Deviate Pedophiles are (also) deviate Homosexuals.

In the exact same sense that deviate pedophiles are (also) deviate heterosexuals, certainly. But only in that sense.

sense?

since when?

At least we agree on something...that given your redefinition of marriage the rationalization of perversion is accomplished.

We don't appear to have agreed to anything.

That's because you're a pervert.

There's a perverted mind on these boards Bub, but it isn't Innocent.

I wouldn't expect you to think otherwise.

Youtube: Fmr. Evangelist Slams Religious Right, Republicans & Limbaugh

What does that mean? If a male paedophile molests little girls, is he a non-deviate (non-deviant) paedophile? Is that what you're getting at, you ignorant fool?

Rationalization of perversion? What do you even mean by that? Do you even know?

What is the difference between a married, cross-sex couple and an unmarried cross-sex couple?

Let's start there.

These are items defined in something called a dictionary...let's start there.

As you can see it's not just him. YOU are the extremist.

What are the differences, in your considered opinion, between non-perverted heterosexual married couples and non-perverted, heterosexual unmarried couples, Bub?

GOATMAN LIVES..............

the Goats are wild up at the Ranch for progressive minded non perversives interested in meeting their rights in sex.



Remember the big hit at the sundance film festival that lefties love, sympathizing with a mans desire for animals..

lefties love to move the goalposts on sexual perversion let all your sexual buddies have rights, as well

Animal sexuals pediphiles, transsexuals, homosexuals, bi sexuals metro sexuals.

its a lefty free for all!!!!

Lefty folsom street values at their finest.

What are the differences between unmarried heterosexual couples and married heterosexual couples?

crickets chirping

LEFTIES LIKE IT QUIET ON THE RANCH WHEN MOUNTING THEIR PARTNER.

whilst you be squeelin like a pig

What are the differences between unmarried heterosexual couples and married heterosexual couples?

more like you giving it to davis in the keister, both moaning booooosshhhhhhh, cheney, roooooooovvvvvvvveeeeee

What are the differences between unmarried heterosexual couples and married heterosexual couples?

Asking a simple question again is "spam"? On what planet?

yours=Uranus

brilliant debate from you as usual

inyerface, expert on brilliant debate, let alone complete sentences.

What difference does "marriage" make/ought to make for a heterosexual couple?

What is it that the transition from unmarried couple-hood to married couple-hood add or signal to 'normal', heterosexual people?

Maybe you should just keep this on one thread...
You need to establilsh a tighter context here....the guess work is endless.

how to keep bub confused forever

If you mean in a religious context I'm sure you are as familiar with "Scripture" as I am...if need be I'll furnish foundation.

From a civil context the bottom line is that there are none, or need be none...since the foundation of secularism is a flexible yardstick.

funny how lefties dont mind the yardstick moved, until goatman enters the scene then they are suddenly appalled as we are at other sexual deviation.

It's real...but it ain't funny.

We're getting somewhere. Are you saying that in a secular, civic context, marriage adds nothing to the couple-hood of a normal, heterosexual couple?

As for the religious context, in the end, what does 'being married' add to a relationship between a normal heterosexual adult male and a normal heterosexual adult female? Is it that they are now allowed to have sex? What else?

I don't understand why you are so reticent to tell me what it is that marriage, from both a civic and religious standpoint add to a couple-hood relationship between a normal heterosexual male and a normal heterosexual female.

Is it a big mystery or a new-fangled idea that what matters is the existence OF a 'boundary' as opposed to the precise nature and content of the boundary?

EVERYTHING we know suggests that boundaries, legal, religious, moral, normative, aesthetic etc. move and are somewhat permeable even as/when they are taken to be 'eternal'.

So, the EXISTENCE of boundaries, and their being invested with emotional, moral, legal, economic etc. support is indispensable. The content of the boundaries, what lies on each side of the boundary, etc. are variable.

What does the BOUNDARY between married and unmarried signal? What is that a couple who has crossed that boundary now have that they didn't have before, what is it about their couple-hood that is different, what does their having crossed that boundary suggest to them and to everybody else?

It really isn't rocket-science.

I gave her the ring and she gave me the finger.

They refuse to answer on the grounds that the answer may tend to impugn their argument.

I wasn't reticent to tell you anything...I occasionally have other things to do besides sitting on my hands awaiting your posts.

Based on your synopsis of boundaries ... it ain't rocket science. Most boundaries are permeable in that they are parts of frameworks...others, especially religious boundaries have less freedom of movement.

The boundary between a NORMAL single person and potential partner and the NORMAL married couple is one of religious significance, as I mentioned earlier. It is entirely based upon what the "Scriptures" indicate is God's purpose the uniion.

There are milliions of quotes like the one below and several references in scripture of which I'm sure you are aware (If you need quotes I'll provide them).

Simply put...marriage is created for a man and a woman... to become "one" as it were for the "glory of God".

Noooo.... say it isn't so.

I seriously doubt that the love, sanctity, closeness and permanence of the relationship between Christ and His Church has anything whatsoever to do with (the) Christ's having become human (ενανθρωπίσαντα) as a male. Nor is the Church, in any except a grammatical sense in New Testament Greek (Η Εκκλησία), a female.

Thus, the sacred covenant of marriage, one of the Seven Sacraments, enjoins the parties that enter into to 'reflect the love, sanctity, closeness, and permanence of the relationship between Christ and His church' in THEIR relationship.

Never said it did...


There is no "thus"...the covenant simply requires a man and a woman as a starting point.

What are the intended consequences for the parties entering a marriage from the marriage?

WHY is it that men and women are enjoined to enter into marriage, according to Scripture, Bub?

I am perfectly aware that Scripture speaks to men and women, not men and men, or women and women, entering into marriage. That is not the point.

You're big on God having a 'plan' for us, aren't ya? So, which part of God's plan for us is 'marriage'? What is it that marriage is supposed to 'do for' the parties (and the community of believers) vis-a-vis each other and God?

Hebrews
13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

1 Corinthians
7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
7:4 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.
7:5 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.
7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7:7 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.
7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
7:20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
7:21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
7:24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
7:30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
7:31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
7:35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
7:37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
7:38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

In short, notwithstanding the sex of the two parties (which is pretty important, of course), the whole idea of marriage is, more than anything else, to CONTROL their sexuality, their 'flesh'.

Marriage is intended to CONTROL or eliminate fornication and adultery. In fact, without marriage, fornication and adultery cannot be defined, let alone identified and punished.

It establishes boundaries for the parties entering into it, and for all the others. Having sex with the spouse of another are depending on the status of the 'outside' party fornication, adultery or both. While a spouse, having sex with someone OTHER than your spouse, depending on THEIR marital status, is fornication, adultery or both. And so on.

Do you not see the BENEFITS of marriage (or its functional equivalent) for the social control over sexuality, heterosexual or homosexual? Why don't we make like St. Paul and say "While I would have be chaste completely or if not chaste than marry heterosexually than if not heterosexual at least 'marry' homosexually"?

It's not as if there's abundant RELIGIOUS control over heterosexuals' sexuality. It's not as if MARRIAGE, as such, does not require 'support' and 'building up'. It's not as if the greatest threat to 'traditional heterosexual marriage' comes from folks who want to IMITATE IT, even though they're not heterosexual.

Marriage is a mechanism of social control, whatever else it is.

This is the most primitive observation you have made to date...talk about REFUSING to connect the dots.

Marriage is a tad more that keepin' yer dick in yer pants...why you would ignore the bulk of Scriptural references and grasp upon the simple notion that all marriage does is to provide a "boundary" in the hopes no one commits adultry?

Horse S H I T

I am sorry, what does the (rather archaic and ridiculously patriarchal) advice of Paul to the Ephesians regarding the 'proper' relationship of the spouses to each other, complete with sex-specific instructions plus sex-neutral instructions, have to do with the FUNCTIONS, the intended objective consequences contributing to the adjustment and adaptation (even 'salvation') of the parties involved, the overall community, society etc. of marriage?

Ephesians
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

What is the "THIS CAUSE" for which we're told "shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh"? Is this not about 'saving the body'? What's all this about husbands 'sanctifying and cleansing' their wives as Christ sanctifies and cleanses the church? Why are men enjoined to LOVE THEIR WIVES AS THEIR OWN BODIES?

Are you blind? How ignorant and parochial are you?

What do you think marriage has been about throughout human history?

You realize that I am playing along and delving in Scripture just to appease you, right? To 'speak' your language.

It's not as if we need Scripture to figure out the functions of marriage and kinship systems. EVEN Scripture is replete with indications and 'hints' as to what marriage is REALLY about.

It has to do with the purpose of marriage. The CAUSE/PURPOSE is to glorify God...to seek like compansionship and enjoy the full experience of living...to pursue the growing old together with mutual respect, dependence, security, love and a host of other factors...to partake of the wonders of what God has offered to us.
Why do you persist in this infantile query?

I realize full well your "playing along"... do you realize the quality of glass you use?