Let’s Agree On This About Gay Marriage.

We need to agree on facts about marriage.

It is often called, “The Institution of Marriage”.  A more accurate term is the “Practice of Marriage”, or, just “marriage”.

Marriage did not originate as a gift from God.  In tribal societies today, and presumably from the beginning of humans, it was a business or survival deal.  Marriages were arranged by others for the benefit of the family or tribe.

Marriage is not for the purpose of having and raising children.  This has to be the case because some marriages do not result in children.  Some children are born to parents that are not married.

Marriage in the Bible was not universally between one man and one woman.  It was often between one man and several women.

Marriage did not originate from religion.  The early, and current, arranged marriages were negotiated by tribal elders or family.  When churches came along they inserted themselves into something that had been established long before they arrived.

We must remember humans did not link sex to pregnancy until a few thousand years ago.  For most of human history, it was believed that women created babies themselves through mysterious powers only they possessed.

Gay people are successful in raising children.  There are conflicting studies about children of single parents and gays and others.  None has been found to be unsuccessful in raising children.

Opposing gay marriage for reasons not grounded in fact is unethical.  One thing we know is stable households, gay and straight, are good for all of us.

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to Let’s Agree On This About Gay Marriage.

  1. Emily says:

    Those people must have been very ignorant. One thing is if gay is a gene then there is no way that they could reproduce. So in other words, way back then this would be over because they cant have kids to pass the trait on. Off topic I know. But that is a factor!

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Emily 1:29 “…have been very ignorant.”

      You must be referring to earlier people not linking sex to pregnancy. Their knowledge of science was not developed yet, just like today probably we don’t know things that will be known in a few decades. Yet, we are not “ignorant”. Ancient people knew things we do not–how to stay alive by finding food and shelter in nature.

      We have gay people on this forum so one of more of them may wish to comment on the “gay gene”. I believe the consensus view is there is no know “cause” of being gay. It does appear more frequently in some families than others, but no one knows why.

      • Emily says:

        Yes did you see a comment I made last week about my gay uncle. I am not against gays but homosexuality itself. The people may be fine people but sick or not. Yes I was refering to the ancients they had to know that by having sex multiple times would get you pregnant ha. As long as the gay parents do not force that lifestlye on their kids it may be okay. The kid has a 97% of being heterosexual so they have the right to date opposite sex.

    • entech says:

      Do you think having a preference for a sexual partner of the same gender precludes the possibility of heterosexual coupling? There are many ‘normal’ marriages with offspring that turn out to be based on a lie, on pressure to be normal, many get resolved later in life and many don’t. I have a close female friend who tells me that her brother is devastated because his wife, mother of the children, the whole works, has left him for another woman.

      • Emily says:

        Right! Any sexual immortality is wrong weather homologue or Herero sexual. Pornography is wrong, cheating is wrong, unmarried sex is wrong, teenage dating is wrong and finally woman beaters and tape is wrong. We cant assume that gays have a better relationship though. Lots of devious people!

        • entech says:

          Type a little slower. “sexual immortality”?

          • Emily says:

            Yes sexual immorality for heterosexuals is just as bad as any thus I have them listed above. Like I said, leaving your wife and kids is devious. Gays are not always doing it for love as my uncle found out!

          • entech says:

            “sexual immortality”? :lol:

    • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

      Emily, first of all I think you’re playing a character because your comments are so over the top.

      (Seriously, your ‘boyfriend’ got almost beat up outside church? Please . . where do you live, Lithuania?)

      Gay gene or not, homosexuals have been around since long before God burned Sodom and Gomorrah, so there must be something straight people are doing that is creating all these homos.

      Perhaps straight people might consider some self reflection as to what they’re doing wrong.

      Once they fix that, the homo problem will go away.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Mac 5:04 “Emily, first of all I think you are playing a character….”

        Funny, I private emailed another contributor here the same thought a couple of weeks ago.

      • entech says:

        Mac. Lithuania was an unfortunate choice – according to the CIA year book (and would they lie to us) Lithuania is 85% Christian, 10% none, leaving only 5% other. So unlikely to get a problem talking about Jesus; on the other hand, openly gay behaviour is likely to get you a lot of hassle and confrontation. Is there a correlation, or is it just me?

      • Emily says:

        Why don’t you read my posts Mac? Cant you see what I was saying. Heterosexual sin is bad too! Trust me, you think I have not sinned? I have done a self evaluation and broke one of every commandant in some way. But I have Jesus. He will forgive you if you seek and repent. Character, I am who I am and you know what, the world ain’t nice anymore. People will beat other people up. Don’t tell me you have never been threatened.

    • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

      @ Emily June 26, 2012 at 1:29 am

      “One thing is if gay is a gene then there is no way that they could reproduce.” Sentences like these leave the door wide open for me to call you an idiot once again. L2science more at NDSU then say that sentence again.

      • Emily says:

        you look like a fool Demosthenes. Calling Christians idiots yet when I say something to you I “make no sense”. I think that is your forte to make no sense. You have turned peaceful talk into war. Your sick

        • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

          Lets be clear. I am not calling all Christians idiots, I am calling you an idiot for believing there is no other way for homosexuals to pass genetic material onto to a fetus.

  2. Michael Ross says:

    ” We need to agree on facts about marriage.”

    The fight has centered specifically on the definition of marriage. The issue appears
    now at the end of decades of ignoring and weakening traditional (biblical) adultery laws and divorce laws. You can’t replace something with nothing.

    Human conventions and definitions change. Homosexual lobbies are wise to that fact. They know that it favors their agenda. They will keep trying to push us the next step down the road, just as the humanists always have.
    We have arrived at the final horror: gay “marriage”. We are in uncharted waters. History has never been hear before. Or has it?

    “And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. “It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all” (Luke 17:26-28)

    http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/gay-marriage-the-days-of-noah-return/

    • entech says:

      You have brought this one up before. Christians who watch gays, forgive my giggling.

      • Emily says:

        Entech 3:00 am
        Do you believe in sexual immortality or are you asking me what it means. Sorry, I don’t get why you have a question mark twice!

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Emily 3:16 I think entech has left for his morning philosophy group. For some reason people in Australia get up at night and go to bed in the morning. When will they get in sync with normal people? :)

          P.S. I’ll be off this forum until late tomorrow evening.

        • entech says:

          Type a little slower. “sexual immortality”?
          This is what I first said, sorry I forgot the smiley face, you obviously meant immorality, one little letter crept in and made a big difference.

    • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

      I think that it’s pretty clear that when we get another ‘great flood’ its not going to be because of ‘the gays’ but to the extent that fundamentalist Christian finger pointing is going to keep us dependent on fossil fuels I’m sure that the fundamentalist Muslims sitting on the the world’s oil reserves won’t object.

      • Emily says:

        Really. Well, first off there will be no great flood because God already tried that. Rapture is next. Give an example of when a pointed a finger at any one. I made it clear about gays. It is atheism that mocks Christianity I cant stand. In math two negatives may make a positive but in the real world problems. You do know that that is politics right. Oil. Gays have nothing to do with oil.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        sea “..that fundamentalist Christian finger pointing…” Good point. When the next natural disaster strikes, I’m going to point fingers at the religious people of the world. There should be some balance or equity in finger pointing. : )

        • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

          But how to separate the cynical from the ignorant?

          Forgive them, Jon, for they know not what they do.

          If you want to give the American Enterprise Institute, the American Petroleum Institute, Kevin Cramer and James Inhofe over to the Old Testament God though, I’d be good with that. ;)

  3. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    Well as the sole gay man on this forum who married my partner almost 6 years ago . . .

    Gay people don’t give a rat’s ass about getting married in anyone’s church. We want the equal protection of the 1,000 laws that the United States gives to couples that pay $75 and buy a contract from their state government.

    It is wrong that we let religion decide who is allowed to buy those documents and who can and cannot benefit from state and federal protection that purchase provides.

    And for the record, I cannot imagine a love or commitment that exists on the face of the earth that would surpass that which I have for Ricky and he has for me.

    Yeah, God really hates that and is just waiting ’til we drop dead so He can send us to Hell.

    Whatever . . . .

    • entech says:

      Quite right. The same commitment to each other should be recognised in all the same ways that heterosexual couples are. In Australia common law or de facto marriage is a legally recognised arrangement and was recently extended to include same sex couples, meaning a couple living in an established relationship as married are considered the same way under the law for property rights and inheritance. Strangely enough there is still an impediment to legal marriage, coming before parliament again soon and would pass on a free vote but the conservative side is insisting on a vote along party policy lines.

      A religious ceremony should be a matter between the parties concerned – church and the couple, nothing legal involved.

      • Emily says:

        Also Mac and entech, you have the choice to get married wherever by whoever but most people choose a church or priest because they prefer. Msnbc and fox are way to radical and will tell lies about anything. Understand that in reality, you can get married under God or under law but God is law. Don’t hide from Him. Just remember, a true Christian which there are about 10 left almost, would not jugde you on basis of skin or anything. The true Christians fought for civil rights and woman’s sufferage. False pretend religious people were against it. Don’t fall for the lie of man or devil. Christians shall not condone the sin but neither condemn the sinner. Let God be your judge not humans. Pray tonight. I forgive you for calling me a actor for you didn’t see the mercy in me. I am the nail in Jesus hand yet he loves me anyways.

        • entech says:

          Emily 4:21 Settle down a bit, I don’t even know Mac and he is already married. Actually I did get married in a church, in the early 1950s most people did, but thinking about it the only one I could guarantee to be a true believer would have been my wife’s Aunt, she was heavy into missionary things and always fighting with the local diocese because she was right and the others wrong, her parents were probably conventional in the sense that that is what they were brought up with and never gave it much thought, my own parents weren’t, when my Father died prematurely a few years later my Mother told me that a busybody neighbour had browbeaten the local vicar into visiting, he was politely told that they had different ideas and could they leave it there, the vicar had the decency not to return (tackling people at their most vulnerable is pretty awful and a deathbed conversion is nothing to be proud of – quite the converse) my Mother was vaguely along Pascal’s lines, live the right way and you can’t be far wrong – all the kids christened, insurance or convention I never really asked, I think it was a case of give them a chance just in case.

          Never too keen on this God is law idea, so many of them over 600 by some counts, most seem to be connected to survival of a small group, someone obviously noticed pigs ate excrement and were prone to worms put that on the banned list, all the sexual proscriptions were aimed at growing the tribe don’t waste any seed – the law requiring a brother to impregnate his dead brothers wife for example, under many tribal systems you would expect such things to be taboo, lots of rules to promote harmony (Cain killed Abel for less), and a refusal was a sin was Onan a sinner because he undertook the physical bit but spilled his seed on stony ground? You could go on and on about the strange LAWS, people have written whole volumes about it. But the giveaway, confirmation of the idea that they ere written by man for man – specifically by male priests/shamans etc. is the number of times that you are exhorted to love and fear God and the power this puts in the hands of said priests.

          You get into dangerous ground when you talk of TRUE Christians, especially when you nominate a number such as almost, about, what did you say? 10 – care to name them? care to name a few more attributes, I have long been asking for a definitive categorisation, Never mind the nail in the hand of Jesus, I think MOST Christians that fail your definition would consider you more a “thorn in the side” , or perhaps a pain in the fundament.

          You take a lot on yourself dispensing forgiveness like that. Such statements could lend some credence to Mac’s claim of doubt about your authenticity due excessive “over the topness”, I am prepared to take you at your word, you say you are young, recently converted from scepticism, this could lead to an enthusiasm that is more full charge than contemplative reflection, most martyrs fall into this category (martyr, terrorist – freedom fighter, insurgent – patriot, traitor depends which side you are looking from)

          4:10 How magnanimous, your church accepts gays, but wait I thought you said you love Jesus but hate religion, church is religion? I am confused, perhaps you enjoy taking a walk in the vineyard to think about these things and train your mind.

          • Emily says:

            I don’t think you heard my other statements about my church entech. Why are you judge every nice thing I have to say. I don’t have a Phd, so I am not qualified for “debates ” I guess. To me, it looks like whenever I say the word God, Jesus, church YOU go over the top. If you didn’t know I was a believer and I played the god is not real game, I bet you u would agree and like me even though I would be spewing lies. When I speak the truth, you make me seem like a tyrrant of some sort. Not to long ago you just said you are welcome to post anything ect, but then you judge me! I am not trying to start a terror group because if you read any of the new testament you will see how pacifist we are. I never make a list of your errors or comments and try to correct you. What is the point of free thought if people harass me. You said yourself entech to ignore people who offend you. You can make a lot of excuses, but I think I offended you, you got pissed, and started typing. Never have I said you will go to hell or I will kill you. But, I forgive you. 10% of Christians is what I meant. Sorry that I didn’t clarify, I just assumed you would get it. I said nothing harmful to Mac. Or you or Jon.

          • entech says:

            What is the point of free thought if people harass me. It is not harassment to disagree, you should welcome it, gives you the opportunity to consider your position, refine your thoughts and arguments. It is reciprocal you don’t hesitate to tell people they are wrong, that you possess absolute truth.
            I don’t think I go over the top, just asking how you can have such absolute certainty. No one suggested that you are starting a terror group, just pointing out that extremes can lead to either martyrdom or terrorism.
            Please list my errors and comment on where you think I am wrong, that is the way we all learn. Earlier I was pushing the point a bit about immortal and immoral because I thought it was humorous, there was a British comedy sketch a long time ago, part of it involved some talk in an uneducated voice (deliberately affected) talking about living on the immortal earnings. Your typo prompted memories of my strange sense of humour. If you think I was picking, I invite you to reread your entire first sentence @ 2:43.

            There you go again, forgiving people again, that is the only part I find vaguely offensive.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Emily 4:21 “The true Christians fought for civil rights and woman’s sufferage.”

          This is the kind of statement that make skeptics skeptical. I dare say there were just as many people who called themselves “true Christians” on the other side of these issues. Without some objective means of declaring who is a “true Chrisitan”, almost anyone can make that claim. The Bible has stuff on both sides of many issues. It certainly hammers home the point women are inferior. Jesus had no use for his mother.

          • Emily says:

            Jesus used his mother to give him birth. He didn’t come to give glory to Mary but to God. The Catholics find Mary to be more important then protestants because we believe that Jesus came as our salvation. Plus, he didn’t start his teaching until age 30. He was a carpenter and lived with his mom. Sounds like an average American today :)

            A true Christian is one who only believes the doctrine and Trinity and will never lose faith. Now, I cant say I am perfect, but I know I will never, Ever let anyone take my faith away. Bold right. There are times I wish I would get hung on a cross rather then Jesus cause I deserve it. Without him, I bet the Romans would still rule the world. I deserve death, but Jesus saved me. My soul is alive with a shell called a body. Please have an open heart, not mind. I hold to ancient theroy that the heart is center of emotions. Or will Demosthenes. Call me an idiot. Of course I don’t believe that.

    • Emily says:

      No, God does not hate you or Ricky. In fact, the reason He would be angry is because of your disbelief and insults. See, He loved you and has a plan for you. Jesus loves homosexuals but not the sin homosexuality. If God didn’t exist, there would be no love at all. Don’t think that religion is trying to kill you. My church accepts gays we simply tell them about there sins but love them the same. My uncle is gay. I’m fine with that. Hes trying to stop but cant. My biggest problem with all this is encouraging our young people that a gay lifestyle is okay. Many have been gay just for fun and got stuck. Welcome to the world of persecution my friend. My boyfriend knows what it is like and God has forgiven him. By being angry ar religion or God will not help your cause brother.

      • entech says:

        Emily, if you had read Mac’s posts over the last year or more you would have seen his declaration of a strong and consistent Christian faith. One of the things I find admirable is that he holds and maintains this position in spite of the gay hatred he is exposed to by most Christians.
        I find it incomprehensible from my own viewpoint, but he does believe and I would defend his right to believe and also to act in a manner he finds appropriate to him and his partner and still consistent with his beliefs, any other approach can only be pure and simple bigotry.

        • Emily says:

          That is the reason I told him my church accepts gays.
          :)

        • Candyman says:

          let me ask you?…if you walk into a garage, does that make a car? if I stand in the middle of the garage and make engine noises, does that make me an automibile? If I went to a auto tech’s shop and told him I can’t shift gears and I think my clutch is going out, what would he say? He would say inaddition to being looney, all my yrs auto training and education I can 100% assure you that YOU ARE NOT A CAR!

    • Doubtful says:

      @Mac 4:54
      This is probably the most sensible post in this discussion but I know that there are gay’s who do care about marriage within a religion. Other than that I think defining marriage is a good idea and there can be multiple definitions. While I think the there should be no benefits conveyed by government to married people if society insists on doing that we need a legal definition of marriage that allows this with no connection to any religion. We also need definitions of marriage that meet the religious needs of groups that feel they need one. Those people should be able to define marriage according to their desires and practice it accordingly.

  4. Matt Slocomb says:

    Random question on ethics for Jon… many atheists hold that no ultimate standard for ethics exists since there is no god. Are you in that camp? If so, how can you call anything unethical? If you are not in that camp, where does your grounding for ethics come from?

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Matt 8:21 “…many atheists hold that no ultimate standare for ethics exists..”

      I think you are saying how you think atheists reason, not how they actually do. Since there never has been a god, no god has ever given us morals or ethics. We do have them, however. They come from the human ability to see their own best interests in the ethical treatment of others. Destructive behavior forced on others, humans can see, means it will be forced on to ourselves.

      Thus, it is incorrect to say if there is no god, there are no standards.

      • Emily says:

        I see that the god you are thinking of is not the God that Matt and I believe. See you believe in god, which is a Greek or Roman or ancient god. We believe in God. The Lord of heaven and earth. Yahweh! Not a mythical god that you are thinking of. There is a difference between our God and god. It is our God sent His son to die on a cross! No other god offers that salvation. Religion does not offer that. Religion often uses money for salvation which is what I assume you worship Jon. You must worship something.

      • Matt Slocomb says:

        Jon 12:00 – So the basis of ethics is what is in “their own best interests.” Thus, if something is a benefit to you (or to the majority?) it is ethical? Define destructive also… from a purely biological perspective, certainly you would agree that male homosexual activity has destructive consequences. As such, should that be considered unethical?

        I think you get my core point here that without some fixed standard of ethics, our standards of right and wrong are based on popular opinion at best…

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Matt 3:00 “I think you get my core point here that without some fixed standard of ethics, our standard of right and wrong are based on popular opinion at best.”

          You point has been posted here by many, including Wanna B Sure the first week or so of this blog a year and a half ago. The answer remains the same.

          First, Christianity has many threads and factions. Within those threads, morality has changed over time, as public opinion changed. The faith has no choice but to change because the people in the pews pay for the preacher. When people don’t want to hear about some sin, like working on Sunday, preachers stop calling it a sin.

          Second, these changes came about because people observe, reflect and act on what they think makes sense. They make are able to see what is in society’s long term interests. Now, I myself think the majority makes mistakes for long periods of time, like the 40,000 mostly preventable deaths in automobile crashes each year. If there were a god, it would not stand for such irresponsible behavior. But, there isn’t, people have decided they won’t worry about this.

          People don’t need religion to establish good moral values–religion has never provided them.

          • Emily says:

            Jon, you support gay marriage. But when a preist touched a kid in a “gay ” manner you say that is wrong. So, you admit that sin exists even in gay relationships. You say lets give them all these rights, what if the priests can legally touch kids because homosexuals justified it? You cant have it both ways. You cant promote homosexuals if you put down Catholics. Plus, do you really think that by letting gay clergy men in the church, it will help what your saying. No! Of cor

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Emily 3:50 re your absurd notion that pediphiles and gay adults are the same thing.

            Children molested by priests are victoms. Gay adults living together are not. You are saying sex between a man and woman when rape is committed is the same as when a couple is married.

          • entech says:

            I would agree with you Jon. But would take it a little further, while it is true that God is not needed for an ethical system for a morality, I would ague that the scriptural God is inconsistent with such ethics or morality. The described nature of this entity is enough to make this case, a couple of points:
            1. “the Lord thy God is a jealous God” – is petty emotional ranting a basis for ethics; you will love me and do it my way, is this ethics?
            2. Thou shalt not commit murder – compare to Numbers 31:15-18, but don’t worry a bit of ritual cleansing will make it all right (particularly like the bit about save the virgins for yourself). And why were these people to be destroyed, virtual genocide, kill the perpetrators if you must, but their innocent ‘male’ children as well.
            And the reason for 2. see 1.

            It is in the book and the book don’t lie.

          • entech says:

            Emily, please consider what you just said. @ 3:50 Do you really compare consenting adults to the rape of young children?

          • Matt Slocomb says:

            Is there an act that is absolutely wrong all of the time? If so, why? Give me an example…

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Matt 2:37 “Is there an act that is absolutely wrong all of the time? If so, why? Give me an example.”

            Anytime a person in a stronger position takes advantage of a person in a weaker position for no justifiable reason. It is absolutely wrong all of the time because if all stronger people do this society will fall into chaos and everyone will be worse off eventually.

          • entech says:

            Deuteronomy 21:21 Stoning a child to death because he is disobedient would come close to being absolutely wrong at all times.

            Because this is a command from your God, one of 42 sins that carry the death penalty, your God cannot be the source of morality. At least this would be the case if the Biblical writings are to be accepted as the inspired, true and inerrant word of God, further assuming that this entity actually exists.

            Is an immoral act made moral because your God says so?

    • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

      “no ultimate standard for ethics exists since there is no god.” Logic fail on your part, sorry but I don’t think we can fix that as that has been the believers problem from the get go.

      • Emily says:

        Wrong

        • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

          Explain Emily. What is “Wrong”?

          • Emily says:

            You are. Everything you say is for attention. As I mentioned before entech and Jon have no problem with me here putting my veiws out. I suppose you think you are the brights. Okay, enlighten my “weak ” mind and tell me how the world was created. How jam I wrong. Disprove me. Oh sorry you cant. I am not always right, but I have insight to things. You hate!

          • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

            @ Emily June 26, 2012 at 4:29 pm

            If as you claim I am wrong, explain how I am wrong?

            I have no problem with you speaking your views at all, I am just speaking my views about your views. Am I not allowed to do that?

            “Disprove me.” What am I suppose to disprove, please put it in context. What are you talking about?

            “Okay, enlighten my “weak ” mind and tell me how the world was created.” I don’t have absolute knowledge of this nor have I claimed, all I have are theories.

  5. entech says:

    Random question for Matt. Aristotle and other Greek philosopher held that ethics would require that equals be treated equally, the fairness or justice approach to ethics. Now in the American way, in the perfectly justifiable declaration of independence, we see the words “… all men are created equal … endowed by their creator … “, in view of this can you justify slave ownership as an ethical position from the point of view of justice.
    Now Christianity tells that there is a God, a just God, but in God’s words, the Christian bible we see slavery accepted, even with instructions on how to treat your slave.

    How can we base ultimate ethics on the word of a just God who condones unjust actions?

    The standard argument from apologists is that absolute morality cannot exist without God. Once again a God whose morality orders the death penalty for even minor infractions, a God whose sense of justice accepts no excuses, whose absolute justice states if you are guilty of one thing you are guilty of everything (James 2:10).

    Personally I can see no basis for ethics or morals if the scriptures are taken consistently, of course, if you can pick and choose they are not absolute.

    When I said your declaration of independence was justified it is because I do hold to at least one absolute belief, colonialism is always wrong.

  6. Henry says:

    Jon:“Marriage did not originate as a gift from God.”

    Proof?

    • entech says:

      Proof that it did, or proof that it didn’t?
      Bit like proof of existence or proof of absence, “God only knows” is the vaguely blasphemous answer that is often used when faced with a conundrum. That does tend towards question begging though, assuming the existence when making a claim about the inherent difficulty of confirming or denying such existence.

      • Henry says:

        Jon’s claim. We are told the good atheists don’t make assumptions, rather relying on requested data. Data please. Let’s approach this skeptically.

        • entech says:

          Who tells us that? You keep telling us what “The Atheist” says, thinks and does. Where is that great amorphous ‘WE’ that you invoke?
          Data is your thing, personally I prefer verifiable information.

    • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

      @ Henry June 26, 2012 at 8:52 pm

      “Proof?” Silly Henry, why are you asking for proof?

  7. One thing is bound to happen: Gay Marriage will reduce the population where ever it is legal/practiced/ condoned or condemned.

  8. I need to re-phrase something: If gay marriage becomes as prevalent as those who support it want it to…..then the population will be greatly reduced.
    I would think that committed Gays would remain childless and just enjoy each others company.

    • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

      I don’t know what this means, how it would work, and I seriously doubt that its true, but so what if it were? It isn’t as if we’re an endangered species. There are 7 billion of us.

      • Emily says:

        it makes perfect sense. If gay people want to have children it is impossible if they were a true gay. You cant have it both ways sea. You cant say you are gay yet reproduce with the opposite sex because then you cant be “gay “. So after one generation of gays, it would be over! Now, the choice to be gay means with same sex.

        • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

          You’re not making this any clearer to me.

          Straight couples get reproductive help all the time.

          Are you under the impression that only gays beget gays? I’d never even thought of this. Maybe that explains why religious parents sometimes have so many issues accepting their gay children.

          You’re acting like the world was actually flat right up until the moment the Pope said it was actually round.

          There have always been gay people and somehow the population of humans on the planet has done nothing but increase. Giving them the right to marry will have zero negative impact on the population.

    • Henry says:

      K: “I would think that committed Gays would remain childless and just enjoy each others company.”

      That is the story line. In fact, we are told they are more committed than heteros. Then every once in a while you hear stories of a in-the-closet gay coach posing as a hetero in PA…Sundasky? Not very committed.

      • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

        That monster is a pedophile, not a homosexual.

        Henry, you are a flaming troll.

        • Henry says:

          I think he is both a homosexual and a heterosexual. His acts speak accordingly.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry To say Jerry Sandusky is a homosexual because he is a pedephile is the ultimate in biggoted slurs. I’d appreciate it if no one on this board implies gay people are child molesters.

            The only study I have seen on this topic did questionairres of people jailed for pedephilia. As I recall, all the interviewees were men. Virtually none of the people interviewed claimed to have had intimate relationships with other male adults. They were practicing heterosexuals. If you have information to the contrary that is something other than your biased opinion, that might be helpful. But, painting a groups as preditory criminals with no information to support it is dispicable.

          • Henry says:

            “I’d appreciate it if no one on this board implies gay people are child molesters.”

            Didn’t say that, Jon. However, how can you dispute Sundasky being homosexual when he raped males?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 2:47 Hetersexual males who are attracted to children and carry out molestation are pedephiles, not homosexuals.

          • entech says:

            Once again Henry demonstrates that he is full of it.

          • Henry says:

            Jon, history has a different story than yours. The ancient homosexuals strived to have a sexual relationship with a boy.

            Back to Sundasky, did he perform a homosexual act on those males or a hetrosexual act on them?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 3:01 As entech correctly observed, you are full of it. He is a heterosexul pedephile. If he were a homosexual, he would not have a female wife.

          • Henry says:

            Jon, I see you are retaining the hetrosexual association with Sundasky (which would be correct), however you do not accept the homosexual association that clearly is present with the crimes he committed. Your bias is strong towards sugar-coating homosexuality.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry Heterosexual men who have an attraction to and rape little girls do not do this because they are heterosexual, they do it because they are pedephiles. It is a characteristic different from adult attractions. They prey on the weaker and more vunerable. Homosexual men are no more, apparently even less, attracted to small boys than heterosexual men. I think we are done with this rediculous conversation.

          • Henry says:

            Ok, we are done. Thanks for demonstrating your bias and departure from reason.

          • entech says:

            Gee I am so much more relaxed about things now that I have come to the realisation that you don’t have to take Henry seriously.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>