Quote (Handcuffs @ Oct 12 2019 02:26pm)

Because you're personally anti-gay. It's pretty simple, and okay.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 12 2019 04:34pm)

It is intolerant to not accept it because your position is itself a redefinition. You arent taking every aspect of biblical marriage and applying it, you are cherry picking the man+woman part and ignoring other aspects that are incompatible eith what you've been raised to believe marriage is.

Most people read Scripture and interpret it through the institutions they were raised in, not the institutions as they existed as described in Scripture. And your stance on marriage is a perfect example. A biblical marriage is a property exchange absent of courtship and independent of affection, possibly between siblings or cousins, and possibly with multiple wives if the husband can afford it, and between men and women, etc. But since you were raised in modern america the only one of those things you value is the man + woman part. You arent getting your panties in a twist over marriage being redefined as requiring consent of the woman, not including a dowry, banning it between cousins, etc. Your position is a redefinition of marriage, but you dont see it that way because youve been raised to see it as it currently exists, sans same sex couples.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ 13 Oct 2019 01:48)

I never said it's a particularly good or convincing point, just that it's a valid one. Also note that the "promoted and protected"-part should be read as "promoted and protected beyond what society already does for any kind of family".

Quote (IceMage @ Oct 12 2019 11:06pm)

no u

No... it's not. The basic structure of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That's the Christian tradition. And it's supported by New Testament scripture.

The bold is just silly. There's nothing in the New Testament that says marriage is simply a property exchange, or that it doesn't involve courtship and affection. Paul calls on husbands to love their wives.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 12 2019 09:36pm)

Yeah, now you're just cherry picking. You can cherry pick any definition of marriage you want from the bible if you ignore the right verses.

This is why I'm saying it's insincere to be against gay marriage on biblical grounds. The bold is actually not silly at all, marriages of those styles are described many places in the bible, and you just like to cherry pick the verses that corroborate the understanding of marriage that you were raised in. You aren't for polygamy despite Saul having hundreds of wives and concubines, and God only getting angry when he started taking the gods of his foreign wives.

Quote (thundercock @ Oct 12 2019 11:55pm)

I think polygamy is more moral than homosexuality but that's my personal opinion. Based on my marriage counseling in the Catholic church, quite a bit of marriage, specifically the companionship aspect, is based on the Adam and Eve story.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 13 2019 12:59am)

The point is nobody takes most forms of biblical marriage seriously in the modern world. There's tons of "biblical marriages" that would be considered pretty awful in modern times. The importance of "one man one woman" is largely a construct of cherry picking the parts of biblical marriage that fits with the conception of marriage between 1900 and 2000.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 13 2019 12:36am)

Yeah, now you're just cherry picking. You can cherry pick any definition of marriage you want from the bible if you ignore the right verses.

This is why I'm saying it's insincere to be against gay marriage on biblical grounds. The bold is actually not silly at all, marriages of those styles are described many places in the bible, and you just like to cherry pick the verses that corroborate the understanding of marriage that you were raised in. You aren't for polygamy despite Saul having hundreds of wives and concubines, and God only getting angry when he started taking the gods of his foreign wives.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 13 Oct 2019 03:28)

You hold the opinion that blacks and whites are functionally equal but thats just an opinion. What matters when assessing equality depends on your opinion of what is imoortant. Your opinion is that race isnt imoortant but thats a product of your upbringing, not an inherent fact about reality.

You are literally giving an argiment that WAS ACTUALLY USED TO DEFEND SLAVERY. You can claim your argument cant be used but it was and thats a fact of history. The slavers of the past didnt see us as equal and so didnt think they were doing anything wrong.

Still, gay marriages are functionally similar to straight marriages in virtually all of the ways that we both value, and since ive never seen you advocate for "procreation focused marriage" I cant believe for a second you value that as a deciding factor in the ability to marry.