What would happen if same-sex marriage were legalised?

[heterodoxical]

Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle. Homosexuality is same-sex attraction.

David.

I don't think you were right this time, but so far we've been on the.same page. A celibate homosexual would not be in the h.s.lifestyle, agreed? And if you.deny.there is a homosexual, you.either know no one who is.Gau..stay.very.distant from them or ate trying a pedantic spin in that statement. But being homosexual does not intrinsically.put you in the h.s. lifestyle.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

No, we should admit the churches threw out Christ's commands and got self righteous and important. Follow the govt, they are.god appointed. Show me where Christ EVER tried to legislate the.faith? What he.did.do, was teach is.to love neighbor, not just brother, to provide for your enemies needs. He even said he could not judge here on earth and if he.did, Jesus was directed to by.the.father. until one of you.have gods spirit land on your shoulder, and start doing miracles, remember you.don't speak with the Father, like Jesus did.

The church is in sin, by following their heart, not god's. Besides that, the.church forgets that being homosexual is not the sin In the bible.

You wont find me caring one whit about it. Personally I always take one Christian decrying the "churches" with a healthy dose of the proverbial salt. Always smacked of a bit of ego to me. That said, I'm quite fine if the true church(whatever that is) if it wants to go on about gays and gay marriage and what it thinks of homosexual acts as sin and all that. As long as the rest of the people are nice and free to ignore them and go on with their business. Oh and the gays getting to get married. That too. As for lifestyle. The only lifestyle I've seen among the gay folks I've known and been friends with is......wait for it......*dramatic drum roll*....going to work, spending time with some friends and maybe family..and the occasional eating and drinking. Sounds outright horrible. I mean seriously....WORKING! Tragic people I tell ya.

 

[heterodoxical]

I think the 'by definition' argument is no-where near as strong as proponents of so-called traditional marriage think it is. For one, it is a subtle appeal to tradition. Marriage is 'by definition' what tradition has defined it to be. The thing about traditions though, and the social institutions that underlie them, is that we can change them. They aren't fixed. So even if marriage was (notice the past tense) defined as being between a man and a woman, because that tradition can no longer justify itself, it is most certainly open to revision. This isn't something new. Only a few decades prior to this debate the tradition of marriage being an unequal partnership with the man as head came to face a similar problem: it couldn't justify itself, and so the institution evolved accordingly and society is (arguably) better for it.

If this is an appeal to tradition, then you define linguistics, and historical facts as just a tradition. Do you realize how Much logical-respect you just lost? So, in my cukture.red is green, and that fixed.the.color hood peoples offense at beomg coloring. In our culture red and green are the.same, well except that they are distinctively different colors. And the trafffic issues we dont have fixed yet, but the words are the.samerwd Is green, because we said so, and words can be changed to mean whatever the &#%@* you want them to, as long as you really feel.they.should.

That Is yiur ludicrous position.

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "What would happen if same-sex marriage were legalised? (2)"