Gay marriage ruins it for the rest of us

[domer76]

Do you have a definition for 'Marriage'?

The simple answer is: “the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship.”

Now, if you wish to delve into the different TYPES of marriage, you’re going to need a lot more space than this forum has.

[Mason Michaels]

Ruh roh! Voices in your head? Ungood!

The last ditch reply from atheists!

[bhaktajan]

In Hindu mythology, texts such as the Satapatha Brahmana and the Puranas contain the story of a great flood, wherein the Matsya Avatar of Vishnu warns the first man, Manu, of the impending flood, and also advises him to build a giant boat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

Cyclic Catastrophes

A number of periodic catastrophes are described in the Hindu scriptures:

At the end of each Kali Yuga, some type of destruction takes place. The most recent instance would be a bit under 4 million years ago. Other instances should be found every 4,320,000 years before that.
At the end of each manvantara, a great flood wipes out most life on earth. The most recent occurrence would be 120,534,000 years ago. Other instances would occur at intervals of 306,720,000 years.
At the end of the kalpa, all life on earth is destroyed. The most recent instance would be 2,267,574,000 years ago.
At the end of a life of Brahma, the entire universe and all its heavens and hells are destroyed. The current universe would have come into existence more than 150 billion years ago.
Interestingly, current scientific research does support the existence of occasional mass extinctions in earth's history. These include the following major extinctions:

At the Ordovician/Silurian transition, about 425 million years ago.
Near the Devonian/Carboniferous transition, about 345 million years ago.
At the Permian/Triassic transition, about 230 million years ago.
At the Triassic/Jurassic transition, about 180 million years ago.
At the Cretaceous/Tertiary transition, about 63 million years ago.
Additionally, some scientists have identified what they believe is a cycle of periodic mass extinctions occurring every 26 million years.

Unfortunately, none of these specified dates corresponds to the catastrophes called for by the Hindu theory.

Current scientific estimates of the age of the universe range from 7 billion to 20 billion years. By contrast, the Hindu theory calls for a universe more than 150 billion years old.

On the other hand, the dates ascribed by scientists to the various geologic periods have been revised a number of times on the basis of new evidence, and could possibly be revised again in the future. Further, cosmology could reasonably be described as an infant science, and the age it ascribes to the universe as a whole might also change on the basis of new theories and evidence.

Downward Trend

By far the greater divergence from modern science is in the overall pattern of the Hindu theory. The Hindu and scientific patterns differ in the following ways:

The main pattern in the Hindu theory is one of cycles.
In the Hindu theory, life follows a downward trend most of the time, from the finest age to the worst. At the end of the worst age, Kali Yuga, divine intervention rapidly destroys the wicked and restores everything to its pristine state.
In the Hindu theory, humanity is always present. The concept of evolution is confined to spiritual evolution; that is, each soul takes life in a series of lower to higher animal forms before finally incarnating as a human being.
By contrast, the fossil record of life on earth indicates that life began with very simple forms and later developed more complex organisms. The advent of humanity appears to be an extremely recent development when compared to the history of life on earth. Humanity itself does not appear to have existed long enough to have participated in the vast cycles of ages posited by Hindu theory.

Conclusion

There is no scientific support for the Hindu theory of world cycles. Further, current scientific theory contradicts Hindu theory in many respects. It is best to begin by acknowledging this truth, as such an acknowledgement can form the basis for interesting discussions of the different ways of knowing that underly the more specific differences. Such, however, must be the substance of another paper.

[domer76]

Last I heard, you need to get a License or Permit (with accompanying fee) before you can get married.
If the State is NOT party to the contract, why can't a woman have 4 husbands?

She can. Some churches recognize that. The state doesn’t recognize the additional marriages.

[kudzu]

It is such an honor to be taught ancient history by someone who feels they are eminently more knowledgeable than most of the worlds most renowned archaeologists.

Robert Ballard knows the Black Sea Breech was slow moving and so does the rest of the world's scientists.

All Ballard has done is explore some of the ruins left behind as people abandoned their villages and moved to higher ground.

[Frank Apisa]

Yep. SOME parts are historically correct. Other parts? Children’s fairytales.

The difference, Cletus, is that I can accept the historical aspects of the book and separate that from the goofy myths. You are unable to do so.

Lack of critical thinking skills will do that to you.

Boris has got a point there.

Scripture does indeed mention Rome and Egypt...and lo and behold...science has proved that both existed.

So there!

[Cancel 2018.2]

If you really want to know...

Marriage is intended as a union of man and woman before God, and nothing else. No sooner could a man marry another man than he could marry his house, and a woman could no sooner marry another woman that she could marry her dog, because she loves it so much. It is the union of two opposite but complimentary elemements to make one whole. In this way gay marriage trivializes the union, "ruining" it for heterosexual couples. And yes, frivolous marriage by other heterosexual couples trivializes it, too.

Not only this, but homosexuality is a sin that disgusts God. Marriage does not reconcile it. The gay community perverts love, making it about sex, saying "I can love anyone I want to!" True, Jesus calls us to love everyone, but not to have sex with anyone. Sex is intended for the marriage of two souls and for making children.

Of course, this is from a theological standpoint. I don't think the church should ever allow gay marriage. However, I don't think the government should have any hand in marriage at all, especially in a country that states freedom of religion as a fundamental right.

Sent from my SM-J700T1 using Tapatalk

Theologically you are right. I hope you understand we do no have a theocracy for our government. As such, homosexual marriage is not and should not be illegal.

That said, how does homosexual marriage effect your life?

[Jack]

Definitions of words change, Jack.

Yeah, I see that.

[Cancel 2018.2]

Traditional Marriage is about being with the person (persons) you want to have children with and bring up together as a Family Unit.

The 'gay marriage' thing kind of distorts that. Without the biological children aspect, I'm not sure what the meaning of 'Marriage' is anymore.

Maybe it's like "Roommates that want to have a better tax deal"?

What about heterosexual sexual couples who cannot conceive?

[Cancel 2018.2]

You are really one stupid fuck

GFY

[Jack]

The simple answer is: “the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship.”

Now, if you wish to delve into the different TYPES of marriage, you’re going to need a lot more space than this forum has.

"Partners in a Personal Relationship". OK. Good. Thanks.

[Cancel 2018.2]

Medical proxy, heir to an estate, pension/SSI issues.

All those pesky little things that most people don't consider until it's too late.

Precisely. All of which have nothing to do with religion.

[Jack]

She can. Some churches recognize that. The state doesn’t recognize the additional marriages.

I think that's what we're talking about, a State recognized 'Marriage', or as you defined it "Partners in a Personal Relationship".

[Althea]

If you think the 'concept' of Marriage has been around for thousands of years, those issues are fairly recent developments. If you view 'Marriage' as the vehicle for a Society to up bring the next generation, then 'gay marriage' doesn't really fit that definition.

Maybe 'Marriage' should be re-defined? I've suggested "Roommates".

Also, maybe the State should get out of the business of handing out Licenses or Permits for Humans to cohabitant for lengths of times?

Why not? Are you saying that gay couples don't have children?

[Cancel 2018.2]

If you think the 'concept' of Marriage has been around for thousands of years, those issues are fairly recent developments. If you view 'Marriage' as the vehicle for a Society to up bring the next generation, then 'gay marriage' doesn't really fit that definition.

Maybe 'Marriage' should be re-defined? I've suggested "Roommates".

Also, maybe the State should get out of the business of handing out Licenses or Permits for Humans to cohabitant for lengths of times?

I have no problem with the government getting out of marriage. I think the term civil union has been around and I'm fine ith that. It basically is a legal contract that grants you certain rights for certain responsibilities. Which in essence is a marriage without the religious aspect.

Which is exactly what "marriage" is already.