What undermimes marriage more?

[Virginian87]

Did anybody actually read my post on page five, before the four hours of argument that led to another ten pages?  One might find it useful.

I agree with a lot of what you said there, but why do you still feel that marriage between two people of the same gender is threatening to this "sacred bond" notion?

I believe that marriage is a religious institution and should be treated as such.  Thus the government has no right to define what marriage is; it should be up to the churches.  If a church allows gays to marry, that's their business and I don't disagree with their decision.  I will also reiterate that I have no problem with legalized civil unions.  But I personally view the institution of marriage from the prevailing Christian standpoint as between a man and a woman. 

[Joe Republic]

By the way, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think anybody has yet pointed out that the word is 'undermine'.

[MODU]

99.9% of all divorces are caused by marriage.

[Joe Republic]

What about people who are simply divorced from reality?

[MODU]

What about people who are simply divorced from reality?

We're not talking about liberals here.  Just marriage. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What a pointless thread. Why waste time with this silly theological debate when Inks is clearly determined to hate gays?

Oh, and Option 1.

I don't hate gays--I hate their sin and thinking, but not the person--God hates nobody, so I try my hardest not to.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't think that's fair at all.  Look, he's probably from a very conservative christian family and he goes to a religious private school.  He's been taught the same things over and over again for a decade and a half.  Now that he's exposed to other viewpoints, he got a little overwhelmed.  Deep down, he's reconsidering.  Take it easy on him.

I was going on this post of his:

I'd have to be pretty much beaten over the head to even think about considering changing this one.

But that does leave open the future possibility of change, so you may be right.

The only reason I would change my thought is if Paul or God came directly to me and told me I'm wrong, or I heard some EXTREMELY compelling arguments that my version of the Greek interpretation is wrong (@ least 20x's more compelling than yours).  Just a side note, my avg. posts per day went from 9.3 something to 10.84 something.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What a pointless thread. Why waste time with this silly theological debate when Inks is clearly determined to hate gays?

Oh, and Option 1.

I don't hate gays--I hate their sin and thinking, but not the person--God hates nobody, so I try my hardest not to.

There might be hope for this guy after all.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Going back to whether being gay is a conscious choice or not, and it seems that Inks is still clinging desperately to that argument, here's another two little nuggets.

First, if being gay is such a sinful and terrible thing to do, why would somebody 'choose' it?  I mean, some gay people grow up in deeply religious areas, where they have been indoctrinated to hate gay people.  Many gay people who are already 'out' are also deeply ashamed of it, or would at least prefer to be straight.

For example, my former co-worker is gay, but said that if he'd actually had a choice, he would have been straight.  He's not necessarily ashamed of what he is; he said that he's perfectly happy being gay, but would be happier being straight.  So if he 'chose' to be gay in the first place, why can't he then change back?

Second, I found this article on today's BBC website.  Apparently scientists now believe that there are certain conditions in the mother's womb that determine whether the baby will become gay; it seems to have a lot to do with the number of older biological siblings.  Nothing to do with conscious decision making.

1st: Being gay as a sin may not be that clear to people, just like people who deny Christianity--that is the ultimate "sin"--saying, "God, I'm OK on my own," but they don't say that that's a sin.

2nd: That article is ridiculous

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Antibodies against your own child would probably just kill the child, not alter it's brain.  And if it did alter the brain, it wouldn't be that subtle.  It would be like rejecting a kidney from a transplant.  The kidney doesn't turn purple, it DOESN't Work!  So rejecting your child wouldn't change it subtly, it would either harshly debilitate the child, if not killing it!

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Did anybody actually read my post on page five, before the four hours of argument that led to another ten pages?  One might find it useful.

I agree with a lot of what you said there, but why do you still feel that marriage between two people of the same gender is threatening to this "sacred bond" notion?

I believe that marriage is a religious institution and should be treated as such.  Thus the government has no right to define what marriage is; it should be up to the churches.  If a church allows gays to marry, that's their business and I don't disagree with their decision.  I will also reiterate that I have no problem with legalized civil unions.  But I personally view the institution of marriage from the prevailing Christian standpoint as between a man and a woman. 

But marriage isn't a religious institution.  A marriage certificate is a legally binding document.  Polygomy is illegal.  A 30 yr. old and a 11 yr. old getting married is illegal.  If the gov't takes a completely hands-off aproach to marriage, it would be disastrous.

[Inverted Things]

Did anybody actually read my post on page five, before the four hours of argument that led to another ten pages?  One might find it useful.

I agree with a lot of what you said there, but why do you still feel that marriage between two people of the same gender is threatening to this "sacred bond" notion?

I believe that marriage is a religious institution and should be treated as such.  Thus the government has no right to define what marriage is; it should be up to the churches.  If a church allows gays to marry, that's their business and I don't disagree with their decision.  I will also reiterate that I have no problem with legalized civil unions.  But I personally view the institution of marriage from the prevailing Christian standpoint as between a man and a woman. 

But marriage isn't a religious institution.  A marriage certificate is a legally binding document.  Polygomy is illegal.  A 30 yr. old and a 11 yr. old getting married is illegal.  If the gov't takes a completely hands-off aproach to marriage, it would be disastrous.

How so? From the government's perspective, they are confering benefits to a man and a woman who want to live together and spend their lives together. The question naturally arises: why do the genders of the people in question matter to the government?

[??????????]

What a pointless thread. Why waste time with this silly theological debate when Inks is clearly determined to hate gays?

Oh, and Option 1.

I don't hate gays--I hate their sin and thinking, but not the person--God hates nobody, so I try my hardest not to.

There might be hope for this guy after all.

I hold the same stance as Inks does which isn't really that extreme of a position.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I hold the same stance as Inks does which isn't really that extreme of a position.

But your views are probably more rigid, and so that leaves you with poor views.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Did anybody actually read my post on page five, before the four hours of argument that led to another ten pages?  One might find it useful.

I agree with a lot of what you said there, but why do you still feel that marriage between two people of the same gender is threatening to this "sacred bond" notion?

I believe that marriage is a religious institution and should be treated as such.  Thus the government has no right to define what marriage is; it should be up to the churches.  If a church allows gays to marry, that's their business and I don't disagree with their decision.  I will also reiterate that I have no problem with legalized civil unions.  But I personally view the institution of marriage from the prevailing Christian standpoint as between a man and a woman. 

But marriage isn't a religious institution.  A marriage certificate is a legally binding document.  Polygomy is illegal.  A 30 yr. old and a 11 yr. old getting married is illegal.  If the gov't takes a completely hands-off aproach to marriage, it would be disastrous.

How so? From the government's perspective, they are confering benefits to a man and a woman who want to live together and spend their lives together. The question naturally arises: why do the genders of the people in question matter to the government?

What is your question?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What a pointless thread. Why waste time with this silly theological debate when Inks is clearly determined to hate gays?

Oh, and Option 1.

I don't hate gays--I hate their sin and thinking, but not the person--God hates nobody, so I try my hardest not to.

There might be hope for this guy after all.

I hold the same stance as Inks does which isn't really that extreme of a position.

Where were you yesterday!

[Alcon]

Where were you yesterday!

States generally doesn't actually get involved in discussions.  He waits until they cool down, posts his position in one line, and doesn't bother to reply again.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Where were you yesterday!

States generally doesn't actually get involved in discussions.  He waits until they cool down, posts his position in one line, and doesn't bother to reply again.

Ya, well I lot of good that did me.  I could've used help from anybody yesterday (2 days ago now--technically)--it was like 6:1!

[Alcon]

Where were you yesterday!

States generally doesn't actually get involved in discussions.  He waits until they cool down, posts his position in one line, and doesn't bother to reply again.

Ya, well I lot of good that did me.  I could've used help from anybody yesterday (2 days ago now--technically)--it was like 6:1!

Well, that's what you get for being wrong.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Where were you yesterday!

States generally doesn't actually get involved in discussions.  He waits until they cool down, posts his position in one line, and doesn't bother to reply again.

Ya, well I lot of good that did me.  I could've used help from anybody yesterday (2 days ago now--technically)--it was like 6:1!

Well, that's what you get for being wrong.

It's an attitude like that that's gonna get this debate started all over again.

[Nym90]

Where were you yesterday!

States generally doesn't actually get involved in discussions.  He waits until they cool down, posts his position in one line, and doesn't bother to reply again.

Ya, well I lot of good that did me.  I could've used help from anybody yesterday (2 days ago now--technically)--it was like 6:1!

Inks, I appreciate the fact that you were willing and able to persevere even in the face of overwhelming opposition. While I don't always agree with you I respect that, and learning to stand your ground for what you believe in, even in the face of opposition, is an excellent learning experience no matter whether it causes you to change your views or not.

It's important to develop faith in the goodness of your own views on their own merits rather than needing others to validate them for you with their approval, and you seem to be very good in that area, especially for someone so young.

[Alcon]

Well, that's what you get for being wrong.

It's an attitude like that that's gonna get this debate started all over again.

Dude, I was just kidding around.

And I share Nym's sentiments - even if I think that you may just go for the conservative position and then try to justify it, no one can accuse you of caving to pressure in a debate.  That is to be admired.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, that's what you get for being wrong.

It's an attitude like that that's gonna get this debate started all over again.

Dude, I was just kidding around.

And I share Nym's sentiments - even if I think that you may just go for the conservative position and then try to justify it, no one can accuse you of caving to pressure in a debate.  That is to be admired.

I was joking too.  Even if you wanted to debate, I'm about ready to go to bed.

Just curious, where is it that you established your belief that homosexuality is OK.  What was the thing that led you to believe that (I know "thing" is not really a good word, but I can't think of anything else).

[Alcon]

Just curious, where is it that you established your belief that homosexuality is OK.  What was the thing that led you to believe that (I know "thing" is not really a good word, but I can't think of anything else).

I do not believe that anything that does not directly and intentionally harm another person is bad.

[Nym90]

Just curious, where is it that you established your belief that homosexuality is OK.  What was the thing that led you to believe that (I know "thing" is not really a good word, but I can't think of anything else).

I do not believe that anything that does not directly and intentionally harm another person is bad.

^^^^^^^

Although I do feel that it is immoral to hurt others, even if unintentionally and indirectly, I do also feel that the law should be designed in such a way as to best handle problems in a practical way, and that not everything that is immoral should thus be illegal.

Gay marriage on the whole does far more good than harm for society and thus should be legal.

[Alcon]

Just curious, where is it that you established your belief that homosexuality is OK.  What was the thing that led you to believe that (I know "thing" is not really a good word, but I can't think of anything else).

I do not believe that anything that does not directly and intentionally harm another person is bad.

^^^^^^^

Although I do feel that it is immoral to hurt others, even if unintentionally and indirectly, I do also feel that the law should be designed in such a way as to best handle problems in a practical way, and that not everything that is immoral should thus be illegal.

Gay marriage on the whole does far more good than harm for society and thus should be legal.

I can understand reckless hurting of others being immoral (and I assume that is what you refer to), but I can't imagine blaming someone for uncontrollable and unanticipatable harm to another.