The homosexual threat to marriage

Indeed, nor do I argue otherwise.

Says who? You? Someone else? And by what authority?

Why should there be any outcry if said fornication results in no harmful action? What harm does two unmarried people having sex cause in and of itself? More specifically a single man and woman who just want to hookup for the night, both clear of their intent to just use the other for sex with protection... what is the harm in that? If there is no harm then on what basis do you have to call it a sin?

How so? Cheating? Not all fornicators cheat. STDs? Not all fornicators forgo protection. I argue that fornication in and of itself harms no one, and that cheating and STDs are a separate issue.

 

True that.

The state only became the 'sanctioner' of marriage during the 'Christianist' period of Christian history, when there was very little, or no, distinction between church and state. The state sanction of marriage is a vestige of the darkest period of Christian history.
Government is the legal use of force and has no business involving itself in marriage at all.

 

Well, yes and no. I agree with your point about Government should stay out of religion. However, marriage is more than that in this day and age. Taxes, property ownership and inheritance are all functions of Government. So maybe call it something other than "marriage."

 

Yeah but I was born left handed but always use my right hand because that's the way my parents taught me. They didn't give a rats a$$ if i was right or left handed, i was expected to use my right hand. So now, I kinda use both. That being said, I dont think that you can change homosexuality that easily, which is why I think we have to figure out a way to either cure it, or eradicate it.

 

I don't need them to call it something else to keep it sorted out. If they want to call it marriage, "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's".
Now, who my church does or does not marry, I will take up with my pastor and my fellow board members.

 

I don't need them to call it something else to keep it sorted out. If they want to call it marriage, they can. They can call it chicken soup for all I care.
Now, as for who my church does, or does not, marry, I will take that up with my pastor and my fellow board members.

 

I'm sorry to read of your susceptibility to homosexuality. I can understand why you would not want to be exposed to it. I would not want become homosexual either, but I am immune. So, I really can't condemn you because I have not had to face such a terrible vulnerability.

Here's hoping you're able to stay straight. Good luck.

 

Because the arguments against it are different ( or rather the arguments that there is a compelling state interest in regulating the number of parties are different), and due process claims involve courts weighing the potential interest vs severity of the breach in their test. We really have not seen the state's defense of the bans formulated and spelled out yet in any briefs. Its hard to know what to think, unless you have looked at both sides.

 

Your sarcasm lacks true emotion. Now I'm sure if you work at it then you can master the true art of it. Keep striving! You can do it.

 

The state is sanctioning some gay relationships as marriages; the religious institution of bilateral-monogamous-heterosexual-marriage remains unaffected by it.

 

My marriage has ever been threatened by "The Gay"..the first two were done in by women.

 

Heterosexuals are the ones doing the damage to marriage. Heterosexuals have largely abandoned marriage. A majority of heterosexual couples don't even bother to get married, and a majority of those who do get divorced. How can we, heterosexuals, insist on an exclusive agency to the state's sanction of what we have mostly abandoned?

 

Bricklayer I have to say you thru me off. I'm trying to keep up. Forgive me but is your point about hetero mairage, gay mairage, or just mairage in general?

 

So you don't understand what "society" means. Which is pretty sad.

Certainly that's one way of looking at it. Another is that your implicit characterization of homosexuality as benign or better says something very bad about you.

Happily, I haven't condemned any homosexuals for being homosexuals.

No doubt this would be terribly profound it we were talking about anything that belonged to "Caesar".

Pilgrim, it's a helluva lot worse than that.

Such as children being reared under marriages which are, by design, devoid of either a mother or a father.

No, and you don't either, because you're not privy to what goes on behind the closed doors belonging to these "parents".

You angling for a spot on my ignore list?

Who in Hell do you think you're kidding?

No, they're pretending to get married, and the same kinds of people who raved over the Emperor's new clothes are pretending right along with them.

 

My point is that there is an indispensable distinction, and a world of difference, between the religious institution of marriage and the state's sanction of that institution. The state's sanctioning of homosexual relationships, and calling them a marriages, has no affect on the religious institution of marriage. And what's more, in my opinion, heterosexual efforts to retain an exclusivity on the state's sanction are, at best, misplaced at a time when heterosexual-marriage is at its lowest, or at worst, a displacement of guilt for the condition of heterosexual-marriage.

 

So, how about we stay out of the way of brothers and sisters or mother and sons getting married. I could careless if gays get married by a church that recognizes homosexuality as a legitimate union. My beef is with homosexuality being given official recognition. It is a perversion of humanity. It should not be recognized anymore than brothers and sisters getting married, officially.

As far as I'm concerned, marriages, homo or hetero should not be the business of any government.

 

Egg on my face with the mispelling of marriage

 

I agree with your personal convictions, and I admire that you do not want our personal convictions imposed upon others by force, not even by force of law.

The state's sanction of marriage is a vestige of Christianity's darkest period. It harkens back to a time when there was no separation between church and state.

 

So where would agnostics, atheists and those who just don't like church officials go to get married? No more weddings by ship captains?
are you going to shove churches and priests into our lives?

 

They don't have to marry. All shared decisions and assets should be contracts as far as the government is concerned.

 

So your beef is aesthetic/symbolic, which really serves no purpose and should be ignored.

I hate the color purple. It is an abomination. The government should not recognize it. See what I did there?

 

By no means. The state should continue to sanction common property relationships for legal purposes, and they can continue to call them marriages if they want. I just wanted to make it clear that the state's sanction of relationships that are not bilateral, monogamous and heterosexual is absolutely no threat to the religious institution of bilateral-monogamous-heterosexual-marriage but heterosexual fornication, divorce and adultery are.

 

No one has demonstrated how gay marriage is a threat to marriage. If gay marriage ends in your divorce, do you really think you were going to stay married forever and ever?

So marriage is a religious institution? Thats cute, and what if that religious institution supports and allows gay marriage? Then what? LOL
Your institution trumps theirs? LOL
Why do non-Christians get married everyday?
Why do secular folks get married everyday?
I thought marriage was a purely Christians institution?
Why does marriage pre-date Christianity?

Use something better than stupid arguments!

 

So you want Christians to have special rights.

 

Let me know when purple becomes a sexual perversion of human biology.

- - - Updated - - -

What special right did I a sign them?