David Cameron 'backs gay marriage in church', page 2

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

reply posted on 7-12-2012 @ 03:59 PM by kaylaluv

Originally posted by mrkeen
The idea of two people being married to each other derives from the fact that there are exactly two biological sexes. If we had three sexes (as was the case with some race in one of Star Trek episodes), marriage would be a union of three people. So once you exclude the notion of biological sex from marriage, but still leave the number two there, it just adds to the idiocy of the whole affair. Why would exactly two people be "married" to each other? What does it mean? Why not 12 or 100 people?
edit on 7-12-2012 by mrkeen because: spelling

That is going on the ancient, traditional assumption that the two people getting married were going to procreate and have a family. That is not always the case now. Now, two heterosexual people sometimes get married without the intention of having children. Now, two heterosexual people may get married, but adopt their children instead of having them biologically. These non-traditional types of marriages are still legal marriages, but they don't absolutely require opposite sex unions, because there is no actual procreation going on.

Two people is the most intimate number of a love-based union, so two people in a marriage make sense, but there are people who claim to have very intimate, serious relationships with multiple partners. I see nothing wrong with 3, 4, 5 or more people getting married to each other, if there is true love, commitment and consent among the partners.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 12:28 AM by mrkeen

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I see nothing wrong with 3, 4, 5 or more people getting married to each other, if there is true love, commitment and consent among the partners.

How about 100 people? Do you think there should be a legal limit for the number of people? What will be the basis for this limit? Do they have to prove they are all intimate with each other or that they intend to have sex with each other? Is having sex necessary? Do you have to prove that you want and can have sex? If sex is not relevant, then can, say, 10 friends all marry each other? And your assumption about two being the 'default' number in a relationship is not substantiated. Have you heard about 'love triangles', for example? You see, my point is not that somebody has to be denied the right to live with a partner, but the fact that marriage is K-Q (in terms of cards). You'll have to change a lot of rules in this world if you want to re-define marriage, even card games. Do you know that in ancient world there were sometimes homosexual relationships among people, but nobody even thought about re-defining marriage, and most men ultimately married women? Do you know that there was no word for a 'homosexual person' in medieval Japan, but there was a word for a 'man who doesn't like women'? Why not invent another word for a non-standard relationship, why would anybody want to re-define marriage?

edit on 8-12-2012 by mrkeen because: minor edit

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 02:51 AM by kaylaluv

reply to post by mrkeen

There have been same-sex marriages in ancient history. Check out Mesopotamia, among other ancient civilizations.

Is sex necessary now, in heterosexual marriages? Do you have to swear in a court of law that you will have sex x number of times a week in order to get a marriage license?

Marriage has already been redefined. Same-sex marriage is legal in several countries and a few U.S. states. That bridge has already been crossed. I don't know what people are so afraid of. The world won't come to an end because of gay marriage. Gay marriage won't hurt the sanctity of marriage any more than Brittany Spear's 72 hour marriage, or Elizabeth Taylor's 7 or 8 marriages, or the "get hitched in the Elvis Chapel in Las Vegas cuz we're drunk" marriages. Traditional marriages will keep on happening regardless. And they'll mean just as much to those traditional people as before. No worries.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 03:03 AM by sepermeru

Not only does this not force any church to perform marriage ceremonies for same-gender couples, it actually ALLOWS them to where they cannot do so now. The Quakers, for example, wish to perform such marriages and under the current law CANNOT do so, so this is meant to rectify that. And the argument that it could somehow lead to churches being forced to perform marriages is a non-starter, as the only way that could happen would be through the EU, which has already ruled that it won't infringe upon religious rights in this issue.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 04:01 AM by mrkeen

reply to post by kaylaluv

Well, so what is your definition of marriage then? Please do not reference the traditional definition, just define it from scratch. Here is my take on it (ahem): "Marriage is a voluntary union of one or more people who do not promise to have sex or children or even live together. They just want to... well.... be called 'married'"

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 04:27 AM by kaylaluv

Originally posted by mrkeen
reply to post by kaylaluv

Well, so what is your definition of marriage then? Please do not reference the traditional definition, just define it from scratch. Here is my take on it (ahem): "Marriage is a voluntary union of one or more people who do not promise to have sex or children or even live together. They just want to... well.... be called 'married'"

My definition of marriage is the definition of what it is right now: a union of consenting adults for various reasons - love, money, status, companionship, tax advantages, "trophy spouses", family, legalized citizenship, a person to party with, getting away from abusive parents, accidentally getting "knocked up", etc., etc., etc. Gay marriage won't change that current definition much, will it?

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 05:16 AM by mrkeen

reply to post by kaylaluv

Is a union of 2-5 consenting adults for playing poker also considered marriage by your definition? And how about a football match or a barbecue party? That's ridiculous. There so many kinds of unions in this world, you can't just take one of them (named 'marriage') and make it the all-encompassing term.

edit on 8-12-2012 by mrkeen because: minor edit

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 06:03 AM by kaylaluv

Originally posted by mrkeen
reply to post by kaylaluv

Is a union of 2-5 consenting adults for playing poker also considered marriage by your definition? And how about a football match or a barbecue party? That's ridiculous. There so many kinds of unions in this world, you can't just take one of them (named 'marriage') and make it the all-encompassing term.
edit on 8-12-2012 by mrkeen because: minor edit

If you want to try and pass a law that says no one can get married unless they swear that it's based on love and procreating, good luck with that.

You're letting your fear take over. Marriage is not this sacred thing, that would be ruined if we let "the gays" in the club. These same kinds of fears were raised when interracial marriage was being debated over 50 years ago. You need to get past this fear that everything is going to go to hell if we allow two men who want to have a committed, loving relationship, be able to publicly and personally legalize that relationship with a marriage license, and call it what it is -- a marriage. Gays who want to get married seem to take it a lot more seriously than nut jobs like Brittany Spears and Kim Kardashian, no? Now, if you want to pass a law that keeps those nut jobs from getting married, I'm all for it. Just because you're a heterosexual, doesn't mean your marriage would be so much better than a gay person's.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 06:05 AM by GhostyMew

Why the # does it matter? Get rid of marriage all together. Stupid idea for stupid people.

reply posted on 9-12-2012 @ 04:43 AM by corsair00

Holy smokes! For a second I thought this thread was titled: Kirk Cameron backs gay marriage in church.