating again.


Are you sure Christianity really endorsed that? If so, why did Jesus Christ himself famously save a woman who was about to be killed that way?



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 8 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208&version=AKJV


Originally posted by Greatest I am


Then again, you might have a good point.

http://christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasachristianrite.html



You're calling "early Christian" what was actually "Roman Catholic Church" and about 3 centuries after the days of Christ and the New Testament writers preaching. All the other episodes mentioned in your article are Roman Catholic Church and about one THOUSAND years after the period of the early Christians (11th and 12 century).

You're using strawmen here.

Bentley
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Then again, you might have a good point.

http://christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasachristianrite.html

Regards
DL

Severus has an interest way of telling it. Why separate in speech what was together in life?

What's the take of the Easter Orthodox Church on this?

dyajeep
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You're calling "early Christian" what was actually "Roman Catholic Church" and about 3 centuries after the days of Christ and the New Testament writers preaching. All the other episodes mentioned in your article are Roman Catholic Church and about one THOUSAND years after the period of the early Christians (11th and 12 century).

You're using strawmen here.

thumb up

anti-Christianity people here are ignoring that fact, obviously...





Originally posted by Greatest I am
I never said they were except in heaven.

Wake up. Or at least pay attention.

How many wives are we allowed? How many husbands?

Some Jews had hundreds and this is the Jewish God.

Regards
DL

i'm talking about the Christian God, dude.

"And said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?
So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
Matthew 19:5-6

marriage is sacred in Christianity... it didn't say "3, 4, 5 or 6 or more" shall become one flesh... it says the two - the husband and wife - shall become one flesh...

how many wives allowed? one...
how many husbands allowed? one...

in fact, this passage goes way, way, way back in the time of Adam and Eve:

"Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
Genesis 2:24

God gave Adam only one wife, dude.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.