Proposal Requires Straights to Have Kids or Marriages Will Be Voided

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Once again - is Judaism the sole source of marriage? Or have numerous non-Judaic cultures/religions being getting married just as long or before Judaism? I mean honestly, who died and made Judaic derived marriage king?

Because allowing gay marriage wouldn't just be affecting "Christian/Judaic" marriage. If same-sex marriages are made legal then logically people of other religions, or no religion at all can also get married. I mentioned before - not all "marriages" are Christian, and it is certainly possible to have ones with no religious influence at all.

Once again - when has there ever been a time when marriage wasn't influenced in some way by politics? And as long as marriage carries tangible social/legal benefits then government will have a say. And since not all marriage is Christian in nature it is somewhat out of step with the logic behind it.

And that has what to do with homosexual marriage? Nothing, as far as I can see. To be honest I don't see a problem with people getting divorced. People change, move on, grow apart or get married in haste. Far worse to stay in a marriage and be unhappy then to move on and start afresh.

As such I think such a condition as "If gays want to marry, such activities need to stop at once" is a bit silly, unless the same apply to heterosexuals (including, or so I have heard, married couples who get a kick out of sex in public places.)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am fairly certain that the men who are "going out there and ****ing guys in the street" are not the same men who are "opening their mouths about marriage."

Imagine two groups of people who are interested in eating beans.

In the first group, 10,000 people are interested in eating beans, but only 8,000 of them are successful.

In the second group, 100,000 people are interested in eating beans, but only 30,000 of them are successful.

Which group is more interested in eating beans?

Which group is more likely to generalize the other group as gluttonous simply because the group in question more successful at eating beans?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How do you know ?

😬

You just said you never saw a gay public f*ck fest for yourself...how do you know gay people do that stuff more often than straight people ?

What about the other 90% of Gays and Lesbians ? Should we stop fighting for our right to marriage, because a select few of "us" ****ed someone on the street ?

If Gays make up 10% of the population (not a reliable accuracy, this is only the gays who are "out"😉, then ratio does not matter.

There is more straight porn than gay porn- fact

There are more heterosexual "orgies", "outrageous sexual acts" than homosexual ones- fact

You know this...now you may argue, "but that's bcuz there are far more straight people than gay people, so ofcourse that's the case"

And i would respond: "so what?"[/b]

You are trying to argue that if Gay people want the right to marriage, then we as a [i]"collective community" should represent ourselves better...right ?

If not....

Then why clump All gay people together, because of something [b]you ASSUME occurs at a rapid rate among Gay people ? 😬 [/B]

Originally posted by PVS
as can "idiot" "****face" "scumbag" "loser" "jerkoff" etc.

why is it that when you say it, its nothing more than a gentle euphamism for "not level" and when someone else conducts themselves in such a manner they are insulting....or "douches", if you prefer.

i just think if you want to play 'enlightened savior of the thread' perhaps you need to hold yourself to a higher moral code than that douche bardock...because after all he's a douce and you're not....but then again you called him a douche which kinda makes you a....person who is also exhibiting signs of not being 'level'

:edit: not that i disagree that bardock is a douche....just f.y.i.

Jesus , your making a mountain out of a molehill.

Ok here it is in the simplest terms .

Just because Bardock is trouncing sithsaber doesn't mean he should drop himself to an n00bs level.

There are we happy now , or is everyone going to analyse that damn post and make up bullshit about it hmm ?

Originally posted by grey fox
Jesus , your making a mountain out of a molehill.

Ok here it is in the simplest terms .

Just because Bardock is trouncing sithsaber doesn't mean he should drop himself to an n00bs level.

There are we happy now , or is everyone going to analyse that damn post and make up bullshit about it hmm ?

Not going to analyze it, just going to point you at one of my previous posts.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But good thing we talked about it, so now you can shut up [about it [because I now know your opinion]] and I can continue arguing the way I please.

Originally posted by grey fox
Jesus , your making a mountain out of a molehill.

Ok here it is in the simplest terms .

Just because Bardock is trouncing sithsaber doesn't mean he should drop himself to an n00bs level.

There are we happy now , or is everyone going to analyse that damn post and make up bullshit about it hmm ?

i was speaking objectively. unless maybe im mistaken and you didnt call him a douche? but whatever, call him what you wish, and ill do the same, because he is indeed a douche. however you did call him a douche, thus eradicating any credibility you have in educating others on how to conduct themselves in a forum. thats all im saying. its really simple actually. nothing made up. purely objective. thats like when i was little and my mom would tell me "watch your ****ing language!".

Jesus Christ, stop calling me a douche you old wanker.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well I promised you a response today and here it is:

First, can't agree that human beings are animals. We are far different in areas of thinking, dreams, hopes, expression, education, etc...

Unfortunately, your approval of the human condition representing humanity as a member of the animal kingdom is not a necessity. It's a fact. That's something that whob never got. He said that animals eat their own shit and that homosexual relationships in other species was just more evidence as to why we are not animals. But we are. Thinking, hopes, dreams, etc are not exclusive to humans. They happen in all sorts of other animals. However, they don't occur in some species. That's because the complexity of life has lent different advancments to some species that have not occured to others. That's just how life is. You want to lend that diversity to god, others like myself lend it to evolution.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Second, I may have sounded like Whob in a few places, but that was not my intent! I really didn't like his tone with people or his habit of posting needless smilies and crap.

The correlation between you and Whob has nothing to do with insults or smilies. It has more to do with your point of view.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
while I never outright insulted you, I made it plain that I felt your behavior/attractions/desires/ etc... were unhealthy, unnatural, and not normal.

And you can't see how that's insulting? On top of accusing my father of molesting me in my crib?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Again, I don't want that to be how you feel.

Let me assure you that nothing you have said has made me "feel" inferior or jealous. But I take your point of view personally.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So, I see (and always did, mind you) that gay people are just people, like any other.

They laugh and dream and hope and fear and love.

I get that, and would never try to devalue you as a person.

As a person, no, you don't. But as a group you consider our existence inferior to your own. You chose your religion, just the way you think some gay people chose to be gay. So don't turn it into a matter of love the sinner and hate the sin. When you define the sinner by his sin you have already invalidated your own argument.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So gay people are good people, perhaps better than straights at times for putting up with the TRUE bigots

But, what is a true bigot? I'd much rather deal with a rabid anti-gay that speaks his mind to my face than I would with a person who smiles to my face but goes into that voting booth and votes my rights away.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So now, I have to think: Gay people are not any better or worse than I or anybody else is, they just do things different.

Period. That's where the enlightened thinking really needs to end. You've reached a pinnacle with that thought..

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Now what you do different is not "normal" I guess, but then as I said in the PM, neither is my obsessive love of Starwars or coffee.

But see that thought just flatlined. It's not obsessive...or abnormal. I am obsessive over Star Wars. But my "love of men" is no different than your love of women. It doesn't invade my every thought. It doesn't dominate my existence. It doesn't dictate the way I interact with another human being in a prefessional environment. It's just like you.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So, you don't use the sex organs as they "should" be used (pro-creation, etc..).... ok.

This is condesending. It's an insult. And it's a position you maintain because you believe that the whole world is black and white.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I've always stated the opinion that I support civil unions, so that the gay couple is entitled to FULL tax breaks and benefits and has a commitment ceremony of their choosing if they wish.

Don't get too caught up in the idea that civil unions or the desire to get married has anything to do with money or tax breaks. Do you know that if Adam and I are travelling in a state where gay marriage is illegal or voted out, and we get in a car accident, the hospital has the right to deny him access to me? Do you think about that when you vote down gay marriage amendments?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I guess gay marriage itself isn't much different, other than to say that homosexuality is completely and totally just as natural and normal as a straight marriage.

And that's where the issue comes up for me, because I don't believe that it is.

I don't believe that we should tell our society and the next generation of kids coming up behind us that it is.

No one does this. It doesn't happen. If you think you have issues with shows like Will & Grace or Queer as Folk, you should hear me talk about it.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
We tell them in sex ed. that men and women have sex, functions of the penis, scrotum, semen, and sperm and we tell them the functions of the vagina, it's natural lubrication, ovulation, menstrual cycles and of course.. conception.

And you need to sit down and research just how many things can AND DO go wrong with the natural process of development and functions of those biological mechanisms.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Because as far as I can tell, it is (as of now) not known why some people are gay.

Nor can you really figure out why people are straight. You call it the urge to reproduce. But, when were you thinking about having kids when you started going through puberty? Maybe you did. But I've known I was gay since I was three. I seriously doubt you were thinking about having kids when you were three.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
If you feel as I do, that development and influence and experiences play the biggest role,

I do not agree with that. My childhood was free from the apparent influences that you feel cause a child to "become" gay.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'll use my wife as an example. When she was 12-15, she wasn't very feminine. She dressed in big baggy jeans, hooded sweatshirts, and bandannas.

She was a total tomboy, interested in playing rough sports like football and soccer. She didn't want much to do with the girly-girls, who were into make up and boys. In fact, most of her friends were guys as she found more in common with them.

She has told me very clearly that she felt unattractive (her weight was part of this), and not desirable by boys. She didn't feel feminine and was unhappy.

(I have a few pics of her from this time, but on pain of death from her I can't post them.) 😛

Many of you have seen her pics now, and know that she is very pretty, very feminine, into fancy clothes and make-up and so on.

She got her confidence built up by family and friends, lost a little weight, developed through high-school..... and she's straight. (good for me.)

But in the culture that is being pushed forward now, she would have been told that she was gay.

That would have been the answer. "You know, there's a good chance that you don't feel pretty or desirable to boys and you don't like feminine things because you're meant to be with women. You should see if this is true, don't be afraid of it."

A seed is planted and grows in her mind. Maybe she seeks out a girl and trys it. Maybe it's different and she's not sure, but likes the acceptance and attention. Maybe she keeps trying it and it becomes her way of finding love, so she sticks with it and learns to like it.

At 14 or 15 it's not so hard to imagine that happening as her mind, emotions, beliefs, and of course body are still developing into the final result she will have as an adult.

Since she went to a private school and wasn't around the culture that supports those ideas I have my wife, but it's easy to say that it could have turned out much different.

As it is now, they are telling 12 year old boys that they are gay, without even waiting to see if a hormone growth in teenage years may have him start liking girls. I wasn't even seriously looking at girls until 14, so it's hard to say to a child that young that he's gay.

I'll use myself as an exmple. When I was three my grandfather called me the "bulldozer". I was tough and controlled other kids. I played with GI Joe and Star Wars. I was always Darth Vader or Cobra Commander. I wore jeans and hated to shop for clothes. I led a revolt against my 5th grade teacher. I played baseball. I broke into houses and smashed windows. I poisioned the neighbor kid with rotten hamburgers I found in a dumpster.

Another?

My brother had a mullet in the '80s. Doesn't mean he still does. Nor am I often in the habit of poisoning neighborhood children.

There are some things that change. But there are others that don't.

And while I appreciate your desire to come across as noble and understanding. But not a lot of what you've said is really going to give you reason to pause next time someone mentions gay marriage. I appreciate your kind tone, but it's that tone that's the problem. Like I said earlier, I'd rather some *** basher told me to my face he hates me than I would have him smile and say he cares when he doesn't.

One thing you might want to consider is the reality behind your christian ideas of morality and right and wrong. You might want to learn where they really come from. If you can make that stretch and consider homosexuals ordinary human beings, then you'll have to make a stretch and realize that god doesn't care if someone is gay or straight.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Jesus Christ, stop calling me a douche you old wanker.

Douche is such a lame insult anyway. Sounds like an official term from tennis said by someone with a speech impediment.

I am, of course, basing the idea of marriage and love around the Judeo-Christian portrayal of it, hence my talking about "one flesh."

Which is disingenuous if you ask me. In Australia, and I assume America and elsewhere:

-Muslims Marry (I bet they have a marriage culture of their own)
-Jews Marry (I bet they have a marriage culture of their own)
-Atheists marry (And you can get married devoid of any religious overtone, it doesn't have to be in a Church, it doesn't have to have a priest officiating.)
-Different Christian marriages.
-There is limited recognition of traditional, tribal Aboriginal marriage
-While it is not possible to be married polygamously in Australia a person who immigrates with an existing polygamous marriage will have it recognised.

The point being that "OMG Marriage is sacred and can't be changed and politics kills it!!!" is absurd, because there is a profusion of different types of marriage, the only common denominator being the legal clarification of the matter - in simplest terms "the union of two people carried out by an authorised person, between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others." Nothing to do with religion, but rather a contract between two people. The fact most people choose a religious avenue is all well and good, but there is not "just one avenue" and there are certainly avenues that are completely without religion.

And that is what the government should change - "between a man and woman." There is no need to keep that. If the law can be made to regulate the marriage practices of a dozen religions and non-religions then the law can also be allowed to change the definition of marriage. After all, we have seen changes socially and otherwise in areas like interracial marriage, which was once as legally taboo as the idea two men might like to marry.

And now I digress - stupid anti-gay marriage reasoning: "OMFG!!! You let men marry men and next thing you know people will be marrying toasters and whales!!!" - Yes, removing the Governments right to say what marriage is and isn't wouldn't muddy the waters would it? I mean - we wouldn't possibly see the return of polygamous marriage? And so forth? Because from my knowledge of Australian law it wasn't the religions that put a "no-no" sign on such marriages, it was the government.

Not the point. I'm just saying that dragging it into the political arena is degrading, especially with current events.

How much more can it be degraded? It is a joke - "debate about marriage is taking away the sacredness" - honestly, what more can be taken from it? Heterosexuals can pretty much gotten rid of that long ago. I think it would actually add to the sacredness to, you know, say "let gays marry, because marriage should be about love, and gays can love each other as well as any straight person can." But no, we bang on about tradition and "sacredness."

It has to do with the sacredness of marriage.

Yes, sacredness of marriage before happiness of people. And once again - what on earth does the divorce rate have to do with homosexual marriage?

Fair enough. Those who do engage in such activities need not to talk about marriage, however. Furthermore, there is a difference between having sex in a public place and engaging in a public orgy.

So now it's not just a couple of gays getting frisky in public its a whole public orgy, which to my knowledge needs at least four people. And from Australia at least that is even less common then the former. Of course it is pretty hard to know who such people are. I guess we need to add a step to marriage planning where a big thug comes up to the couple and says "have you ever done it in public." If the couple says yes he tells them no marriage for them. And besides - why exactly is having sex in a public place a voider of marriage? Are people who do that less likely to love one another? Less worthy of marriage?

I've never seen a public spectacle of heterosexuals having sex. If I ever do, I will say that they ought to be shot.

So you've never seen it yourself, but your saying people who do it shouldn't ask for the right to be married? And then you talk about public orgies? What on earth? Are you just imagining they do it? Just assuming it "has to be going on."? Or have you just watched to much Queer as Folk, a show all the gays I know consider "complete bullshit."

You're right, marriage doesn't necessarily have to be about religion.

However, all of those other reasons aside from love are not true marriage.

Marriage shouldn't be a legal issue because, like I said before, it bastardizes the concept of marriage, which is that two people that love one another wish to create a bond between themselves.

Well there you go Einstein. You have just stated there is no reason not to let gays marry. Because stopping two people in love from marrying would certainly seem to bastardise the concept.

Originally posted by Draco69
He means he's a bisexual who would be with a guy more often than not with a girl.

Most bisexuals attempt to define themselves in a 60/40 or 70/30 ratio between sexual attractions to either gender.

However most bisexuals I have encountered would say that they are predominantly more "straight" than "gay."

Same here, most bisexuals I met consider themselves to be "straight" even though they had had same sex encounters in the past, and plan to engage in further same sex encounters in the future...go figure.

I, on the other hand, take greater pleasure in homosexual sex than heterosexual sex....i duno why.

Guys turn me on easier...but i still like girls.....I still am obsessed with Carmen Electra n Beyonce, I'd f*ck them in a second no questions asked..i still masturbate over the thought of a naked girl every now and then, i fool around with a girl once in a while for fun, but ultamately, if i HAD to settle down, it'd be with a guy.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which is disingenuous if you ask me. In Australia, and I assume America and elsewhere:

-Muslims Marry (I bet they have a marriage culture of their own)
-Jews Marry (I bet they have a marriage culture of their own)
-Atheists marry (And you can get married devoid of any religious overtone, it doesn't have to be in a Church, it doesn't have to have a priest officiating.)
-Different Christian marriages.
-There is limited recognition of traditional, tribal Aboriginal marriage
-While it is not possible to be married polygamously in Australia a person who immigrates with an existing polygamous marriage will have it recognised.

The point being that "OMG Marriage is sacred and can't be changed and politics kills it!!!" is absurd, because there is a profusion of different types of marriage, the only common denominator being the legal clarification of the matter - in simplest terms "the union of two people carried out by an authorised person, between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others." Nothing to do with religion, but rather a contract between two people. The fact most people choose a religious avenue is all well and good, but there is not "just one avenue" and there are certainly avenues that are completely without religion.

And that is what the government should change - "between a man and woman." There is no need to keep that. If the law can be made to regulate the marriage practices of a dozen religions and non-religions then the law can also be allowed to change the definition of marriage. After all, we have seen changes socially and otherwise in areas like interracial marriage, which was once as legally taboo as the idea two men might like to marry.

And now I digress - stupid anti-gay marriage reasoning: "OMFG!!! You let men marry men and next thing you know people will be marrying toasters and whales!!!" - Yes, removing the Governments right to say what marriage is and isn't wouldn't muddy the waters would it? I mean - we wouldn't possibly see the return of polygamous marriage? And so forth? Because from my knowledge of Australian law it wasn't the religions that put a "no-no" sign on such marriages, it was the government.

How much more can it be degraded? It is a joke - "debate about marriage is taking away the sacredness" - honestly, what more can be taken from it? Heterosexuals can pretty much gotten rid of that long ago. I think it would actually add to the sacredness to, you know, say "let gays marry, because marriage should be about love, and gays can love each other as well as any straight person can." But no, we bang on about tradition and "sacredness."

Yes, sacredness of marriage before happiness of people. And once again - what on earth does the divorce rate have to do with homosexual marriage?

So now it's not just a couple of gays getting frisky in public its a whole public orgy, which to my knowledge needs at least four people. And from Australia at least that is even less common then the former. Of course it is pretty hard to know who such people are. I guess we need to add a step to marriage planning where a big thug comes up to the couple and says "have you ever done it in public." If the couple says yes he tells them no marriage for them. And besides - why exactly is having sex in a public place a voider of marriage? Are people who do that less likely to love one another? Less worthy of marriage?

So you've never seen it yourself, but your saying people who do it shouldn't ask for the right to be married? And then you talk about public orgies? What on earth? Are you just imagining they do it? Just assuming it "has to be going on."? Or have you just watched to much Queer as Folk, a show all the gays I know consider "complete bullshit."[/quote]
Then I shall make you learned.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Righty-o. However, I'm still talking about the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage.

And the point I am making is that in terms of the word "marriage" Judeo-Christian is merely a possible avenue to it. Why the Judeo-Christians are the authority on it is beyond me, nor why they should be able to say to the government "don't you even think about changing the legal definition of marriage so gays can marry. Why? Because our Judeo-Christian marriage doesn't approve."

Although I know there is a moderately sized community of priests in Australia who have gone on record on more then one occasion saying if same-sex marriage is legalised they are perfectly happy to perform them. So clearly not everyone who subsribes the the Judeo-Christian way of things things homosexual marriages would destroy the sanctity of marriage. (And we could always look at those countries that do legalise it. Hmmmm. Can we detect any huge difference in the sanctity of marriage in those nations? Apparently not.)

Yes, it is a joke.

I wasn't talking about marriage (though plenty would say it is a joke) but rather the way the "Judeo-Christians" are trying to avoid change is by saying "to do that would degrade it even more."

The wording makes it sound as if it would go from being a certain degree of sacred and pure and then go down a notch. I would like to know when "marriage" crossed the border. And remembering that marriage is not just a Judeo-Christian thing, and hasn't been for a long time (if it ever was.)

Sanctity before happiness indeed. Again, I'm not even really addressing same-sex marriages here; I'm speaking in general.

Well that is good to hear. My outrageous opinion is that marriage is indeed a union, but not something cut into the soul, signed in blood. People want to get married - good. They should think about it first sure, and try and make sure it is for them, but by Gods if they get into it and decide at some point "this isn't working, I'd be happier moving on" - then that is fine. Marriage is a man made thing. It has been a man-made thing for a long time, possibly forever. The sacredness of it is in the concept and how people view it on a personal level, not some bombastic rules and absurd things like "it can't be changed! Gays would affect the sanctity! Divorce affects the sanctity!"

When people talk about marriage they usually mention love at least once, but the behavior of people who are against things like same-sex marriage seems to indicate love plays little part in "proper, sacred marriage."

Then I shall make you learned.

Well, that makes sense.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And the point I am making is that in terms of the word "marriage" Judeo-Christian is merely a possible avenue to it. Why the Judeo-Christians are the authority on it is beyond me, nor why they should be able to say to the government "don't you even think about changing the legal definition of marriage so gays can marry. Why? Because our Judeo-Christian marriage doesn't approve."

Although I know there is a moderately sized community of priests in Australia who have gone on record on more then one occasion saying if same-sex marriage is legalised they are perfectly happy to perform them. So clearly not everyone who subsribes the the Judeo-Christian way of things things homosexual marriages would destroy the sanctity of marriage. (And we could always look at those countries that do legalise it. Hmmmm. Can we detect any huge difference in the sanctity of marriage in those nations? Apparently not.)

I wasn't talking about marriage (though plenty would say it is a joke) but rather the way the "Judeo-Christians" are trying to avoid change is by saying "to do that would degrade it even more."

The wording makes it sound as if it would go from being a certain degree of sacred and pure and then go down a notch. I would like to know when "marriage" crossed the border. And remembering that marriage is not just a Judeo-Christian thing, and hasn't been for a long time (if it ever was.)

Well that is good to hear. My outrageous opinion is that marriage is indeed a union, but not something cut into the soul, signed in blood. People want to get married - good. They should think about it first sure, and try and make sure it is for them, but by Gods if they get into it and decide at some point "this isn't working, I'd be happier moving on" - then that is fine. Marriage is a man made thing. It has been a man-made thing for a long time, possibly forever. The sacredness of it is in the concept and how people view it on a personal level, not some bombastic rules and absurd things like "it can't be changed! Gays would affect the sanctity! Divorce affects the sanctity!"

When people talk about marriage they usually mention love at least once, but the behavior of people who are against things like same-sex marriage seems to indicate love plays little part in "proper, sacred marriage."

Furthermore, people who are for same-sex marriage often spout such things as "love is never wrong" and "any sexual activity between consenting adults is A Good Thing." This, of course, reinforces the idea that such people are sexually immoral and to allow these people--not just homosexuals--to have a say in what constitutes a marriage would be a terrible blow to the already faltering moral standing of the country.

Well, that makes sense.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, and there are a number of people like that in the United States. However, should they have not looked into the Scripture as few have, then they are going against what they ought to perceive as God's will.

If priests have nothing against homosexuals expressing their commitment to each other through marriage, then they should act according to their personal convictions, 'God's will' be damned (ironic).

Originally posted by Strangelove
This is precisely why I'm against organized religion in all forms. It forces others to sacrifice their own convictions for the abstract, man-made template of values known as 'God's will.' It's ludicrous.

If priests have nothing against homosexuals expressing their commitment to each other through marriage, then they should act according to their personal convictions, 'God's will' be damned (ironic).

Religion is more then your current description here, you're view is as narrow as a Catholics.🙂

Originally posted by Soleran
Religion is more then your current description here, you're view is as narrow as a Catholics.🙂

However, I don't think I mistaken in thinking that all religions have a set of standards that they expect their members to live by, no?

Hahahahaha, I get it; it's so funny.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I believe that there is one Authority on marriage, hence my beliefs that Judeo-Christian views on marriage are correct.

Well, ok then.

Yes, and there are a number of people like that in the United States. However, should they have not looked into the Scripture as few have, then they are going against what they ought to perceive as God's will.

I'm assuming that since they would likely have extensive theological training and faith in God and the Bible that clearly they have looked in the Bible and they believe it would be acceptable.

But then again - people interpreting the Bible? Outrageous.

Theoretically, it might go from a certain "degree of sacred and pure" and fall a "notch." However, that doesn't mean that it's going to fall far.

Well if it isn't going to fall far no reason to stop gay marriages.

We all know that I disagree with your view of marriage, but that's neither hear nor there.

Since that is the first time I think I posted a simple version of my views on marriage I guess everyone just anticipated that you would disagree.

The reason that you don't hear about it is because the debate on same-sex marriage is more often focused on legal benefits.

So lets strip marriage of its legal benefits. If marriage as a concept is right and all there should be no greater benefit then the image of unity between two people.

Furthermore, people who are for same-sex marriage often spout such things as "love is never wrong" and "any sexual activity between consenting adults is A Good Thing." This, of course, reinforces the idea that such people are sexually immoral and to allow these people--not just homosexuals--to have a say in what constitutes a marriage would be a terrible blow to the already faltering moral standing of the country.

Wow. Just wow.

Of course, allowing people to have a say in what constitutes marriage would be a terrible blow. Marriage isn't supposed to be about the people...

I'm working on that right now; however, my ability to find such things is limited because I am using a school computer between classes.

So... you are looking up gay public orgies on your school computer or something?

Originally posted by FeceMan
I believe that there is one Authority on marriage, hence my beliefs that Judeo-Christian views on marriage are correct.

You are aware that Christianity and Judaism, as well as marriage has been corrupt and flawed for millenia right ? 😬

What makes you believe that Christian-Judeo views on marriage are correct ?

Especially when the concept of marriage existed before and elsewhere from Judaism and Christianity ?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, and there are a number of people like that in the United States. However, should they have not looked into the Scripture as few have, then they are going against what they ought to perceive as God's will.

"God's will" is nothing more than a re-editted and retconned series of commands made by men in power.....face this and move on.

Originally posted by FeceMan
The reason that you don't hear about it is because the debate on same-sex marriage is more often focused on legal benefits.

What about just the right to get married ? What about social equality ? Or is that concept so foreign to your conservative eyes ?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Furthermore, people who are for same-sex marriage often spout such things as "love is never wrong" and "any sexual activity between consenting adults is A Good Thing." This, of course, reinforces the idea that such people are sexually immoral and to allow these people--not just homosexuals--to have a say in what constitutes a marriage would be a terrible blow to the already faltering moral standing of the country.

Love is never wrong...you actually disagree ?

No one is saying sexual actions between two consenting adults is a good thing, we're just saying it's a right that one has...

Are you really this stupid ?

Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm working on that right now; however, my ability to find such things is limited because I am using a school computer between classes.

Between classes huh ?

Would you mind telling me how old you are exactly, and what school you go to ? It may help shed some light on your influences and biases...and your hypocrisy...

Let's not completely over look the real origins of marriage; that is thefact that the origins of marriage constitue little more than an elaborate ritual of purchase and ownership. Women have been bought and sold as objects for thousands of years.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Marriage is an unnatural artificial societal construct with no real intrinsic value of its own and with associated legal benefits. Aside from the legal issues associated with marriage, "marriage" in itself is meaningless.

I can marry for love.
I can marry to get a greencard.
I can marry because of parental arrangements.
I can marry into money.
I can marry because I'm on a bender.
I can marry a Russian bride ordered on teh interweb.

All while being completely non-religious.

The subjective "value" of a marriage is wholly dependent upon the individuals partaking in the ritual and their motivations for doing so.

And how stopping two people from marrying for love because of their sexual preference while allowing a man to marry a Russian bride to give her residency for money while on a bender doesn't in itself make a mockery of marriage?