LGBT Issues, Children and Education by Progressive Patriot 2.12.14

nope it was not, marriage was traditionally considered a civil institution. Around 5AD great Christian theologians such as Augustine wrote about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in the ceremony. It was at this point that Christians began to have their marriages conducted by ministers in Christian gatherings, but it was in the 12th century that the Roman Catholic Church formally defined marriage as a sacrament, sanctioned by God.

 

So you still live in the 1950's do you .. can you tell me where you have your time machine hidden . .as for the rest of us we live in the real world of 2014.

Really weird that here you want to stick to a definition that is reflective of the 1950's, yet in another thread you argue to change the definition of racism to reflect modern day usage .. not very consistent are you, or is it more about fitting the definition to your requirements and not about reality?

- - - Updated - - -

So children must suffer for the lack of reality their parents live under .. so much for caring parents.

 

Absolute crap.

 

Damn Fugazi, you are the master! A barrage of logic, the likes this forum hasn't seen in a while. You are my hero.

 

Marriage was instituted by God at the Creation of the world (hint: that is before 5 AD).

 

For 6,000 years (or for you evolutionists 20 billion years) marriage has been defined as between male and female. You claimed that is not true and you were to supply a dictionary definition before the 1950s (before the homo-fascists redefined the word) of anything other than husband and wife.

You have not done so, so my point is proved correct.

Marriage is a religious ceremony and is never necessary for people to cohabitate, bestow rights and benefits to another. That can all be accomplished by a legal/civil document. It is unnecessary to redefine our language and work to change laws, unless the so-called 'gay marriage' is not about marriage at all, but about an assault on traditional, normal marriage and society. A big FU to the church and the 98% of the society they live in.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you prove your point? I didn't think so.

 

Children suffering? They suffer the abuse at the hands of the schools jamming their homo-fascist crap into the minds of our children. What if in the next or the next after that presidential election, the president is a Muslim and changes everything around and teaches sharia where homosexuals are beheaded. Is that okay with you?

 

Perhaps it was not until now that I fully realized what a dark, frightening and bizarre world you inhabit, where all reason, logic and reality itself eludes you.

 

Dark? Bizzare? At least I don't have sex with another man's feces.

 

But when the parent teaches their children demonstrably false information(like your signature)the government has a duty to step in. That's why it exists, for the General welfare. An educated populace is a legitimate governmental role.

- - - Updated - - -

Marriage existed long before man invented your god.

 

Prove it .. prove that in the OT that marriage was one man, one woman . .good luck with that.

 

As I said we live in 2014 not the 1950's, if you wish to define your world based around the 1950'd then that is your delusion, thankfully the majority of people do not.

Talk about a closed question, you think by setting the parameters of what you wish to be true that makes you right

No one is re-defining anything .. you seem to have this delusion that SSM is about some sort of attack on the church (which church would that be by the way, there are so many of them), but of course you could never entertain the idea that it is about equality under the Constitution for if you did it would blow your argument to pieces. Your choice of religion has zero bearing on rights that are covered by the constitution or have you never heard of the separation of church and state. I find it absurd that religious people think they can over rule the constitution based simply on some religious belief.

The fact that a SSM marriage was conducted in 1061 in a church between Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz shows that it was not the 'sin' that religious fanatics wish it to be.

SSM has absolutely no effect on your traditional, "normal" marriage, NO ONE is stopping you or any one else marrying a person of the opposite sex, so what gives you the right to stop others marrying a person of the same sex.

I already have.

 

Thank you .. I find that logic tends to send these fundies into fits of confusion

 

You have a very strange view of abuse and of what comprehensive sex education really is, perhaps some time spent researching the subject instead of listening to the fire and brimstone at your local church might help.

What is your answer to a child that is struggling with their sexual identity, what would you tell them?

Red herring and slippery slope fallacy all rolled into one.

 

I am so finished with Mr. Natural!!

 

Simple, I would get them to a psychiatrist or child psychologist immediately. Just as I would if the child was becoming violent or attempting to molest his sister, It all is a mental illness and should be addressed as early as possible with children. But there is help available for sexually perverted adults as well.

P.S. You obviously do not know the definition of 'red herring' either. Unless you wish to change the definition of that word too.

 

Really, even though, by far, the majority of these professionals would probably be more interested in talking to you than the child, considering the fact that homosexuality is not a mental illness despite your attempts to, yet again, change things to suit your agenda, or would your professionals really be some religious fanatic . .much more likely.

Oh I know very well what a red herring is . .yours is a classic example, the topic is "LGBT Issues, Children and Education by Progressive Patriot 2.12.14" not Presidential Elections or Muslims . .do try harder to stay on topic and not attempt to introduce red herrings (along with the slippery slope fallacy as well)

 

So you think by posting without quoting what you are replying to somehow renders you immune to responses.

So you are under the illusion that your attempt to move the goal posts from your original erroneous claim somehow wins you the argument

I also gave you proof, a marriage conducted in a church by the clergy that took place in 1061 for which there is documented evidence .. or are you just ignoring that fact, where as your definition of marriage is not fact, it is an appeal to tradition keep going I'm sure there are plenty of other fallacies you haven't tried yet.

Marriage has been redefined numerous times throughout history, the first recorded marriages had nothing to do with religion what so ever and if you insist on the bible interpretation of marriage then you must be all for polygamous marriages?

I could ask you a similar question, why do heterosexuals need to have a religious sanctioned establishment ceremony at all, regardless of what they want to call it?

You seem to be under some illusion that homosexuals cannot be Christians, which is absurd.

Why not, why do you want to call it marriage?

I support anything that educates children about the real world, not some created fantasy...don't you?

As I said yet more fallacies, this one is a slippery slope fallacy

BTW you do know that nearly as many so called conservatives have abortions as so called liberals, including women in your oh so special religious marriage .. but of course you will deny they are "true" Christians.

I have systematically dismantled everyone of your so called claims, by far the majority of your claims are appeals to some sort of fallacy and as such are irrelevant.

So far you have used the following fallacies;

Appeal to tradition - That marriage was defined one way and as such cannot be defined any other way
Red herring - Using presidential elections and Muslims in a debate about LGBT, Children and Education
Slippery slope - That because something happens it will lead to something else (see Red Herring)
Appeal to Authority - Stating that marriage was defined by God, an 'entity' you have no prove of existence.
Moving the Goalposts - Adding qualifies to your original assertion that was answered

 

Just because you say something happened does not make it a fact.

Second posting about an imaginary possibly anecdotal marriage in 11th Century is a Red Herring, or a lie.

Third you never answered one of my questions since it is obvious to all here you have no answer or defense for your perverted position.

Third, until recently the APA correctly classified homosexuality as a mental disorder until the homo-fascists stomped their feet and populated the AMA and changed the definitions as they do with all their attempts to go around the will of the majority.

Face the facts, homosexuality is a sin against God, an abhoration against society, is unaccepted with the majority of society, so-called gay-marriage is not accepted by the majority of folks and is unnatural, and should not be taught in schools to impressionable children.

 

Is it true that for 6,000 years marriage was defined as between male and female?

Are you able to prove me wrong by providing a dictionary definition before the 1950s of any other definition of marriage than husband and wife?

Is marriage is a religious ceremony?

Is marriage necessary for people to cohabitate, bestow rights and benefits to another person(s)?

Can all rights be legally bestowed to another person(s) by a legal/civil document?

Why is it necessary to redefine our language and to work to change the laws?

Is the so-called 'gay marriage' about marriage or is it simply an assault on traditional, normal marriage and society?

 

I didn't just say it happened the evidence is right there in your comments, so please do continue with the fallacies it only shows further how dishonest you are.

Really. A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova

Here is the original report - http://www.galiciae.com/nova/78210.html
and here is part of the English translation - Called Pedro Diaz and Muño Vandilaz the two men that the April 16 1061 staged the first gay marriage in India and dated one of the first in Europe. It was in the town of Ourense Rairiz Veiga will do now 950 years old, and historical document that represents the minutes containing this fact found in Tombo Monastery Celanova, which today is deposited in the Historical Archive of Madrid.

What questions, you mean your fallacies, nah I don't answer delusions.

Sigh, still appealing to tradition and living in the past I see . .do you have nothing better than this.

Nope, no where in the bible does it even mention homosexuality, all you have is your interpretation of a few Scriptures, interpretation that is disputed.

In what way does homosexuality effect society, please do tell us all.

I am sure you are still living under a rock somewhere, the majority of society accept homosexuality - http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/ - unless of course you want to align yourself with such countries as El Salvador, or African countries .. is that what you are aiming for?

Again you are so woefully wrong I almost feel sorry for you, the majority of people accept SSM (55% at the last pole & climbing), face it you are part of a minority who cling to tradition fallacies.

Homosexuality is no more unnatural than you getting a blow-job, or having anal sex with your female partner, so unless you have had neither of these things you are as "unnatural" as you claim homosexuals are.

Please show a single school that teaches homosexuality, any will do.

 

It may have been, it is not now, and as such this ^ is an appeal to tradition and irrelevant.

We do not live in the 1950's or before that, we live here and now, it is those definitions that define what marriage is, not your, yet again, appeal to tradition

It can be, it can also be a civil ceremony or are you saying all those people who got married without the involvement of religion are not married?

no of course not, but that has nothing to do with it . .why should you be able to dictate how other people celebrate their love for eachother.

I don't believe they can, I believe, but would have to check, that some rights are reliant on marriage.

No one is redefining the language, you just want it to appear that way, a marriage is a marriage nothing has changed that and yes it is necessary to change laws that are discriminating against a select group based on nothing more than personal belief.

It is about treating all people the same, something that is one of the founding principles of your constitution.

 

My question asked about male and female.

My question asked about male and female.

Wedding and marriage are not the same.

Then why not work to change those laws and rules instead, if that is the real issue? Eliminate all marriage tax benefits.

Check with a lawyer, this is done every day.

Addressed earlier.

We have laws against certain marriages now. It has been determined by SCOTUS all rights have limitations, i.e. free speech to shout fire in a crowded theater.

 

Inferring it was the only definition. I pointed out that it wasn't.

Inferring it was the only definition. I pointed out that it wasn't.

That was my exact point. You asked:

I pointed out that it wasn't because the "ceremony" is a wedding. The wedding celebrates the beginning of the marriage but it is not "the marriage", that comes after. Also weddings don't need to to be religious either; as pointed out by my own example. So the answer to both parts of your question is no: the ceremony isn't the marriage and it doesn't have to be religious either.

It's not just tax, it's a whole host of other things as I pointed out. It would take an eon to reassign all those state and Federal provisions. What's the point when the marriage contract covers them anyway? It is the civil contract. There's no need to change it when it works perfectly well.

You have no idea what you are talking about and I have no need to check with a lawyer. Let's start with Social Security Survivor benefits and 1st preference immigrant visas (green cards through marriage) for foreign nationals married to US persons. How are you going to obtain those through a civil contract (unless we are talking the civil contract of legally recognized marriage on which such benefits are based)? No lawyer can finagle those without a marriage contract because no provision remains in law to base an action.

Glib assertion aren't going to work for you here.

Yes , by numerous district and appellate Federal courts who all agree with the assessment.

But there has to be a rational basis for those limitations and between same-sex couples, there isn't one. That's way their court wins outweigh their losses by a margin of about 25+ to 1 at this point in time.