What undermimes marriage more?

[adam]

Marraige is a human institution.

Yes, between a man and a woman, only.

Why?

Because God created marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation.

Prove it.

[Ebowed]

Oh, you already know where its mentioned again in the bible EBOWED. Go look it up yourself and quit playing idiot.

No, tell me why you mentioned Leviticus if it wasn't relevant.

But fine, here's Romans 1:8-32.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

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

Marraige is a human institution.

Yes, between a man and a woman, only.

Why?

Because God created marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation.

Prove it.

Prove that we came from apes?

[adam]

Marraige is a human institution.

Yes, between a man and a woman, only.

Why?

Because God created marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation.

Prove it.

Prove that we came from apes?

I never said we came from apes, but do prove that an invisible man in the sky created a human institution.

[Boris]

Marraige is a human institution.

Yes, between a man and a woman, only.

Why?

Because God created marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation.

Prove it.

Prove that we came from apes?

We didn't come from apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor, such as the Austriopithecus Afarensis or however the hell you spell it. There's a huge difference. Genesis has more validity than the statement, "humans came from monkeys or apes."

Even if God did create the universe and is adamantly against gay marriage, his opinion is irrelevant and does not matter. There is a separation of church and state in the United States. Even if his opinion did matter, he's not a senator, and thus is not really in a position of power to do anything about it.

[Nym90]

Option 1.

The institution is strengthened by allowing all to join into it who take it seriously and is cheapened by allowing the entry into it of those who don't truly love each other and who aren't going to be in it for the long haul (a lot of people get into marriage without thinking this part of it through sufficiently).

[dazzleman]

Option 1.

The institution is strengthened by allowing all to join into it who take it seriously and is cheapened by allowing the entry into it of those who don't truly love each other and who aren't going to be in it for the long haul (a lot of people get into marriage without thinking this part of it through sufficiently).

Do you really think that the percentage of gay couples seeking to marry who meet your description (not loving each other, not in it for the long haul) will not be at least as high as it is among male-female couples?

Why idealize gay couples?  Sure, there are many deeply loving and committed gay couples, but it's totally assymetrical to focus only on this type of couple on the gay side, and at the same time focus only on bad male-female couples, who marry for the wrong reasons, lack commitment, etc.

Right now, we hear mostly from deeply loving couples on the gay side, because these are the one who most want to be able to marry, but once they have the right to marry, all sorts of others will come out of the woodwork.  As a percentage of the total, they may not differ significantly from the percentage of such bad couples on the male-female side, but they will certainly be there.

[Gabu]

Do you really think that the percentage of gay couples seeking to marry who meet your description (not loving each other, not in it for the long haul) will not be at least as high as it is among male-female couples?

Why idealize gay couples?  Sure, there are many deeply loving and committed gay couples, but it's totally assymetrical to focus only on this type of couple on the gay side, and at the same time focus only on bad male-female couples, who marry for the wrong reasons, lack commitment, etc.

Right now, we hear mostly from deeply loving couples on the gay side, because these are the one who most want to be able to marry, but once they have the right to marry, all sorts of others will come out of the woodwork.  As a percentage of the total, they may not differ significantly from the percentage of such bad couples on the male-female side, but they will certainly be there.

I don't think he was asserting that all gay relationships are that way, only that gay relationships that are that way are currently being barred from being counted as marriages, while straight relationships that aren't that way are not, which does not make much sense if "sanctity of marriage" is really the goal.

[Bono]

LOL

[Alcon]

So then should infertile [heterosexual] couples not be allowed to marry?

A strawman is distorting your argument and attacking it.  That's not it.  Also, stop stealing bandwidth.

[Gabu]

A strawman is distorting your argument and attacking it.  That's not it.  Also, stop stealing bandwidth.

Generally a "straw man argument" more than just a distortion; it's blatantly making up a position (this is the "straw man"), claiming your opponent holds it when he or she doesn't, and then refuting this new position, asserting that its refutation undermines the opponent's actual position.  It appears to be a favorite term among those who wish to attack an argument without actually bothering to say anything about it, and is one of the most frequently misused terms.

In this case, it is most certainly not a straw man, if only because no attempted refutation was performed.  There was only a question asked, and personally, I think it's actually a very fair question; StatesRights stated that marriage was created for the purposes of procreation, so it would therefore naturally follow that infertile couples (who cannot procreate) should not be permitted to marry.

[afleitch]

StatesRights stated that marriage was created for the purposes of procreation, so it would therefore naturally follow that infertile couples (who cannot procreate) should not be permitted to marry.

Likewise it would also exclude marriage to a woman who is post-menopausal or a couple where one has, or contracts an infectious disease like HIV and the risks involved in procreative sex is simply not an option, out of love for each other.

Yet it would mean thatn shot gun marriages, marriages for money, marriages to secure residency in certain nations, marriages between 20 something blondes and 90 year old millionaries, marriages that break up after a few months and end up in divorce, remarriage, remarriage for the 3rd 5th and 5th time, forced marriage, arranged marriage and marriages of convenience are all more valid than the marriage of two men or two women out of love for one another.

Secondly most of the NT stuff about 'homosexuality' isn't actually about it at all, its about male prostitution and the (possibly deliberate) mistranslation from the ancient greek of the word 'arsenokoiten'; and when you look at Paul 1:25, that directly precedes the infamous Paul 1: 26-27 you can see that quite clearly, when he condemns idolatrous worship and so in 26-27 is actually attacking temple prostitutes, but I've already explained all that in an older thread.

[opebo]

Marriage is quite simply a bad idea.

[adam]

Option 1.

The institution is strengthened by allowing all to join into it who take it seriously and is cheapened by allowing the entry into it of those who don't truly love each other and who aren't going to be in it for the long haul (a lot of people get into marriage without thinking this part of it through sufficiently).

Do you really think that the percentage of gay couples seeking to marry who meet your description (not loving each other, not in it for the long haul) will not be at least as high as it is among male-female couples?

Why idealize gay couples?  Sure, there are many deeply loving and committed gay couples, but it's totally assymetrical to focus only on this type of couple on the gay side, and at the same time focus only on bad male-female couples, who marry for the wrong reasons, lack commitment, etc.

Right now, we hear mostly from deeply loving couples on the gay side, because these are the one who most want to be able to marry, but once they have the right to marry, all sorts of others will come out of the woodwork.  As a percentage of the total, they may not differ significantly from the percentage of such bad couples on the male-female side, but they will certainly be there.

This is a true statement but an irrelevant one. They should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. It sounds like by what you are saying that  only  unloving heterosexual couples should be granted marriage.

[dazzleman]

Option 1.

The institution is strengthened by allowing all to join into it who take it seriously and is cheapened by allowing the entry into it of those who don't truly love each other and who aren't going to be in it for the long haul (a lot of people get into marriage without thinking this part of it through sufficiently).

Do you really think that the percentage of gay couples seeking to marry who meet your description (not loving each other, not in it for the long haul) will not be at least as high as it is among male-female couples?

Why idealize gay couples?  Sure, there are many deeply loving and committed gay couples, but it's totally assymetrical to focus only on this type of couple on the gay side, and at the same time focus only on bad male-female couples, who marry for the wrong reasons, lack commitment, etc.

Right now, we hear mostly from deeply loving couples on the gay side, because these are the one who most want to be able to marry, but once they have the right to marry, all sorts of others will come out of the woodwork.  As a percentage of the total, they may not differ significantly from the percentage of such bad couples on the male-female side, but they will certainly be there.

This is a true statement but an irrelevant one. They should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. It sounds like by what you are saying that  only  unloving heterosexual couples should be granted marriage.

No, I just don't think it should be implied that a higher percentage of gay couples are loving, committed, etc. than heterosexual couples.  That was really my only point in this post.

[John Dibble]

Marriage is quite simply a bad idea.

Even though scientific studies indicate married people are, on average, happier than single people?

[adam]

Marriage is quite simply a bad idea.

Even though scientific studies indicate married people are, on average, happier than single people?

I wont argue against that, but are married people happier on average than two people who are together but not married? I doubt it.

[Nym90]

Do you really think that the percentage of gay couples seeking to marry who meet your description (not loving each other, not in it for the long haul) will not be at least as high as it is among male-female couples?

Why idealize gay couples?  Sure, there are many deeply loving and committed gay couples, but it's totally assymetrical to focus only on this type of couple on the gay side, and at the same time focus only on bad male-female couples, who marry for the wrong reasons, lack commitment, etc.

Right now, we hear mostly from deeply loving couples on the gay side, because these are the one who most want to be able to marry, but once they have the right to marry, all sorts of others will come out of the woodwork.  As a percentage of the total, they may not differ significantly from the percentage of such bad couples on the male-female side, but they will certainly be there.

I don't think he was asserting that all gay relationships are that way, only that gay relationships that are that way are currently being barred from being counted as marriages, while straight relationships that aren't that way are not, which does not make much sense if "sanctity of marriage" is really the goal.

Exactly.

I didn't make any statement at all about whether homosexuals or heterosexuals would be more or less likely to fit those definitions; my opinion is simply that those who meet it should be allowed to enter into marriage regardless of their orientation.

[Brambila]

I think that the underlying reason of gay marriage on account of an utter disrespect and ignorance of the sanctity of marriage, and I believe that high divorce rates, etc. are more causes of undermining marriage and gay marriage altogether, i.e. gay marriage is just an offspring of the utter disrepect for marriage. However, banning gay marriage will help society to understand the sanctity of marriage.

*corrected

[Gabu]

I think that the underlying problem with gay marriage is an utter disrespect and ignorance of the sanctity of marriage, and so I think that high divorce rates, etc. are more causes of undermining marriage. However, banning gay marriage will help society to understand the sanctity of marriage.

I don't know if I understand this statement.

[Brambila]

Sorry, I was on the phone when I typed that. I reworded it a bit.

[Gabu]

I think that the underlying reason of gay marriage on account of an utter disrespect and ignorance of the sanctity of marriage, and I believe that high divorce rates, etc. are more causes of undermining marriage and gay marriage altogether, i.e. gay marriage is just an offspring of the utter disrepect for marriage. However, banning gay marriage will help society to understand the sanctity of marriage.

*corrected

How is gay marriage an offspring of the "utter disrespect" for marriage, exactly?

[Hatman 🍁]

#1 (normal) especially those old dudes who marry 18-year old gold diggers. Makes me sick to my stomach. Also, polymagists. As for gays, they're good people. (except for Richius) They should get married more often.
 

[opebo]

#1 (normal) especially those old dudes who marry 18-year old gold diggers. Makes me sick to my stomach.

I agree that marrying a gold-digger is overpaying (one should merely rent, not buy), but I am pleased every time I see an old man with a young girl - it offers us all hope for the future.

[Brandon H]

What undermimes marriage more?

Neither. Having to go to sign a government created form and get a government sanctioned license (which I'll be doing 5 weeks, 6 days).