well that is rather obvious. no one ever denied it. I am asserting that a same-sex couple has no capacity for procreation. a different-sex couple does. Again, we will just have to disagree on this one.
So, though you’re a Christian, and your book specifically and pointedly declares judgement is the Lord’s, you’re okay with judging others because they sin differently than you, is that about it?
Because that just makes you a failed Christian who doesn’t seem to understand the tenants of his own faith. Why should anyone care about your odd interpretation of what constitutes marriage? You can’t even understand the basics it would seem.
How be you worry about your sins, let gays worry about theirs and let God sort it out. Y’know like that book dictates.
Well, I guess that makes sense. I cook and clean and nurture and hug and provide inconsistent discipline…but I also gap my own sparkplugs and grunt at sports. So it seems appropriate that I’m only a parent part of the time. I just have to make sure I get all butch when my kid is home, otherwise society will collapse.
(And before you say it, cornopean, yes I’m divorced, which I’m sure you’d contend was a human rights abuse against my child. But seriously, with his mother? I mean, have you met her?)
That’s where the tired old “Love the sinner, hate the sin” bullshit comes into it.
If they were my neighbors, I would invite them over for a barbecue. I grab their dog if it were running away. I would help their child if it skinned its knee. I would help him shingle his roof. As we got to be closer, I would bring up the subject of marriage. Of course, I wouldn’t accept his lifestyle in terms of condoning it. I would accept it in terms of living next to them and respecting him as an individual made in God’s image.
You seem to have as odd a definition of “respect” as you have of “contempt.”
Seriously, my interpretation of marriage may be “odd” to you but it has been the understanding of marriage of the vast majority of world history including the three major theistic religions. It at least deserves respect.
cornopean, yes you DID put down children being raised by people other than their biogenetic parents. You were asked to clarify…
But you only addressed selectively those parts of Broomstick’s post that you could attack with your “obviously unnatural” line of objection.
But never mind same gender parents, you also are throwing step and fostered children under the bus. You are proclaiming the inferiority of parentage by those parents who divorce and remarry, those second spouses who marry someone with preexisting children, people who adopt and who give up in adoption, hetero couples who recur to artificial insemination or to surrogacy. Heck, by tying it to formal ceremonial marriage, you are even scorning the parentage of a natural biogenetic parental couple who just don’t bother to make it official on the dotted line!
Where have you been living your whole current lifetime, that you are unaware of the legitimacy and acceptance of these childraising/familybuilding scenarios??
OP, there is no need to resere a special, revered term for heterosexual *civil *marriage, which in our societies has not been tied to reproduction for generations now. You do understand the whole deal is with officialization of civil marriage, right? That in no way shape or form has *sacramental *marriage been affected? And that civil marriage is defined by the civil laws?
You can keep asserting it all you want it’s been pointed out again and again it is untrue. If I were to marry my same sex marriage would have just as much capacity to produce children as my aunts opposite sex marriage.
Of course we have to disagree, you believe something that is demonstrably untrue.
Some different-sex couples do. Some don’t. Some different-sex couples, when applying for a marriage license, are asked, “Hey, do y’all have the capacity for procreation? Cuz if so, we won’t let you get married; but if not, then you can.”
Is there no one in this thread that agrees with me that men TEND towards certain patterns of behavior and women TEND towards other patterns of behavior? The differences between men and women are simply physical? there is nothing emotionally different? the whole “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” bit was just made up?
Sure. Times change, as does our understanding of what is right, and what is best for society and the individuals that comprise it.
There is no factual basis for your assertions; that at least deserves respect.
Can you show us where the three major religions state that their “understanding” of “marriage” is that it means “the union of two people who could theoretically procreate, unless there was some reason–other than homosexuality–preventing them from doing so”?
I went to a Catholic school for 8 years and never caught that part.
-VM
There are differences in aggregate, of course. Most–the vast majority–are societally-created.
But so what? You seem to be suggesting that we must perpetuate those differences, and that children are better off with those differences as part of their upbringing…and you have provided no real argument for why they would be.
Not to mention that families do not exist in a vacuum. Do you honestly think that the child of two men will have no feminine influences in its childhood? That a child of two women will have no masculine influences?
Seriously, please explain to me why the best model for a family involves one masculine father and one feminine mother?
.
I recognize that many children are raised in less than ideal circumstances and turn out really well. I also recognize that there are heroic foster-parents and single-moms who do amazing things with their kids. But I think we can agree that these are exceptions. This is NOT the way things are supposed to be. Reading some of my previous comments, I realize I wasn’t as clear as I should have been.
When you call a same-sex relationship a marriage, you are implying that this is a perfectly acceptable way for children to be reared and nurtured to adulthood. The normal is no longer the actual parents of a child raising him/her. That’s a problem IMO.
Well hell, there’s yer problem.
Yes.
No. Those who parent are “actual” parents, regardless of DNA. But that the norm is no longer biological parents being required for a healthy family? Yes.
Waiting on why.
are any of them genetic?
well I believe that the ways mom differs from dad are uniquely designed to provide the best possible “incubator” for children. Mom’s nurturing spirit shapes a child’s character in a certain way which dad can’t do. Dad’s rough and tough spirit does likewise. This isn’t to say that a child raised in a single-parent family is second rate or damaged. It’s just saying what the ideal is and what we should aspire to.
It is perfectly acceptable for children to be reared and nurtured into adulthood by gay people in same sex marriages.
If you have any evidence to the contrary please present it.
What difference does it make? You’re making generalizations about a whole group, and then assuming that every individual in that group matches the generalization. It’s called stereotyping. Here’s the thing, though: You want to make declarations about marriage and child-raising that affect every individual based on these perceived stereotypical tendencies.
[ul]
[li]Men tend to act masculine. Women tend to act feminine.[/li][li]Children need to be around someone masculine and someone feminine (why? because the Bible says so, I guess).[/li][li]Male-female couples will always have someone who acts masculine and someone who acts feminine, so the kids will be alright.[/li][li]Same-sex couples will have two people who act masculine or two people who act feminine, and the kids will not be alright.[/li][/ul]
Unless you’re willing to hold man-woman marriages to this standard of requiring one to act masculine and one to act feminine, then focusing on same-sex couples is, at best, hypocritical.
Which man? Which woman?
Oh, yeah. That man is more full of bullshit than, well, a bull.
-VM