Gay Marriage is not Matrimony

[MercyBurst]

A woman is required for matrimony. When two guys get married who is the bride? Have they entered matrimony? I don't think so.

What's supposed to be the new definition of marriage, is it friendship?

If apes evolve to be just as intelligent as humans and fully able to consent, would it be moral for a human to have sex with an ape? I don't think it would be moral. Well so much for the consent argument.

 

[b&wpac4]

A woman is required for matrimony. When two guys get married who is the bride? Have they entered matrimony? I don't think so.

What's supposed to be the new definition of marriage, is it friendship?

If apes evolve to be just as intelligent as humans and fully able to consent, would it be moral for a human to have sex with an ape? I don't think it would be moral. Well so much for the consent argument.

Evoking a dictionary definition for something is, really, a flimsy argument. I don't really care what the arguement is for.

 

[cantata]

Can you explain why it would be immoral if the ape could consent?

 

[BigBadWlf]

And a good number of churches refuse to marry interracial couples claiming it goes against their interoperation of the bible. In reality the only reason is hate. The same holds true for the anti-gay crowd. When asked for reasons for discrimination all that ever comes up are excuses for hate and bigotry. Its sad that some are so desperate to justify bigotry

 

[b&wpac4]

Also.. if we are going to have dictionary fun, go check this out:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

 

[David Brider]

A woman is required for matrimony. When two guys get married who is the bride? Have they entered matrimony? I don't think so.

Matrimony is just another word for marriage. Marriage is what happens when two people who are very much in love with each other decide to make a formal commitment to each other and to solemnise that commitment in a ceremony in front of their families, their friends, and any God(dess)(es) in whom they happen to believe.

What's supposed to be the new definition of marriage, is it friendship?

The "new definition" is scarcely different from the old one except for the fact that as well as the likelihood of the two people involved being of the opposite gender to each other, it's possible that they could be of the same gender as each other. It's not really that major a difference.

David.

 

[Polycarp1]

Mercy Burst, if I thought for one minute you seriously wanted to have a dialogue on this subject, I would respond substantively. But it's clear your OP is rhetorical in nature, intended to stake out a position from which you can sneer at the beliefs and emotions of others. So I'm simply going to suggest that the next time you pick a Scripture passage to meditate and pray about, make it Matthew 7:12.

Everyone else, I simply encourage you to think about the monogram of Donald Nelson Frederick Truman-Tucker.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Evoking a dictionary definition for something is, really, a flimsy argument. I don't really care what the arguement is for.

Tell that to people who add alternate english definitions for what was written in hebrew to allow for sin - it happens all the time

 

[b&wpac4]

Tell that to people who add alternate english definitions for what was written in hebrew to allow for sin - it happens all the time

Ok, I will.

Dictionary definitions are a terrible way to debate.

 

[PantsMcFist]

Another thread with a conspicuously absent OP. At least SoF stays to fan the flames.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Tell that to people who add alternate english definitions for what was written in hebrew to allow for sin - it happens all the time

Are you saying that it is somehow wrong for people to purposefully translate the bible to justify hatred, discrimination and petty personal prejudice?

 

[MercyBurst]

Evoking a dictionary definition for something is, really, a flimsy argument. I don't really care what the arguement is for.

Definitions mean quite a lot to most intelligent people.

You want to re-define marriage on the one hand, then you tell us definitions don't mean anything. That's just gotta be special.

 

[b&wpac4]

Definitions mean quite a lot to most intelligent people.

You want to re-define marriage on the one hand, then you tell us definitions don't mean anything. That's just gotta be special.

Did you read the one I posted from the same site? Apparently YOU want to redefine it, based on what it says.

 

[wanderingone]

Why start threads on the same topic over and over. We know you don't agree with same sex marriage, you aren't presenting any new information or new thought for debate.. so... what's your point?

 

[MercyBurst]

Can you explain why it would be immoral if the ape could consent?

Because it is morally objectionable for an ape/human marriage. So is marriage based purely on consenting friendship with no moral boundaries at all?

 

[b&wpac4]

Because it is morally objectionable for an ape/human marriage. So is marriage based purely on consenting friendship with no moral boundaries at all?

I don't even really like arguing the whole thing, to be honest, because it isn't something that will have any effect on me but let me ask you this:

Why is it ok for an opposite sex couple to marry "based purely on consenting friendship with no moral boundaries at all" but not a same-sex one?

If it isn't, how do you propose to stop it from happening?

 

[MercyBurst]

And a good number of churches refuse to marry interracial couples claiming it goes against their interoperation of the bible.

Well like my grandma used to say -- people should marry their own kind. I think she was wise, and this just makes pretty good sense anyway.. Not so long ago I almost married a different race, and I found out how right she was. I didn't belong with the fiance's kin and vice versa. This isn't a biblical objection because everyone knows Moses married an ethiopian (black) woman. The bible doesn't support the view you tout as being "fundie". Besides blacks in america are really more white than black, at least that's what the africans tell us.

In reality the only reason is hate.

Well I don't want my daughter to marry a black, and a lot of blacks I know feel the same way about marrying whites. It's not hatred as you presume, but the isolation factor it presents for the inter-racial family. My pastor's white daughter married a black man. So I just can't relate to your position at all. It just isn't realistic. and BTW they will never ever marry gays at my church. Inter-racial is ok though.

The same holds true for the anti-gay crowd. When asked for reasons for discrimination all that ever comes up are excuses for hate and bigotry.

Well you think that way but I think it is very myopic. Personally I believe in equal rights for everyone including gays. I don't believe it should come at the expense of marriage, however, and other things should be done to correct social inequalities.

Its sad that some are so desperate to justify bigotry

From my point of view it is sad that so many people here on this forum can not comprehend the concept of "moral conscience." They just don't have a clue that people find certain things morally objectionable after a reasonable and honest search within their own soul.

That's the way I feel about gay-marriage, that it's really no marriage at all, and legalizing it doesn't make it any more moral than abortion.

I'm sure you disagree with me, and have your preconceived sterotypical view of me. The majority of the people in this country don't want gay marriage, and it's not for bigotry.

This is just another browbeating tactic from the gay-left, to have everyone believe this. You can not understand it any other way, and that's why your view is destined to fail -- it is totally intolerant of a differing opinion.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

[/size][/font]

Well like my grandma used to say -- people should marry their own kind. I think she was wise, and this just makes pretty good sense anyway.. Not so long ago I almost married a different race, and I found out how right she was. I didn't belong with the fiance's kin and vice versa. This isn't a biblical objection because everyone knows Moses married an ethiopian (black) woman. The bible doesn't support the view you tout as being "fundie". Besides blacks in america are really more white than black, at least that's what the africans tell us.

Well I don't want my daughter to marry a black, and a lot of blacks I know feel the same way about marrying whites. It's not hatred as you presume, but the isolation factor it presents for the inter-racial family. My pastor's white daughter married a black man. So I just can't relate to your position at all. It just isn't realistic.

Wow, people actually still think like this? I can say a lot of negative things about my Dad, but one thing he isn't is a racist bigot. I am so glad I was raised the way I was.

Well you think that way but I think it is very myopic. Personally I believe in equal rights for everyone including gays. I don't believe it should come at the expense of marriage, however, and other things should be done to correct social inequalities.

I still have yet to hear a valid argument from your side as to just how same-gender marriage "ruins" marriage or what, as you put it, expense it causes it, or how it affects your marriage. And don't say "because it cheapens marriage" because that isn't a valid argument. As an activist and one who meets with elected officials on this and a few other issues at the state level, I have debated a lot of people on same-gender marriage and every time someone disagrees, I get the same baseless, superficial (non) arguments.

I'm sure you disagree with me, and have your preconceived sterotypical view of me. The majority of the people in this country don't want gay marriage, and it's not for bigotry.

This is just another browbeating tactic from the gay-left, to have everyone believe this. You can not understand it any other way, and that's why your view is destined to fail -- it is totally intolerant of a differing opinion.

Funny coming from someone on your side. What, truly, is the basis of your argument? preconceived stereotypical view of gay people maybe?

As for our POV being intolerant -- nice try turning it around. My being allowed to marry doesn't affect you one iota. Your side trying to prevent me from doing so very much affects me. That is why your view is destined to fail -- the majority don't agree with you and it's only a matter of time until your way of thinking goes the same way as dinosaurs, bans on interracial marriage and denying civil rights for blacks. And it will happen in my lifetime and I will dance a happy dance in the streets the day it does.

 

[wanderingone]

Well like my grandma used to say -- people should marry their own kind. I think she was wise, and this just makes pretty good sense anyway.. Not so long ago I almost married a different race, and I found out how right she was. I didn't belong with the fiance's kin and vice versa. This isn't a biblical objection because everyone knows Moses married an ethiopian (black) woman. The bible doesn't support the view you tout as being "fundie". Besides blacks in america are really more white than black, at least that's what the africans tell us.

Your grandma was a bigot. You can't marry someone of another "race" unless you are marrying someone who isn't human. As for getting along with someone's family.. plenty of people with the same complexion, same religion, raised in the same communities etc... etc.. etc.. don't get along with each other's families.

Well I don't want my daughter to marry a black, and a lot of blacks I know feel the same way about marrying whites. It's not hatred as you presume, but the isolation factor it presents for the inter-racial family. My pastor's white daughter married a black man. So I just can't relate to your position at all. It just isn't realistic. and BTW they will never ever marry gays at my church. Inter-racial is ok though.

It's bigotry. The only reason a family would feel isolated is if their family and friends made them feel that way, that's not an indictment of marriage between people who don't look alike, that's an indictment of your community and family.

Well you think that way but I think it is very myopic. Personally I believe in equal rights for everyone including gays. I don't believe it should come at the expense of marriage, however, and other things should be done to correct social inequalities.

Allowing someone who doesn't share your beliefs regarding the definition of marriage to get married does not change your own marriage.

From my point of view it is sad that so many people here on this forum can not comprehend the concept of "moral conscience." They just don't have a clue that people find certain things morally objectionable after a reasonable and honest search within their own soul.

You can disagree with something all you want.. you believe people should stick with "their own kind" doesn't mean you have the right to stop someone else from ignoring that belief of yours, only that nobody should force you to marry someone you don't want to marry.

I'm sure you disagree with me, and have your preconceived sterotypical view of me. The majority of the people in this country don't want gay marriage, and it's not for bigotry.

It is bigotry, it doesn't matter what you claim, it's the desire to prevent people who are different from you from having access to the same legal rights as you have. It doesn't matter why you believe they shouldn't have it, it doesn't matter if it's a personal religious belief, it's still bigotry.

This is just another browbeating tactic from the gay-left, to have everyone believe this. You can not understand it any other way, and that's why your view is destined to fail -- it is totally intolerant of a differing opinion.

Bigots didn't stop "interracial" marriage even though plenty are still against it.. plenty voted against changing their own state laws regarding miscegenation even though they are not valid.

 

[Gishin]

Lol. I believe views like Mercy Burst's perfectly answer the question posed in http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7282707

Also, see my sig.