1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou are talking about religious marriage. the grand concept that includes dozens of marriages. muslim, jewish, orthodox, catholic, mormon, wiccan, hindu, buddhist, and whatever.
no i do not think they should get married, they do not qualify for marriage, marriage is between a man and a woman, male and female, its a nonsense to think that because someone artificially takes on the role of a male or a female in a same sex relationship it makes them eligible for marriage. If people want to roger each other then its their busine ...[text shortened]... ry! I can see you now zippy, up there on your gay parade! shootin bystanders with ya lazerbeam!
they are talking about the civil marriage.the one you do at the city hall. the one you religion has nothing to do with. no reasonable gay would try and force a religion to accept him. they want the same civil rights as all others: whatever tax exemptions the married get, succession rights, visitation rights in hospitals, the right to adopt.
"someone artificially takes on the role of a male or a female in a same sex relationship"
heh this is the most ignorant remark i heard all week. do you believe a gay thinks himself less of a man? that in a same sex relation, they think one of them must be the man and the other the woman? they are in a same sex relation exactly because they don't feel attracted to the other sex, ya colossal ignorant douchebag.
Originally posted by RJHindsand then another marriage was set up between two adults to get some tax breaks, buy a house together and start a family. we call that the civil marriage.
What he is saying is that marriage was set up as a covenant between God and a male and female. The male and female are to become one in union with God's purpose for them to be fruitful and multiply. It is not within God's purpose that two males should join together to be fruitful and multiply.
There is no civil right aspect to it at all.
The Instructor
Originally posted by Zahlanziindeed and can you think of any other society in the entire history of humanity, other than this thoroughly amoral western liberal one that has sanctioned the union of two men, or two women. No neither can I.
you are talking about religious marriage. the grand concept that includes dozens of marriages. muslim, jewish, orthodox, catholic, mormon, wiccan, hindu, buddhist, and whatever.
they are talking about the civil marriage.the one you do at the city hall. the one you religion has nothing to do with. no reasonable gay would try and force a religion to accep ...[text shortened]... exactly because they don't feel attracted to the other sex, ya colossal ignorant douchebag.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCome on, there must have been gays in biblical times or the bible would not mention them!
indeed and can you think of any other society in the entire history of humanity, other than this thoroughly amoral western liberal one that has sanctioned the union of two men, or two women. No neither can I.
2 edits
Originally posted by e4chrisyes there were, they got zapped, and not just with a laser beam. The point is, that in no other epoch in the entire history of humanity has gay marriage ever been sanctioned, despite the diversity of culture and beliefs.
Come on, there must have been gays in biblical times or the bible would not mention them!
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhat about the straigh folks who got syphalis and there nose fell off? 😲
yes there were, they got zapped, and not with just a laser beam. The point is, that in no other epoch in the entire history of humanity has gay marriage ever been sanctioned, despite the diversity of culture and beliefs.
2 edits
Originally posted by e4chrisagain, I suspect many did because of illicit sexual practices. Remember Tam o Shanters mare?, her tail (phallic symbol) fell off, a dire warning to all those who drink whisky and run after girls in short skirts!
what about the straigh folks who got syphalis and there nose fell off? 😲
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethat is because gay marriage was not practical in the past. the purpose of humans was to get married and get busy at making kids. even though there were lots of gays even then. spartan boys and young adults got very friendly with one another but still had to do their duty and get married with a woman.
indeed and can you think of any other society in the entire history of humanity, other than this thoroughly amoral western liberal one that has sanctioned the union of two men, or two women. No neither can I.
now that is not the case. one may have a family and still be with the one they really love. love is never wrong.
3 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanziwas not practical? bwahahahaha, It was because no one ever recognised the legitimacy of same sex marriage in any culture in the entire history of humanity. It was as absurd a proposition then as it is now. Let us look at the arguments, firstly, how such a relationship may have a bearing on children of same sex marriages, practically!
that is because gay marriage was not practical in the past. the purpose of humans was to get married and get busy at making kids. even though there were lots of gays even then. spartan boys and young adults got very friendly with one another but still had to do their duty and get married with a woman.
now that is not the case. one may have a family and still be with the one they really love. love is never wrong.
1. Same sex marriage will always deny a child either a father (in the case of two lesbians) or a mother in the case of two males. The child will always be deprived of either a mother or a father figure.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewould you stop homosexuals adopting children?
was not practical? bwahahahaha, It was because no one ever recognised the legitimacy of same sex marriage in any culture in the entire history of humanity. It was as absurd a proposition then as it is now. Let us look at the arguments, firstly, how such a relationship may have a bearing on children of same sex marriages, practically!
1. Same sex ...[text shortened]... the case of two males. The child will always be deprived of either a mother or a father figure.