What is marriage?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Wolverine, Aug 23, 2011.

  1. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    With your "Yup" response, I guess I can conclude that you agree with the definition of matrimony. Because you are in agreement with that definition, then I suppose you realize that a marriage between two men can never be exacted as per the definition. The definition also includes its etymology. For some strange reason, I just don't see how it is possible for a man to become a 'mother' simply by the stroke of a pen on a piece of paper, with or without state consent.
     
  2. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Marriage is a contract that creates KINSHIP with or without children.
     
  3. JavaBlack

    JavaBlack New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    21,729
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is purely rhetorical.
    We refer to the civil union between my wife and I (married by a judge, both agnostics, no kids) as a marriage. The thing we signed was a "marriage license."
    But somehow when gay people want to get married, we really can't use that word.

    Who cares?
    A church cannot be forced to recognize a marriage nor to take part in one it doesn't recognize.
    No gay person is going to force the Catholic Church to marry him/her.
    Hell, currently the Catholic Church rejects a lot of marriages.
     
  4. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You must have missed the OP concerning the legal nature of marriage.
     
  5. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    what's so evil about being happy?

    i chose to be happy

    i know many happily married people but some call that an oxymoron of terms too
     
  6. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,293
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well to me marriage is the joining of two souls by God into one. We share everything and are as one person. Together we have children and raise them to love their fellow man and God. It is a mystical rite that transcends history and connects us with all the people in the Church that came before us.


    I may not believe that two men can get married. The Church will never recognize that and rightly so. But the state has no place discriminating against two people who wish to share their wealth and allow one another access to their lives. That is why the state should get out of the marriage business. If it does not then they should allow any two adults to form any contract they want.

    Homosexuals could give a flying huha what the Church I myself thinks and that is just fine. They can do their thing and we can do ours. But sadly they will never have what we have in that kind of relationship.
     
  7. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Um..... yes they will. Homosexuals will love each other just as much as heterosexuals.
     
  8. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,293
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No doubt they will, but they will never have the mystical bond engendered by being joined by God. But hey, to each his own they can do what they want it does not harm me in any way.
     
  9. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If there is a god worthy of worship, it would certainly embrace homosexuals in the same way as heterosexuals.
     
  10. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,293
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh there is, God just asks for all of us to live and act a certian way. If you want to play the game you got to follow the rules. But I think we are getting off the point I believe the question was "what is marriage."
     
  11. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We are not really getting off point, I simply object to the "down the nose" approach and stating that homosexuals can go run off and have their cute little marriage, but they will never have a marriage like heterosexuals. Which is false.

    It makes very little sense. Why create homosexuals if you are going to deny them some sort of divine reward? It makes little sense. As I said before, a deity worthy of worship would not discriminate against his children in such a petty way.
     
  12. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,293
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not God so I do not know the why's in making us his children in certain ways. But I do know that we all have to struggle to find grace. We all of our own crosses to bare and for homosexuals it is their physical desires for members of the same sex. For others it is their propensity to try and mate with multiple women. Non of these things will stop some from gaining Christ's forgiveness as long as a person is willing to repent and not do it any more.

    The Church only marries a man to a woman. That is correct by tradition and scripturally the way to do it. A same sex couple cannot join together in the same way in the Church. It is the only truth I have for you and I am sorry if you do not like the answer. But then you dont have to either :)
     
  13. Ostap Bender

    Ostap Bender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    14,957
    Likes Received:
    1,274
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Marriage is a sacred bound between man and woman, its purpose is producing of children. Any new "progressive" definitions of marriage are nothing more as joke!
     
  14. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Welcome back...lol

    I guess you believe that any marriage couple who cannot procreate naturally should have their marriages terminated?
     
  15. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    can you just clarify for me exactly what the "gay lifestyle" is?

    Despite knowing quite a few gay people, I can't really identify what the core components of the "gay lifestyle" are.
     
  16. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not so sure about the bound bit ... what kind of bound are you referring to?

    1. A leap; a jump.
    2. A rebound; a bounce.

    1. To set a limit to; confine: a high wall that bounded the prison yard; lives that were bounded by poverty.
    2. To constitute the boundary or limit of: a city park that was bounded by busy streets.
    3. To identify the boundaries of; demarcate.


    1. Confined by bonds; tied: bound and gagged hostages.
    2. Being under legal or moral obligation: bound by my promise.
    3. Equipped with a cover or binding: bound volumes.
    4. Predetermined; certain: We're bound to be late.
    5. Determined; resolved: She's bound to be mayor.
    6. Linguistics Being a form, especially a morpheme, that cannot stand as an independent word, such as a prefix or suffix.
    7. Constipated.


    1. in bonds or chains; tied with or as if with a rope a bound prisoner
    2. (in combination) restricted; confined housebound fogbound
    3. (postpositive, foll by an infinitive) destined; sure; certain it's bound to happen
    4. (postpositive, often foll by by) compelled or obliged to act, behave, or think in a particular way, as by duty, circumstance, or convention
    5. (Communication Arts / Printing, Lithography & Bookbinding) (of a book) secured within a cover or binding to deliver bound books See also half-bound
    6. (postpositive, foll by on) US resolved; determined bound on winning
    7. (Linguistics / Phonetics & Phonology) Linguistics
    a. denoting a morpheme, such as the prefix non-, that occurs only as part of another word and not as a separate word in itself Compare free [21]
    b. (in systemic grammar) denoting a clause that has a nonfinite predicator or that is introduced by a binder, and that occurs only together with a freestanding clause
    8. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic (of a variable) occurring within the scope of a quantifier that indicates the degree of generality of the open sentence in which the variable occurs: in (x) (Fx → bxy), x is bound and y is free Compare free [22]
    bound up with closely or inextricably linked with his irritability is bound up with his work
    I'll be bound I am sure (something) is true

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. to move forwards or make (one's way) by leaps or jumps
    2. to bounce; spring away from an impact
    n
    1. a jump upwards or forwards
    by leaps and bounds with unexpectedly rapid progess her condition improved by leaps and bounds
    3. a sudden pronounced sense of excitement his heart gave a sudden bound when he saw her
    4. a bounce, as of a ball
    [from Old French bond a leap, from bondir to jump, resound, from Vulgar Latin bombitīre (unattested) to buzz, hum, from Latin bombus booming sound]


    1. (tr) to place restrictions on; limit
    2. (when intr, foll by on) to form a boundary of (an area of land or sea, political or administrative region, etc.)
    n
    1. (Mathematics) Maths
    a. a number which is greater than all the members of a set of numbers (an upper bound), or less than all its members (a lower bound) See also bounded [1]
    b. more generally, an element of an ordered set that has the same ordering relation to all the members of a given subset
    c. whence, an estimate of the extent of some set
    2. See bounds
    [from Old French bonde, from Medieval Latin bodina, of Gaulish origin]


    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bound
     
  17. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They have a reason, it's because they desperately want everyone to accept their sexual habits as 'normal.' A Hetero is supposed to see them as a 'typical' couple. They think this will be more easily achieved if they can infiltrate the traditional definition of the institution of marriage. It's all about denying their own problems really.
     
  18. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This post represents the quintessential 'cheap shot.'
     
  19. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think this post demonstrates a classic misunderstanding of the benefits that a legal relationship confers on the individuals who are party to that relationship, and therefore you leap (or bound) to the wrong conclusion as to why homosexual couples may wish to have their relationships legally sanctioned.

    what homosexual couples want has nothing to do with you.

    you are not really of much interest to them.

    sorry to break it to you ... but if you want to divide into an "us and them" scenario - maybe you should look at the problems which are common in hetero relationships first?

    you might consider the divorc e rates, the incidence of child abuse, domestic violence, irrevocable breakdown of the relationships and dragging kids throufgh the legal system etc ....

    when hetero relationships are pefect, THEN you can start talking about the problems gay people might have, and how marriage might be a way of denying these problems.
     
  20. smileyface

    smileyface Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,207
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All married heterosexuals do not have children there marriage should then be unified I guess since you think this is the only reason.
     
  21. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Better than suggesting that marriage is a legal right, just for 'benefits' (taking from the majority to circumvent tax obligations)

    ie.... if no new mouth to feed, then no tax advantage

    Few people recognize that many of the people who cannot procreate or have no intent of procreation are getting married just to benefit their own position versus 'love'.

    ie..... it is almost as stupid as a women expecting a 'diamond' upon the proposal and weighing in the level of LOVE by how big it is.
     
  22. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The point is anyone can set up a legal relationship. Homosexuals just want the label 'marriage' to be bestowed upon them because they realize their sexual practices are aberrant and want 'normalcy' conferred on them by the majority which is normal heterosexual.

    They want the institution of marriage and I do not want my children and grandchildren thinking homosexuality is normal...Because it isn't.

    Apparently because I oppose so-called 'gay-marriage' I am of great 'interest' to 'them' as evidenced by the hundreds of attacks on my POV by the cadre of militant gays and their sycophants that post right here on the Forum.

    It is folks like you that want to "divide into an us and them scenario" I am content to leave things as they are, that is, to not redefine a long-standing, strong institution (in this case marriage) so that a small group won't be inconvenienced.

    Gays are not immune from broken relationships, many do abuse children and are violent.

    I see, so until YOU deign to bestow perfection on a group of people, they have to keep their mouths shut? Who made YOU 'queen?' LOL
     
  23. saintmichaeldefendthem

    saintmichaeldefendthem New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    8,393
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ....Well said
     
  24. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    wrong. just wrong.

    they don't realise their sexual practices are abnormal. they recognise themselves as human beings, same as you, and therefore they should have the same rights.



    well I am sure you will do your best to reinforce this


    if you didn't malign and attack people based on their sexuality, nobody would have an issue with you ... at least not on that topic.


    marriage isn't that strong an institution, and that has nothing to do with homosexuality

    you need to look at the stats on dysfunctional hetero marriages.


    huh?

    you probably would have supported laws against miscegenation in the past, too
     
  25. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If homosexuals don't recognize that their sexual practices (i.e. pretending an anal canal is a vagina) are abnormal, they are either ignorant or ignorant by choice (stupid) and anyone who thinks their sexual practices are normal has swallowed.

    Please don't infer that I think homosexuals are not human beings, I never said that however, all human beings have the capacity for acting like spoiled children and wanting everyone else to give them what they want.

    Once again you deflect from the substance of the conversation in order to obfuscate. We are discussing a societal change here. Parents are undermined by the brain-washing of their children by the State.

    I am merely stating my POV of what is obvious. Homosexuality is aberrant sexual behavior. Even the word makes no sense because it contains the word 'sex' which refers to 2 distinct types of humans. Men and Women. There is no 3rd sex. So far, no homosexual or homosexual supporter has wanted to discuss this, all I get are posts like yours accusing me of attacking, calling me a homophobe, racist, bigot and worse.

    And please stop assuming I hate homosexuals...I do not. They have every right to practice their sexual behavior as long as they are not trampling on the rights of others. Where I disagree is the homosexual movement trying to redefine the institution of marriage.

    Marriage and the nuclear family make up the corner-stone of American society but you are right...Marriage does not include homosexuals.

    What could be more 'dysfunctional' than two men pretending to be a man and woman OR two women pretending to be a man and woman?

    You heard me...read it again.

    Another baseless accusation thrown at folks who disagree with gay marriage. It is really shameful how such garbage is thrown around by the gay militant crowd. Tell me, what 'race' is 'homosexual?' How does miscegenation have anything to do with gay marriage other than to use a completely different set of circumstances to create a straw-man argument?
     

Share This Page