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

KCfromNC · Dec 5, 2012

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

We can only hope and pray that those posts someday appear.

Archaeopteryx · Dec 5, 2012

Blackwater Babe said:
Guess we should make single parent families illegal too, if potential harm of children is your actual concern here?

They always hide behind onstenibly compassionate concerns for the children. Unless of course those children happen to be gay or have gay parents. Then their compassion is mysteriously exhausted. They never run out of self-righteousness though; that is always in ample supply.

Blackwater Babe · Dec 5, 2012

Archaeopteryx said:
They always hide behind onstenibly compassionate concerns for the children. Unless of course those children happen to be gay or have gay parents. Then their compassion is mysteriously exhausted. They never run out of self-righteousness though; that is always in ample supply.

Or those children need fostering or adoption, and gays are the only people offering.

Its the blatant inconsistency that annoys me.

"oh, but marriage is about a stable home for children, since gays can't procreate, they can't get married"
-so you're against infertile heterosexual couples getting married?
"*crickets*"

"Oh, but children have a right to live with their biological mother and father"
-so you want to stop single parent families?
"*crickets*"

"Oh, but the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and we can't expose children to that!"
-So, you want to take children away from heterosexual adulterers and divorcees?
"*crickets*"

"Oh, I don't care what they do in the bedroom, as long as they don't make the church change the definition of marriage"
-But we're not talking about church recognition, rather legal, secular government recognition. So why should you want to stop that?

NB. At this point the argument invariably circles back to one of the earlier points about children.

Blackwater Babe · Dec 5, 2012

Skaloop · Dec 5, 2012

razeontherock said:
Then why, and oh please tell me why, are you personally not content with CU, and insist on "marriage?"

Because at the point where a civil union grants every single thing that marriage does in an equal way, that's what it is. And there's no point in introducing a new term to describe something, especially when nobody is going to use that term in general conversation anyway.

You're concerned about a small change to the definition of marriage, but the important thing about marriage is not the sex or gender of the people involved, it's the love. And that part of the definition isn't changing.

Paulos23 · Dec 5, 2012

razeontherock said:
43 States

And yet there is another 4 four states that voted for SSM and there is an upswell of support for it among the younger voters. Both are aguements by popularity, both still don't answer the question.

Why deny ssm legally? It is not force on you, not forced on churches (at least churches that are not foolish enough to rent out their building to the public). It causes no harm (your claim it does is not supported).

Ringo84 · Dec 5, 2012

razeontherock said:
No, not that answer - I want a different answer! Now answer the question

My questions remain unanswered:

1. What are the "ramifications" of gay marriage?
2. How does same-sex marriage "destroy" the "basis of society?
3. What is/are the rationale(s) for denying same-sex couples marriage?

We're waiting.
Ringo

conamer · Dec 5, 2012

Th

David Brider said:
If it comes to that, you don't know what the ramifications, if any, will be. (Personally, I think that any ramifications of same-sex marriage on society will be largely positive. Nothing you've said yet has convinced me otherwise.)

The bible discusses marriage and the roles of husbands and wives. What you wish to play gotcha with isn't marriage. Connect the dots, dude.

Skaloop · Dec 5, 2012

razeontherock said:
You really want to go there? Wow:

Gen 19:28 "And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace."

"And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord: (Genesis 19:26) But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt."

"But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. (Luke 17:32) Remember Lot's wife."

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ... shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (Romans 1:27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, ... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Doesn't say anything about how SSM would be detrimental to society. It alludes to God not liking it when men abandon women and lust for each other, but that's not SSM nor is it a description of how SSM is detrimental to society. Two men entering into a marriage are already doing that. Did S&G have same-sex marriage?

Also, why are you singling out homosexuals as not fit to be married when your passages also mention idolaters, fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, and "abusers of themselves with mankind" (whatever that means, exactly; masturbaters?) as also being unrighteous and not to inherit the kingdom of heaven, yet all those sorts of people can be freely married.

(Psalm 96:9) "O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth."

"In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. (Isaiah 6:2) Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the LORD of hosts: the whole earth [is] full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe [is] me! for I am undone; because I [am] a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips" (Btw, that passage set to music is the most intense music I've ever heard or performed) (Isaiah 6:1)

"And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and [there were] seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. And before the throne [there was] a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, [were] four beasts full of eyes before and behind. And the first beast [was] like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast [was] like a flying eagle. And the four beasts had each of them six wings about [him]; and [they were] full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." (Revelation 4:5)

There's a picture to define Holiness, and it's consistent throughout, over the span of a milennium.

Amazing that someone describing something that had a similar sort of description done thousands of years earlier could be so consistent! It's almost as if the writer of the second description had the earlier description to reference! But that certainly couldn't be.

Now you're telling me you're going to find yourself literally and physically in the middle of that, and protest that the "right of homosexual marriage" is made allowance for in light of the previous Scriptures? *Backs away slowly*

Since the previous scriptures do not mention homosexual marriage but rather homosexuality (if one accepts your interpretation, an interpretation that many with much greater Biblical understanding than you or I do not share), sure, why not? I mean, idolater marriage is made allowance for in light of the previous scriptures. Fornicator marriage is made allowance for.

Blackwater Babe · Dec 5, 2012

Skaloop said:
Also, why are you singling out homosexuals as not fit to be married when your passages also mention idolaters, fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, and "abusers of themselves with mankind" (whatever that means, exactly; masturbaters?) as also being unrighteous and not to inherit the kingdom of heaven, yet all those sorts of people can be freely married.

IMHO, this is because the anti crowd (with notable exceptions, Ted Haggard I'm looking at you) can be sure they're not going to find themselves suddenly doing the ol' George Rekkers luggage handler two step. The other stuff might be a little harder to avoid.

You know, its a bit like obese people tut tuting at smokers. They know they won't ever smoke, so smokers are OK to demonise. Meantime, pass another extra bacon doubledown.

Simply put, its blatant hypocracy, like most of the dog whistle issues of the neocon Christian right.

Blackwater Babe · Dec 5, 2012

Skaloop said:
Doesn't say anything about how SSM would be detrimental to society. It alludes to God not liking it when men abandon women and lust for each other, but that's not SSM nor is it a description of how SSM is detrimental to society. Two men entering into a marriage are already doing that. Did S&G have same-sex marriage?

Also, why are you singling out homosexuals as not fit to be married when your passages also mention idolaters, fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, and "abusers of themselves with mankind" (whatever that means, exactly; masturbaters?) as also being unrighteous and not to inherit the kingdom of heaven, yet all those sorts of people can be freely married.

Amazing that someone describing something that had a similar sort of description done thousands of years earlier could be so consistent! It's almost as if the writer of the second description had the earlier description to reference! But that certainly couldn't be.

Since the previous scriptures do not mention homosexual marriage but rather homosexuality (if one accepts your interpretation, an interpretation that many with much greater Biblical understanding than you or I do not share), sure, why not? I mean, idolater marriage is made allowance for in light of the previous scriptures. Fornicator marriage is made allowance for.

and of course, once again, what does anything the Bible says have to do with secular legalities?

David Brider · Dec 5, 2012

conamer said:
Th

The bible discusses marriage and the roles of husbands and wives. What you wish to play gotcha with isn't marriage. Connect the dots, dude.

Already connected them. Still have yet to be convinced that there will be any negative ramifications on society from legalising same-sex marriage.

Skaloop · Dec 5, 2012

Blackwater Babe said:
and of course, once again, what does anything the Bible says have to do with secular legalities?

I was going to mention that as well, but I did specifically ask him for Bible passages. So while not applicable to secular law, it was an appropriate response so I let that part slide.

gnomon · Dec 5, 2012

Wolseley said:
AFAIC it's disrespectful to everything this country used to stand for.

What this country used to stand for? What does that even mean?

Pining for the good ol' days?

To seriously assert such a statement just reveals a lack of knowledge in American history.

Skaloop · Dec 5, 2012

Wolseley said:
AFAIC it's disrespectful to everything this country used to stand for.

Like freedom?

Blackwater Babe · Dec 5, 2012

gnomon said:
What this country used to stand for? What does that even mean?

Pining for the good ol' days?

To seriously assert such a statement just reveals a lack of knowledge in American history.

Happy Days is a documentary, didn't you know?

razeontherock · Dec 5, 2012

gnomon said:
What this country used to stand for? What does that even mean?

Pining for the good ol' days?

To seriously assert such a statement just reveals a lack of knowledge in American history.

You were addressing someone who protected domestic soil from attack in the Viet Nam war, along the only coast that could possibly have been at risk. That was an incredibly brash thing to say

razeontherock · Dec 5, 2012

Blackwater Babe said:
QFT.

And even if they did, again, why should a religious text that not everyone believes, be binding on an entire country and its secular law?

If you believe the Bible condemns SSM, great. Don't have one. I remain utterly confused as to why anyone thinks this belief should be enforced against those who don't share it.

Aaaand ... strawman #3,731. Doesn't anyone ever read the context of a thread before commenting?

razeontherock · Dec 5, 2012

trunks2k said:
Any meaningful data we DO have has shown it has no effect on kids. Of the studies of children raised by same sex couples

Strawman #3,732. (Although this same one has been used before so it might not count. Yet it hasn't previously been used by you, so in a way it is new. anytime you feel like addressing the issue, go right ahead ...)

trunks2k said:
the results I have seen:

2a. Children raised by same sex couples are more willing to experiment with their sexual orientation.

4. Children raised by same sex couples are more likely to end up going against cultural gender roles.

#2a is not only a concern, but the primary concern I have stated, albeit not from being raised by homosexual couples; by the social impact of legalizing SSM, in the long haul. Of course, there is credence to that! Your info here suggests the same.

Some would say #4 is a concern as well.

razeontherock · Dec 5, 2012

Blackwater Babe said:
Guess we should ban military weddings, too, since either or both parents being away for a long deployment derails the whole 2x biological parents with their whit picket fence ideal that is the legal basis for marriage.

Strawman # 3,733

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

Regular Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Never tell me the odds!

Separation of Church and State expert

conamer

Guest

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Well-Known Member

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads