re: Same sex marriages

quote:

---

You want to know what one of those very clear things happens to be?

Homosexual sex.

I'm not aware of any reputable Biblical scholar—secular/atheist or believer—who has concluded that there is simply a misunderstanding of translation when it comes to Jesus and Paul and the Old Testament's teachings about marriage and homosexuality.

They meant exactly what the modern translations say they meant.

---

If every English translation of the bible goes back to the original manuscripts, then why are there so many? One should be sufficient, right?

The fact that there are more than one confirms that there are disputes over the accuracy of the translations

Why are there Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Calvinists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Pentacostal Holiness, 7th Day Adventists, etc., ad nauseum?

And if everyone is in agreement regarding homosexuality, why are certain denominations falling apart over the issue?

For context, I am a happily married heterosexual male who does not understand how a man can be sexually or romantically attracted to another man. But I know it is real. I am also atheist. I am "married" for legal reasons and because I believe in being devoted / faithful to my wife.

I also have stated in this very thread that "marriage" is a religious concept. The state should not be involved. But there are multiple religions, and some religions sanction homosexual marriages. So be it.

quote:

---

Based upon that, you de facto accused him of being NAMBLA. Seriously?

---

FFS nobody read it that way but you.

Explaining one logical conclusion to a path isn't an accusation. The entire reason you would even do that is because you believe the person will be against the conclusion in the hopes that they'll understand that their thought process is flawed.

In a progressive area

Women with women purposefully use the word wife and women with men purposefully use the word partner

Gotta break up that patriarchy ya know

quote:

---

You a NAMBLA member?

---

frick you! I guess you missed my post from earlier in the thread:

quote:

---

It has not been that long ago when girls as young as 12 were allowed to be given away by their families to older men as wives. Changing the law to make it 16, 17 or 18 is very arbitrary, but the older the better, in my humble opinion.

---

frick you again, a-hole!

quote:

---

Marriage is stabilizing for society. We need more of it, not less. Youre not stopping gays from having sex. I dont understand why people would rather they not marry.

---

There is really no stabilizing benefit to society from two gay people getting married.

The stabilization benefits used to be that women and children were provided for in marriage.

Women do not need men to provide for them in 2025 and gay people cannot procreate. (One assumes that in an adoption scenario the agency responsible for awarding the child will not adopt to a person who cannot provide for the child.)

So I don't see any societal benefit to gay marriage.

I do see a societal con to gay marriage, and that is that it legitimizes the behvior when the state codifies it.

Same as when people say, "Well, slavery ended in 1865, there should be no effects from that lingering today." O.k., yeah, but we had Jim Crow laws that weren't fully eradicated up until the 1970s...into my lifetime.

And when the United States government (or any state government, just for you, Hank) declares that it is so important that white people not use the same toilet facilities as black people because black people are so dirty and subhuman that it be codified and illegal for that to happen in public, it has a profound psychological effect. Codification legitimizes the idea. You have the full—not just approval, but mandate—of the government behind an idea.

And it does the same thing when homosexuality is codified. That's the objection.

quote:

---

That points squarely at Judeo-Christian values, which you claim you want no part of.

---

No, it does not.

There is much history that is not documented in the Bible.

Multiple thousands of years of history of what works and doesn't work.

The collective wisdom of man - that includes all cultures, not just those documented in the Bible.

quote:

---

The collective wisdom of man - that includes all cultures, not just those documented in the Bible.

---

And everybody agrees on all this stuff? We've got it all solved now because of "collective wisdom" and we're all on the same page?

quote:

---

There is really no stabilizing benefit to society from two gay people getting married.

---

I disagree, for many reasons.

LBGTQ is a political movement based on hedonism., being gay isnt necessarily. I think most of the Right is fighting the wrong war.

Regardless of your beliefs, stability damages the innate hedonism of the LBGTQ movement.

quote:

---

Marriage is stabilizing for society.

---

The validity of that argument flew out the window with the arrival of "no fault divorce."

Don't get me wrong. Ideologically, I support NFD ... for couples with no children.

quote:

---

The validity of that argument flew out the window with the arrival of "no fault divorce."

---

No, I still think it holds true, just not on the same scale it once had. The problem is since no fault divorce came out, marriages have been waning.

But its not a dead ideal.