Same sex marriage has no moral content whatever; it does no harm to anyone. Therefore it's not a moral question and should be legal. The only consistent augments against are religious ones and they have no bearing on the law at all. If they do have bearing, your religious freedom is necessarily dead.
Hrm. I think people in general and especially Christians should speak out against the breakdown of biblical marriage within their own community and get that right first. If people desire to seek relationships with the same sex or even with multiple people or with animals, they are gonna do what they wanna do. I think judgement begins with people who claim to be God's people. So I think I and everyone else who see same sex marriage as an evil should just get our house in order first. thats mine.
Homosexual MATRIMONY is an oxymoron (depending on the faith basis... 77% of America claims Christianity and it's derivatives).. Now, that leaves eloping. And the million dollar question is WHY do gays beat the dead marriage horse to enter a stupid MAN MADE institution? Especially when civil unions offer all the same benefits. It just seems passive-aggressive and does nothing but muck up progress and drains resources.
@ScrollAndKeyBeatz Tax breaks maybe, the gesture of recognition. It seems like "Im gay and proud and forcing you non gays to acknowledge it", to that effect. Who knows but either way, if they want it, why shouldnt they have it? How does it "muck up progress" or "drain resources"?
Yup, never mind the fact that I'm straight and enjoy having anal sex with women. The gays are just "naturally" so much more depraved than I am.
People want what they want and will continue to do what they want no matter what anyone or any law says. And as long as they aren't robbing, killing or raping anyone, and as long as the arrangements are consensual, I see no reason why anyone should stand in their way.
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but what's so bad about consensual polygamy? I've known one couple (maybe it's a "few" in this case) that was polygamous and their kids were fine. They got along great. Polygamy is not for me, I can not see entering into a serious polygamous relationship, but I can't see entering into another man's ass with my dick either, doesn't mean I'm going to prevent his marriage.
Hmm, I'm not so sure. There are cultural arguments too, but then again, one can infer that a lot of Western culture is influenced by Christianity. Having said that, I know plenty of irreligious folks who are 'homophobic'.
@RepresentingTruth I certainly hope that you enjoy my latest video which calls out the fact that in your latest video you state it is alright to have sex with the non-living but it's not alright to be homosexual.
Do you happen to have a cross painted inside of your closet?
The current studies show that marriage between 2 adults is ideal, but to my knowledge there is no research that shows polygamous or polyandromous relationships to have the same value as that 2 person bond. & well polygamy does work in some culture (like horticultural societies) & so does polyandromy in some societies (mainly where a low birthrate is ideal)... I don't really have anything against it as long as all parties consent.
until 866 it was merely a social arrangement, (See pope Nicholas 1) he invented consent in marriage, yet only in 1563 where priests required at a ceremony, ( the council of Trent-saving people from sin). love was never necessary!!!.
SO why in fuck would any gay person wish to buy into this marriage thing??? (country's lacking legal equality excluded from my perplexed stance).
What keeps being forgotten is that "marriage" is both secular AND religious. No religious organization can be compelled to "marry" ANYONE on any basis whatsoever. But, RELIGIOUS marriage is only recognized by some states and not all. To be a legal definition of a "married couple" some secular paperwork is required. It is such SECULAR marriages, and the legal rights under tax laws and so forth, that is something that the law can address. The religious institution is under no pressure, here.
@TheLiberalSoup because the polygamists are usually cults. they force their children into their lifestyle and the men often molest the young female children.
@JunkCCCP Its just contract law... a polygamist marriage would be like a corporation as far as tax law goes, and all the civil issues would be power of attorney stuff. your argument against polygamy is that it would require a lawyer?
@JunkCCCP My argument is that consensus is irrelevant between participants because they are not independent in the society and it indeed leads to slippery slope... What about consensus between hardcore S&M participants? In the streets, in your kids' school books, in TV... Freedom of speech, why not??
Same-sex marriage would otherwise be OK but then marriage itself is corrupted: an institution that is based on false premises of symbols. (like love and the value of reproduction).
@JunkCCCP Well, they can love each others but what are they then doing?
I'm not denying the feeling / qualia itself of love, but surely we all can see where love leads to: it clouds judgement and indeed leads to such corrupted systems as marriage.
Why is it corrupted? Not only because love is foggy term like "god" but also because it becomes to define life for everyone (authoritarian) and it becomes a matter of democracy (most people deciding how everyone should live).
The polygamy argument doesn't work because homosexuals just want equal representation under current law. Straights can get their unions recognized under current law - so should gays. That simple. Now under law polygamy can't happen because a second marriage is not recognized as valid until the original, preceding marriage is annulled or otherwise ended. Now if a gay man wants to be married multiple times in his lifetime, that's his business. Worked for Newt Gingrich and John McCain.
Here's a scenario: if there was only 1 man and 1 woman left on the face of the earth and the man was gay, the human race would go extinct. Not that the man wouldn't be able to inseminate the woman. There are many cases of gay men having families. However, if the man refused on the principle that he was exclusively gay it just wouldn't work now would it? That just seems wrong for the continuation of the human race.
@TheGuruAxle no I guess not! LOL. But just think, how could a gay man have sex with a woman if he wasn't aroused? There are gay men that have had families and then left their wives to be with a man. Of course technically they should be bisexual, but they do not consider themselves to be. Lets face it, it just feels good to put your penis in a vagina whether you are gay or straight! It's a choice people!
@zen699 ok im only bi but an full on strait man can not ejaculate in a mans ass he just cant keep it up (don't worry but how i know) same for a gay man some gay men are in the closet and force themselves to have sex with women because its expected because its normal but its never very good, its not a choice if you think it is go try and fuck a man in the ass and tell me how it works out for you
@TheGuruAxle I'm not in any way aroused by a man's body. Even if I masturbated and tried, I don't think I could possibly maintain an orgasm long enough to ejaculate. Why is it that gay men can have sex with a woman then? Forcing themselves? I doubt it.
@zen699 So because gay people would be wrong (in your view) in your hypothetical scenario, then they are wrong in our current reality? That's delusional.
@nurikosguardian Nope I didn't say that, it just goes against the continuation of human life. Of course many people think we are overpopulated, so I guess to them being gay is a good thing!
i think it would have an affect on AMERICAN society. christ knows what would happen if we elected a gay senator*noted that this was a satirical comment*
Agreed 100% as usual. They always wanna go to that slippery slope arguement; and like you I don't care who all is living together, who is fucking who, and which one gave whoever else a ring. I'm going to call it the paperwork arguement henceforth, as that it all it really appeals to. I suppose wedding clerks and justices of the peace may have selfish reasons to object lol. We've seen polygamy work; and we've seen it not work as well as being manipulative in the case of Mormons.
Let me be a devil's advocate. Here's a problem with the polygamy scenario. What about families? Whether you're religious or not (and I'm not), you can't deny the importance of children having a support system. I accept that two men or two women can provide for children well enough, but how is some sexual "union" of seven men and nine women going to care for children? And they will have children, make no mistake about that. Imagine being born into such a setup. Would you feel loved?
people should just mind their own f0cking buisness! what are the inner gears that drive many people to get some upset and active about how other people try live their lives? why would a homophobe worry about that? it's unlikely that a gay person would be attracted to a tight-ass narrow minded fool who dresses badly, so there should be no problem. right?
A more logical, non-blblical argument to oppose gay marriage may fall along these lines:
The government grants benefits to heterosexual marriages based on the premise that these relationships may eventually lead to population growth (and thus, stability if it's not rampant) via children. It's an investment in the country's future (including risks such as no children due to health issues, age, death, choice, etc).
Tax money covers the benefits given (including any tax breaks and such).
Gay marriage can only provide the same investment if adoption is involved, or expensive medical procedures, thus extremely increasing the risks and drastically lowering any profit (children for the future) to counter those risks. Not to mention those expensive medical procedures are also often covered by tax money.
So the reasoning against gay marriage would be that the Tax Payers shouldn't have to cover this low profit/high risk investment. It'd be like paying to make a dead end road.
In his mind he probably thinks you're trying to "trick him" just like the example he gave in his previous video of "what's gay according to the bible" (or something to that effect).... Thinking is mBaaad..
The irony is that of all the ethical reason he could come up with, he's chosen to be limited to what a book written by sheep herders says what marriage is..
In a nutshell, a picture of a guy inserting a sausage in a donut (check his "The why of marriage")
People are going to engage in all kinds of wacky, group bisexual interactions anyway. Like anything in life, what works to create stability is what's going to last. Christians seem to think that just controlling what people do with their adult lives is the solution, but it's not. Suppressing anything just makes people crave it more, hence people like Ted Haggard.
Why do people think you're in front of a green screen when there's so much wind blowing into your mic? You put a fan in front of the mic to help fool the viewers?
The most disgusting "argument" I've seen was when someone compared granting equal rights to gays to allowing murder and rape. I really did not know what to say. Just like when people say "now people will want to marry their dogs", they are dehumanizing an entire group of people just because they disagree with their lifestyle. And comparing gay sex to murder or rape is just insane. So much hate from the christians these days.
@Purlic Jeez, no one has a sense of humor anymore. I was joking... I thought fairly obviously. I guess I should have added a smiley or something to the end of my sentence.
I was had a chat with a fellow that worried that if we allowed homosexuality to be considered acceptable, sooner or later the entire planet would be gay.
@kendrawhisp If we had a national Gay Day, then people could satisfy this supposedly latent desire to butt-fuck and carpet-munch. Of course, it will only delay the inevitable Arsemageddon or The Rear End of Times.
@kendrawhisp And that would be a problem... how? At least peace would reign, finally... but the entire planet becoming gay won't happen. That's as stupid as saying considering being black is acceptable would make the whole planet black. Now we do accept black people look at how black the ENTIRE planet is: nothing has changed. It just doesn't work that way, so let homosexuality be acceptable. You can't do anything about it anyway, it's not gonna die off.
@Kniletiah Hey, don't ask me... the fellow I spoke to was scandalised by my "so what?" reply, saying the human race would die out because we weren't reproducing, to which i reminded him that gay people are not infertile. He ended our chat by saying, 'it just isn't right'.
what needs to transpire is that all forms of marriage between adults should be legalized, they just should not get any monetary gain from these marriages! therefore its a win win, let them marry how they want, and no one gets any tax credit for it, thats what i would like to see!
Imagine that there was no marriage and it was proposed as a union between a man and a woman.
The slippery slope argument works here just as well (miserably). If we allow man and a woman to marry, why shouldn't a group of people be allowed to marry. Next, people would demand to marry their dogs and cats!
An aside, slippery slope fallacy i reckon is one of the harder fallacies to demonstrate. I read, recently that all the 'informal' fallacies are subjective. I guess they are kind of right, though Ad Hominem is usually clear cut enough. Non the less, it dawned on me recently that it is not enough to accuse the fallacy, u have to check they understand it, and then explain how u R correct in identifying their pos. as fallicious.
commonlaw marriage would be sorta strange. i lived with my roommate whos a guy for to long now hes on my health insurance and my next of kin? im not actually against gay marriage i just like debating both sides.
As long as any previous spouse(s) agree to further marriage between their partner or themself and another individual, I don't see why polygamy is an issue to begin with. How is that even supposed to be DOWN any slope, slippery or otherwise?
Polygamy means Bill Gates get all the women while the rest of us stay at home jacking off to internet porn. It would cause riots in the streets, proberly why China stoped the one babby boy policy, men need women and yes this is the issue with gay marriage if two men or two women can get married to each other why not one man two women.
Polygamy is multiple partners, nothing to do with buying wives so leave gates out of this or justify the connection. And Aren't there women he wont want to buy?
But if gay marriage will mean polygamy, and thus we should ban it, then why not ban marriage alltogether? It only leads to trouble anyway. Men do need women for reproduction, but that's not president when considering who you want to spend the rest of your life with. And with so many orphans it could be a good thing.
@mortuus8 I never said anything about buying wives, if Polygamy was the norm most women would be attracted to high status males. Have a look back at history. I dont think marriage should be a state issue. It's left to many men broke and living like second class citizens.
@CoWalsh04 I still don't get why bill gates will have all the wives though? I know now that you meant it as "he's the richest" but what about the president? Or more attractive millionaires (eg: English footballers)
And i don't see why they'd just be attracted to high status, there is far more to consider like family honor, availability, attraction, age, etc.
Back to point though, what's wrong with gay marriage?
You have to be intellectually mature and generous to even consider such a relationship. I have seen many people marry and be utter selfish pigs to their partners. You'd think they would see them as more than their property to kick around.
Polygamy forces you to realise before you actually embark on it, that you will "share" your partner. If you are a douche you will be spending a lot of alone time in a multi- spouse home.
@sumvlac Pretty much. There are only a few other animals that practice it. I'm thinking whether we are monogamous or polygamous is determined by the culture and society you are brought up in.
As long as it legitimate and between consenting adults, who the fuck cares? It's no ones problem but the party involved. What people do behind their doors and in their bedrooms (as long as it isn't hurting ANYONE at ANY point in time) - it isn't your business. Period.
I see no problem with legalizing polygamy. Between consenting adults of course. So all parties in the current marriage must accept any newcomer to the marriage.
I hate hearing this same bullshit from those that are against gay marriage. The next example is "Well what if I want to marry my child, my dog, car, etc. The seem to not listen to the "consenting adult" part of the argument. None of those things listed that they commonly use for examples are adults.
I've had someone make the "it will lead to polygamy" argument to me, and the slippery slope that allowing homosexual marriage would lead to allowing people to marry pets. The latter of course would have serious issues with consent, as animals lack the ability to consent and enter into contracts.
Now the "it will lead to polygamy becoming legal" actually makes sense. The legal precedents seem likely to make that possible in the long run... but as you mention, that's actions between consenting adults. I don't know that it will work for them, but that doesn't mean I should stop them from trying.
(now I can see some consent issues with adding someone to an existing marriage, where one would want to make sure they have the consent of all involved in the wedding. For example, if a man wants a second wife, his wife must also consent to marrying the 2nd woman, and both of them would have to marry the 2nd woman. )
although i personally have misgivings about plural marriage (polygamy refers only to a situation where one man has two or more wives) the only reason i can see for not recognizing it legally when all parties are consenting adults is situations where it would cause actual potential problems: the example I'm thinking of is insurance plans that cover a person's spouse and children, because it would be unfeasible to cover unlimited spouses. this could of course be corrected by charging premiums.
Christians love the KJV, not homosexuality. Irony?
Throughout his life King James had close relationships with male courtiers, which has caused debate among historians about their nature. Some of James's biographers conclude that Esmé Stewart (later Duke of Lennox), Robert Carr (later Earl of Somerset), and George Villiers (later Duke of Buckingham) were his lovers.
Christians use the KJV Bible but won't let King James marry his partner.
it would only be a paperwork disaster for the people involved. If they wanna risk it go ahead.
and i tried saying that the state (if anything) should just give out civil partnerships to everyone, and let the individual churches decide who they each want to allow to get married.
@Ilikenuman I am okay with his honesty. What he does not realized is all that I had in mind. By him making a response he has open himself up to a lot of debate. Look at the comments on his video. That is part of what I wanted to see what would happen. There is more that meets the eye here. People always ask how will this affect you? Until it happens we cannot know all the damage it would cause. That is the point and part of my plan. He fell right into it and I am thankful.
@RepresentingTruth "By him making a response he has open himself up to a lot of debate. Look at the comments on his video. That is part of what I wanted to see what would happen.. He fell right into it and I am thankful."
your plan was to have people comment on a fairly popular atheists video? really? what a mind blowing plan....
that's the stupidest thing i've heard all day. thanks so much.
@thisguysajerk You have not thought it through.1). The gay community screams just two consenting adults. Now I throw this question and the reaction is any thing goes. That shows that people would redefine marriage to anything they want and thus it is no longer special
So? as long as you don't infringe on my rights or damage someting... I don't give a flying fuck what you do in your bedroom! of course anything goes! life has no rules except those we voluntarily submit ourselves too! and we should only submit ourselves to rules that make sense and are to the benefit of socienty, or at least don't hurt socienty. the greeks already got that one right! why can't we?
@RepresentingTruth RT with the divorce rate as it stands. It still represents something special. The institution of marriage is not that special. It is the people in the marriage that make it special! I would have thought you would know that!
@ShellySummers The institution of marriage is becoming that which is nor longer special. If every Tom,Dick and Harry, as well as Jane, Amy and Sue can all be part of marriage how is that special?
@RepresentingTruth If we were to look up anti misogynistic views. The debate against allowing different "races" to marry. Where will it end? Now a days that seems like an absurd idea. Less then 50 yrs ago that was the law in many states.
I do think the arguments against that are the same ones your using.
I also notice you didn't mention my actual point. That it's the people in the marriage that make it special. Not the marriage itself.
@ShellySummers Your challenge holds no water to me. Moses married a black woman from my understanding. Second as a Christian we believe we all came from Adam and Eve. Having every possible partner shows no sign of true love. If a person can have many partners who would you save in a car accident first? Most kids do not get along well with a Step dad or a Step mom and you want to put more on a kid? Most kids would give anything for their mom and dad to only be together.
@RepresentingTruth Marriage has traditionally had nothing to do with love as we understand it. It had to do with transferring ownership of the daughter from the father to the groom and the groom promising to provide for her(The promise being equivalent of modern social rights). Much like the bible defines adultery as a crime against another man's possession. "you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
@RepresentingTruth Also, you need to realize that you're comparing apples and oranges here. While it's undoubtedly true that most kids would like their stable role-models to be there - they also would be there in the kind of polygamy you suggest. There would just be more people living in the house.
The real showstopper here has nothing to do with consequences, but that people actually have tried this - and it doesn't work. Jealousy and other social issues cause it to fall apart.
@RepresentingTruth However, it's pretty amusing that you present "If a person can have many partners who would you save in a car accident first?" as an argument against multiple partners. That's like Tooltime's "OMG the paperwork!" parody. Who cares if someone likes X slightly better than Y, if everyone gets along fairly well *when they're not involved in a car accident*. /rolleyes Seriously... Would you save your partner or your child first? Does stating an answer mean you fail at marriage?
@RepresentingTruth I find it funny you bring up 2 of the 3 most famous stories of incest in the bible. Adam and Eve's kids would have had to be having sex with each other to populate the planet. Moses and his 3 sons and their wives. Who do you think they were boinking to repopulate the planet?
I never ONCE brought up polygamy. I simply stated it is the couple that makes a marriage special. NOT THE INSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH OR MARRIAGE! It is the couple! Your the one with their mind in the gutter
As a legal contract that pertains to property, lawful personal rights, and lawful responsiblities there are pragmatic reasons for marriage in our society.
If you're actually asking "why should anybody bother with marriage as an institution" it has it's origins in property ownership, sharing, and eventual passing thereof. If you imagine a time when man first came upon the notion of land ownership, not far behind is contractual marriage.
Same sex marriage has no moral content whatever; it does no harm to anyone. Therefore it's not a moral question and should be legal. The only consistent augments against are religious ones and they have no bearing on the law at all. If they do have bearing, your religious freedom is necessarily dead.
TheMogulmonster 3 months ago
Hrm. I think people in general and especially Christians should speak out against the breakdown of biblical marriage within their own community and get that right first. If people desire to seek relationships with the same sex or even with multiple people or with animals, they are gonna do what they wanna do. I think judgement begins with people who claim to be God's people. So I think I and everyone else who see same sex marriage as an evil should just get our house in order first. thats mine.
BassicallyChristian 4 months ago
Homosexual MATRIMONY is an oxymoron (depending on the faith basis... 77% of America claims Christianity and it's derivatives).. Now, that leaves eloping. And the million dollar question is WHY do gays beat the dead marriage horse to enter a stupid MAN MADE institution? Especially when civil unions offer all the same benefits. It just seems passive-aggressive and does nothing but muck up progress and drains resources.
ScrollAndKeyBeatz 9 months ago
@ScrollAndKeyBeatz Tax breaks maybe, the gesture of recognition. It seems like "Im gay and proud and forcing you non gays to acknowledge it", to that effect. Who knows but either way, if they want it, why shouldnt they have it? How does it "muck up progress" or "drain resources"?
mehico33 4 months ago
Gayness - the gateway sexuality.
Yup, never mind the fact that I'm straight and enjoy having anal sex with women. The gays are just "naturally" so much more depraved than I am.
People want what they want and will continue to do what they want no matter what anyone or any law says. And as long as they aren't robbing, killing or raping anyone, and as long as the arrangements are consensual, I see no reason why anyone should stand in their way.
TADahar 9 months ago
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but what's so bad about consensual polygamy? I've known one couple (maybe it's a "few" in this case) that was polygamous and their kids were fine. They got along great. Polygamy is not for me, I can not see entering into a serious polygamous relationship, but I can't see entering into another man's ass with my dick either, doesn't mean I'm going to prevent his marriage.
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
@YOSHY343
Hmm, I'm not so sure. There are cultural arguments too, but then again, one can infer that a lot of Western culture is influenced by Christianity. Having said that, I know plenty of irreligious folks who are 'homophobic'.
DecmanReturns 1 year ago
You have really good special effects. Looks like you are amongst that stuff my friends point at when they come over, "outside" or something.
3leftsandaright 1 year ago
OOTside? What's that? Oh! And I love the new green carpet!
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY I am sick right now so I will just say you miss the whole point.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth You passed your homophobia, bigotry and hatred on to your daughter and made her into the same hideous creature as you!
JesusSaysGayIsOK 1 year ago
@JesusSaysGayIsOK Prove it
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth All one has to do to prove it is watch any of your videos or those that your daughter uploaded and subsequently removed.
JesusSaysGayIsOK 1 year ago
@JesusSaysGayIsOK Then watch one of my videos and take out one point and show me. Fair enough?
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth I certainly hope that you enjoy my latest video which calls out the fact that in your latest video you state it is alright to have sex with the non-living but it's not alright to be homosexual.
Do you happen to have a cross painted inside of your closet?
JesusSaysGayIsOK 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth - You are such a hypocrite. I just made a video which shows your hypocrisy.
Jesus Christ said He only hated one thing (and it wasn't homosexuals). It was hypocrites!
JesusSaysGayIsOK 1 year ago
The current studies show that marriage between 2 adults is ideal, but to my knowledge there is no research that shows polygamous or polyandromous relationships to have the same value as that 2 person bond. & well polygamy does work in some culture (like horticultural societies) & so does polyandromy in some societies (mainly where a low birthrate is ideal)... I don't really have anything against it as long as all parties consent.
RavenBlaze 1 year ago
next time we will have marrying your dog or cat or iguana challenge.
wahnano 1 year ago
until 866 it was merely a social arrangement, (See pope Nicholas 1) he invented consent in marriage, yet only in 1563 where priests required at a ceremony, ( the council of Trent-saving people from sin). love was never necessary!!!.
SO why in fuck would any gay person wish to buy into this marriage thing??? (country's lacking legal equality excluded from my perplexed stance).
forkqall 1 year ago
Your articulation is an inspiration.
Kurzula5150 1 year ago
What keeps being forgotten is that "marriage" is both secular AND religious. No religious organization can be compelled to "marry" ANYONE on any basis whatsoever. But, RELIGIOUS marriage is only recognized by some states and not all. To be a legal definition of a "married couple" some secular paperwork is required. It is such SECULAR marriages, and the legal rights under tax laws and so forth, that is something that the law can address. The religious institution is under no pressure, here.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
your smart
heartofasinner 1 year ago
i don't understand why polygamy is illegal. I wouldn't want to be in a polygamous marraige, but if a group of people unanimously do, who cares?
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago 35
@TheLiberalSoup because the polygamists are usually cults. they force their children into their lifestyle and the men often molest the young female children.
ShaolinViolin 1 year ago
@ShaolinViolin
ok, I didn't know that, thanks
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago
@TheLiberalSoup
Probably opens too many legal cans of worms.
Why do you need "marriage" to different people, as opposed to having a single "wife" and other "significant others", if it's consentual?
JunkCCCP 1 year ago
@JunkCCCP Its just contract law... a polygamist marriage would be like a corporation as far as tax law goes, and all the civil issues would be power of attorney stuff. your argument against polygamy is that it would require a lawyer?
CarbonSuit 1 year ago
@CarbonSuit
If it's between consenting adults, I have no problem with it from a moral perspective.
JunkCCCP 1 year ago 5
@JunkCCCP As if actions of two adults don't affect other people around them?
LostRituals 2 months ago
@LostRituals
Have you been reading comments out of context again?
JunkCCCP 2 months ago
@JunkCCCP Yes, sorry I only read your comment as it was top rated and thought you commented on same-sex marriage..
But what do you mean 'again'?
LostRituals 2 months ago
@LostRituals
I did comment on same-sex marriage.
What is your argument regarding it?
JunkCCCP 2 months ago
@JunkCCCP My argument is that consensus is irrelevant between participants because they are not independent in the society and it indeed leads to slippery slope... What about consensus between hardcore S&M participants? In the streets, in your kids' school books, in TV... Freedom of speech, why not??
Same-sex marriage would otherwise be OK but then marriage itself is corrupted: an institution that is based on false premises of symbols. (like love and the value of reproduction).
LostRituals 2 months ago
@LostRituals
Marriage would be corrupted because it would be based on the false premise of love?
So you're saying that homosexuals cannot love each other?
When most of society is in consensus, I see no problem. Your argument honestly makes no sense to me.
JunkCCCP 2 months ago
@JunkCCCP Well, they can love each others but what are they then doing?
I'm not denying the feeling / qualia itself of love, but surely we all can see where love leads to: it clouds judgement and indeed leads to such corrupted systems as marriage.
Why is it corrupted? Not only because love is foggy term like "god" but also because it becomes to define life for everyone (authoritarian) and it becomes a matter of democracy (most people deciding how everyone should live).
LostRituals 2 months ago
@LostRituals
I don't really understand what it is you're trying to convince me of, sorry. I'm not even sure if we agree or disagree.
JunkCCCP 2 months ago
@JunkCCCP Love is not only personal but defines whole of man kind in a way that it shouldn't IMO.
LostRituals 2 months ago
The polygamy argument doesn't work because homosexuals just want equal representation under current law. Straights can get their unions recognized under current law - so should gays. That simple. Now under law polygamy can't happen because a second marriage is not recognized as valid until the original, preceding marriage is annulled or otherwise ended. Now if a gay man wants to be married multiple times in his lifetime, that's his business. Worked for Newt Gingrich and John McCain.
vcdaniels 1 year ago
Cornfields are scary :(
AsparagusBoB 1 year ago
Is that what the outside world looks like?
JamesJimRaynor 1 year ago
@JamesJimRaynor WOW REALITY! haha
TekLok 1 year ago
I wish I could think straight enough to write a well thought out comment but I can only really think that you are handsome. Sorry -_-;
MakingTheMetalBand 1 year ago
great video as always.
background reminds me of the movie signs. i felt like some goofy gray alien fella was gonna stroll by as you were talking.
kvkTR 1 year ago
Did you get sent to the cornfield again? I told you, TELL HIM HE'S A GOOD BOY
nurikosguardian 1 year ago
ooo that's icky!!! LMAO!
procrastinator99 1 year ago
Here's a scenario: if there was only 1 man and 1 woman left on the face of the earth and the man was gay, the human race would go extinct. Not that the man wouldn't be able to inseminate the woman. There are many cases of gay men having families. However, if the man refused on the principle that he was exclusively gay it just wouldn't work now would it? That just seems wrong for the continuation of the human race.
zen699 1 year ago
@zen699 are there no turkey basters in imagination land where you came up with this scenario
TheGuruAxle 1 year ago
@TheGuruAxle no I guess not! LOL. But just think, how could a gay man have sex with a woman if he wasn't aroused? There are gay men that have had families and then left their wives to be with a man. Of course technically they should be bisexual, but they do not consider themselves to be. Lets face it, it just feels good to put your penis in a vagina whether you are gay or straight! It's a choice people!
zen699 1 year ago
@zen699 ok im only bi but an full on strait man can not ejaculate in a mans ass he just cant keep it up (don't worry but how i know) same for a gay man some gay men are in the closet and force themselves to have sex with women because its expected because its normal but its never very good, its not a choice if you think it is go try and fuck a man in the ass and tell me how it works out for you
TheGuruAxle 1 year ago
@TheGuruAxle I'm not in any way aroused by a man's body. Even if I masturbated and tried, I don't think I could possibly maintain an orgasm long enough to ejaculate. Why is it that gay men can have sex with a woman then? Forcing themselves? I doubt it.
zen699 1 year ago
@TheGuruAxle I think gay men are bisexual, they just make the choice to be exclusively gay.
zen699 1 year ago
@zen699 and he doesn't have to he can masturbate and the woman can use the seed with some thing like survey says a turkey baster
TheGuruAxle 1 year ago
@zen699 You set up a scenario which isn't real. So you're wrong.
nurikosguardian 1 year ago
@nurikosguardian The scenario is possible though, you can't doubt that.
zen699 1 year ago
@zen699 So because gay people would be wrong (in your view) in your hypothetical scenario, then they are wrong in our current reality? That's delusional.
nurikosguardian 1 year ago
@nurikosguardian Nope I didn't say that, it just goes against the continuation of human life. Of course many people think we are overpopulated, so I guess to them being gay is a good thing!
zen699 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zen699
And why do you think we are not overpopulated?
SethKeidashi 1 year ago
I like how people are bitching more about how the video was shot than the actual context of what you're saying. Viewer FAIL
anotherSilentDay 1 year ago
werent you on an episode of wife swap at one point?
xjsk88 1 year ago
i think it would have an affect on AMERICAN society. christ knows what would happen if we elected a gay senator*noted that this was a satirical comment*
TAXEXEMPTION 1 year ago
Agreed 100% as usual. They always wanna go to that slippery slope arguement; and like you I don't care who all is living together, who is fucking who, and which one gave whoever else a ring. I'm going to call it the paperwork arguement henceforth, as that it all it really appeals to. I suppose wedding clerks and justices of the peace may have selfish reasons to object lol. We've seen polygamy work; and we've seen it not work as well as being manipulative in the case of Mormons.
daswann14 1 year ago
i like your voice... and now i want corn
dragonkiss131 1 year ago
aperture is fucked
bighugejake 1 year ago
that looks like a decent area to hunt. You gotta tree stand?
bigbaddeerhunter 1 year ago
Let me be a devil's advocate. Here's a problem with the polygamy scenario. What about families? Whether you're religious or not (and I'm not), you can't deny the importance of children having a support system. I accept that two men or two women can provide for children well enough, but how is some sexual "union" of seven men and nine women going to care for children? And they will have children, make no mistake about that. Imagine being born into such a setup. Would you feel loved?
451ianDragonist 1 year ago
would you ask the supreme court to rule without the constitution?
would you ask a french judge to rule by it? that analogy FAILS
Leadman1989 1 year ago
people should just mind their own f0cking buisness! what are the inner gears that drive many people to get some upset and active about how other people try live their lives? why would a homophobe worry about that? it's unlikely that a gay person would be attracted to a tight-ass narrow minded fool who dresses badly, so there should be no problem. right?
fifh89 1 year ago
A more logical, non-blblical argument to oppose gay marriage may fall along these lines:
The government grants benefits to heterosexual marriages based on the premise that these relationships may eventually lead to population growth (and thus, stability if it's not rampant) via children. It's an investment in the country's future (including risks such as no children due to health issues, age, death, choice, etc).
Tax money covers the benefits given (including any tax breaks and such).
GoodOldGamer 1 year ago
Gay marriage can only provide the same investment if adoption is involved, or expensive medical procedures, thus extremely increasing the risks and drastically lowering any profit (children for the future) to counter those risks. Not to mention those expensive medical procedures are also often covered by tax money.
So the reasoning against gay marriage would be that the Tax Payers shouldn't have to cover this low profit/high risk investment. It'd be like paying to make a dead end road.
GoodOldGamer 1 year ago
In his mind he probably thinks you're trying to "trick him" just like the example he gave in his previous video of "what's gay according to the bible" (or something to that effect).... Thinking is mBaaad..
The irony is that of all the ethical reason he could come up with, he's chosen to be limited to what a book written by sheep herders says what marriage is..
In a nutshell, a picture of a guy inserting a sausage in a donut (check his "The why of marriage")
mku17ra 1 year ago
People are going to engage in all kinds of wacky, group bisexual interactions anyway. Like anything in life, what works to create stability is what's going to last. Christians seem to think that just controlling what people do with their adult lives is the solution, but it's not. Suppressing anything just makes people crave it more, hence people like Ted Haggard.
Staunts 1 year ago
Why do people think you're in front of a green screen when there's so much wind blowing into your mic? You put a fan in front of the mic to help fool the viewers?
chrisuzwhite 1 year ago
In 1967 the supreme court allowed racially mixed marriages.
In 1968 73% did not favor racially mixed marriages. 20% was for.
In 1991 for the first time the ones NOT in favor dropped below 50%. 43% was for.
In 2007, 17% still oppose it. THATS FUCKING 1 IN 6!
Do these people think they have been proven more right as time goes on? Or are their thinking just more shit in the wastebin of history
Thank Christ democracy had nothing to do with policy, because people in USA were mostly racist d-bags
CognosSquare 1 year ago
Good video. Don't like the wall poster you're standing before.
Euryponx 1 year ago
why do you bother trying to get a logical argument out of these people?
theyre religious fanatics, logic is completely irrelevent to them
btw, children of the corn :P
blackstonewielder19 1 year ago
The most disgusting "argument" I've seen was when someone compared granting equal rights to gays to allowing murder and rape. I really did not know what to say. Just like when people say "now people will want to marry their dogs", they are dehumanizing an entire group of people just because they disagree with their lifestyle. And comparing gay sex to murder or rape is just insane. So much hate from the christians these days.
SkeksisRule 1 year ago
Lol I thought you were in front of green screen till I heard the wind.
CrossKnights 1 year ago
EPIC CORN
Kniletiah 1 year ago
Hey, look at you, all outdoorsy and stuff! Well done. The "paperwork" defense is absolutely horrible, I agree.
Zaunstar 1 year ago
Like the field setting but the encoding make the movements choppy.
CognosSquare 1 year ago
@CognosSquare yeah my bad
tooltime9901 1 year ago
nice corn dude, and i agree with the video. dude is a moron.
equallyeasilyfuqyou 1 year ago
Nice green screen.
jussts 1 year ago
@jussts no thats the real outdoors
tooltime9901 1 year ago 4
@tooltime9901 LOL... trolled ya!
jussts 1 year ago
@jussts Man, you don't hear the wind hitting the camera mic?
richie3622 1 year ago
@richie3622 HAHA, yeah I do. I was just messing with him. Sorry, I know it's not super obvious in a text comment.
jussts 1 year ago
@jussts You pwnd yourself, sir.
Purlic 1 year ago
@Purlic Jeez, no one has a sense of humor anymore. I was joking... I thought fairly obviously. I guess I should have added a smiley or something to the end of my sentence.
Like thus. ; )
jussts 1 year ago
great video as always
stillstandin4you 1 year ago
I was had a chat with a fellow that worried that if we allowed homosexuality to be considered acceptable, sooner or later the entire planet would be gay.
lol
kendrawhisp 1 year ago
@kendrawhisp If we had a national Gay Day, then people could satisfy this supposedly latent desire to butt-fuck and carpet-munch. Of course, it will only delay the inevitable Arsemageddon or The Rear End of Times.
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@kendrawhisp That is what some people sincerely believe. That homosexuality is something that can spread like a virus. Infecting kids with gayism.
It's part of the evil Gay Agenda to convert the world, leading to the extinction of man kind. I've seen this argument for real, and it wasn't Poe.
ScottishAtheist 1 year ago
@kendrawhisp And that would be a problem... how? At least peace would reign, finally... but the entire planet becoming gay won't happen. That's as stupid as saying considering being black is acceptable would make the whole planet black. Now we do accept black people look at how black the ENTIRE planet is: nothing has changed. It just doesn't work that way, so let homosexuality be acceptable. You can't do anything about it anyway, it's not gonna die off.
Kniletiah 1 year ago
@Kniletiah Hey, don't ask me... the fellow I spoke to was scandalised by my "so what?" reply, saying the human race would die out because we weren't reproducing, to which i reminded him that gay people are not infertile. He ended our chat by saying, 'it just isn't right'.
kendrawhisp 1 year ago
wow its windy
very very good vid ur and a veru very good debater
JKLOL555callme 1 year ago
great job on this.
freethinker3161 1 year ago
Cool vid Peter
MetalSwitch95 1 year ago
what needs to transpire is that all forms of marriage between adults should be legalized, they just should not get any monetary gain from these marriages! therefore its a win win, let them marry how they want, and no one gets any tax credit for it, thats what i would like to see!
EternalGreen2012 1 year ago 2
Imagine that there was no marriage and it was proposed as a union between a man and a woman.
The slippery slope argument works here just as well (miserably). If we allow man and a woman to marry, why shouldn't a group of people be allowed to marry. Next, people would demand to marry their dogs and cats!
slipcurve 1 year ago
An aside, slippery slope fallacy i reckon is one of the harder fallacies to demonstrate. I read, recently that all the 'informal' fallacies are subjective. I guess they are kind of right, though Ad Hominem is usually clear cut enough. Non the less, it dawned on me recently that it is not enough to accuse the fallacy, u have to check they understand it, and then explain how u R correct in identifying their pos. as fallicious.
Hythloday71 1 year ago
your HD sucks
jfeuiebf 1 year ago
@jfeuiebf yeah I set the bit rate too low. my bad
tooltime9901 1 year ago
commonlaw marriage would be sorta strange. i lived with my roommate whos a guy for to long now hes on my health insurance and my next of kin? im not actually against gay marriage i just like debating both sides.
darkrulerbob 1 year ago
Do you eat that corn?
DavieDave59 1 year ago
As long as any previous spouse(s) agree to further marriage between their partner or themself and another individual, I don't see why polygamy is an issue to begin with. How is that even supposed to be DOWN any slope, slippery or otherwise?
SakuraElyse 1 year ago
So basically, if Gay marriage is allowed, then I can fuck three women on a daily basis.
Oh the horror.
dechha1981 1 year ago 2
@dechha1981 Why would you want to put yourself through such a hell :p
Schneboll 1 year ago
If you build it...
gusb232 1 year ago 3
Some good-looking corn there.
PragmaticLiving 1 year ago
CORN!
timmysquidfingers 1 year ago
I like how the dirt road avoids the shit out of that corn.
Omnominable 1 year ago
Morality is a paper work nightmare lawlz.
Noah2112 1 year ago
yo!! this background is great do all your videos like this lol
sieve417 1 year ago
Polygamy means Bill Gates get all the women while the rest of us stay at home jacking off to internet porn. It would cause riots in the streets, proberly why China stoped the one babby boy policy, men need women and yes this is the issue with gay marriage if two men or two women can get married to each other why not one man two women.
CoWalsh04 1 year ago
@CoWalsh04
Polygamy is multiple partners, nothing to do with buying wives so leave gates out of this or justify the connection. And Aren't there women he wont want to buy?
But if gay marriage will mean polygamy, and thus we should ban it, then why not ban marriage alltogether? It only leads to trouble anyway. Men do need women for reproduction, but that's not president when considering who you want to spend the rest of your life with. And with so many orphans it could be a good thing.
mortuus8 1 year ago
@mortuus8 I never said anything about buying wives, if Polygamy was the norm most women would be attracted to high status males. Have a look back at history. I dont think marriage should be a state issue. It's left to many men broke and living like second class citizens.
CoWalsh04 1 year ago
@CoWalsh04 I still don't get why bill gates will have all the wives though? I know now that you meant it as "he's the richest" but what about the president? Or more attractive millionaires (eg: English footballers)
And i don't see why they'd just be attracted to high status, there is far more to consider like family honor, availability, attraction, age, etc.
Back to point though, what's wrong with gay marriage?
mortuus8 1 year ago
Polygamy would work better than regular marriage.
You have to be intellectually mature and generous to even consider such a relationship. I have seen many people marry and be utter selfish pigs to their partners. You'd think they would see them as more than their property to kick around.
Polygamy forces you to realise before you actually embark on it, that you will "share" your partner. If you are a douche you will be spending a lot of alone time in a multi- spouse home.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler This like a wierd paradox. Should people commit to a bad descision, or waffle on a one night stand?
sumvlac 1 year ago
Is monogamy unique to our species?
sumvlac 1 year ago
@sumvlac Apparently penguins mate for life.. hm :S
LaurenCS1992 1 year ago
@sumvlac Pretty much. There are only a few other animals that practice it. I'm thinking whether we are monogamous or polygamous is determined by the culture and society you are brought up in.
jalit 1 year ago
As long as it legitimate and between consenting adults, who the fuck cares? It's no ones problem but the party involved. What people do behind their doors and in their bedrooms (as long as it isn't hurting ANYONE at ANY point in time) - it isn't your business. Period.
Manoichan 1 year ago 3
I see no problem with legalizing polygamy. Between consenting adults of course. So all parties in the current marriage must accept any newcomer to the marriage.
lothrazar 1 year ago
I hate hearing this same bullshit from those that are against gay marriage. The next example is "Well what if I want to marry my child, my dog, car, etc. The seem to not listen to the "consenting adult" part of the argument. None of those things listed that they commonly use for examples are adults.
junosden 1 year ago
@junosden No watch the video that i made for yourself
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
I've had someone make the "it will lead to polygamy" argument to me, and the slippery slope that allowing homosexual marriage would lead to allowing people to marry pets. The latter of course would have serious issues with consent, as animals lack the ability to consent and enter into contracts.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
Now the "it will lead to polygamy becoming legal" actually makes sense. The legal precedents seem likely to make that possible in the long run... but as you mention, that's actions between consenting adults. I don't know that it will work for them, but that doesn't mean I should stop them from trying.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
(now I can see some consent issues with adding someone to an existing marriage, where one would want to make sure they have the consent of all involved in the wedding. For example, if a man wants a second wife, his wife must also consent to marrying the 2nd woman, and both of them would have to marry the 2nd woman. )
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
awesome view!
Cosette24 1 year ago
although i personally have misgivings about plural marriage (polygamy refers only to a situation where one man has two or more wives) the only reason i can see for not recognizing it legally when all parties are consenting adults is situations where it would cause actual potential problems: the example I'm thinking of is insurance plans that cover a person's spouse and children, because it would be unfeasible to cover unlimited spouses. this could of course be corrected by charging premiums.
TheLizardLass 1 year ago
good old christian pwnage
bunny69xxx 1 year ago
Him again?
heh...
Sarahon06 1 year ago
@Sarahon06 ah you remember him eh?
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
ololololol nice bluescreen
mynameaborat993 1 year ago
Never trust a user with "truth" in his user-name.
Nykytyne2 1 year ago 2
@Nykytyne2 hey, what gives?
srch4trth 1 year ago
Win
ZachVMNTX1 1 year ago
Christians love the KJV, not homosexuality. Irony?
Throughout his life King James had close relationships with male courtiers, which has caused debate among historians about their nature. Some of James's biographers conclude that Esmé Stewart (later Duke of Lennox), Robert Carr (later Earl of Somerset), and George Villiers (later Duke of Buckingham) were his lovers.
Christians use the KJV Bible but won't let King James marry his partner.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 1 year ago
Choppy vid man
conman2317 1 year ago
I didn't like this video. I spotted several crappy arguments, sorry. Love most of your vids though!
SirPwn4lot 1 year ago
what's up with some ppl who put the word "truth" in their name at the same time being complete dipshits?! -_-'
-Truthfulchristian
-theTruthGroup
SEF6519 1 year ago 3
@SEF6519 9/11 truthers. It's the "my dick is huge" syndrome, if they have to tell you at every opportunity, chances are it isn't true.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
More outside videos!
Shazbotben 1 year ago
What's that green and blue stuff? :S
aMondia 1 year ago 2
@aMondia I think they're cows and birds, not entirely sure.
lackin124 1 year ago
oh by the way, Apologetics is RepresentingTruth's daughter. Remember her right?
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
it would only be a paperwork disaster for the people involved. If they wanna risk it go ahead.
and i tried saying that the state (if anything) should just give out civil partnerships to everyone, and let the individual churches decide who they each want to allow to get married.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman I love his response. The whole argument is discrimination. That is the point. I feel very good right now about it.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth so youre okay with his point of view?
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman I am okay with his honesty. What he does not realized is all that I had in mind. By him making a response he has open himself up to a lot of debate. Look at the comments on his video. That is part of what I wanted to see what would happen. There is more that meets the eye here. People always ask how will this affect you? Until it happens we cannot know all the damage it would cause. That is the point and part of my plan. He fell right into it and I am thankful.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth "By him making a response he has open himself up to a lot of debate. Look at the comments on his video. That is part of what I wanted to see what would happen.. He fell right into it and I am thankful."
your plan was to have people comment on a fairly popular atheists video? really? what a mind blowing plan....
that's the stupidest thing i've heard all day. thanks so much.
thisguysajerk 1 year ago
@thisguysajerk You have not thought it through.1). The gay community screams just two consenting adults. Now I throw this question and the reaction is any thing goes. That shows that people would redefine marriage to anything they want and thus it is no longer special
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth Heterosexual divorce already shoes it's no longer special. So what?
customerjon 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth
So? as long as you don't infringe on my rights or damage someting... I don't give a flying fuck what you do in your bedroom! of course anything goes! life has no rules except those we voluntarily submit ourselves too! and we should only submit ourselves to rules that make sense and are to the benefit of socienty, or at least don't hurt socienty. the greeks already got that one right! why can't we?
TheNinerion 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth And why shouldn't "anything go" between two consenting adults?
woodsleeps 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@woodsleeps Watch my video and you will see
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth RT with the divorce rate as it stands. It still represents something special. The institution of marriage is not that special. It is the people in the marriage that make it special! I would have thought you would know that!
ShellySummers 1 year ago
@ShellySummers The institution of marriage is becoming that which is nor longer special. If every Tom,Dick and Harry, as well as Jane, Amy and Sue can all be part of marriage how is that special?
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth If we were to look up anti misogynistic views. The debate against allowing different "races" to marry. Where will it end? Now a days that seems like an absurd idea. Less then 50 yrs ago that was the law in many states.
I do think the arguments against that are the same ones your using.
I also notice you didn't mention my actual point. That it's the people in the marriage that make it special. Not the marriage itself.
Dam flatlander ^_^
ShellySummers 1 year ago
@ShellySummers Your challenge holds no water to me. Moses married a black woman from my understanding. Second as a Christian we believe we all came from Adam and Eve. Having every possible partner shows no sign of true love. If a person can have many partners who would you save in a car accident first? Most kids do not get along well with a Step dad or a Step mom and you want to put more on a kid? Most kids would give anything for their mom and dad to only be together.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth Marriage has traditionally had nothing to do with love as we understand it. It had to do with transferring ownership of the daughter from the father to the groom and the groom promising to provide for her(The promise being equivalent of modern social rights). Much like the bible defines adultery as a crime against another man's possession. "you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth Also, you need to realize that you're comparing apples and oranges here. While it's undoubtedly true that most kids would like their stable role-models to be there - they also would be there in the kind of polygamy you suggest. There would just be more people living in the house.
The real showstopper here has nothing to do with consequences, but that people actually have tried this - and it doesn't work. Jealousy and other social issues cause it to fall apart.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth However, it's pretty amusing that you present "If a person can have many partners who would you save in a car accident first?" as an argument against multiple partners. That's like Tooltime's "OMG the paperwork!" parody. Who cares if someone likes X slightly better than Y, if everyone gets along fairly well *when they're not involved in a car accident*. /rolleyes Seriously... Would you save your partner or your child first? Does stating an answer mean you fail at marriage?
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth I find it funny you bring up 2 of the 3 most famous stories of incest in the bible. Adam and Eve's kids would have had to be having sex with each other to populate the planet. Moses and his 3 sons and their wives. Who do you think they were boinking to repopulate the planet?
I never ONCE brought up polygamy. I simply stated it is the couple that makes a marriage special. NOT THE INSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH OR MARRIAGE! It is the couple! Your the one with their mind in the gutter
ShellySummers 1 year ago
@ShellySummers Moses had two sons See Ex. 18. I think you meant to say Noah. If the couple alone makes the marriage special why have marriage?
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth
"why have marriage?"
As a legal contract that pertains to property, lawful personal rights, and lawful responsiblities there are pragmatic reasons for marriage in our society.
If you're actually asking "why should anybody bother with marriage as an institution" it has it's origins in property ownership, sharing, and eventual passing thereof. If you imagine a time when man first came upon the notion of land ownership, not far behind is contractual marriage.
AxisAnalysis 1 year ago