Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Yeah, I dunno - it might be the limp, it might be the squint, or it might be the giant hump on my back, but there's obviously something about me that's off-putting.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by nenothtu


Really, didn't notice. Came off as kind of liberal to me....

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Tell me why nature would want you around if you are not procreating. (hint: you're the one who said nature didn't like non-procreators.)

edit on 27-7-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

You're just not comprehending the whole evolution scenario, are you?

Procreators propagate, non-procreators don't. That's the way nature runs. nature doesn't stands around with a black cowl and a huge sickle, and suddenly say "nope, your not of any use any more, so you're done for."

Non-procreators just end, They pass nothing on, and that's a good thing - it's the whole basis for natural selection.Doesn't mean they reach a magic age of execution.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Tell me why nature would want you around if you are not procreating. (hint: you're the one who said nature didn't like non-procreators.)

edit on 27-7-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

You're just not comprehending the whole evolution scenario, are you?

Procreators propagate, non-procreators don't. That's the way nature runs. nature doesn't stands around with a black cowl and a huge sickle, and suddenly say "nope, your not of any use any more, so you're done for."

Non-procreators just end, They pass nothing on, and that's a good thing - it's the whole basis for natural selection.Doesn't mean they reach a magic age of execution.

That makes it sound like evolution is only based on certain extremely narrow constraints. While on the outside, it may appear that way, I doubt you or anyone fully appreciates or is capable of telling us what it is nature intends, especially since we are very unlike other animals and manipulate nature. If we didn't manipulate nature, and as a result be living in a society that functions beyond "survival of the fittest," a ton of people would already be dead.

Originally posted by thebtheb

I wasn't talking about gays. I was talking about a child being a legitimate child, a real child. No religion or state has to do anything to make that happen. Unwed parents have children and religions call the children illegitimate. I don't. It's not legal, it's opinion. The child is welcome to the planet I live on by me as quite legitimate.

You weren't talking about gays, in a thread on gay marriage? oookaaaay....

we're talking two different things here. You want LEGAL recognition for gays, but have suddenly shifted from legal to something more esoteric? That does seem to be the crux of the issue in both cases - this one and the main topic of gay marriage - the failure to make a distinction between the legal and the esoteric.

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by thebtheb

I wasn't talking about gays. I was talking about a child being a legitimate child, a real child. No religion or state has to do anything to make that happen. Unwed parents have children and religions call the children illegitimate. I don't. It's not legal, it's opinion. The child is welcome to the planet I live on by me as quite legitimate.

You weren't talking about gays, in a thread on gay marriage? oookaaaay....

we're talking two different things here. You want LEGAL recognition for gays, but have suddenly shifted from legal to something more esoteric? That does seem to be the crux of the issue in both cases - this one and the main topic of gay marriage - the failure to make a distinction between the legal and the esoteric.

Right, like sub topics should NEVER happen in a thread. Oh my God, I'm SO sorry for transgressing against your sacred rule of staying on topic for this entire thread.
I was responding to someone else, not you, who said that children born out of wedlock were not legitimate. So yeah, it had nothing to do with gays, so what?

reply to post by thebtheb


I think he is confused because he is pages behind in this thread.

Thank you for your response to me... I think even I missed it....

my point about legitimacy is that is the definition in all forms of a legitimate child.... the term comes from a child who is recognised as having a father and mother who were married. This is where the term originated.

This is what witnessing marriages originally stemmed from, from having at least two people see you take vows before God so the community would be assured of the legitimacy of any children born.

I have nothing against bastard children..... but this does not make them of legitimate birth. You cannot change a childs birth right just because you do not like a particular term.

A fatherless child, or a child who does not know who his father is, or a child who was not concieved in a marriage bed is just that.... illegitimate.

its not speaking against the child or calling the child evil.... it is simply stating the facts of the childs birth.

Originally posted by Beers
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Okee Dokee, what was your question again? Wait for the laughter.....

It was plain English, but I ain't your English teacher.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


I am considered a bastard child myself, as my parents couldn't afford to stop working and have a proper wedding until I was 4 years old. Not sure what difference that makes in the grand scheme of things. Most people wouldn't know, unless you brought it up. It's not like I introduce myself, "Hi I'm Bob, and I am a bastard." Or Sally says "Hello, I am Sally, I am a legitimate child."

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by thebtheb

 

I think he is confused because he is pages behind in this thread.

Thank you for your response to me... I think even I missed it....

my point about legitimacy is that is the definition in all forms of a legitimate child.... the term comes from a child who is recognised as having a father and mother who were married. This is where the term originated.

This is what witnessing marriages originally stemmed from, from having at least two people see you take vows before God so the community would be assured of the legitimacy of any children born.

I have nothing against bastard children..... but this does not make them of legitimate birth. You cannot change a childs birth right just because you do not like a particular term.

A fatherless child, or a child who does not know who his father is, or a child who was not conciencived in a marriage bed is just that.... illegitimate.

its not speaking against the child or calling the child evil.... it is simply stating the facts of the childs birth.

Time for more redefinitions of words for you. Now the following is not an opinion, it is fact: The term legitimate did NOT originate with regards to ANY religion whatsoever. It is a WORD. A religious institution CHOSE to use the word to describe something that IT defined as not legitimate. The word already existed BEFORE the religious institution used it. The religious institution DEFINED a child born out of wedlock as illegitimate.

That is the religious institution's definition, and no one else's. It is CERTAINLY not mine.

My contention is that if a child is born, a puppy, a kitty, or a human, it's very existence makes it legitimate in the eyes of MY God. My God has no interest whatsoever in the human constructs of marriage in or out of wedlock. Of course this is my God I'm talking about, not yours.

You speak as if what you say is absolute, when like my stance, it's your opinion. It may be absolute to you, but certainly is not for everyone.

So I guess we disagree on the idea of what makes a freshly born human worthy to exist and be seen as equal to every other human regarding whether or not its parents were married in the presence of God. You believe that unless they were, the child is not legitimate. I believe that the child's existence grants him/her/it complete legitimacy within this planet, this universe and nature. So, we disagree on that.

But let's be clear: the term legitimacy was NOT coined by any religious institution, only a particular chosen use of the word for its own purposes was.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

I am considered a bastard child myself, as my parents couldn't afford to stop working and have a proper wedding until I was 4 years old. Not sure what difference that makes in the grand scheme of things. Most people wouldn't know, unless you brought it up. It's not like I introduce myself, "Hi I'm Bob, and I am a bastard." Or Sally says "Hello, I am Sally, I am a legitimate child."

Sounds like an AA meeting: "Hi, I'm Michael, I'm illegitimate." "Hi Michael!"

reply to post by TKDRL


Here in a western country it appears to make little difference to most people. To me personally I do not care I am not going to look at anyone different.

But to me personally I would never do that on purpose to a child. (rape or something being not on purpose) To me it is exceedingly important to only concieve in a marriage bed, it is respectable in the eyes of the community.... it is not the state either I care about... it is really the eyes of God, to me, to give my child legitimacy, is to birth him in all accordance with Gods will.

I guess I understand people hate God, and want nothing to do with Him. That is your right...


This is just soooo soooo soooo extreme.... I have never imagined such extremeism

Well maybe I have... on one hand we have wahabbis... they go so far to the extreme on the one end.... then we have the redefiners.... that would I suppose be this group here.... going to the exact opposite extreme...

I just never really thought about extremeism the other way before.....