Your argument is, once again, not discussing same-sex marriage, but instead attempting to argue something that is related only in the context of marriage. This is a fallacy, as I indicated, and you very well know this. If you wish to discuss polygyny, child marriage, or sibling/cousin marriage, create a new thread.
This is not a fallacy, I do not think you understand what a fallacy actually is. I made a statement that heterosexual couples are sometimes denied the ability to marry the partner of their choice in counter you your assertion that because Gay couples are denied the ability to marry the partner of their own choice the marriage laws are not equal to all who follow them. You then demanded examples. I provided some of those examples. I did not open a new line of discussion or attempt to advocate them or anything of the sort. You cannot in any legitimate debate make an obvious false statement like you did then pretend it holds water because you bar every example contrary to your false allegations due to technicalities of your own misunderstandings. This is exactly what is means when people say you ignore all that is real in order to impress your own beliefs. You are not debating or even discussing anything, you are simply imposing the crap you want to believe.
As to "two heterosexual people of the same sex wanting to get married to game the system or because they are like family and one of them has none and it is cheaper to do things that way ( A marriage of convenience)", that is legally allowed and is thus not a valid argument.
Again, you have failed to pay attention to what was real. Two heterasexual couples of the same sex are not allowed to be married in most places just the same as two gay couples of the same sex are not allowed to be married.
Here's my big issue with debating things with you, Sum. You sit there crapping things out of your noggin' and NEVER provide any supporting evidence. On the other hand, you insist that I provide it, and I do so EVERY time. Let's face it, you're lazy and can't be bothered to research anything. Nonetheless, you now want examples to my assertions and, as I always do, here's just some of the supporting evidence:
And exactly what have you posted that was insightful there? Nothing. You have a link to an abstract that doesn't say anything about gay marriage or marriage in and of itself, you have a post to a book that explores how the successful societies saw homosexuality in animals and the tribal cultures of conquered and/or failed societies where in some instances, goes right back to prove my point that marriage was about children when it talks abut homosexual relations between men who were married.
You made the assertion that traditional marriage is not that of between a man and a woman but non of your links make that claim. Remember, this is not about whether homosexual relationships are right or wrong, or if they existed in history, this little sub rant is about your insistance that traditional marriage is something other then what it is despite the definition of tradition being more then capable of allowing traditional marriage to be defined as marriage between one man and one women.
You go on to incorrectly assume that because a roman law may have at one point in time explicitly forbidden homosexual marriage or homosexuality to be more precise, that it was widely accepted and practiced before that time. You have failed to show any evidence of that in connection to "traditional" marriage and your link you provided about the Theodosian Code of 342 A.D in and of itself provides nothing concerning marriage. How you can competently claim that validates your points by example is beyond me. I do not think you actually read you links and are just repeating garbage from a biased site already in existence attempting t further the gay marriage argument with disinformation.
The Theodosian Code of 342 A.D., instituted by Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, ended same-sex marriage in the Roman Empire <
click here>. If you wish to dismiss Emperor Nero, who in fact marriage within the laws of Ancient Rome, claiming emperors can do whatever they want regardless of right or wrong, then you must accept that Constantius II and Constans likewise fall into that category, making the Theodosian Code no less valid for denying homosexuality and, therein, same-sex marriage.
As I said, the specific exclusion of homosexuality does not in any way state that gay marriage was ever in practice or the norm. This is not a debate on wether homosexuality existed or not, but about gay marriage and your insistence that the definition of a traditional marriage is not between a man and a women. You have failed to remotely prove those claims and are doing little more then attempting to cloud the issue as if you can somehow vindicate your statements by creating enough confusion.
Roman law concerning marriage was always between a man and a woman as it always was about expanding the population of Rome and the disposition of children. It was a way women could show they fulfilled or were fulfilling their duties as a Roman citizen to avid the penalties for not producing offspring.
This is patently false, as evidenced by the reports and studies presented above.
I saw nothing in your links suggesting that at the time of Nero that any other person under Roman law was capable of entering a same sex marriage other then the dictators who were above the laws. If I missed it, then show me where. I think the problem is that you do not understand those links yourself and lack the ability to critically evaluate what is in front of you. This is certainly demonstrated within your posts all over this board.
The Bible, as stated multiple times, is not a valid reference. Regardless, I was courteous enough to demonstrate to you that the Bible, the New Testament, does not address same-sex marriage. In the posing of right and wrong, the Old Testament insists on killing homosexuals, liars, obstinate children, cheating wives, atheists, etc, while the New Testament insists on turning the other cheek, not judging, not imposing, and instead respecting God as the sole judge.
The bible is a valid reference as it is mostly until the New Testament, a record of history of the times before the New Testament. Even if you do not believe in it and think it is exaggerated, you cannot deny that it was considered true by a great number of people who followed it as law. You cannot deny that the vast majority of successful societies (of what we would consider a first world country or developed societies) practiced the teachings of at least the old testament (Even the Muslims follow the bulk of the old testament as their riff is that the Jews and Christians got it wrong or corrupted over the years and they are on the right path as clarified by the profit Mohamed).
As this argument is about allowing or disallowing gay marriage, even if it is against your belief to respect homosexuality, it also states a hands-off policy. Therefore, in the argument of should gay marriages be allowed, the Judaic & Muslim response would be, "kill them all," while the Christian response should be, "that is for God to decide."
Thus, when you say, "no, it should not be allowed," you are in fact not posing a Christian tenet and instead allowing your prejudice to intercede when you impose judgement.
I would ignore your comments altogether if you were not so clearly demonstrating you have no damn clue about what you are talking about in the Christian religion. You are absolutely completely Clueless even after several posts explaining where you are wrong. Every time someone reads one of your posts about the Christian religion, it is as if all the sudden they are less intelligent for having done so. You are attempting to impose your views based around your own misgivings that are backed in reality with no more authority then saying "nuh uhh, because I said so".
Nothing in the Christian religion says you have to accept what offends you or that you cannot protest something or that only god can decide something. And if his prejudice is because of his beliefs in God's word, then how can you logically separate it as if it is somehow meaningless?
