"Traditional Marriage" ??

[CanuckMA]

For those who are anti-religious in this debate here are some articles that take on "what difference does it make.." argument from a purely scientific (?), demographic (?) argument that is now just starting to show itself...

Stanley Kurtz looks at the increase in out of wedlock births in the Netherlands after gay marriage was inacted...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217803/smoking-gun/stanley-kurtz



And what does Kurtz think happens when gay marriage is passed...





From Mr. Kurtz's article, "Unhealthy-Half-Truths."

http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200405250927.asp



And this article details the problems that come from increased out of wedlock births as they may see in the U.K/Britain/place where they eat chips and drink tea,...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/births_outside_marriage_a_real.html



And the important part...



So yes, there may actually be a bad outcome, non-religously based for those who are anti-religious, that may occur with the passage of gay marriage. Now, with an actual non-religious argument, can those calling the religious people out there bigots please refrain. They may have a sense of something that they can't explain, but just sense from real world experience with out of wedlock children who fair worse in society than those children who are in two parent homes. And yes, gay couples are two parents, but it seems there may be evidence that not equating marriage strictly to child bearing may have a bearing on out of wedlock birth rates. Read both articles and see for yourselves...

Yeah, you may think this is hogwash, but this is an argument that should be looked at, as the consequences to the individual children are devestating and the consequences to the society even worse. Worried about extremist ideologies, where do you think they will find their future adherents, the less successful, socially isolated, children born out of wedlock. Like street gangs, where do you think their recruiting prospects come from, out of multi-generational out of wedlock children. This is where you get 13 year olds who can kill without remorse, just ask any big city cop.

So there...

Because in contrast, the US does not have out of wedlock children, single parent home, kids having kids, etc...

Yet another BC link that is pure horses**t.

 

[ballen0351]

Pointless to you yes.

To others, I don't think so.

But if it is that pointless to you, then please refrain from trolling the discussion further.

Oh im sorry didnt know anyone that had a different opinion then the great and powerful Bob was a troll. By all means carry on with your conversation sorry i interupted

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Oh im sorry didnt know anyone that had a different opinion then the great and powerful Bob was a troll. By all means carry on with your conversation sorry i interupted

The following is your total contribution to this topic:

Bob interesting read but has zero to do with US marriage laws. To say gay marriage was around in the 10th century makes no diff. In the US. There was no US in the 10th century. So you talk of traditions the traditions in the US since day one of this country was a man and woman. I dont care about traditions in other countries from 1000 years ago.

Traditions do change your right so your entire article was pointless thanks for posting it

Now, I said "Interesting".
I didn't say "See, US People, your wrong." or in any way connect this to the US.
JMS was commenting on the -history- of marriage and it's relationship to the Christian Church.

You're saying the OP and article were pointless.
Do you have anything of value to add to the conversation here?
If not, then you are trolling.
I've never said you had to agree with me, and if anyone thinks that, then I will go on record in stating they are 1-wrong and 2-wrong.
In their minds they can now be right.

Good Day.

 

[Sukerkin]

I think you might be mixing up having an opinion and contributing to a discussion with not saying anything other than dismissing the topic as not worth talking about at all. Now if it was about ... no, I'll let that lie .

In the other, rather sad (because of the undercurrent of nastiness that is there), thread about 'gay' marriage, I haven't said as much out loud but I understand your position, especially as you are a policeman and so will naturally tend to see the law as something to be abided by and enforced. I know others haven't gotten that and think you are avoiding the issue but I'm not one of them and I respect your contribution.

Here tho', you just tromped in like a pair of lead boots in a field of glass flowers ROFL. I'm not surprised you got short shrift, I'd've told you to go away too . Being snidey won't help heal things any quicker ... you sure you're a trained professional in a customer facing role? Then again you carry a gun in the real world and can get away with it :lol:

EDIT: I see Cap'n Bob was quicker on the keys than me In case it's confusing, I was talking to Ballen and to be doubly sure, if we were talking in the real world you'd be able to tell I was being light-hearted, trying to use dry humour to make the point less sharp

 

[Josh Oakley]

Ballen ... you probably wouldn't be viewed as trolling if your posts didn't come off as openly hostile.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Regarding the OP by JMS, I have 1 question: Is this true?
When I posted it, I didn't have time to dig, as my power was out most of yesterday and I'm playing catch up now.

If it is, then it's interesting in how the view changed over time, and continues to change.

 

[elder999]

Regarding the OP by JMS, I have 1 question: Is this true?
.

Yes.

There's even Biblical support for it:

Corinthians 1:7
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. [SUP]2 [/SUP]Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

 

[granfire]

Yes.

There's even Biblical support for it:

Ok, my non english roots are tripping me up here:
To avoid fornication everybody gets married? So, in essence, once hitched the carnal urges are going away? (makes sense,a s most people who are married and have kids can attest to)


(ok, that guy was trippin...)

 

[elder999]

(ok, that guy was trippin...)

Pretty much. Paul the usurper, creator of "Christianity," possible leper (who couldn't get laid and so was obsessed with sex), but sometimes said the most wonderful things-in addition to the ****ing crazy s**t he laid down...:lfao:

Human beings are such odd and wonderful creatures.....

 

[granfire]

I heard rumors he was epileptic...explaining his sudden conversion and seeing things prior...
Of course some people believe he was a Roman undercover agent to subvert the Jewish satellite communities....

 

[hongkongfooey]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, is there any benefit to traditional marriage?

Tax break?

 

[WC_lun]

There are tons of benefits to being married. Everything from insurance to tax code. In many states those benefits are often extended to significant others who have been together for a while, calling it common law marriage. No such luck if the couple is gay.

 

[Tez3]

I would point out though that Christians refer to the 'Bible' for laws, commands whatever to 'prove' or enforce things, Jewish Law moves with the times and the consensus of the Jewish people so the laws that were then aren't the laws now.

 

[granfire]

There are tons of benefits to being married. Everything from insurance to tax code. In many states those benefits are often extended to significant others who have been together for a while, calling it common law marriage. No such luck if the couple is gay.

But it's usually a $$ thing.
Only a very few do not benefit financially from signing on the dotted line.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I would point out though that Christians refer to the 'Bible' for laws, commands whatever to 'prove' or enforce things, Jewish Law moves with the times and the consensus of the Jewish people so the laws that were then aren't the laws now.

So, what you're saying is that if there were a law on the books from say, 1895, that required a car owner to come to a full stop at an intersection, sound a horn, look all ways, fire a gun twice, sound the horn again, and then proceed, with the sub requirement to disassemble the car and hide it in the bushes under the tarp required by the law, IF a horse should approach, that the Jews would in 2012 drop it as unlikely to be needed while the Christians would still be carrying a tarp and making a lot of noise?




(And yes, there is such a law -still- on US books and -still- legally in effect.)

 

[Tez3]

So, what you're saying is that if there were a law on the books from say, 1895, that required a car owner to come to a full stop at an intersection, sound a horn, look all ways, fire a gun twice, sound the horn again, and then proceed, with the sub requirement to disassemble the car and hide it in the bushes under the tarp required by the law, IF a horse should approach, that the Jews would in 2012 drop it as unlikely to be needed while the Christians would still be carrying a tarp and making a lot of noise?




(And yes, there is such a law -still- on US books and -still- legally in effect.)

Exactly! The Law is a living thing, it has to reflect the times and the countries that someone is in. I suppose what we do however is to find the ways and means in the laws to come to a satisfactory conclusion for everyone, there is always room for compromise. The laws may say put a witch to death but there is always a way around that so that no one is killed and yet the law is upheld, it's using common sense I suppose rather than taking the words at face value. I'm sure Canuck can explain this much better than I! I don't think Christians see the value in the thought and arguments Jews put into everything! it seems very black and white to Christians, it either is or it isn't.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04551.html

 

[CanuckMA]

So, what you're saying is that if there were a law on the books from say, 1895, that required a car owner to come to a full stop at an intersection, sound a horn, look all ways, fire a gun twice, sound the horn again, and then proceed, with the sub requirement to disassemble the car and hide it in the bushes under the tarp required by the law, IF a horse should approach, that the Jews would in 2012 drop it as unlikely to be needed while the Christians would still be carrying a tarp and making a lot of noise?




(And yes, there is such a law -still- on US books and -still- legally in effect.)

Close. the 613 commandments in Torah are from G-d, therefore we cannot just eliminate them. There are a number, however that can't be observed, everything related to the Temple for example. They are not struck down, but suspended. Others, like what is prohibited on the Sabbath, is constantly reviewed and re-interpreted as new technologies arise.

 

[CanuckMA]

Exactly! The Law is a living thing, it has to reflect the times and the countries that someone is in. I suppose what we do however is to find the ways and means in the laws to come to a satisfactory conclusion for everyone, there is always room for compromise. The laws may say put a witch to death but there is always a way around that so that no one is killed and yet the law is upheld, it's using common sense I suppose rather than taking the words at face value. I'm sure Canuck can explain this much better than I! I don't think Christians see the value in the thought and arguments Jews put into everything! it seems very black and white to Christians, it either is or it isn't.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04551.html

We often put 'fences' around laws, so to make sure they are not violated by mistake. As well, you need to remember that Torah is like Cliff's notes. Our tradition teaches that Moses received 2 things at Sinai. What is commonly called the Written Torah, the 5 books of Moses, as well as an Oral Torah, essentially the explanation of what is in the Written Torah. Oral Torah was passed on through the line of igh Priest untal it was written down around 220 CE. It is the Mishnah part of Talmud. The Rabbis' discussion of Torah and Mishnah is the Gemara, together mishnah and Gemara form the Talmud. While Torah contains many crimes for which capital punishment is required, Talmud sets forth the requirements for such punishment. For example, for a murderer to be put to death, there needs to be 2 eyewitnesses to the crime AND the perpetrator needs to have been warned in advance that was he was about to do is a crime punishable by death.

 

[Tez3]

Close. the 613 commandments in Torah are from G-d, therefore we cannot just eliminate them. There are a number, however that can't be observed, everything related to the Temple for example. They are not struck down, but suspended. Others, like what is prohibited on the Sabbath, is constantly reviewed and re-interpreted as new technologies arise.

Cheers! I find it hard to explain the thought that goes into applying the laws that doesn't seem to happen when others take the Bible so literally that they tie themselves up so they can't live properly themselves, yet they seem to happily ignore laws and commandments they don't like! To me it's odd1

 

[Tez3]

We often put 'fences' around laws, so to make sure they are not violated by mistake. As well, you need to remember that Torah is like Cliff's notes. Our tradition teaches that Moses received 2 things at Sinai. What is commonly called the Written Torah, the 5 books of Moses, as well as an Oral Torah, essentially the explanation of what is in the Written Torah. Oral Torah was passed on through the line of igh Priest untal it was written down around 220 CE. It is the Mishnah part of Talmud. The Rabbis' discussion of Torah and Mishnah is the Gemara, together mishnah and Gemara form the Talmud. While Torah contains many crimes for which capital punishment is required, Talmud sets forth the requirements for such punishment. For example, for a murderer to be put to death, there needs to be 2 eyewitnesses to the crime AND the perpetrator needs to have been warned in advance that was he was about to do is a crime punishable by death.

That's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind! thank you, I knew you'd put it in better words than I!