It depends on how it was proven. If it was just “Christianity is true” there would still be much disagreement about translations and contradictory stories within the bible. If a messenger was sent then I would hope these types of issues would be addressed. As it should be, they believe it is a union between two souls and the creator. When they relinquished this over to the state to (I believe) combat interracial marriage they lost the ability to control it however. I am saying much more focus is placed on same sex unions than on adultery — even though one was mentioned dozens of times and the other was not really mentioned at all. There is no test, it is all self identification 2004 Agreed Single example, Muslim men must allowed to grow beards for religious reasons against company dress codes while others cannot. Religious symbolism cannot be banned even if other types of jewelry are permitted. No clue, it is not allowable under the law though. Divide the percentages by each other to find the overlap. Polling indicates it No group is uniform in their belief. People are individuals and even if they share many common goals or beliefs there will also be outliars.
Simply being clear about what RDCF means and why I would be responding in that manner. Marriage is not a social convention. It is not a matter of "let's drive on the left side of the road instead of the right side". Marriage has a distinct objective nature and essence, and part of that essence is the ability to procreate in principle. Without that, you have completely taken away the essence of what makes a marriage a marriage. A marriage, as redefined, is now no more than a licensed friendship that yields legal benefits. Everything about how two bodies become one body, the ability to procreate, and the child being the physical embodiment of "two becoming one" is now completely removed, and "marriage" is now no more important than two people deeply liking each other. But hey, at least they have that piece of paper and the legal benefits! Yes, there are still two people (physically), but those two people become "one" (spiritually). They are one in spirit. They are one in purpose. Their child itself is the physical embodiment of this. That's why procreation is so essential to the definition of marriage. It is also essential because it provides a child with both a mother and a father. Same-sex "marriage", by definition, denies a child access to one or the other.
Factually false on two levels. First off, a same sex marriage no more denies the child access to their biological parents than divorced and remarried (to other people) couples do, and even more access than adopted kinds. Secondly, there has never been a study that shows kids do better with a father and mother figure, biological or otherwise, as parent/guardian. Most of the ones that try to say that compare single parents to mother/father parents. I have yet to see one that actually compared same sex parents to opposite sex parents.
If you can't handle people rationalizing their position than why are you even here? Explain why and how it isn't. Says who? I disagree but I'm willing to hear your rationalization in fact I welcome it please, rationalize this position so I may better understand you. who says two people of the same sex can't spiritually become one? yeah I can so explain to me why this can't happen with two people of the same sex? so not only are you against same-sex marriage but marriage between single parents whose children are not The offspring of the new spouse? What happens if a child grows up in a household two female parents or two male parents?
I have made a religious one and a secular one. That word is not exclusive to religion. And that can be easily refuted, since you are simply describing 4 or 8 instances in which two bodies become one child. Gays have never been denied the right to marry. They simply wish not to, since they are not attracted to the opposite sex.
I can recall reading a study that established that children raised by two adults did better than a single adult. The relationship between the adults was irrelevant. Those adults could be any combination. It could be the father and the grandmother or the mother and a boyfriend. The only criteria that mattered was that the adults loved the children unconditionally.
Well there is no disagreement on the Biblical definition of marriage. Don't you at least concede that the Biblical definition of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman? How did they relinquish it over to the state? This is something I've never heard of before. Well just as a man 'self identifying' as a woman doesn't make him a woman, someone 'self identifying' as a Christian doesn't make them a Christian. Can you not see the difference between someone who identifies themselves as a Christian but hasn't gone near a church since they were a child and has never read the Bible, and someone who goes to church every week? What is the most recent polling? OvH was 4 years ago and many same sex wedding services have happened since then. In what state? I'm actually stunned that you didn't give an anti-gay example. Aren't there any examples? Well I assume that the fact that it is not allowable under the law doesn't concern you in the context of states where it is also not allowable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Can I assume that your argument only applies to states which don't include sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination laws? Well, your subjective interpretation of the polling indicates it.
It will be interesting, as poly families become more open, to see if any studies come out to show 3+ adults vs 2. Mind you I am not talking necessarily about those 3+ having a legal marriage, but we are also at a period where less people are seeking the legal marriage even if they enter into a religious/social one. A study on parents raising kids, legally married vs not, would also be interesting.
Actually no, especially since some of the most vitiolic people I know attend church even twice weekly (what is up with Wednesday services?) and some of the most loving and embodying of, what I feel are are least, Christian values never step into a church. In reality, the only objective criteria for being a Christian is believing in and accepting the Christ as your personal savior. Everything after that is subjective, hence the many denominations, and subject (no pun intended) to the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Wow! Way to stab yourself in the foot. Since you are dismissing our arguments as invalid or absurd, this is you. Your argument is a perfect example of inversion fallacy. If A then B; not A; then not B. Your claim of no reproduction in principle therefore not marriage simply does not follow. This is especially true since marriage is a construct, and has taken on many different forms across time and culture, with multiple reason as to why it is as such. Again, this is you, trying to narrow the definition of the word marriage, the very essence of the buzzword fallacy
Do you know what these vitriolic people would say if you asked them what their reason for going to church is? So then you agree that 'self identifying' as a Christian doesn't make someone a Christian?
What do you mean they can procreate "in principle?" Men and women can procreate together in principle, but this relies on them being fertile.
I am speaking in principle, not in actuality. In principle, a heterosexual couple creates a child and then that child grows up with full access to both parents. Obviously, since this is a fallen world, that doesn't always happen in actuality, but that's the principle behind it. In a homosexual relationship, in order to have a child, a man and a woman are still required. Either one or both biological parents will be denied to the child, or else the child will have limited access to them and wonder why they are being raised by other people instead. It automatically causes issues, while a heterosexual relationship doesn't automatically have those issues. There have been studies, but most studies of anything are flawed in one way or another.
Inversion Fallacy. Already have. Already addressed. Already did. The impossibility to procreate in principle. See above. RDCF. They lose access to both male and female parents. Males and females perfectly compliment each other, and not having both parents creates issues for kids. I realize that this doesn't always happen in heterosexual couples, due to this being a fallen world, but IN PRINCIPLE, heterosexual couples provide both a mother and a father, and homosexual couples do NOT provide both a mother and a father.
Yes, there is a biblical definition By letting the state become the one that issues the licensing. Had marriage stayed a religious institution with no state or federal tax breaks, no property or wealth protections, no legal or medical or inheritance laws then there would have been no push for same sex marriage. They would have pushed for whatever was eventually set up to provide that. I can, unfortunately there is no way to track data this way. I can only base my opinion off the information available. If you have new percentages I will use those. 2019 https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx https://www.newsweek.com/catholic-teacher-fired-after-marrying-partner-802705 Yes, or if they have zero anti-discrimination laws. I am interested in equality and equity under the law. No special treatment and no special penalties Feel free to review the Gallup link above and let me know your interpretation.
That a man and a woman procreating is a theoretical possibility. Yup, fertility is a factor which affects procreating in actuality. That doesn't change the fact that men and women procreating is a theoretical possibility.
That they are True Believers (TM) in Christ and the rest of us are going to hell. Given that the only way to be a Christian is to accept Christ as your Savior, then self identifying is all that is available. You can't just look at someone and see that they are a Christian. Even the wearing of a cross, while a likely sign, isn't a guarantee. It could have been their parent's that they wear in remember while having no religion of their own or a different one. All religion is self identifying.
Until you can show why my arguments are fallacies, as I did with yours, you are committing your own Fallacy fallacy. Basically your response is "nuh uh!"
Okay so explain why it has to be a mother and a father or nothing. You do realize that single people can adopt children right?
it was an inadequate explanation. Expand please. so gay people could adopt kids before they were allowed to marry or have civil unions. Why is it all the sudden the problem now?
