West Point's Cadet Chapel hosts first same-sex wedding

[Skaloop]

You still are talking about re-defining marriage, while denying doing it. You should at least try to be sneaky about it

I'm not denying it at all. I'm just saying it wouldn't be the first time. It wouldn't even be the first time in the last 100 years.

 

[GenetoJean]

I attempted to verbalize that any rights within Gov't jurisdiction can become equal, with relatively little opposition. These would include financial, property, and visitation. And any other reasonable thing not discussed yet.

What is NOT under Gov't jurisdiction is people's views and attitudes, or their Covenant with God. There is obviously great resistance on these points, over something that the overwhelming majority of the US population feels strongly about. Gov't rights don't enter into any of those things.

I fail to understand why you don't take the ground you can, and call it a win? It looks like exceptionally poor strategy to me.

As long as the government issues marriage liscenses and dont allow same sex couples have one then that is not equal. The LGBT community does consider it a win when a state allows same sex civil unions, but it is the win of a battle, not of a war. I am fighting for the legal right in any form to make it possible for same sex couples to make health decisions, inherate, have tax exemptions. However, equal but different does not equal equal.

I think it boils down to those of us that think we are born this way as opposed to those who dont. We compare our fight to racism and yall dont. I acknowledge and understand this. It is sad but true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Marriage has remain unchanged since the inception of this society. You fail to show otherwise

So a marriage today is the same as a marriage 300 years ago?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Exactly! That is why SSN should NOT be normalized in this Nation. This is a secular reason.

Ummm... why? You still haven't shown your reasoning. If you are concerned about broken homes, then surely it is pertinent to address problems common to all broken homes, whether they have two opposite-sex parents, two same-sex parents, or a single-parent. What justifies your persecution... opps, I mean focus on... same-sex parents? Should opposite-sex marriages be revoked because of broken homes?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You are the one trying to destroy the basis of this society since it's inception, not me

I'm not trying to destroy anything. Well, except bigotry.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not a single couple got married w/o it, whether they realize it or not. That's the beauty of a Sacrament!

I neither wanted nor received any sacrament along with my marriage. My spouse and I, my friends and relatives, and the state were all satisfied. That's part of the benefit of having a secular state regulate marriage -- I can get what I want without any religious entanglements, and you can get whatever it is you want with all the folderol of your preferred church. What other people do does not affect your church.

 

[Skaloop]

Not a single couple got married w/o it, whether they realize it or not. That's the beauty of a Sacrament! You are attempting to tamper with what you do not understand.

So God is OK with a marriage covenant with heathens, blasphemers, adulterers, idolaters, liars, murderers, thieves, polytheists, pagans, etc., but has a problem with it when it comes to homosexuals? Not even Christian homosexuals who get married?

Do the married homosexual couples in Canada and elsewhere have a covenant with God? They're married, after all, and you said not a single couple got married without it.

Marriage has remain unchanged since the inception of this society. You fail to show otherwise

Except in 1967.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Strawman # 3,724 that I've seen on CF, today.

Now, I've asked a question, many times, and no one has answered it. Homosexuals could get legal protection of their tangible rights such as financial, property and visitation, with little resistance. That's not enough. Why not?

Because they want to eat your brains. I meant it's so obvious... why can't anyone see it? It's all about the zombie apocalypse. The Mayans warned us.

 

[quilbilly]

Laws are nothing other than legislated morality. Besides, I think it's the morality and/or practice of homosexuality that isn't to be promoted, per CF rules.

So the topic of legalizing SSM can't even be broached w/o raising the morality of it.

You really think you're going to quell that with a simple "nu-uh?"

No simple nu-uh here raze....

Rule Regarding the discussion of gay marriage and gay rights in the political areas
DAVIDNIC. CF policy manager
"Keep the discussion to the political,historical and legal. Remember, discussion and debate about the morality of homosexuality itself is not aloud"

Seems clear to me

 

[razeontherock]

your argument is weakly against allowing same-sex couples to adopt, not against SSM.

Strawman # 3,726. I have said precisely NOTHING about homosexual couples potentially adopting, whether they are married or not, whether they are civilly unionized or not, or whether they work for some other union, or not.

Of course cultural norms have influence. But how is a general societal acceptance of same-sex relationships and marriage going to affect cultural norms and the kids raised under those norms

The issue is not, "general societal acceptance." The issue you are pushing with the legalization of homosexual marriage is pretending there is no difference, which is a sham. Pawning off shams on children is not a nice thing to do - we tend to frown on that sort of thing in America

Now - how could such a fundamental shift in the very basis of our society NOT have ramifications? Are you willing to pretend you know what those ramifications will be, 3 and 4 generations from now?

There is absolutely no evidence that a broader acceptance of homosexuality has any bearing on sexual orientation.

Strawman # 3,727. That would be your cue to pay attention to what WAS actually said, rather than just making up whatever absurd thing you think you can most easily defeat.

Both nature and nurture appear to have influence on the development of sexual orientation. Such is not even fully known at this time. Explain to me why this is the ideal time to waltz into such an irresponsible experiment? This Nation doesn't have enough problems?


HOW 'BOUT THIS: re-define the issue, as wanting to accept people as people, regardless of sexual orientation? No one has been willing to answer my question about what the real goal is; why not adopt this? If our society could do this, I happen to think it would be progress. We aren't really there yet with women's rights or racial equality, but no one could argue that tremendous strides haven't been made in the last 50 years.

Divorce that from "marriage," because the two in fact ARE NOT the same. How 'bout that?

It's appalling to me that you have mentioned several times things like respect and tolerance for homosexuals but have shown nothing but disrespect and intolerance for them and their relationships and their desires.

I have done nothing to disrespect their relationship; only to point out that they will never be a man and a woman becoming one flesh, which has been a sacred mystery the entire time this society has existed, and the bedrock of it.

 

[Ringo84]

You keep whining about non-existent straw men and talking around and around the issue. Are you ever going to honestly answer a question posed to you?
Ringo

 

[razeontherock]

Nope, I say government gets marriage, people like you who reject to having the same term as same-sex marriages can have uncivil unions. Same rights and stuff, but different name.

Un-civil unions Bugs Bunny This Means War - YouTube

I pointed out this may be an impasse, to which you reply "no it's not an impasse;" Bugs Bunny is the inevitable reference

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-k5J4RxQdE

 

[razeontherock]

I'm not denying it at all. I'm just saying it wouldn't be the first time. It wouldn't even be the first time in the last 100 years.

Nope. The first settlers here looked at marriage as a Covenant before God, in which a man and a woman become one flesh in God's sight, a Holy mystery. That much has NOT changed

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Strawman # 3,726. I have said precisely NOTHING about homosexual couples potentially adopting, whether they are married or not, whether they are civilly unionized or not, or whether they work for some other union, or not.



The issue is not, "general societal acceptance." The issue you are pushing with the legalization of homosexual marriage is pretending there is no difference, which is a sham. Pawning off shams on children is not a nice thing to do - we tend to frown on that sort of thing in America

Now - how could such a fundamental shift in the very basis of our society NOT have ramifications? Are you willing to pretend you know what those ramifications will be, 3 and 4 generations from now?

...

Both nature and nurture appear to have influence on the development of sexual orientation. Such is not even fully known at this time. Explain to me why this is the ideal time to waltz into such an irresponsible experiment? This Nation doesn't have enough problems?

HOW 'BOUT THIS: re-define the issue, as wanting to accept people as people, regardless of sexual orientation? No one has been willing to answer my question about what the real goal is; why not adopt this? If our society could do this, I happen to think it would be progress. We aren't really there yet with women's rights or racial equality, but no one could argue that tremendous strides haven't been made in the last 50 years.

Why aren't you claiming that women's rights and racial equality is an "experiment" whose effects on children might be harmful? Why aren't you claiming that it is irresponsible of us to support women's rights and racial equality because we don't know what ramifications this will have on a generation of children who grow up in this "experiment"?

 

[Skaloop]

Strawman # 3,726. I have said precisely NOTHING about homosexual couples potentially adopting, whether they are married or not, whether they are civilly unionized or not, or whether they work for some other union, or not.

You haven't. But that's the only thing your "think of the children" argument addresses. It addresses nothing in this discussion about marriage. I'm not creating a strawman, I'm pointing out your red herring.

The issue is not, "general societal acceptance." The issue you are pushing with the legalization of homosexual marriage is pretending there is no difference, which is a sham. Pawning off shams on children is not a nice thing to do - we tend to frown on that sort of thing in America

I grant there's a difference, and have already said so in this thread. What I don't grant is that this difference is significant, negative, or substantial.

As for the passing off of shams on children in America? America is at the forefront of teaching kids Creationism; now that's a sham. (Off topic, so don't let's get too into it, just pointing out that you guys aren't above shams when you deem them fit).

Now - how could such a fundamental shift in the very basis of our society NOT have ramifications? Are you willing to pretend you know what those ramifications will be, 3 and 4 generations from now?

Exactly what they'll be? No. Nor do you. But there's nothing to actually suggest they'll be negative. Overall, I figure it'll end up rather neutral.

Strawman # 3,727. That would be your cue to pay attention to what WAS actually said, rather than just making up whatever absurd thing you think you can most easily defeat.

Both nature and nurture appear to have influence on the development of sexual orientation. Such is not even fully known at this time. Explain to me why this is the ideal time to waltz into such an irresponsible experiment? This Nation doesn't have enough problems?

Homosexuality is a problem? An increase in the number of homosexuals would be adding another problem to all the others? Unlike you, I don't consider homosexuality to be a problem, and if allowing SSM does have an influence on the development of sexuality, so what?

HOW 'BOUT THIS: re-define the issue, as wanting to accept people as people, regardless of sexual orientation? No one has been willing to answer my question about what the real goal is; why not adopt this? If our society could do this, I happen to think it would be progress. We aren't really there yet with women's rights or racial equality, but no one could argue that tremendous strides haven't been made in the last 50 years.

They look like strides now, but it's only been a couple of generations. Are you willing to pretend you know what the ramifications will be 3 or 4 generations from now?

Divorce that from "marriage," because the two in fact ARE NOT the same. How 'bout that?

Now you're strawmanning. Who said they were the same?

I have done nothing to disrespect their relationship; only to point out that they will never be a man and a woman becoming one flesh, which has been a sacred mystery the entire time this society has existed, and the bedrock of it.

Man and woman becoming one flesh has to do with sex, not marriage, and just like childbearing is neither necessary nor sufficient for a marriage.

And nothing disrespectful? I find the suggestion that the simple act of allowing their union to be called a marriage will lead to an inevitable downfall of society is pretty disrespectful.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Nope. The first settlers here looked at marriage as a Covenant before God, in which a man and a woman become one flesh in God's sight, a Holy mystery. That much has NOT changed

Who cares what the first settlers thought? If they believed that women were unequal to men, should we believe that too?

 

[Skaloop]

Nope. The first settlers here looked at marriage as a Covenant before God, in which a man and a woman become one flesh in God's sight, a Holy mystery. That much has NOT changed

It was marriage as a Covenant before God, in which a white Christian man and a white Christian woman become one flesh in God's sight, a Holy mystery.

Later it was marriage as a Covenant before God, in which a white man and a white woman become one flesh in God's sight, a Holy mystery.

Then it was marriage as a Covenant before God, in which a man of one race and a woman of the same race become one flesh in God's sight, a Holy mystery.

Then it eventually was marriage as a Covenant before God, in which a man and a woman become one flesh in God's sight, a Holy mystery.

Soon it will be marriage as a Covenant before God, in which two people become one flesh in God's sight, a Holy mystery.

 

[razeontherock]

I am fighting for the legal right in any form to make it possible for same sex couples to make health decisions, inherate, have tax exemptions.

I see no reason to deprive anyone of that

I think it boils down to those of us that think we are born this way as opposed to those who dont.

While not certain, I think it's reasonable speculation that our population is distributed along a bell curve on this issue, just like it is on everything else: a few on either extreme, being hard-wired either hetero, homo, or a-sexual, with the vast majority somewhere in the middle, and a more malleable sexual orientation, at least during development. No one denies that having a homosexual orientation is a burden, so why would we re-engineer our society to so burden greater numbers? Growing up and seeing homosexual marriage as being equal to homosexual marriage would predictably have this impact upon those with malleable orientation.

Your suggestion would benefit a few on the extreme, at the expense of the majority. I don't see how this is beneficial to society? I think a better solution is to better accommodate those few that truly are on the edges, with the main ones affected being homosexuals. Although single people are often viewed as freaks too!

 

[Ringo84]

Your suggestion would benefit a few on the extreme, at the expense of the majority.

Why does this have to be a zero-sum game? Can homosexuals not achieve equal rights without the perception that something has been "taken away" from non-homosexuals?

I don't see how this is beneficial to society?

It allows two people to enter into a lifelong covenant with one another.
Ringo

 

[razeontherock]

. What justifies your focus on same-sex parents?

Strawman # 3,728. I never mentioned homosexual parents