RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage

Marriage is necessitated by social/moral objectives, but the question is what establishes a precedent for it. I believe that if you think this one over, you might understand the true motivation behind your desire to have homosexuals associated with marriage.

I don't think so. My motivation isn't that complicated. I love my guy and have been happy spending my life with him. It's even better having it legally recognized with the legal benefits.

Evasion has never suited you. You have the opportunity for a breakthrough here, but you're avoiding the truth like the plague.

You consider love avoiding the truth?

Marriage in every culture is a religious institution, a ceremony before God, where one man and one woman publicly before those present vow lifelong commitment to each other.

As said in GENESIS 2:24-25, the two in marriage as man and wife "become one flesh" in their children.

Also, as is repeatedly referred to in the Bible throughout, and especially in REVELATION, the Church (consisting of all Christian believers) is referred to as "the Bride" and Jesus as "the Bridegroom". Marriage is a manifestation of lifelong faithfulness and commitment between man and woman, that manifests the same commitment of each believer to God. And as I said, also manifests the commitment between the Church as a whole and Jesus the messiah.
As contrasted with the False Prophet and the Whore of Babylon, which increasingly looks like the whole of Social Marxism/Political Correctness that has waged war for decades on Christianity, that Gay organizations are clearly and vocally a part of.

Beyond that, the Bible has outright declared homosexuality immoral and evil (I've listed most of the verses within the last page) so there is no mistaking that "gay marriage" is somehow compatible with religious faith, certainly not Christian or Jewish faith, for those who know their Bible. Likewise not compatible with Muslim religion. And from what I've seen, there is no endorsement of homosexuality in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. I've had a great many friends from China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.
Pretty much the only safe place in the world for homosexuals is the secularist West of Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As we've seen in recent months, even Russia has doubled down in their rejection of homosexuality.

So the notion that Christianity, or any other significant culture or religion, endorses gay marriage, or that it is "the same" is clear deceit and a non-starter from the outset. Only in the whitewashed world of Political Correctness, that outlaws the truth as "hate speech".

Gays don't have children, there is no two becoming "one flesh".
Gay marriage is not a covenant that manifests a larger commitment to God, or commitment to the Church. Quite the opposite, in every political movement by gays for 40 years, they clearly are the antichristian soldiers of Social Marxism and the AntiChrist, to drive Christianity out of our culture.

There is no logical reason for gays to seek marriage and twist the definition of marriage, a twisted definition that the Bible and the Christians who follow it (and Jews, and Muslims) recognize as a scripturally cited evil, and a homosexual movement that is part of an organized war on their religious faith.

Within a secularist framework of non-religious state-recognized civil union there might be the slightest rationalization. But gays seeking a wedding for "the same reasons as other people" is complete hypocrisy.

You of course have a right to your views WB but it's one that is losing ground.

You're saying that mutual affection establishes precedent for marriage, but marriage has never required a prerequisite of affection. And, for that matter, marriage has never been a requirement for people who share affection. The synthesis between Marriage and affection was an expressly cultural development.

If your interpretation for the precedent of marriage's practice is dependent upon a purely cultural aspect of the institution, then what does that tell you about you--and homosexuals in general--assigning so much importance to the ritual?

Answer please.

I already did eight posts ago: "Marriage is necessitated by social/moral objectives."

In which case: "You're saying that mutual affection establishes precedent for marriage, but marriage has never required a prerequisite of affection. And, for that matter, marriage has never been a requirement for people who share affection. The synthesis between Marriage and affection is an expressly cultural development.

If your interpretation for the precedent of marriage's practice is dependent upon a purely cultural aspect of the institution, then what does that tell you about you--and homosexuals in general--assigning so much importance to the ritual?"

What exactly would fall into a social & moral objective?

Reasons that have nothing to do with affection.

Don't bother stalling. You and I both know the implications of fixating on the cultural aspects of marriage rather than its mechanics. If you're too scared and/or humiliated to acknowledge them, then say so, but don't bother pleading ignorance.

I'm not stalling but trying to understand. I would point out that you're the one losing ground in the marriage equality battle. I'm fine if you can't defend what your saying.

Stop running from reality MEM. Just take a moment to consider why you hold this perception of marriage and you will achieve ultimate clarity.

Reality is gay marriage is becoming legal in more and more places. If you can't or won't explain your position than maybe your position isn't all that solid? You brought up ...



I'm curious how you apply that to heterosexuals vs gay couples. To me both sides want the same thing out of a marriage but what would fall into "necessitated"?

Hehe. Typical MEM: 'the majority is on my side, so everything you say is invalid.'

You're already aware of my position. If you weren't, you'd feel more inclined to answer the question instead of avoiding analysis of the contemporary mindset that attracts homosexuals to the concept of matrimony regardless of the fact that affection doesn't necessitate marriage.

This really isn't that difficult, but I'll make it a lot simpler for you: If marriage and affection aren't interdependent, but homosexual couples seek to get married as a matter of course anyway, then what does that say about you--and homosexuals in general--assigning so much importance to the ritual?

Clearly, if my position isn't all that solid, then the integrity of your own position won't be jeopardized by considering the question.



The morality that spawned marriage does not correspond with sexually indiscriminate couplings. The process of marrying fails to meet its intended goal of family building mergers if the format doesn't satisfy the man-woman parameters. Marriage has no purpose otherwise.

I go at length about it in this thread.



If marriage existed solely as an affectionate bond, then why do you think its institution would involve the state?

Marriage in a church would have to be between two people who are not part of a cultural war against the church performing the ceremony.

As I said, gays are overtly anti-Christian liberal-progressives, undermining the Christian church and marriage institution they mock by demanding a right to marry.

But we're talking about legal marriage, not a religion. Although there are churches that will marry the gays.

Your own interest in marriage is more concerned with its religious origins than you'd care to admit. You'd realize that if you just answer the question.

"If marriage and affection aren't interdependent, but homosexual couples seek to get married as a matter of course anyway, then what does that say about you--and homosexuals in general--assigning so much importance to the ritual?"

It's really the same reason straight couple get married Pariah.

You're getting warmer.

Now consider how the motive for a same-sex couple to marry would relate to heterosexuals and a culture that's modeled after heterosexual behavior.

OK and than?

How does it relate?

C'mon MEM, don't give up now!

Here, I'll give you a hint: if same-sex couples feel the need to get married (just like the "straights"), even though affection doesn't necessitate marriage, what does that say about the homosexual community's perception of marriage?

Sorry but you're not really making sense. Just lay it out on the table and we'll do an autopsy.

Crystal clear, M E M.

Well you shouldn't get gay married than. Anyone else though should be able to if they want.

As I said, gays' motivation for marriage is hypocritical.
They don't have children.
They don't follow the bible and require a religious service before a God they don't believe in. "Gay Marriage" is only a tool of gays and the political Left to undermine Christian institutions. Gays are soldiers of the anti-Christ, pushing to crush and undermine true marriage and all Christian representation at every turn.

It is a complete lie to say gays "want to marry for the same reasons as everyone else".

Others marry out of religious faith as part of a Christian (or other religious) culture.
Gays only pursue it as a legal precedent to undermine Christianity and traditional marriage.

If you just participate in the analysis, you wouldn't be so confused.

But again: we both understand the implications of a purely cultural attraction to marriage. You're just dodging because you don't want to help lead up to the inevitable conclusion of exactly why you assign so much importance to matrimony.

Gays do get married for reasons just like everyone else WB and it has nothing to do with undermining anything. People in love like to get married lots of times, even us gays. Some adopt some already have kids. Some get married in churches. Gay or straight it seems to work when it's about love and building something out of it. Hope you get to understand that some day.

Uh huh. And why do you think that is despite the fact that its function isn't to pair people off indiscriminately?

You'll have to explain your thinking Pariah.

C'mon now. If you don't explore the issue inquisitively, it defeats the purpose.

No need to run from the truth. It will set you free.

Good advice you should take.

Well?

I already said you didn't make any sense. If you're too lazy or can't explain what your point is than that's your problem.

The links I provided of 1) the suppression of religious freedom (forcing a NM photography studio to photograph a lesbian ceremony against their will, and the examples of Canadian gay laws to likewise force churches against their beliefs to marry gays), and 2) the stated strategy of the political Left to undermine and destroy our institutions from within, prove the lie of what you allege that gays "want the same things" as other couples who marry.

Other couples marry out of both love and religious faith.
Gays seek "marriage" as a way to undermine Christianity and conservative institutions, and to advance the cause of the gay/cultural-marxist Left, at the expense and opression of any who disagree with them. For anyone who believes in Christianity and the Bible, it is clear that gays advocate policy to destroy Christianity.

Heterosexual couples marry in ceremonies before a God that gays lobby at every political turn to destroy.

If you can't answer the question, then just say so.

...Of course, we both know that's a lie, but you'd sound less desperate to run away from the truth.

This doesn't resemble anything remotely like reality to me. Sorry but if you want to keep gays from getting married that's your problem. I love my guy. Simple as that.

And I want to vomit at the thought. Simple as that.


You ignore reality to deny the facts. Gay legal actions have oppressed the rights of christians and suppressed Christianity in a number of case examples I've cited.
Your point is that gays "marry for the same reasons" as everyone else. I've repeatedly proven that a blatant lie.

Gays at every turn are part of the liberal/progressive forces pushing to destroy and root out the Christian religion that most men and women in the U.S. "marry for".

I like to think love triumphs over hate. It's been nice having these talks since MN recognized gay marriage. You have no power to intrude on my life any more. Thanks for helping more moderate people see how hateful your position actually is btw.