Search results

I'm a bit late but just my 2c when discussing human rights. Firstly, the government recognises marriage - it doesn't create it. Assuming marriage is whatever one wants it to be, a persons right to enter into a marriage does not mean another person (or the state) must recognise it. Everyone...

Hmmm and what was he fulfilling? And my mistake, I'm not saying he didnt act as a prophet, I am saying he is not JUST a prophet. Does not undermine His divinity. Christ = Christos in greek. Christos is the Annointed One, aka the Messiah. The messiah they awaited would fulfill the...

I find it very interesting that Muslims use the bible to argue that Jesus was not divine, as interesting as braintic finds muslims and christians debating (unless he doesn't find it interesting at all). By looking at the bible, one should deem Jesus to be Divine, a lunatic or a liar. Nothing...

It might be. But in this case he was insulting me considering I referred to the Latin root of a word. That's ok though just another leftie making digs at the person rather than making sense. Probably throws the word bigot around a fair bit too.

The reason I haven't defended it because discussing it is a whole new question, and would detract from the question of this thread. While it is an element, I think if we talk about parenting, pro-SSMers will be under the impression that showing SS couples can be good parents somehow justifies SSM.

Oh I do believe it is in the best interest of society, and I am not backing away from that. I simply said it's irrelevant when we talk specifically about definitions. I say "marriage is between two physically complementary people, male and female, who in principle can procreate." You reply...

im actually not sure if you're serious

I say in principle because I'm not talking circumstantially, i talk by definition of. So by definition, male and female make babies. Marriage exists for male and female (because they can make babies). If, in principle (by definition of), two cannot make a baby (e.i two males, two females), then...

then that's not one couple producing kids, is it? you're simply giving more incidental evidence which does nothing for what you're trying to prove. at the end of the day, two men or two women cannot produce a child. thats it. and while children are not a prerequisite for marriage, the physical...

that doesn't change the purpose. the fact you believe others can parent doesnt change the fact that same sex couples do not complement physically, and cannot, in principle, produce children.

"completely undermines it's purpose in regards to children. You're still giving circumstances as to where marriage has failed. And yes, I do believe it should be life. i.e im not in support of no-fault divorce. You can't justify SSM by giving examples where heterosexual marriage has gone...

Just because a lot of people want something it doesn't make it right. Yes it will, because if the purpose is kids, and in principle two males or two females cannot have kids (in principle is key here), then you can't extend that purpose. (I didn't answer the rest of the post because I...

Just because it has been redefined before it does not mean we should continue to do so. And while no-fault divorce has definitely had a negative effect towards marriage, SSM would be a worse effect because it completely undermines its purpose. The discussion should be whether the change is...

The intrinsic difference between male and female is irrelevant here, and for another conversation. In the case of marriage, lets consider its purely about physical difference and complementarity, which im sure no one will disagree with. But the fact its trending away is not necessarily a good...

Well then ask yourself why they recognise it. Because its not simply about love. It's is a social structure to protect children, by providing both parents. "Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It...

- All girls school exists. - Male wants to join - They say no It's not unfair because its a school created for females.

OK now we're getting somewhere. Because the bolded is what redefining marriage will lead to/practically achieve: the dissolving of marriage. I have no problem that you think this (I disagree of course, but I can't make you value marriage), but instead of the gay movement seeking to redfine...

Firstly, no im not muslim. And the fact you can't identify if I'm one of those based on my reasoning shows it has no bearing on my reasoning.

.

They're still valid because they're not producing fatherless children (refer to earlier post), or children without either one of the parents.