• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

Status
Not open for further replies.

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,912
1,710
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟319,852.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm sure it happens. Where it is unjustified the people who it happens to are vindicated in the courts.
No not all and in fact the majority are not vindicated. Many have exactly the same situation as for example Jack Phillips case but are found guilty. This shows the arbitrary nature of judges determining cases rather than sticking to the facts of the consitutional law which supports the right of these people.

It's ancient, but not universal.
Then why would the desenting Supreme Court Judges in their arguements against SSM refer to traditional mariage (TM) as being ancienct but also universal. IE

"The dissent, on the other hand, underscored that marriage and family is an ancient universal human institution. Justice Roberts said that DOMA defends a definition of marriage which has been adopted by every state in our nation and every nation in the world for virtually all of human history.
In Supreme Court Gay Marriage Decision, Justices Reach for Equality

Interesting opinion from a right-wing Christian think tank.
How does that dispute the facts? You attack the source rather than address the content. What is it that he is saying that is so wrong? He suggests that most of the important thinkers and movements throughout history agreed on TM. Most cultures and nations practiced it. This point to there being something about TM that is universal. Because the ultimate act in a marriage is sexual this makes procreation as central part which can only be achieved by opposite sex.

That’s nothing too profound or controversial and this is supported by the facts. Even with polygamy the point is opposite sex relationships and producing opffspring to create the family for future survival and inheritance by blood. This was the recognised and important basis for traditional type marriages and unions.

No, you have avoided the question. How does SSM undermine your traditional marriage? Just answer that question
I am going to answer this seperately as I think it deserves special attention.

We check yours and they are generally rubbish.
What does that even mean. Who is we and are these people qualified to just express an opinion or claim without any authority. Anyone can make a claim. I can say you claim that my sources are rubbish is rubbish itself. The point is I have porvided evidence for them not being rubbish. You have not provided one bit of evidence supporting your assertions.

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Bakery, is an Evangelical Christian--a Baptist.
And. Yes Mr Phillips is a peson of faith just like the other people who have been attacked for their religious views. What are you trying bto point out.

Nobody is forcing adoption agencies to close. Their government subsidy is being cut off.
This once again shows how out of touch you are with the issue and perhaps yoour indifference to those who suffer denials of religious freedom. There have been a number of religious adoption agencies forced to close over the years. IE

After 95 years, NY rules end Catholic adoption and foster services in Buffalo

Adoption and foster services through Catholic Charities of Buffalo are ending because state rules do not allow the agency to maintain its practice of only placing children in homes with a mother and a father.
Catholic adoption and foster care agencies in several states have shut down after anti-discrimination laws or funding restrictions barred participation from agencies that place children only with married mothers and fathers.
After 95 years, NY rules end Catholic adoption and foster services in Buffalo

Catholic Charities West Michigan was one of Michigan’s oldest and largest foster-care and adoption providers. But in 2018, a new state attorney decided not to work with foster care and adoption agencies who desire to place children in homes with a married mother and father according to their religious beliefs. This has affected many children.
The Supreme Court Case That Will Impact Thousands of Vulnerable Children

Same-sex ‘marriage’ law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close adoption program

Same-sex ‘marriage’ law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close adoption program

For disseminating material implying that gay couples are child abusers.
That was not the case at all. It was a false allegation and the matter was dropped by the complaintant. The complaintant was trying to make out that the wording in a booklets that said that same sex marriage will mess with kids was about pedophelia which was completely false.

When the article is read in context it was about how the Catholic Church belkieves that a mother and father is bets for a childs development and that SSM will deny this and cause problems for childrens development and wellbeing. The complaintant exploited the situation and this was shown by the fact she dropped the case because she knew she never had one.

And the first examples cited are about Evangelicals.
Not sure which one you are talking about because I cannot see any Evangelicals. The first one is about the Catholic adoption agency in Buffalo. The 2nd one is Archbishop Porteous who is not an Evangelical. The next one is about Coopers brewery which was being attacked and having its beer boycotted just because one of the 'no'campaign ads was filmed in one of its pubs. They are certainly not Evangelicals. What Mark Allaby well hes no Evangelical but rather an IMB executive whoi was forced to resign after being attacked and bombarded with hate messages on IBMs site for dontaing some money to the TRaditional marriage campaign.

I wont go through the rest but there much the same, none are Evangelicals. So your claim that the only people that have been affected are Evangelicals is totally unsupported. There is not even one Evangelical affected let alone all. What I think you were trying to do is attack the source again because you knew you had no case. But the source has nothing to do with this. ITs about the cases being highlighted by the source and what happened to them.

Once again another mistruth to prop up false allegations which seem to be the common tactic by those who are hostile to religious freedoms.

I'm not saying that they are nothing, and rubbish. I'm saying that your arguments are rubbish.
Hum seems you have no arguement at all. I keep showing you are wrong and you keep throwing back unsupported allegations and claims. I think my arguemnets are just fine. Like I said anyone can claim things are rubbish. But substanciating things is what matters.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,912
1,710
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟319,852.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, you have avoided the question. How does SSM undermine your traditional marriage? Just answer that question
I thought I had pointed this important fact out already by highlighting the many impacts the marriage law change would have on maintaining and upholding TM as an important different type of marriage. Put it simply if TM was the unique definition of marriage with opposite sex and highlighting the importance of mothers and fathers and their influence on children and the childs right to know their biological parents wouldn’t changing the definition of marriage to be between any two people and thus taking away the importance and protection of law of opposite sex, procreation and the blood and flesh relationship between mother, fathers and children have an undermining affect.

To explain this in more detail as it needs to be as some try to make it too simple and deny what’s happening. Primarily not all marriage arrangements are the same and we need to point out the differences. SSM is different to traditional marriage (TM). SSM is about an emotional companionship between 2 adults and has no defining difference between all other forms of emotional companionships such as those outside marriage like intense friendships, 3 way or group companionships. SSM cannot make any argument for why it is relevant past the need for companionship so any other case for marriage based on any number of reasons have just as much right with SSM. That makes it open to having the permanence, commitment and fidelity being open to being undermined.

Whereas historically TM marriage is understood to be a different and distinctively valuable form of human relationship that is oriented to procreation and therefore naturally fulfilled in the parents (mother and father) having children and a family. It is a comprehensive and conjugal bond because it unites people not just based on hearts and minds but on bodily dimensions (physical, mental and emotional). It is different to friendship and non-marital forms of companionship like SSM and therefore requires commitments of exclusivity ("forsaking all others") and permanence ("till death do us part").

In other words, marriage is about partnership, procreation, and the promotion of the family for which SSM does not uphold. And because marriage normally results in family, and families through a biological mother and father are the best way to care and promote development of the child these are the building blocks of a strong society, and that is why government takes an interest in the legislature and licensing of marriage.

As already explains SSM can be equated with any other form of marriage based on rights and this will undermine the unique and different version of TM. Marriage use to be defined by the mother and father, procreation and this led to building the family based on blood/flesh relationships which created greater bonds for commitment and permanence. Now marriage is redefined and this unique version is no longer protected and held up as the best way to have marriage and the family.

Because SSM doesn’t have these unique qualities and opens marriage and the family up to any form this will continue to undermine the sanctity of marriage and the family. There will be more problems for children and more marriage and family breakups. The government then has to get more involved in taking care of the damage caused and then regulate families and child care to ensure they are safe and looked after. This introduces more government interference into people’s lives which is never a good thing.

This has already been observed with the changes to divorce and how divorce has more than doubled causing. So as TM leads better child care and stronger families it makes sense to ensure they are supported in the best way possible which the science shows is through TM. Therefore introducing SSM and opening up marriage to any form will weaken and undermine Traditional marriage and the family.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,912
1,710
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟319,852.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Once again you have you have avoided the question. How does SSM undermine your traditional marriage? Just answer that question
Yes I just answered it above. Gee I have a few posts to do I am trying to keep up.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No not all and in fact the majority are not vindicated. Many have exactly the same situation as for example Jack Phillips case but are found guilty. This shows the arbitrary nature of judges determining cases rather than sticking to the facts of the consitutional law which supports the right of these people.

Then why would the desenting Supreme Court Judges in their arguements against SSM refer to traditional mariage (TM) as being ancienct but also universal. IE
"Traditional" marriage is certainly ancient but it is certainly not universal.



How does that dispute the facts? You attack the source rather than address the content. What is it that he is saying that is so wrong? He suggests that most of the important thinkers and movements throughout history agreed on TM. Most cultures and nations practiced it. This point to there being something about TM that is universal. Because the ultimate act in a marriage is sexual this makes procreation as central part which can only be achieved by opposite sex.
Do you also object to heterosexual marriage if the couple is not fertile?

That’s nothing too profound or controversial and this is supported by the facts. Even with polygamy the point is opposite sex relationships and producing opffspring to create the family for future survival and inheritance by blood. This was the recognised and important basis for traditional type marriages and unions.
So now you admit that "traditional" marriage is not universal and you are moving the goalposts yet again--at this point you should start to understand why we think your arguments are rubbish.

Humm I thought I had pointed this important fact out already by highlighting the many impacts the marriage law change would have on maintain and upholding TM as an important different type of marriage.
No, you've avoided the question and handed us more rubbish instead. What effect does allowing SSM have on your marriage?



This once again shows how out of touch you are with the issue and perhaps yoour indifference to those who suffer denials of religious freedom. There have been a number of religious adoption agencies forced to close over the years. IE

After 95 years, NY rules end Catholic adoption and foster services in Buffalo
Adoption and foster services through Catholic Charities of Buffalo are ending because state rules do not allow the agency to maintain its practice of only placing children in homes with a mother and a father.
Catholic adoption and foster care agencies in several states have shut down after anti-discrimination laws or funding restrictions barred participation from agencies that place children only with married mothers and fathers.
After 95 years, NY rules end Catholic adoption and foster services in Buffalo

Catholic Charities West Michigan was one of Michigan’s oldest and largest foster-care and adoption providers. But in 2018, a new state attorney decided not to work with foster care and adoption agencies who desire to place children in homes with a married mother and father according to their religious beliefs. This has affected many children.
The Supreme Court Case That Will Impact Thousands of Vulnerable Children

Same-sex ‘marriage’ law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close adoption program

Same-sex ‘marriage’ law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close adoption program
More rubbish. These agencies all closed because they could not survive without the support or compliance of the government.
.

Not sure which one you are talking about because I cannot see any Evangelicals.
The first two example involved the Lachlan Macquarie Institute
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Yes I just answered it above. Gee I have a few posts to do I am trying to keep up.
No, you haven't. The question is about how allowing SSM effects your marriage. YOUR marriage. You are married, aren't you?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I thought I had pointed this important fact out already by highlighting the many impacts the marriage law change would have on maintaining and upholding TM as an important different type of marriage. Put it simply if TM was the unique definition of marriage with opposite sex and highlighting the importance of mothers and fathers and their influence on children and the childs right to know their biological parents wouldn’t changing the definition of marriage to be between any two people and thus taking away the importance and protection of law of opposite sex, procreation and the blood and flesh relationship between mother, fathers and children have an undermining affect.
So you disapprove of adoption as well.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,912
1,710
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟319,852.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You are quite free to promote the more traditional forms of marriage as you see fit. But if you claim that marriage can only be the more traditional version and cannot include same sex couples then you are obviously wrong.
So if SSM is just a form of emotional companionship with that logic do you think that other forms of emotional companionships should also have the right to marry like maybe 3 way or group marriages and open marriages. If we make the issue just about rights then this opens the door for other forms of mariage but it still doesnt determine whether all these forms are good and right and should be included does it. So just basing the arguemnet of rights and equality is not enough.

If you demand that gay people be excluded then that is being discriminatory against gays. Don't do it, Steve.
Who said I was doing it. I am trying to debate the issue and determine what is happening. What each form of marriage involves and how we should or should not include them. By your logic it would be descriminatory to exclude (throuples) 3 way marriage or 4, 5, 6 or group marriage or marriages with families such as siblings. It doesnt answer the question as to what marriage is and should be and why we should include each form of marriage.

Focus, Steve. The thread is about ssm.
I understand this but injecting relevant related issues if quite valid. You can't see the relevance of what I am talking about can you.

No. I say that redefining marriage HAS hurt no-one. It hasn't hurt you or anyone else.
Then you don’t really understand the marriage issue if you think no one is being hurt as a result. What about say religious adoption agencies like Catholic Social Services. Some of their adoption agencies have closed because they are not allowed to place kids in traditional family’s in line with their belief which they have done for decades.

So the employees of those agencies lose their jobs and the children that the agencies that they use to help have lost the agencies which now mean some children will be left with foster homes. This was especially bad because of the opioid epidemic which had caused a flood of orphaned children into the system. So wouldn't all these people suffer as a result of the marriage law changes?

What about all the business people like cake shop owners, photographers, floral artists and marriage celebrates who have had to lose business or be attacked and put through hell as a result of the marriage law changes. Haven't they suffered? I can really see that between those on this thread who are non-religious that there is an indifference a lack of emppathy to the plight of those supporting TM and religious freedoms. The resistence and baulking to even acknowledge the slightest suffering and injustice of rights is very apparent. I think this has caused the lack of understanding and deeper consideration on this issue.

And if you want to run a slippery slope argument that people will want to marry their aspidestra or their pet poodle then how about we have a discussion about it when it happens. Keep a look out for a significant proportion of society who starts to push for pot plant matrimony and we'll have a nice chat about it.
Nah it hasn’t quite got to that point yet but it will as some people are already doing it unofficially but haven’t demanded legal rights yet. But we are seeing people demand 3 way and group marriages in some places and this will continue to spread. You see SSM proponents are not shy of admitting that they want these other forms of marriage to be legal and that they want to destroy traditional marriage altogether. That’s because the logical extension of SSM is to allow other forms of marriage and to undermine TM. IE

Judith Stacey, a sociology professor at NY university who is a high profile representative for SSM has stated in a congressional testimony against the Defense of Marriage Act said
As a result of the SSM that marriage would become more varied including 3 way and group mariages. She was among 300 scholars and advocates who signed a statement, "Beyond Marriage," calling for legal recognition of sexual relationships involving more than two partners.


She has also stated that
"Children certainly do not need both a mother and a father." This was in contrast to the research that even Obama quoted

"We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it."

Since countries have begun recognizing same-sex relationships, governments have seen challenges to nearly every other traditional norm. For example
Mexico City considered expressly temporary marriage licenses. Equality-based proposals to decriminalize or recognize polygamy have arisen in Canada and elsewhere. A public notary in Brazil recognized a three-person partnership (a “triad” or “throuple”) as a civil union, saying that the redefinition of marriage required it:
Marriage and Politics | National Review

Even Chief Justice John Roberts’ a dissenting judge on the SSM marriage law change mentioned how much similar the reasoning for SSM would apply to plural marriage. Its just a logical follow on and is happening and will continue to happen. This is lead to other forms of marriage.
It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy

The reason this will happen is that just like same sex relationships people are now living on plural relationships already. It is a logical extenstion of same sex relationships because a 3rd person has to get involved to create a baby and this often links them in emotionally and romantically. Gay and especially homosexual relationships are open and involve more than 2 people.

30% of Gay Men Are in Open Relationships, According to New Study
30% of Gay Men Are in Open Relationships, According to New Study
But other studies have found higher rates of 40 to 50% in open relationships.

My marriage has not been devalued. My wife and I still have the same comittment to each other. How has it affected yours? Is it less of a partnership because two women can now marry? Please let me know.
You’re not seeing the bigger picture here. It is not just about individual marriages but future marriages and the gradual degrading of marriage once again by changes to its definition. For example when the government changed divorce laws making it easier to divorce this seen more than a doubling of marriage breakdowns and all the problems that are associated with it. Do you think this affected many marriages after the law change? Of course it did and it was a direct result of easy divorce and a lack of support for keeping marriages together and honouring the importance of marriage.

The same thing applies with the current law changes. There will be a gradual degrading of the value of marriage as the importance and value of TM is no longer held up as the model to follow. Marriage definition is now only about an emotional companionship which as we know feelings come and go and change. There are no other stipulations for basing and holding marriage together under the law. It will become whatever anyone can argue it to be as a right which may include forms of marriage most people think are not suitable for children.

You've lost focus again, Steve. The discussion is ssm. Not adoption. If ssm did not exist then gay people would still commit to each other and adopt children. Making their partnership a legal marriage changes nothing in a negative sense whatsoever regarding their children. In fact, giving the children a legal basis in regard to their parents could only be considered a benefit.
You really don’t understand the issue. Of course it’s about adoption. SS couple will want children and because they cannot have them naturally they have to obtain them through other ways. Adoption is one way, but so is surrogacy. This will be especially appealing as it allows couples to create their own child.

This then introduces a third parent which then can create confusion and harm for the child. They don' t get to live with or know the donor parent which can cause problems. But it also logically opens the door for a 3 way marriage. There is also illegal surrogacy as it is not legalised in many states and countries. That creates another issue. Then there are the rights to IVF and all the other complex issues around legalities and social welfare etc.

So of course it is related and relevant. If you don’t see that then you are taking a naive view and overlooking the issues that need to be considered to ensure society duty of care. Because changing marriage also changes parenting and changes child care.

Indeed. And the sex of the partners has very little to do with it. Do you want to argue against bad marriages now as opposed to ssm?
Appealing to the lowest common denominator doesn’t support an argument. It’s a poor basis to support your point comparing the worst TM relationships with the best SSM ones. The fact is the research shows little boys and girls need both a mother and father regardless of all else. The experts have said that a traditional setup of biological mother and father looking after a child when all else is equal is the best setup.

I don't know what gave me that idea. Maybe the hundreds of words you frequently post decrying ssm and telling us that it's the start of the collapse of civilisation. Why do you think I have made that assumption?
I think it’s a combination of things. Much to do with what I explained above which is a lack of understanding of the issue and therefore this causes a person to refer to simplistic extremes like claiming what I have mentioned which is really common sense and equating it to the end of civilization. I have not even gone anywhere near that level of rhetoric. You claim I am overstating things yet I quote judges and experts who back what I say and then in the next breath you overstate things yourself.

The rest of your post is just more complaints about how ssm has affected marriages. It's a constant refrain with you. But you give no examples to support that position and I've asked for some more than once. And others have done so as well. So yet again, what negative affect does two women getting legally married have on your marriage?
Well I think I have given examples now if I havent already. I hope this helps you better understand the issue at hand.
regards
Steve
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,912
1,710
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟319,852.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, you haven't. The question is about how allowing SSM effects your marriage. YOUR marriage. You are married, aren't you?
Oh I see. But why is that the only relevant issue. Are you saying that this is the only way to determine if the marriage law changes have any undermining effect on TM. What if I say they probably don’t have too much effect on my specific marriage because it’s been around for so long and established.

How does that change the fact that the marriage law changes will have a negative effect on TM in the future and thus cause problems for children and society? Does my personal situation negate all that? Does my personal situation stop me from expressing concern for the state of marriage for my children and children’s children and the effects this may have on society?

I think your using a pretty flimsy basis for making an argument to oppose my claim that SSM undermines TM. In fact you could call it a red herring as it doesnt really address the issue but rather derails it into an issue that is irrelevant. But this is no surprise because that is the basis for the SSM and the left. Its all about self, how I will be effected, whats in it for me and little regard for others and society as a whole.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,912
1,710
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟319,852.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So you disapprove of adoption as well.
You can tell when your winning an arguemnet and people have nothing to reason back with is when they resort to logical fallacies and projecting those fallacies onto the opponents thinking in order to negate their arguement. In this case another red herring or maybe its a false analogy. I would have to think about that.

I never said anything about being opposed to adoption. The fact that you project that shows you cannot deal with the truth of what I just said. Here I give an argument showing how SSM have affected the plight of children who were placed in good homes with good families for nearly 100 years and the SSM law changes just snuffed that out in an instant and you ask me if I am against adoption.

I would have thought this shows my concern was for adoption and how a big part of the adoption industry is being wiped out by these new laws. But the fact you missed it shows your lack of thought for the other side of the equation and it is more about one sides rights over all else. I mean wouldn’t that be a concern to you and wouldn’t that show that the State and SSM proponents are the ones against adoption for allowing this to happen. Its almost like you see things the exact opposite to how they should be seen if we are to be fair and truthful.

If TM is a better way to raise kids which the research seems to support then wouldn’t these adoption agencies be the best way to place kids. So that’s one potential wrong that’s happening. But on top of that there is the real issue relating to the law changes in that the adoption agencies have been forced to close unfairly because they have also been denied their religious right to put their beliefs into practice and follow their conscience.

Imagine these religious charities being forced to place children in a situation they believe is not the best for kids and forced to act against their conscience. It’s almost criminal but you fail to see that which once again shows your hostility or at the very least indifference towards religion. Whats more you are very quiet about the fact you claimed no adoption agencies were forced to close and yet there were many. Once again l prove my case.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,626
3,133
Worcestershire
✟196,801.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How does that change the fact that the marriage law changes will have a negative effect on TM in the future and thus cause problems for children and society?

That is known as 'begging the question'.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Oh I see. But why is that the only relevant issue. Are you saying that this is the only way to determine if the marriage law changes have any undermining effect on TM. What if I say they probably don’t have too much effect on my specific marriage because it’s been around for so long and established.
It's not the only relevant issue. It's just the first issue to consider. If the existence of SSM doesn't affect your marriage and it doesn't effect mine (or that of anybody I know) then whose marriage does it effect?

How does that change the fact that the marriage law changes will have a negative effect on TM in the future and thus cause problems for children and society? Does my personal situation negate all that? Does my personal situation stop me from expressing concern for the state of marriage for my children and children’s children and the effects this may have on society?

I think your using a pretty flimsy basis for making an argument to oppose my claim that SSM undermines TM. In fact you could call it a red herring as it doesnt really address the issue but rather derails it into an issue that is irrelevant. But this is no surprise because that is the basis for the SSM and the left. Its all about self, how I will be effected, whats in it for me and little regard for others and society as a whole.
If you want to argue that SSM undermines "traditional" marriage but you cannot show that it undermines any actual traditional marriages, then your argument is imaginary.
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,626
3,133
Worcestershire
✟196,801.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I have heard it argued that people living together without being married undermines the institution of marriage. It clearly doesn't. What is it about same sex marriage that undermines traditional marriage?

I think people's deeply held beliefs about marriage are sincere - and irrational. That is why there is no progress to be had here.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,117
15,736
72
Bondi
✟371,956.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Oh I see. But why is that the only relevant issue. Are you saying that this is the only way to determine if the marriage law changes have any undermining effect on TM. What if I say they probably don’t have too much effect on my specific marriage because it’s been around for so long and established.

Then you have no argument. If there is no practical harm then you have nothing on which to base any of your arguments.

And it appears that you are not arguing against ssm in any case. You are simply putting forward what you consider to be the benefits of a traditional marriage.

You say that single sex couples can't have children. Well, neither can my wife and myself. Is my marriage not acceptable to you? You say that marriage is more than simple companionship. So is the marriage between two eighty year olds not acceptable to you? Single people can adopt children. Do you want to ban them from doing so? If a couple don't want to have kids, do you want to refuse them the right to get married (not withstanding how you'd know and what on earth it has to do with you anyway)? Some people are incapable of having sex. Well, Steve says you can't get married because tradional marriages include sex. Some couples have children by using a surrogate. Nup - Steve won't allow it.

Can you respond to those six examples? If you're simply going to repeat yourself without addressing any points made in answer to your posts then this is not a discussion. Please get off the soap box and respond to what it being posted.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,912
1,710
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟319,852.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Continued...
So?

You seem to have a great deal of trouble actually answering my question. None of these have been instances of churches being forced to perform same sex marriages.
You’re not following the thread Kylie. We were speaking about free speech and you said that people have the right to free speech and to express their support for traditional marriage. IE in post #830 you responded to me saying that people are being attacked for just holding and expressing the belief of traditional marriage. That they only have to mention TM and they are attacked and can lose their job, and suffer consequences.

Kylie said
They have freedom of speech, which means that if someone believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, they have the right to say so. But that same freedom of speech means that anyone else can listen to what they say and then call them out on it. People have freedom of speech. They do not have freedom from consequences of that speech.

I replied saying that yes they can expect some come back but not like what has been happening where people are being attacked and suffering consequences like losing their job, status, or other benefits and gave those examples.

Again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the question I asked you.
Are you following the thread. It has everything to do with the claim you made. You claimed no one was being denied free speech or was being attacked for expressing their belief about TM. You cant jus't choose not to address whole sections of our discussion. Otherwise I am wasting my time going to the effort of liniking support.

And again.

And again!
It’s a pity you didn’t read the post properly as I have wasted all my time.

Did you actually read the source?
Yeah that’s called political spin in Aussie terms. Lol. Its funny how you read the article and when you see the polititian involved Houston Mayor Annise Parker give her spin on what happened you immediately side with her. This once again shows a willingness to believe anything that will discredit the religions version of things and a bias and hortility against religion. This brings into question your ability to determine things truthfully and fairly.

Even the Mayor admitted that the language used in the subpoenas demanding the pastors sermons, and other written material. It overstepped the mark, asking for sermons fullstop is a breach of religious freedom and encroached on the religious rights of those pastors to express their beliefs.

Yeah, this has nothing to do with churches being forced to hold same sex marriages does it?
But it has to do with what we were talking about free speech. Lol. So I would like to know what your take is on this. Are people being denied free speech about their beliefs on TM? Remember though denial of religious rights is not just associated with the church. Let’s now open up the criteria to all who have been denied religious freedom.

Here we are, watching the goalposts being moved once again.
No you opened this debate into free speech when you claimed that no one is being attacked for merely expressing their views about traditional marriage and I am just responding. As a result of your not keeping up you have dismissed all these examples. So really it is you who are now changing the goal posts by making a claim and then trying to change the subject and deny any knowledge of this. But its funny how you do reply to some of my posts that you think may disprove my case and ignore others. Its called selective response.

Yeah, I've already debunked this one. Back in post 819.
I wasnt posting that quote for that reason. I was showing the logic that now the law has changed which defines marriage as between two people and not the opposite sex, anyone who now promotes TM between the opposite sex exclusively will be regarded as breaking the law.

Except we weren't talking about that. I asked you to give me a single example of a church being forced to perform a same sex marriage against their will, and you have utterly failed to do so.
Yes we were talking about that. You still have not responded and keep avoiding things. Think about why I have posted all those examples which mention how people are being attacked for just mentioning their beliefs on TM such as the one linked IE

So it should be abundantly clear now that traditional views on marriage and the family are now becoming a taboo topic in a PC society.

Thats because in I was replying to your claim in post #833 where you said no ones free speech is being attacked for expressing their views about TM IE
Kylie said

They have freedom of speech, which means that if someone believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, they have the right to say so.But that same freedom of speech means that anyone else can listen to what they say and then call them out on it. People have freedom of speech. They do not have freedom from consequences of that speech.

I said yes but they should not be attacked to the point of suffering consequences such as losing their jobs and reputations and getting threats and gave examples. Thats what you need to be focusing on as that was our conversation rather than changing the subject.

Instead, you've tried to derail the discussion to one about how people are copping flack for speaking against marriage equality, without realising that the very free speech you claim to hold dear is the same free speech that gives people the right to say that anti-marriage equality views are harmful. You complain free speech is being taking away with one hand, but then denounce the free speech of others when it's used to speak views you disagree with.
See where doing full circle again now. We have been over this already. No one changed any subject. This was a natural progression of the debate and now you want to forget it all happened and make it irrelevant because it doesnt fit in with your agenda of narrowing things down to a tiny criteria when the debate should be open to all related issues on this topic which includes free speech about religious beliefs.

I have already explained to you that I agree we have to accept the give and take of critizism relating to free speech. But as I explained that should not include attacks that force people to resign or cause them to lose their jobs and damage their reputations. That is why I gavce those examples because you were trying to make out that no one was being attacked or harmed for expressing their free speech about TM.

Please try and keep up your now repeating the same things we have already been through. You now need to address the examples I have linked showing that people are being attacked for simply expressing their beliefs about TM rather than dismissing them.

Do you REALLY think that's a good argument?

because last time I checked, saying that marriage was between two people INCLUDES the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman.
You really don't understand the issue do you. I will make it a bit clearer for you. First if you are right then why are people as per my examples being attacked for merely expressing their view of TM. Thats because when people express the view that marriage is about being between a man and a women the SSM proponents percieve this as denying SSM.

The two views on marriage cannot stand at the same time. Marriage is now about two people and this is for a specific reason which is not to promote it being between a man and a women. So when someone exclusively promotes marriage as being traditional and between a man and women it is sen as denying SSM. By promoting TM the SSM view it is denying SSM. Its as simple as that.

And those people who are claiming that marriage is between a man and a woman aren't actually giving anything to heterosexual couples, it's just them telling gay couples that they aren't as good as straight couples.
Then you have just agreed with what I have been saying and why people re being attacked for promoting TM. You just admitted that if someone proclaims TM between a man and a women they are actually denying SSM couples.

Marriage equality does NOT take away the right for a man and a woman to get married. All it does is take away the ability for people to say, "No, you can't get married, this is a straight-people only club!"
I never said that. I said that it changes the definition of marriage where it is no longer OK for people to declare TM as the best form of marriage in society. It was OK for people to do that for 100's of years up until a few years ago. The majority of people in society still agree with TM being the best. But now we cannot declare that anymore. So the definition of marriage has changed and beed devalued as far as TM supporters are concerned.

Not all marriage versions are the same and some are better than others and therefore it is in the interest of the State to know and promote the best possible form of marriage that will encourage better and healthier children and families. TM is a special and unique form of marriage unlike any other form. It supports the natural reality of human complimentary in the union of the physical, emotional and mental aspects of humans. It includes procreation which is the ultimate expresion of physical love and that love can beget love in creating another human unlike any other version of marriage.

It therefore supports the creation of the family naturally through the blood and flesh relations of mothers, fathers, children, siblings, grandparents, aunts ect. The research shows this supports and promotes commitment, longivity, fidelity and monogamy and stronger families that can benefit society. This cannot be achioeved by any other form of marriage.

Now that the TM model has been desolved into a general mixed which is aout any persons claiming a legal right to marriage whioch also opens things up to other forms of marriage like polygamy this has deminished the uniqueness and value of TM and devalued marriage overall. So yes TM is different and is affected by these law changes and that is why when people promote TM theyu are attacked and be being attacked it highlights that TM can no longer be promoted.

If you agree that it would be nice if it was the way I said, then you should be trying everything you can to make it that way.
But its beyond mine or any TM supporter to make it happen. It is something the SSM supporter needs to do in being more tolerant of TM proponents, not attacking them every time they express of want to promote TM. They claim to be the more tolerant but are actually intolerant, they claim to be not about hate but actually are haters and they claim to be about equality and yet push inequality when they deny religious freedom.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,912
1,710
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟319,852.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Then you have no argument. If there is no practical harm then you have nothing on which to base any of your arguments.
So are you saying that to establish if a law change or an issue causes harm it has to only affect the person protesting the the issue. That would discount just about ever cause. People protest about BLM wo are not black, people protest about domestic violence who are not affected by DV and peopel protest about womens rights who are not women.

In fact many people have got involved like us on this thread concerned about marriage equality who have not been affected by the issue. I may be wrong but none of us are gay and yet we all are interested and concerned for the issue. Your logic fails. I am concerned for the traditional marriage view because of the fact it has more consequences than just equality and rights.

It is about the knock on effects as well as I have explained, how adoption is affected and kids miss out on being adopted, how little boys and girls may miss not having a mother or father, how mariage is now open to anyone and any version of marriage which can affect society.

And it appears that you are not arguing against ssm in any case. You are simply putting forward what you consider to be the benefits of a traditional marriage.
That is exactly the relevant and important issue. If you want to argue equality of marriage then you have to know what the current definitions of marriage are and their good and bad points. You cannot compare something as equal unless you know its currect form to measure that against. One version may have some negative aspects that are no good for kids or society and the other may be of benefit.

Like I mentioned iof it was just about equality and rights then people who support polygamy can argue their rights to eqality of marriage because there are people out there in society who are in 3 way relationships who want the right to marry. The what next open marriages as a right to marry. So is there a line we draw. Is any form of marriage not allowed. Like I said we also need to determine what the amrriage version is about to see if its good or bad for children and society.

You say that single sex couples can't have children. Well, neither can my wife and myself. Is my marriage not acceptable to you?
I am sorry to hear that but the small % who cannot have kids in no way deminishes the special quality that TM has in being one flesh union and having the ability to create children which SSM cannot do.
You say that marriage is more than simple companionship. So is the marriage between two eighty year olds not acceptable to you?
You know when someone doesnt have an arguement against you when they resort to the extremities and outliners of situations to prove their case. Yes there are exceptions but primarily the opposite sex union is one of a natural complementary phsyical union which is designed that way and always has been. Outliners dont change that.

Single people can adopt children. Do you want to ban them from doing so? If a couple don't want to have kids, do you want to refuse them the right to get married (not withstanding how you'd know and what on earth it has to do with you anyway)? Some people are incapable of having sex. Well, Steve says you can't get married because tradional marriages include sex. Some couples have children by using a surrogate. Nup - Steve won't allow it.
All logical fallacies to my point. I never said any of that. That people cannot get maried if they cannoit have kids, that those who have no kids cannot adopt. You are projecting this into my argument which was only about the benefits of TM and not the denial of other peoples rights and throwing up red herings all over the place.

Are you saying that the TM opposite sex union is not a different and natural union from all other ones. That the potential to create a child is not something special. No one is saying that people in all these other situations don't have rights or that because they cannot achieve these things that they are any less.

Can you respond to those six examples? If you're simply going to repeat yourself without addressing any points made in answer to your posts then this is not a discussion. Please get off the soap box and respond to what it being posted.
I just did didnt I. I never said that single people cannot adopt or that thoise who cannot have children cannot adopt children. I am just making the destinction of the special ability that bhumans have to create another human that can only happen in opposite sex relations. That because of this it brings a unique relatiohsips compared to adoption. That is why adoptive kids want to find their biological parents to find out where they came from.

All kids have the right to know who brought them into the world. And yes some biological parents can be horrible but that desnt negate the special relationship biological parents have with their chiold and that child with the biological parents. This has to be recognised otherwise we may as well become like machines and detache ourseleves in all human producition through IVF and machine births.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You’re not following the thread Kylie. We were speaking about free speech and you said that people have the right to free speech and to express their support for traditional marriage. IE in post #830 you responded to me saying that people are being attacked for just holding and expressing the belief of traditional marriage. That they only have to mention TM and they are attacked and can lose their job, and suffer consequences.

Kylie said
They have freedom of speech, which means that if someone believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, they have the right to say so. But that same freedom of speech means that anyone else can listen to what they say and then call them out on it. People have freedom of speech. They do not have freedom from consequences of that speech.

I replied saying that yes they can expect some come back but not like what has been happening where people are being attacked and suffering consequences like losing their job, status, or other benefits and gave those examples.

Are you following the thread. It has everything to do with the claim you made. You claimed no one was being denied free speech or was being attacked for expressing their belief about TM. You cant jus't choose not to address whole sections of our discussion. Otherwise I am wasting my time going to the effort of liniking support.

It’s a pity you didn’t read the post properly as I have wasted all my time.

Yeah that’s called political spin in Aussie terms. Lol. Its funny how you read the article and when you see the polititian involved Houston Mayor Annise Parker give her spin on what happened you immediately side with her. This once again shows a willingness to believe anything that will discredit the religions version of things and a bias and hortility against religion. This brings into question your ability to determine things truthfully and fairly.

Even the Mayor admitted that the language used in the subpoenas demanding the pastors sermons, and other written material. It overstepped the mark, asking for sermons fullstop is a breach of religious freedom and encroached on the religious rights of those pastors to express their beliefs.

But it has to do with what we were talking about free speech. Lol. So I would like to know what your take is on this. Are people being denied free speech about their beliefs on TM? Remember though denial of religious rights is not just associated with the church. Let’s now open up the criteria to all who have been denied religious freedom.

No you opened this debate into free speech when you claimed that no one is being attacked for merely expressing their views about traditional marriage and I am just responding. As a result of your not keeping up you have dismissed all these examples. So really it is you who are now changing the goal posts by making a claim and then trying to change the subject and deny any knowledge of this. But its funny how you do reply to some of my posts that you think may disprove my case and ignore others. Its called selective response.

I wasnt posting that quote for that reason. I was showing the logic that now the law has changed which defines marriage as between two people and not the opposite sex, anyone who now promotes TM between the opposite sex exclusively will be regarded as breaking the law.

Yes we were talking about that. You still have not responded and keep avoiding things. Think about why I have posted all those examples which mention how people are being attacked for just mentioning their beliefs on TM such as the one linked IE

So it should be abundantly clear now that traditional views on marriage and the family are now becoming a taboo topic in a PC society.

Thats because in I was replying to your claim in post #833 where you said no ones free speech is being attacked for expressing their views about TM IE
Kylie said

They have freedom of speech, which means that if someone believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, they have the right to say so.But that same freedom of speech means that anyone else can listen to what they say and then call them out on it. People have freedom of speech. They do not have freedom from consequences of that speech.

I said yes but they should not be attacked to the point of suffering consequences such as losing their jobs and reputations and getting threats and gave examples. Thats what you need to be focusing on as that was our conversation rather than changing the subject.

See where doing full circle again now. We have been over this already. No one changed any subject. This was a natural progression of the debate and now you want to forget it all happened and make it irrelevant because it doesnt fit in with your agenda of narrowing things down to a tiny criteria when the debate should be open to all related issues on this topic which includes free speech about religious beliefs.

I have already explained to you that I agree we have to accept the give and take of critizism relating to free speech. But as I explained that should not include attacks that force people to resign or cause them to lose their jobs and damage their reputations. That is why I gavce those examples because you were trying to make out that no one was being attacked or harmed for expressing their free speech about TM.

Please try and keep up your now repeating the same things we have already been through. You now need to address the examples I have linked showing that people are being attacked for simply expressing their beliefs about TM rather than dismissing them.

You really don't understand the issue do you. I will make it a bit clearer for you. First if you are right then why are people as per my examples being attacked for merely expressing their view of TM. Thats because when people express the view that marriage is about being between a man and a women the SSM proponents percieve this as denying SSM.

The two views on marriage cannot stand at the same time. Marriage is now about two people and this is for a specific reason which is not to promote it being between a man and a women. So when someone exclusively promotes marriage as being traditional and between a man and women it is sen as denying SSM. By promoting TM the SSM view it is denying SSM. Its as simple as that.

Then you have just agreed with what I have been saying and why people re being attacked for promoting TM. You just admitted that if someone proclaims TM between a man and a women they are actually denying SSM couples.

I never said that. I said that it changes the definition of marriage where it is no longer OK for people to declare TM as the best form of marriage in society. It was OK for people to do that for 100's of years up until a few years ago. The majority of people in society still agree with TM being the best. But now we cannot declare that anymore. So the definition of marriage has changed and beed devalued as far as TM supporters are concerned.

Not all marriage versions are the same and some are better than others and therefore it is in the interest of the State to know and promote the best possible form of marriage that will encourage better and healthier children and families. TM is a special and unique form of marriage unlike any other form. It supports the natural reality of human complimentary in the union of the physical, emotional and mental aspects of humans. It includes procreation which is the ultimate expresion of physical love and that love can beget love in creating another human unlike any other version of marriage.

It therefore supports the creation of the family naturally through the blood and flesh relations of mothers, fathers, children, siblings, grandparents, aunts ect. The research shows this supports and promotes commitment, longivity, fidelity and monogamy and stronger families that can benefit society. This cannot be achioeved by any other form of marriage.

Now that the TM model has been desolved into a general mixed which is aout any persons claiming a legal right to marriage whioch also opens things up to other forms of marriage like polygamy this has deminished the uniqueness and value of TM and devalued marriage overall. So yes TM is different and is affected by these law changes and that is why when people promote TM theyu are attacked and be being attacked it highlights that TM can no longer be promoted.

But its beyond mine or any TM supporter to make it happen. It is something the SSM supporter needs to do in being more tolerant of TM proponents, not attacking them every time they express of want to promote TM. They claim to be the more tolerant but are actually intolerant, they claim to be not about hate but actually are haters and they claim to be about equality and yet push inequality when they deny religious freedom.

No, you aren't following the thread.

SteveVW: Since the same sex marriage laws came in some activists are taking this as a right to push this into every corner of society by forcing churches to perform same sex marriages (Post 790)

Speedwell: Absolute nonsense. Maybe it can happen in Australia, but no church in the US has ever been forced to perform a gay marriage and such a thing is prohibited by our Constitution. (Post 791)

Kylie: I'm not aware of any church in Australia that has been forced to perform a same sex marriage ceremony if they didn't want to. (Post 792)

SteveVW: It may not be the church itself at the moment but we are seeing the priests themselves and any associated entity of the church like Church owned buildings, schools, reception venues being forced to hold same sex marriages, ceremonies, and receptions. (Post 794) (Emphasis mine.)

So that is where you made the claim that churches were being forced to hold same sex marriages when they didn't want to.

Kylie: Please give an example of this, where a church has been forced to host a same sex marriage, ceremony or reception against their will. (Post 798) (Again, emphasis mine.)

You will note at this point I am specifically asking you to provide an example of a priest or church or church owned building being forced to hold a same sex marriage against their will.

Since I asked you to provide such evidence, you have tried to pretend we are talking about people copping flack for disagreeing with SSM. But as this clearly shows, we are talking about churches being forced to perform same sex marriages against their will. You only came close to providing an example of this once, with the example of Bishop William Love that you gave in post 801. And even then, it barely qualifies, since the issue was he was refusing to abide by his own church's instructions. I even specifically responded to that point:

Kylie: He wasn't the one being forced to perform the marriage though, was he? Seems like the problem here was that he was saying, "I don't want to have to perform same sex weddings, and I don't want anyone else to either." It seems like it's a case of no one is saying he has top perform them, but he isn't allowed to stop others from doing them. (Post 814)

I'm more than happy to move onto a discussion about people and their right to free speech, but before we do that I'd like to finish off the discussion you are trying to get out of about churches being forced to perform SSM. We can end it by one of the following:

  1. You admit your claim that churches are being forced to perform same sex marriages when they don't want to is wrong.
  2. You provide a single example of a church being forced to perform a same sex marriage against its will.
Option 1 or Option 2 please.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.