Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

So some are now on the record saying marriage isn't about love?And marriage is all about raising children? Except when a gay couple have children, but marriage is still about raising children?And marriage is all about producing children? Except when a heterosexual couple cannot produce children, but it's still about producing children?You know, people really shouldn't try to make secular arguments against same-sex marriage. They should just stick with, "The god I worship thinks gay marriage is evil," and leave it at that. It wouldn't cut ice with me and wouldn't work as a legal argument, but at least it would limit how much of a fool they make themselves.Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.

Then your argument is even more of a failure. If there was no biological "fit" between same-sex couples, there wouldn't be any same-sex couples.

That's true. In the history of the human race, marriage has usually been about property. Never has it ever been about any silly "biological fit" as you claim.

The charade is your laughable idea that we have to follow some kind of biological imperative.

And alliances between families and clans.

They aren't pretending to be a normal heterosexual couple. They ARE a couple. Whether you accept it or not, they are raising families, and they would do so with or without the legalization of gay marriage. All they are asking for is the same legal protections that straight couples enjoy in the eyes of the law. For example, they want the same right to pick up their children from the hospital that other married couples enjoy. They want the same rights to visit their children in their hospital rooms. They want their health insurance to cover their children. They aren't pretending to be a family. They are a family. All they are asking for is the same protections that other families are afforded.

Marriage is about a lot of things and means different things to different people and to different cultures. Its somewhat accurate to say that historically marriage isn't about love in some cultures where marriages are arranged for the continuation of bloodlines. Strangely I feel that is somehow preferable to you than two men or two women who genuinely love each other.But traditionally, in the West, we see arranged marriages as shams that invalidates the feelings and agency of individuals choosing to marry who they love, who they have strong friendship with, who they are sexually attracted and sexually compatible with, who they trust to have their back and, yes, often times who they think will be a good mate in raising happy, healthy children with.But it isn't exclusive to having children. I know lots and lots of people who are married and who do not want children. Or had children in a previous marriage and do not want more in their new marriage. Happens all the time.

Wouldn't that be more of a modern, post-Enlightenment view of marriage in the West?

I suppose so. My point is that marriage isn't really as one-sided as Faith either believes it to be or wants it to be.We also shouldn't use traditions as the basis of validation at all. Hell, if she wants to get biblical and traditional then she should be a strong advocate of polyamory. Abraham, the father of three major religions, was a philanderer to the tenth degree. Lot was raped by his own daughters and impregnated them... Moses, the guy who said 'Thou shalt not murder," murdered an Egyptian and hid is dead body in the sand. David couldn't stop being unfaithful to anyone. Paul shunned marriage altogether.If we're gonna use tradition as the basis for anything, she needs to recognize that traditions morph over time.

Exactly. If the only reason to continue doing something is because we have always done it that way then you don't have a reason. All morality should be questioned and argued.

I would have expected you to know this but I guess you don't. The behavior of great men of the Bible in having many wives was forbidden but they did it anyway. They were sinners, at odds with God who decreed one man, one woman for marriage. THAT's the tradition I have in mind. The man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife....Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There was never any such decree. It's a non-Biblical tradition, like most of your theology. Cleaving to a wife doesn't preclude the possibility of other wives. Jacob, for one example, already had a wife when he cleaved to his chosen Rachel - yet God chose him to be the father of the nation of Israel.

Are you a total atheist or do you have at least some vague expectation that you are going to have to answer to God for all the false stuff you say here?

That's a pretty empty reply to my post. Why are you always so unwilling (or unable) to show that what you label as "false" is actually false?

quote:

---

Are you a total atheist or do you have at least some vague expectation that you are going to have to answer to God for all the false stuff you say here?

---

Since you are the one who saying “false stuff” I’d like to hear your answer to the question.Ringo is correct, there is no general decree against polygamy in the Bible.