1. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    07 Jul '15 11:03
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Do you accept marriage between two atheists as being within the definition of marriage? If so, why?
    It does not matter what I accept. Marriage is between one man and one woman as shown throughout history. It has served mankind well.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Jul '15 11:233 edits
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    It does not matter what I accept. Marriage is between one man and one woman as shown throughout history. It has served mankind well.
    Err, no. Marriage in many parts of the world includes more than one woman and has done so for a very long time. Marriage in some parts of the world includes two people of the same sex.
    Marriage in some parts of the world, is between two people of a given religion.
    Yes, it does matter what you accept because you are the one claiming ownership of the definition. You are the one claiming the definition has been changed.

    [edit]
    As I already posted earlier, the UK for some time only recognised marriages of three particular religions.

    In some cultures, marriage is possible where one or both of the parties is a child. Some people get married as infants.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
  3. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8835
    07 Jul '15 11:591 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    So do you object to bridal partners choosing one another on the basis of love, or do you want the patriarchs to choose, and do you object to or deny the validity of marriages outside the one true faith? These are two questions.
    My concern is the redefinition of marriage.

    We can legalize male breast feeding too.
    But male breast feeding is impossible. Sorry. Don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings.

    So marriage of two of the same sex, I say is impossible.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Jul '15 12:22
    Originally posted by sonship
    My concern is the redefinition of marriage.
    Well then perhaps you should give the definition you are concerned about.

    I have to point out that nobody is forcing you to change your definition. You may use whatever definition you like. You may have trouble being understood, but that's about it.
    Definitions to not change reality. Definitions are merely about communicating.
    In the case of marriage, the definition is related to law.

    So marriage of two of the same sex, I say is impossible.
    Not here in SA and not in the US. At least not by the legal definition.
    You are either very confused about what a definition is, or you are very confused about what reality is.
  5. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    8975
    07 Jul '15 12:54
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Err, no. Marriage in many parts of the world includes more than one woman and has done so for a very long time. Marriage in some parts of the world includes two people of the same sex.
    Marriage in some parts of the world, is between two people of a given religion.
    Yes, it does matter what you accept because you are the one claiming ownership of the defi ...[text shortened]... Some people get married as infants.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
    And of course sometimes marriage between 1 man and 1 woman doesn't go so well either and doesn't 'serve mankind well.'
  6. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    07 Jul '15 13:10
    Originally posted by sonship
    So [b]marriage of two of the same sex, I say is impossible.[/b]
    I think you might be a bit of a Cnut.
  7. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    07 Jul '15 13:55
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Err, no. Marriage in many parts of the world includes more than one woman and has done so for a very long time. Marriage in some parts of the world includes two people of the same sex.
    Marriage in some parts of the world, is between two people of a given religion.
    Yes, it does matter what you accept because you are the one claiming ownership of the defi ...[text shortened]... Some people get married as infants.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
    Alright, let me be more specific. It has served the US well for a long time.
    And let me add, it has or had served Godly nations well.
    What is a Godly nation? A nation that reveres the word of God and His Son Jesus.
  8. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8835
    07 Jul '15 14:451 edit
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    I think you might be a bit of a Cnut.
    I think you might be a cowardly jelly fish like fella who is easily swept away by the fad of the time. No backbone to stand against the pop culture's dictates.

    There's a place sometime for progressive solutions. I don't think everything that is rotting is "progressing." And the legalization of same sex "marriage", I think, is a rotting of society.
  9. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8835
    07 Jul '15 15:033 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Well then perhaps you should give the definition you are concerned about.

    I have to point out that nobody is forcing you to change your definition. You may use whatever definition you like. You may have trouble being understood, but that's about it.
    Definitions to not change reality. Definitions are merely about communicating.
    In the case of marriage ...[text shortened]... either very confused about what a definition is, or you are very confused about what reality is.
    Well then perhaps you should give the definition you are concerned about.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What that will do is only prompt you to bring up exceptions in history. But should we make laws only based on exceptions ? I don't think we should promote exceptions so much.


    I have to point out that nobody is forcing you to change your definition. You may use whatever definition you like. You may have trouble being understood, but that's about it.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The point of the video which you didn't but give a token glance to was the opposite. Well sounding promises are given by Gay activists that these special rights will not interfere with anyone.

    The video is a litany of cases where someone voicing disagreement with homosexual ideology was fired, jailed or fined for a form of hate mongering.

    YouTube

    I now run the risk of being so labelled for even writing this.
    Empty promises of leaving the heterosexual undisturbed are becoming broken promises.

    If I knew you watch the video through I probably would watch one of yours through.



    You are either very confused about what a definition is, or you are very confused about what reality is.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I am not confused to realize when someone is pretending to act as someone of the opposite sex physiologically and psychologically.
    And that is what same sex marriage is, a form of pretending - a fantasy.

    I sure that you're the one who is confused.

    I think I can speak up. And I think I can do so even if I cannot argue 1000% consistency. I can speak up according to conscience.
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    07 Jul '15 15:15
    Originally posted by sonship
    [b] Well then perhaps you should give the definition you are concerned about.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What that will do is only prompt you to bring up exceptions in history. But should we make laws only based on exceptions ? I don't think we should promote exceptions so much.


    I have to po ...[text shortened]... nk I can do so even if I cannot argue 1000% consistency. I can speak up according to conscience.
    You speak from pure ignorance and bigotry perpetuated and enforced by your corrupt and evil religious
    beliefs.

    Keep whining, it's a fantastic atheist recruiting tool to show how pathetic and puerile your religion really is.
  11. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    8975
    07 Jul '15 15:52
    Originally posted by sonship

    ...I am not confused to realize when someone is pretending to act as someone of the opposite sex physiologically and psychologically.
    And that is what same sex marriage is, a form of pretending - a fantasy.

    I sure that you're the one who is confused.

    I think I can speak up. And I think I can do so even if I cannot argue 1000% consistency. I can speak up according to conscience.[/b]
    People who are gay are pretending? Seriously, is that your argument?

    5 per cent of the population (approximately) are all pretending? (For what purpose exactly?)

    That is more believable to you than a God creating people who are gay?
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Jul '15 16:321 edit
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Alright, let me be more specific. It has served the US well for a long time.
    In what ways?
    It clearly hasn't served the homosexual proportion of the population.

    And let me add, it has or had served Godly nations well.
    What is a Godly nation? A nation that reveres the word of God and His Son Jesus.

    Well Zambia declared itself a 'Christian nation'. That doesn't seem to stop the politicians being corrupt or committing other somewhat unchristian acts. Nor has it stopped Zambia from continuing to uphold traditional marriage which includes allowance for polygamy. Nor has it stopped large numbers of Zambians from dying of AIDS because they weren't faithful to their legally married spouses. Nor did it make my own legally recognised marriage work out.

    I must also point out that a significant proportion of marriages in the US do not work out.
  13. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    94281
    07 Jul '15 16:36
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    The problem with redefining marriage is not limited to homosexuality or between two of the same sex, but before I proceed, let me say I have homosexual friends. I love the person, just hate the sinful act.
    It will eventually destroy them.
    But redefining marriage between a male and a female is not only sinful and wrong, but it opens wide the door for m ...[text shortened]... ants is to destroy the family unit. He would like to twist and confuse all that good and decent.
    "just hate the sinful act."


    what 'act' is it that you hate? can you be more specific?
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Jul '15 16:42
    Originally posted by sonship
    What that will do is only prompt you to bring up exceptions in history. But should we make laws only based on exceptions ? I don't think we should promote exceptions so much.
    So you object to your definition being changed, but your definition remains a secret.

    The point of the video which you didn't but give a token glance to was the opposite.
    I made an offer to watch the video, but you have not agreed to my conditions. Are they not reasonable conditions? Or do you not really want me to watch the video?

    I now run the risk of being so labelled for even writing this.
    And is the label unwarranted in your opinion?

    If I knew you watch the video through I probably would watch one of yours through.
    I don't expect you to watch one of my videos. I have stated my conditions for watching yours. Do you agree to those conditions?

    I am not confused to realize when someone is pretending to act as someone of the opposite sex physiologically and psychologically.
    And that is what same sex marriage is, a form of pretending - a fantasy.

    Is it? I thought it was merely a commitment to a relationship just as in any other marriage. Why do you assume that they are pretending to be of the opposite sex?

    I sure that you're the one who is confused.
    Then explain why.

    I think I can speak up. And I think I can do so even if I cannot argue 1000% consistency. I can speak up according to conscience.
    Well at least try to argue with 1% consistency. Give your definition of marriage and explain who you think is forcing you to change it and why you have a problem with that. Do you think this redefinition will change whether or not people are gay? Will it change whether or not they are in a relationship?
    It seems to me that your sole argument boils down to: 'If they legalize gay marriage then I can't bitch about it without being labelled a hater'.
  15. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    94281
    07 Jul '15 17:11
    Originally posted by sonship
    The claim of the homosexual community includes. ie. "If homosexual marriage goes into law and adoption rights go into law, it won't have an impact on everyone else."

    Cases around the globe where this clearly was not true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afDZPivGIo4
    does the bible comment on adoption, does it give a run down of rules and regulations. who can and who can not?
Back to Top