You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
You can see the rest of the strip at Atheist Pig
Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.
I hate that argument. It totally discounts adoption.
(Not that I see a whole lot of these Christian folks stepping up to adopt…)
indeed, you see catholic charities and other groups closing adoption centers they run when states force them to let gay couples adopt. so much for the children’s best interest. sorry, kid, you can rot because jeebus says it’s more important to hate gays than it is to give you a loving home.
marriage is about so much more than procreation. lots of couples marry and don’t want or have any, for a variety of reasons. and gay people can have children, and do, using surrogates and friends willing to help out. this has always been one of the weaker arguments against equal marriage rights and there are lots of straight people who shouldn’t qualify for marriage if this logic is extended to its logical conclusion. my grandmother got married for the third time at the age of 78; she’s certainly not having any kids.
So their god can create a universe with a single word but can’t get a gay guy pregnant?
Well, he can’t work around birth control in people with uteri who are supposed to get pregnant, so what makes you think he could get a gay guy knocked up? /eyeroll
I never got that argument. God could knock up a virgin just by saying the word, but he can’t over-ride hormones?
Ha. I just had this exact argument a few weeks ago:
While I admit, her counter-argument that “Gay marriage is just as absurd as all the things you just listed… Both are stupid and illogical.”, was quite compelling, I found the intellectual fortitude to stay the course and continue supporting same-sex marriage.
Meh, it’s the usual religious tripe.
Where does it mention religion?
Pages 18-21, two sections entitled “Scripture on Marriage and Homosexuality” and “The Church on Homosexuality”. It also recommends the “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics” as a source of information on how the reader should vote. But then again I’m sure it’s just coincidence.
Whenever i read “The Church on” or “Catholic Views of” or “High Ranking Religious Leader Views on Love, Sex and Marriage” I stop listening. I don’t need to hear a bunch of anti gay sexist ridiculous opinions.
“It is not, in itself, sinful, but it can be a near occasion of sin and a possible cause of scandal.”
This site would be hilarious if millions of people didn’t actually believe in this stuff. That just makes it depressing.
I love how the RCC frets about “scandal.” They should know.
There might be length limit on links, here’s the short version.
A “near occasion of sin”? Dafuq?
I like how you changed the subject so dramatically. Since atheists do not share a creed they like to bash those of us that profess a common belief
You have a common bigotry.
Common belief of denying people the same rights that you have.
So you are too closed minded to read a pamphlet?
I went to Catholic schools for 12 years. I heard all of this stuff before. Try again. It is a bunch of anti gay sexist opinions.
If being for marriage equality makes me closed minded and bigoted, so be it. Gays and lesbians deserve to get married just like the rest of us.
You obviously just read the index. The first 18 pages do not mention religion. Then after using logic and reasoning for 18 pages it mentions religion.
That wasn’t “logic and reasoning”.
It was religiously-based bigotry and hatred.
Please learn to tell the difference.
I will throw my college philosophy courses out the window. Apparently my new prof is the venerable wmdkitty.
You say “college philosophy courses”.
I say you mistook the cathedral for a lecture hall, and have confused “philosophy” with bigoted religious bullshit.
Fuck off, you pedophile-enabling papal ass-wipe.
You seem to have confused “philosophy” with “apologetics”. The latter is synonymous with “rationalizations and petty word games.” They don’t fool anybody here.
The arguments you want to cite as credible are the exact same ones used to support miscegenation laws, and segregation, and slavery. Why do you people want to be on the wrong side of history so damn badly?
And why is every one of you convinced that you have the magic argument that hasn’t already been dissected and refuted thousands of times? Do you just not know that there is an Internet?
Well, I’m glad you finally took a peek at you’re own material. You must not have read past the index, if you think they use logic and reason. It’s the same stuff about tradition and definition that’s been refuted a thousand times.
Is it not a fact that men and women are different and designed to mate with one another. Evolution would suggest so.
No, it is not a fact that we were “designed” to mate with one another, you cretinous shit-sack. And yeah, evolution says different.
Evolution doesn’t suggest design.
Repeat that until you understand why we don’t accept your claims.
Not a fact it’s an inference, and evolution suggests nothing, at least not in the sense that you mean it.
Of course the mere facts (and even the inferences) of biology are no guide for human society or it’s laws.
I thought the first post was enough embarrassment, but oh what the hell, why not…
Why Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages
© 2012 Catholic Answers, Inc.
Published by Catholic Answers, Inc.
2020 Gillespie Way
El Cajon, California 92020
619-387-0042 fa x
Why Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages
© 2012 Catholic Answers, Inc.
Published by Catholic Answers, Inc.
2020 Gillespie Way
El Cajon, California 92020
619-387-0042 fa x
Everywhere on the website since it is called catholic.com
it starts talking about religion on page 18. Apparently some people are too bigoted to read past the index
I don’t care where in the pdf it mentions religion. It is from a website called catholic.com, of course it is about the religious views towards marriage equality.
Right in the url, moron.
More like page 18
How about instead of harping on about the supposed existence of non-religious, rational and reasonable arguments against same-sex marriage that are in that pamphlet, you just give us the best one? Go ahead, what is the best non-religious argument against same-sex marriage, in your opinion?
Don’t hold your breath, man. This… this is gonna take a while. Like… forever.
Do you believe that duality of the sexual act for concupiscense and fecundity?
I doubt you even know what those words mean. And even if you do, that’s not a non-religious argument.
That question makes no grammatical sense.
ROFLMAO…”Catholic.com”…Go proselytize your hateful bigotry
elsewhere. The text you cite is BEYOND incendiary and you might as well
link it to some whackjob’s racist rants. According to your cult’s
screed, this is “marriage”, “Marriage is a union of a man and a woman
that is oriented toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and
education of offspring.” Oh. My. Science. Some bigotry zips right by
“touching” and races right past “disturbing” and lurches its way,
heaving and gasping and sweating from the Christly armpits, straight
into “Oh my Science, what the hell is wrong with you people?”
you even comprehend the level of insanity you are braying? Who defines
“good of the spouses”? What if NEITHER wants children? What if one of
them is sterile? What if they would rather ADOPT instead of squirting
out a mewling pile of attention-deprived semen demons? What if she
refuses to engage in hysterical breeding using nothing but a hydraulic
pump and a revolving door? We could go on and on about a “serious”
Catholic couple’s soggy sexual mutations but we just do not have enough
wine on hand for that.
Hell, I don’t care what sort of god you believe in, it’s a safe bet that
hysterical breeding does not top a list of desirables. Jeebus does not
want more children per acre than there are ants or mice or garter snakes
or repressed pedophile priests. We already have three billion humans
on the planet who subsist on less than two dollars a day. Every other
child in the world (one billion of them) lives in abject poverty. We are
burning through the planet’s resources faster than a Republican can eat
an endangered caribou stew. If God wanted women
to have a massive pile of children, she’d have fashioned the uterus with a
hydraulic pump and a revolving door.
Stop it now…You selfish, baby-addicted, cultists.
Wow you give atheists a bad name.
She may have been rude, but is she really being any different than the religionists who carry on about people burning for eternity, gays being depraved abominations, and all the other crap they say about people who don’t follow their religion?
No, she’s not. She was just slightly more upfront about it. And I doubt she really cares what you think about her opinion anyway.
Besides, you’re the one who was just upthread defending a bunch of child rapists, so are you really a bastion of great judgement?
Nah. I’d rather have Carmelita represent me than any atheist who thinks we MUST RESPECT cultural enforcement of keeping women constantly pregnant throughout the fertile years of their life, and guilt-tripping them if they dare wish for a break.
Nobody cares what your religion says. It’s unconstitutional for a law to be based on any religious reasoning. Got a real answer?
This pamphlet is not only very bigoted against homosexuals, it’s also sexist, and it ignores those hetero-relationships where the partners do not ever plan to have children. Are those marriages also not marriages? Should we start banning the marriages of elderly people because they can no longer have children? If I’m too masculine, would I not be allowed to marry a man because I’m not feminine enough to “compliment” him the way this pamphlet claims men and women are supposed to compliment each other? This thing starts out trying to define something out of existence, and then proceeds to state inaccurate “facts” about the history of marriage in human society. I call bullshit on this one.
Oh, but it’s totally based on “logic and reason”!
He says it is, so it must be so!
After all, it’s not like Catholics lie about sex, marriage, gender roles, homosexuality, bisexuality, history, birth control, condoms, heaven, hell, and cover up for paedophile priests, they’d NEVER do THAT!
It’s not him that says it must be so, it’s his leader. If you read the comments below you’ll see he didn’t know his own link referenced religion. He also got more than a little mad when he found out otherwise.
Normally I would just chalk that up to him just making an ass of himself, but he’s catholic, and nothing sets those people off like something incontrovertibly exposes the lies and hypocrisy of their leaders. A couple weeks ago his reaction to the news that the vatican owned Europe’s largest bathhouse was “Damn you Richard Dawkins!!!!”
I’m guessing the guy’s a hardcore Catholic.
Good job. The picture of the three popes didnt tip you off?
“Today homosexual activists” – Strike one. Uncharity by using code words (“activist” might as well mean “demon” in modern parlance. Parlance that generally only gets used in religious-oriented texts to boot.)
“How much damage of the institution of marriage has suffered” – Blatant indication of religiousity. Based upon the usual neoplatonist tripe that gets repeated over and over only in modern Christian discourse.
Oh, how cute, it goes into that even more. News flash: don’t expect atheists to take even your basic axioms as truth. “Marriage” has been redefined over and over and fucking over because, yes it is a human institution. A HUMAN institution, wrought by human concepts, not some ethereal “thing” existing independent of humans. HUMANS define marriage, and humans can define it how they want.
Gods, its like you all run the same memebot programs.
“Procreation” – Strike 3 you’re out.
I don’t even have to see the word “God” to know this is purely motivated by religious insanity, insanity that insists that marriage is a something that exists independent of humans.
1) you dont like an adjective
2) its referring to divorce
3) Not sure what you are getting at please explain
1) OK, I was wrong, you’re either uncharitable or very ignorant. I think I’ll start calling the so-called “pro-family” religious side “anti-gay activists”. Perhaps then you’ll understand code words.
2) I know what it was referring to. My point is that “damaging the institution of marriage” is not a metaphor. It’s literally saying “marriage is a thing that’s being damaged”. Which brings me to:
3) if you have to phrase your debate in terms of universals while not showing evidence such universals exist, you’re pretty much down a black hole of reasoning. Imagine someone making the same argument for “the institution of baseball”.
1) your buddies already call me a papist and romanist and i dont take offense
2 and 3) the evidence for males mating females is present in every non-asexual species. Mating partnership for life is not soley a human institution
>>” Mating partnership for life is not soley a human institution”
Neither is homosexuality.
Homophobia and religious bigotry on the other hand…..
Why are you so interested in what other people do with their naughty parts?
Some people are preoccupied with other peoples penises and vaginas. I don’t get the obsession. What people do is their own business.
Certain whiptail lizard species have all female or mostly female populations that reproduce via parthenogenesis. They’re already notable since parthenogenesis is rare in vertebrates, but the really interesting thing is their technically “asexual” reproduction is triggered by engaging in mating behaviors with other females. No mating behaviors, no reproduction. They are literally a species that survives off lesbian sex.
“They are literally a species that survives off lesbian sex”
More proof that nature loves a lesbian.
You changed words. “Mating” is not marriage.
Awesome pamphlet… if you’re seeking to explain why the Catholic church will refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
But it’s a completely and utterly fucking foolish pile of vomit-covered bigot-shit if you’re trying to explain why gay marriage shouldn’t be acknowledged by our secular government. It’s not my job to pay taxes to help prop up your religious delusions. You need to do that on your own dime and only within your own faith community.
In fact, Maryland’s law on marriage between cousins states that they can marry if, and only if, they can’t have children. Because the whole point of marriage is children.
Right because what is legal = what is correct. *sarcasm*
You managed to be completely right here while meaning something totally wrong. It’s humorous.
Here’s why that argument is specious. When a couple is infertile, we consider that a dysfunction and seek, through medical intervention, to restore them to the natural norm – opposite gender fertility. The problem is, NO gay couple can EVER create children, so that dysfunction also needs similar correction if you want to make the analogy you suggested. We suggest opposite gender pairing is the biological norm to be restored to for both couples, with medication to correct any biological factors.
Again, dismissing adoption.
How d’ya think your “reasoning” makes foster kids and adoptive families feel?
Oh. Right. I forgot. Papists have no empathy, and are immune to reality.
That has nothing to do with procreation. Foster and adoptive homes are wonderful, compassionate solutions to the problem of the dissolution of the biological family. And I’m not catholic.
Wrong. The concept of Family has everything to do with this.
You are saying some very damaging things, here.
1) That “biological is better”. Not only is this proven false by the existence of even one abusive family, it’s ground into the dust because, let’s face it, some people are abusive douchenozzles and just cruel enough to fuck their kids over in any way they can think of. And that’s without going into the fact of incest and sexual abuse! The “biological family” is no better and no worse than the adoptive one.
2) That LGBTQ people aren’t worthy of, don’t deserve, to build a family because they don’t live up to your peculiar idea of what constitutes a real family.
I got news for you, you bigoted shit-bag.
REAL FAMILIES ARE FORGED OUT OF LOVE.
Biology has jack-shit to do with it.
If two men or two women want to get married and adopt a bunch of kids, what’s the harm in it? Happy stable family, it’s exactly the ideal you lot present all the goddamn time. But you would deny them — the adults, the children — the right to a stable, loving family just because the adults have the “wrong” genitals!
YOU are the one harming families!
Wait, no, the adoptive families are qualitatively better because the parents are screened by the state to ensure their parental fitness.
The oh-so-perfect “biological families” you fetishize, Danny-boy, aren’t screened at all until a kid is either comatose or dead, and by then it’s too late for the kid.
Do you believe that there is a difference between a cohabitating couple and a married couple?
So a gay couple that adopts, can get married?
You missed the point. Whether or not its considered bad for someone to be infertile, we don’t restrict their eligibility for marriage because of it. The point is a decision WITHIN the marriage, something between the couple, not some vague requirement to be satisfied.
kitty’s point was secondary to that: that the idea that family requires procreation is specious. Its only true in the most basic sense that it requires sperm and an egg, but the fact is that a good, caring non-biological family is better than an abusive biological one.
“Foster and adoptive homes are wonderful, compassionate solutions to the problem”
They can be but all too often are not. Google them for the litany of horror stories.
The studies are done and clear, gay parents are perfectly fine parents. This whole ‘kids need a mom and a dad’ line is an empirical lie.
Children need a family. There are many definitions of family. Stepparents, adoptive parents, grandparents, etc. My mom and grandma raised me. Two women! TEH HORRORS!
I wonder if some of these people think having a mom and dad is like having Mike and Carol Brady or Ward and June Cleaver for parents.
And when a couple can not get a baby because of cervical cancer?
Should they get a divorce?
And what if a couple does not want kids? Should that couple be allowed to marry?
I consider my fertility a dysfunction. My menstrual cycle triggers migraines, some of which are severe enough that they threaten to develop into strokes. I was born with only one kidney, and it’s already under strain due to the medication I need to manage said migraines. A pregnancy would likely put me into full kidney failure. A pregnancy would make my medications less effective. A pregnancy could easily cripple or kill me.
I go to great lengths to keep myself infertile. If I were to get pregnant, I would get an abortion. No question about it.
But since I’m married to someone of a different gender, it doesn’t matter that I go out of my way every day to avoid having a child. No one is threatening to take away my marriage license.
Who’s “we”? No, “we” don’t consider it a dysfunction, you do. And some couples may. But some may be permanently infertile in a manner that we know we cannot “fix”. It is possible that some could undergo fertility treatments, but choose not to. People can get married at any age above the age of consent, even women who are far beyond menopause. People who never intend to have children can get married. What is it that makes gay people different from other couples who can’t or won’t have children? Nothing. Nothing makes it different. You have nothing, no opponent of gay marriage I have ever heard has presented any argument to me other that holds any water other than:
A. It’s against the Bible.
B. It’s icky.
And those reasons are perfectly fine for you to not like gay marriage, but they clearly are not constitutional grounds for limiting marriage.
SOME people consider infertility a dysfunction. Me? I’d *love* to be infertile. I don’t want kids, and I’d be ecstatic to be able to go through life without worrying about pregnancy. You know, because some people don’t want kids. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
“Biological norm” is complete BS. There are entire species of animals that reproduce without ever even seeing a member of the opposite sex. And then there are animals who take on members of other species and raise them, you know, like all those adorable pictures. So, strike 2.
Who gives two wanks about the “norm”? What does what some people consider normal have to do with rights? And why should what you think is best outweigh other peoples’ rights?
So how would you want to define marriage?
Union of two consenting legal adults for the purposes of creating a single household.
This is opposed to the more traditional definition which is “the acquisition of property from one man to another with the purpose of producing heirs”.
So I could marry my grandfather?
If you really want to.
Society has an interest in limiting marriage to a union between consenting adults. This means society has an interest in prohibiting certain forms of incest, because the parent-child, grandparent-grandchild, or even older sibling-younger sibling dynamic is inherently a relationship in which one person has authority over the other.
We define marriage (or any legal contract) as mutual assent between consenting adults, and the authority-driven family dynamics makes true consent between closely related family members impossible.
Right it has nothing to do with procreation or genetic diseases
The genetic argument against incest is specious. We don’t require genetic testing for marriage between unrelated people, nor do we forbid marriage between two carriers of the same disorder. We don’t require unrelated married couples who are both carriers for the same autosomal recessive disease to get sterilized even though each child they have has a 1/4 chance of having that disease. And if the family is not a carrier for an autosomal recessive genetic disorders like CF, the genetic faults of inbreeding take generations to develop. A single incestual relationship is unlikely to cause genetic harm unless the family is a already carrier for a genetic disorder.
We have valid reasons for barring incest that have absolutely nothing to do with procreation, and in my opinion those reasons are much more important than preventing genetic disease. A sexual relationship between parent and child might never result in a genetic disease, it might produce perfectly healthy offspring, but it will always be rape.
Why only two consenting adults?
So far a marriage contract can only involve two consenting adults. Please start an advocacy group for more than two adults if you have an issue with that.
How many marriages could I have?
As many as you want, so long as they aren’t concurrent, because bigamy is a crime.
Marriage is a means of designating one’s primary next of kin. Being the primary anything implies it is a role held by a single person. While I have no moral objection to allowing poly-amorous marriage between multiple consenting adults, I recognize that it open up an enormous legal can of worms that is not opened by SSM. How many spouses will an employer be required to cover on health benefits? How many children? Since a man with dozens of wives could potentially have hundreds of children, do we impose a cap on the child tax credit? If Spouse A falls into a persistent vegetative coma and has no medical directives or living will, Spouse B wants to pull the plug, but Spouse C wants to continue life support indefinitely… which spouse gets final say? If there are five other spouses with a 2-3 vote, do we let majority win? Poly-amorous marriage would require a massive legislative overhaul of every law related to marriage
Whereas current marriage laws can all be adapted by a simple search and replace. Swap out the gendered words “husband” and “wife” for the genderless “spouse” and you’re done.
One is not a slippery slope to the other.
Even as mentioned if this is a supposed “gotcha” question, it is legitimate. And I admit to having no clear answer on it. Even though I said two, I’m not actually against polygamy/amory.
The biggun’ against it on modern moral principles is based on one of the historic definitions of marriage, which included the possibility of polygamy, but which generally favoured polygnynous variations which extended from that “property” aspect which I mentioned earlier. I don’t personally think it’s a good objection in the western world, though, because we’ve exited that period, more or less (some exceptions occurring, of course) and the current stream of thought for polygamous relationships tend to mirror current monogamy in terms of equal ideas.
I think one can admit that it’s hard to defend the illegality of polygamy while also admitting that instituting it would be so legally messy that won’t be attempted any time soon. It’s no reason to keep gay marriage illegal. Theoretical perfection should not be allowed to stand in the way of practical improvement.
Since corporations are people why can’t I marry a corporation
It’d be hilarious to see the actual legal wrangling that would require. However, I’m not aware of any legal standing which acknowledges that corporations can give, uh… corporate consent.
Can I marry someone for the sole purpose of getting a green card
Yes, that’s legal right now throughout the country.
Even if it is fundamentally dishonest and unethical.
Can I marry myself
I don’t know why you’d want to.
You seem unbearable.
Ok that was hilarious ill give you that. But you didn’t answer the question
I didn’t answer it for 2 reasons:
1) You’re not interested in the answer.
2) It’s been answered. Marriage, at this point, is defined as marriage between a man and a woman. Currently it’s looking like the definition may shift to be inclusive of two people of the same sex because there is a) a large-scale movement of citizens who wish to have this right and have used their resources to garner publicity and support for their position, b) no secular reason to deny them equal protection under the law.
All of the little non-questions that you’re firing off here in an attempt to look clever illustrate situations which are either already legal (marrying for green cards), or are lacking in points a) and/or b) above. But please, don’t let that stop you from inserting another coin and trying again.
You could invent a time machine, get a sex-change, go back to the past, and fuck yourself*. So, I suppose marriage wouldn’t be out of the question. However, that’s a lot of trouble for nothing since right now you already have the rights and privileges of making end of life and financial decisions for yourself.
*This was the plot of a an Outer Limits episode, IIRC
Why two adults?
Marriage is a contract. You need to be an adult to sign a binding contract. You can’t marry a child for the same reason a child can’t take out a mortgage.
Are you done trolling? You can pull every “gotcha” question out of the book that you want, but it doesn’t change the basic truth: Rights are rights. And denying people their rights is immoral and illegal, no matter what some guy who think’s he’s smart on the internet can think up.
If marriage is a God-ordained institution intended solely for procreation, what about hetero married couples who could have children, but who choose not to have any? I know a few couples that meet that description. What would the “marriage is only for procreation” types want done with them? They are, after all, thwarting God’s will, and thumbing their noses at him, by having gotten married yet refusing to have any children.
The piss-poor arguments for why infertile couples can still marry might apply to fertile couples who don’t want to have children. Namely that straight couples still emulate a “true” family structure, and also have the “potential” to make a child. Not to mention that, even if hetero-couples won’t or can’t procreate, at least they ain’t having “non-procreative sex” (i.e. sodomy).
In other words, those couples are still doing God’s will, technically, because they’re men and women, and they aren’t — as far as pro-marriage advocates are concerned — engaging in anal or oral sex.
But we don’t believe that marriage is for the sole purpose of fecundity. We believe in the duality of the marital act. Both for fecundity and concupiscence
Wow. Simply wow.
PsiCop was presenting how ridiculous it is to make the argument that marriage is defined by one facet (procreation) and you took the bait and insisted “No, no!! Marriage isn’t about just one thing! It’s actually about TWO things: procreation and shameful desire!!” Do you think that if there’s two ridiculous, divinely inspired, criteria for a marriage instead of just one that it’s twice as good, or something?
But the bigger question is this: why should the law, any law, choose to enshrine your particular view of marriage over another? It’s awesome that your marriage only has two components, but mine has much more, and it’d be a shame if I were forced to dumb it down if someone like you were writing the laws, and decided that my desire wasn’t shameful enough, or that my wife wasn’t pregnant for enough months out of the year.
the real question is: why does he care?
is your own marriage so weak and threatened? if so, whose fault is that? certainly not mine; you don’t even know what kind of realtionship(s) i’m in, they have no effect on you. is your god so weak? he’s supposed to be omnipotent. if he really doesn’t want people of the same gender getting married, why doesn’t he just strike them down? not to mention all the other people of different faiths than yours; what makes you right and them wrong? there are lots of accepting and open religious groups out there who are just as sure as you are that god approves of same sex marriage? and what business is it of the state, anyway? i suppose i’m a marriage ‘radical,’ but i really don’t see the need for the state legislating anything about my personal relationships. a contract is a contract; i can sign one with someone i’m sleeping and living with, or not, and they are still legal. i advocate the redesign of all laws relating to cohabitation and marriage, mostly to keep the state’s involvement minimal.
go commit genocide, or abolish all shrimp, or bash some infants on rocks, if you love your holee text so much. it tells you to do that too. or, grow up and recognize that some people are smarter and more logical than you, and don’t need the crutch of fairy tales to feel comfortable in our uncertain and complex world.
I was just noting that if you are going to discuss someone’s viewpoint then you should actually state their viewpoint correctly
We have stated your “viewpoint” quite correctly — it’s not our fault you keep trying to obfuscate and spin your bigotry as a legitimate “viewpoint”.
Oh please, climb off of the high horse, already. Your position on these issues is well known, and one only needs to scroll down for examples. I’m honestly interested in the answers to the question that I posed in my second paragraph. You wouldn’t want me to have an incorrect interpretation of your viewpoint, would you? If you don’t want to answer then just say so, but you can think of it as ‘correcting my viewpoint’ if you must stay on the high horse to remain engaged.
Meant to also add that I was also interested in your answer to Chicago Dyke’s question, which you also dodged.
Why do you care about other people’s genitals so much?
Yeah, and nobody cares what your holy book says. You know, since it’s *illegal* for laws to be based on it. You remember that, right? I know it really, really burns you that you can’t condemn everyone you think god hates, but the US claims to be more civilized than that.
Re: “Both for fecundity and concupiscence”
If marriage is for concupiscence, and you think gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, is this because you think gays can’t be concupiscent? If so, why not?
As for whatever it is that you happen to “believe” about marriage … who are you to decide that your mere “beliefs” about marriage should become a mandate you can impose on everyone else in society, including those whose beliefs are different from yours? Who granted you that authority?
My ex and I got married in a civil ceremony, though I really don’t know why. It just seemed like a good idea. She couldn’t have children because of a serious medical condition she had when she was younger. Nothing really changed.
The only advantage is that now I as an older man, I can tell women that I try to pick up that I am divorced. That makes a difference. If you are a man past 50 and never married, women tend to think, he is weird what is wrong with him? If you are divorced, they tend to think that you must be normal because at least one woman wanted you enough to marry you.
As to concupiscence, that is just a fancy word for lust, and as I remember, the Bible doesn’t like lust much. Look up the sketch by Penn & Teller on “Normal Marriage” from their show “Bullshit”..
Have you read the companion parody book to “why homosexual unions are not marriages”? http://colorlessbluefrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/why-homosexual-unions-are-not-marriages/
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.