So now we're comparing gay marriage to marriage between a human and a dog? Really?

 

Are you really equating gay marriage to bestiality? :popcorn:

No, I'm not equating them. I think gay marriage could lead to that eventually. I know my views are kinda crazy, but I'm not the only one on earth with them.

I see nothing "right" with telling an adult that they aren't allowed to have a consenting relationship with another adult. Seems incredibly self-serving to me.

 

Not to get off topic, and I know I'll sound a bit extreme, but here goes.

 

But the only way we know of in order for us to get to heaven, is to help bring others to God. And if we see and allow others to live in sin, they cannot find God since sin is ultimately pushing oneself away from God. Christians can tell society what's right and wrong with actions.

Not to get off topic, and I know I'll sound a bit extreme, but here goes.

 

But the only way we know of in order for us to get to heaven, is to help bring others to God. And if we see and allow others to live in sin, they cannot find God since sin is ultimately pushing oneself away from God. Christians can tell society what's right and wrong with actions.

 

Oh, please. We all live in sin daily.

Oh, please. We all live in sin daily.

 

Right, but we can still try to help others to avoid it.

Right, but we can still try to help others to avoid it.

 

I say let's focus on ourselves rather than trying to make decisions for entire groups of people we can't even begin to remotely relate to.

No, I'm not equating them. I think gay marriage could lead to that eventually. I know my views are kinda crazy, but I'm not the only one on earth with them.

 

By that same logic, allowing more people to vote only opens the door for allowing monkeys to vote, right?

 

I mean, you couldn't marry an animal because, you know, they don't quite have a legal standing in society. I mean, I'm sure you could find some sort of cult or something that will give you a ceremony and say that you're "married" but in the real world, dogs aren't humans.

 

That's a really really really bad argument.

By that same logic, allowing more people to vote only opens the door for allowing monkeys to vote, right?

 

I mean, you couldn't marry an animal because, you know, they don't quite have a legal standing in society. I mean, I'm sure you could find some sort of cult or something that will give you a ceremony and say that you're "married" but in the real world, dogs aren't humans.

 

That's a really really really bad argument.

 

But the point people make is that marriage is all about love and nothing else, whereas I argue that it has to do with the specific love between a man and a woman.

 

Eventually, people may say that dogs love their owners and owners love their dogs, so I don't think its out of the realm of possibility that people could make a case for it. It is far away on the realm of possibility, but it is there. I understand it is an extreme. But approving gay marriage is the first step towards that, IMO.

 

 

Voting is different. The right to vote has shown (at least in the US) to be based upon what race, sex, class, one is born into. Women, blacks, and poor people proved to have intellectual capability, and were able to fight for the right and won it eventually. Monkeys do not have that type of intellectual capability.

Exactly. And why not marriage between three people? Or marriage between me and my sick dog? He needs health benefits too.

 

These are the questions I fear that will arise in the future assuming gay 'marriage' is made legal. Which at this point, it is difficult for me to envision a future where it is not legal and considered normal.

 

I bought my dog health benefits (it costs about $400/year) and didn't have to marry her. In all seriousness (although my dog does have health coverage), it's a pretty big leap you're making. And while there are folks that are married to multiple partners or would like to marry their pet, or sister, or aunt, to say that Gay marriage is the key that's going to open that pandora's box is pretty flimsy. There are already laws that address those situations you mention. It certainly won't cause the end of civilization as we know it. Ultimately, Gay Marriage has zero effect on the vast majority of the world. Allowing it hurts no one, whereas disallowing because we think it's icky, only affects those Gay's that wish to marry, while providing no benefit to anyone.

But the point people make is that marriage is all about love and nothing else, whereas I argue that it has to do with the specific love between a man and a woman.

 

Eventually, people may say that dogs love their owners and owners love their dogs, so I don't think its out of the realm of possibility that people could make a case for it. It is far away on the realm of possibility, but it is there. I understand it is an extreme. But approving gay marriage is the first step towards that, IMO.

 

 

Voting is different. The right to vote has shown (at least in the US) to be based upon what race, sex, class, one is born into. Women, blacks, and poor people proved to have intellectual capability, and were able to fight for the right and won it eventually. Monkeys do not have that type of intellectual capability.

 

No, it isn't even in the realm of possibility.

 

People are saying that consenting adults should be allowed to marry. In what world does consenting adults even begin to include animals?

But the point people make is that marriage is all about love and nothing else, whereas I argue that it has to do with the specific love between a man and a woman.

 

Eventually, people may say that dogs love their owners and owners love their dogs, so I don't think its out of the realm of possibility that people could make a case for it. It is far away on the realm of possibility, but it is there. I understand it is an extreme. But approving gay marriage is the first step towards that, IMO.

 

 

Voting is different. The right to vote has shown (at least in the US) to be based upon what race, sex, class, one is born into. Women, blacks, and poor people proved to have intellectual capability, and were able to fight for the right and won it eventually. Monkeys do not have that type of intellectual capability.

 

You're building an argument around "may."

 

I like that you bring up that an animal doesn't have the intellectual capability to have the ability to fight for the right to vote. But somehow animals have the intellectual capability to fight for marriage.

 

And if we are going to limit it to just 1 man and 1 woman, what do we do with transgender individuals?

 

I'm going to be honest, I don't really understand the resistance to it on any logical grounds. It doesn't impact your life. I mean, unless someone is forcing you to get gay married, I don't get it. Maybe that's just me. I'm a pretty laid back person when it comes to what other people want to do. We're all going to die, and in the grand scheme of time it's going to be really really soon. Why not die happy?

I bought my dog health benefits (it costs about $400/year) and didn't have to marry her. In all seriousness (although my dog does have health coverage), it's a pretty big leap you're making. And while there are folks that are married to multiple partners or would like to marry their pet, or sister, or aunt, to say that Gay marriage is the key that's going to open that pandora's box is pretty flimsy. There are already laws that address those situations you mention. It certainly won't cause the end of civilization as we know it. Ultimately, Gay Marriage has zero effect on the vast majority of the world. Allowing it hurts no one, whereas disallowing because we think it's icky, only affects those Gay's that wish to marry, while providing no benefit to anyone.

 

Marriage is not about health benefits or tax credits. Supporters of gay marriage argue it is about love. I argue that is about love between a man and a woman in Christ to procreate.

 

 

Here's a my perspective:

 

If you saw someone standing on the edge of a bridge, you would try to help them, right?

 

Picture gay marriage as a moral bridge: I see it as I see people on the verge of severely damaging their relationship with God, so I'm trying to help them and show them what's right.

 

I know you may not be a theist/Christian or whatever (and this is really addressing all readers, not you specifically), but we Christians believe we are called to help others in that sense and try to bring them to God. And we believe that allowing Marriage (the sacred union between a man and a woman with God) to lose its meaning and importance in the world is pushing people away from God.

No, it isn't even in the realm of possibility.

 

People are saying that consenting adults should be allowed to marry. In what world does consenting adults even begin to include animals?

 

But if gay people and straight people have the "same" love, whose to say that dogs can't either? Dogs are always excited to see their owners and sad when they leave.

 

I understand how ridiculous this argument sounds. But there are people who would not dispute it.

You're building an argument around "may."

 

I like that you bring up that an animal doesn't have the intellectual capability to have the ability to fight for the right to vote. But somehow animals have the intellectual capability to fight for marriage.

 

And if we are going to limit it to just 1 man and 1 woman, what do we do with transgender individuals?

 

I'm going to be honest, I don't really understand the resistance to it on any logical grounds. It doesn't impact your life. I mean, unless someone is forcing you to get gay married, I don't get it. Maybe that's just me. I'm a pretty laid back person when it comes to what other people want to do. We're all going to die, and in the grand scheme of time it's going to be really really soon. Why not die happy?

 

To the bolded, please see post #56 .

 

To the rest: That's the scary thing, it won't be dogs fighting to get married, it will be people fighting to marry their dogs. IMO.

Marriage is not about health benefits or tax credits. Supporters of gay marriage argue it is about love. I argue that is about love between a man and a woman in Christ to procreate.

 

 

That's what we're going to use? So, the elderly are out. So are the infertile. So are people who just don't want kids. Come on man, I think you're better than that.

That's what we're going to use? So, the elderly are out. So are the infertile. So are people who just don't want kids. Come on man, I think you're better than that.

 

Sorry, I should have been more specific. That is one of the purposes of marriage.

 

"These two purposes are growth in mutual love between the spouses (unitive) and the generation and education of children (procreative).

 

The mutual love of a married couple should always be open to new life. This openness is expressed powerfully in the sexual union of husband and wife. The power to create a child with God is at the heart of what spouses share with each other in sexual intercourse. Mutual love includes the mutual gift of fertility. Couples who are not able to conceive or who are beyond their child-bearing years can still express openness to life. They can share their generative love with grandchildren, other children and families, and the wider community."