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

[razeontherock]

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

If the affects of your suggestion would accomplish that and only that, I'd be all for it.

You have not considered the ramifications

 

[Ringo84]

Then explain what the ramifications would be.
Ringo

 

[razeontherock]

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.

Nobody's talking about affecting a church. Nobody's talking about religion.

When people that know God talk about God, you don't know what is being discussed. That's ok, you still receive His Blessing anyway! And when you come to realize what it is, you'll realize it's been there all along. (IOW, the point you're trying to make is a non-issue)

 

[razeontherock]

Except in 1967.

Ok, so trot out the change to marriage you're referring to

 

[razeontherock]

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.

Mayan zombies, of course! That means on 12/12/12 you will suddenly find homosexual marriage to be the law of the land. Now quit worrying about it

 

[Ringo84]

Nobody's talking about affecting a church. Nobody's talking about religion.

You keep talking about a "covenant before God", but nobody's talking about religion?

Seems to me that Raze's reluctance to engage honestly on this issue is indicative of the lack of coherent arguments against same-sex marriage.
Ringo

 

[GenetoJean]

I see no reason to deprive anyone of that



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!

The burden of homosexuality is for the most part due to negative thinking about homosexuality. Do away with the negative thinking and you do away with the burden.

 

[razeontherock]

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

Are you ever going to read posts where your questions have been answered?

 

[Skaloop]

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.

Being homosexual carries a burden because of how some parts of society fail to accept homosexuality. Increasing acceptance of homosexuality would decrease the burden on homosexuals. Seeing homosexual marriage as equal or equivalent would make things better for those middle-of-the-road homosexuals as well as the hard-wired ones.

(note to readers - I do not agree with raze's stance on SSM significantly increasing the number of homosexuals)

 

[razeontherock]

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"?

Because those ramifications are obviously good

 

[Ringo84]

Are you ever going to read posts where your questions have been answered?

Apparently not, as you've never answered my questions.
Ringo

 

[Skaloop]

Ok, so trot out the change to marriage you're referring to

You know full well. The definition of marriage changed to include interracial couples. Now you'll redefine the old definition of marriage to be the current definition of marriage and say that that means the definition didn't change. But the fact is, at one point a certain set of couples couldn't legally be married, then they could. That was a change. The same sort of change that will happen when SSM is finally federally recognized; an expansion of the definition of marriage.

 

[Skaloop]

Because those ramifications are obviously good

How can you tell? They may appear that way now, but what about that 500 generation slow boil you've mentioned?

And if the ramifications of these things are obviously good, why would you think SSM would be any different? I mean, giving women expanded rights led to women working outside the home, getting educations, birth control, legal abortion, easier divorce; think of how many broken homes all that has led to.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because those ramifications are obviously good

I'm going to call this out as hypocrisy. You aren't concerned about the ramifications of other progressive "experiments" for society's children in the generations to come. But when it comes to SSM, you flip out and warn us that the ramifications are unknown but are likely to be bad (although you fail to specify why they are likely to be bad). You don't care about the ramifications of other progressive "experiments"; only the gay "experiment".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Social conservatives: "It's not social engineering when we do it!"

 

[razeontherock]

You haven't. But that's the only thing your "think of the children" argument addresses. It addresses nothing in this discussion about marriage.

FALSE. No man is an island. No couple is an island. No family is an island, unless they live in the wilderness of Alaska someplace, where they have no human contact. Our society has been made up of families as it's basic unit. Society is nothing more than the conglomerate of households. You are seeking to change that balance and the way all this is viewed, DRASTICALLY, within a very short time span, historically speaking. Say, 20 - 50 years.

After that, a couple generations of kids, and you can start seeing subjects to do research on, to see what difference has been achieved. And then you'd have to compare them to kids from say pre-1980 and look for differences. And there would be no control group, so all the research would be pretty much bogus. All the requests for peer reviewed literature now are naive.

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).

I'd really like to see a thread that discloses where Cr is supposedly taught to kids. I've never encountered it. And your "you guys" remark still makes the mistake of thinking I'm a creationist; I'm not. We've been over this, lots.

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.

So you admit you don't know what ramifications lay in store, yet argue for forging full speed ahead and [bless and do not curse] the torpedoes. I dub thee Sir Arthur Newman

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?

This would be a really great place to post a nice link to all the studies that have ever been done that show that growing up a homosexual is a VERY difficult problem, up to and including a higher suicide rate. You're going to feign ignorance of these well-established facts?

We should work on minimizing those difficulties for those that are born "hard-wired" homosexual, and not create a society that encourages those with a malleable sexuality to exercise homosexual tendencies, whether they be latent or otherwise. This is a value statement, based on secular reasons, that also agrees with the Orthodox Christian Faith.

We're here, we're not queer - get used to it!

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?

I'll go ya one better:

if mankind had NEVER discriminated on the basis of sex or race, we would be better as a species. We would've needed different means of survival during our agrarian years, but assuming those could've been poofed into existence, we'd be better off now. And forever more

Is that clear enough for you?

Furthermore, we could say the same thing re: treatment of homosexuals. The American Indians did that rather well, but you can't claim a parallel to the modern movement.

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

Many people have repeatedly made the claim that this issue is identical to prohibiting inter-racial marriages; in this thread and in many others. It's bogus

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.

You do not understand the meaning of the words you're parroting

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.

2 words: Sodom and Gomorrah. There's respect for ya - right in your eye!

 

[razeontherock]

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

Except God has put the explicit ixnay on those 2 people being of the same sex

 

[razeontherock]

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

"Allow" is an inappropriate usage of the word in this context. Nothing stops it now.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you admit you don't know what ramifications lay in store, yet argue for forging full speed ahead and [bless and do not curse] the torpedoes. I dub thee Sir Arthur Newman

Do you know all the ramifications that lay in store for other progressive "experiments", like racial equality and women's rights? Of course not. Yet you support them none-the-less? Isn't that irresponsible? Think of the children for generations to come! How dare you foist your equality "experiment" on future generations without being able to account for how it will affect them!
Hypocrisy.

 

[razeontherock]

You keep talking about a "covenant before God", but nobody's talking about religion?

Seems to me that Raze's reluctance to engage honestly on this issue is indicative of the lack of coherent arguments against same-sex marriage.
Ringo

Seems to me you have yet to realize the distinction between religion and faith. HINT: how many times is the word"religion" used as a positive in the Bible?