sort by best latest
But it isn't about marriage "equality". It's about the definition of marriage. "Marriage equality" is just a sound bite that muddies the waters. If the institution is being eroded then it is people's business.
We're discussing marriage as a legal contract, licensed by the state. Previously, there were two contracts: one for couples of opposite genders, and one for those of the same gender. Now, we have marriage equality: one contract, for all couples.
We need to pause and examine.
No, we don't. Marriage equality is the law of the land. Get over it.
Slavery was also the law of the land. Should we have just gotten over that?
SSM is eroding away family life and family stability. Kids are being victimized by being placed in SSM households. The sociology is clear.
Then teach your kids not to bully children who have different families. THAT is the solution, not taking away rights because some people can't handle progress.
The kids are being victimized because they are placed in households which have been STATISTICALLY SHOWN to decrease their chances of success, not because anyone is bullying anyone. There weren't any rights to "give" in the first place.
Statistically shown where and what was "success" defined as?
There are not any such statistics. Recent sociological studies have shows children of gay parents are JUST AS successful, healthy and well-adjusted as other kids.
Read the studies cited on the wiki.
That whole "kids are better off with two straight parents" argument is bogus. There is NO widely accepted study supporting that. A loving home is a loving home. And kids are NOT the topic of this discussion!
See the two links I provided from the Supreme Court case briefs. The "studies" that show parity are methodologically flawed. The studies that are not show psychological damage and a statistically significant reduction in success metrics.
It took about 5 minutes of research to see that the Regnerus study was remarkably flawed, so if that's a leading point for that article I'm going to go ahead and say it's just as misleading as you're claiming the positive studies have been.
People attacked the Regnerus study because they didn't like the implications of it. The methodology is solid though. See: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/6784/
What have you got?
Travis, you're incorrect. All the studies (that weren't funded by religious groups) found that LGBT parents are just as capable. In fact, the American Psychological Association found some studies suggesting gay parenting is "superior". Check it out.
Wait, you mean the über conservative people who dished a bunch of money to conduct the study are defending it?! Nah...couldn't be...
The criticisms are just as fair as any criticisms of the studies that say the opposite that you're happy to accept
The studies funded by the LGBT lobby or sociologists who have that ax to grind are sympathetic to LGBT issues, how surprising...
See the methodological errors in them (convenience sampling) which make them useless to generalize from.
Travis, your single (flawed) study is fine, but any study (the many, many of them) suggesting the contrary just has a gay agenda? Seems like your methodology here is the one that's flawed. The statistics are on the side of gay parents, like it or not
The APA study that claims that SS parents are superior in parenting was retracted because it was generalizing based off of a selective sample which wasn't representative of the whole population. I have yet to hear any actual critiques of mine. Waitng
Here's a whole website for you:
Just curious, do you think a child is better in an orphanage/foster home than with a gay couple?
None of the results have been disproven, by the many other studies done by other reputable groups. Nor does small sample size mean the findings are incorrect. Gay parents are perfectly successful.
Your methodological critique there is what exactly? I'm pretty sure that the second link I gave to you is adequately addresses your "website". I should mention as well that if you look at the Amicus briefs there are 8 other studies mentioned
The second link you gave is also ridiculously biased. I wish I had the time to meticulously comb through the study myself and critique but not today. Wanna answer my q about kids waiting to be adopted?
Then let the record show that you failed to point out any alleged methodological problems. I wish I could just dismiss things out of hand like you do.
The studies are clear. Those who say otherwise are in denial.
The critiques are all listed on that website, why is mine bunk but yours (made by the people who funded the study) totally reliable?
I WOULD prefer to critique it myself but in the interim the issues on the site I posted seem logical.
There's not enough words allowed in these replies to debate, but fringe studies funded by religious groups and other non-reputable sources do not disprove the findings of every leading psych agency. You refuse reputable studies with anti-gay bias.
Except I pointed out the error in the 50 some studies cited by the APA. You can't make generalizations based off of a convenience sample. See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
You are hardly being objective here.
There will always be studies contradicting each other, it all depends on who is doing the study and what their agenda is. Personally, I don't think it is any of my business if two people of the same gender want to get married. Let them be happy :)
Except the data is in and it is conclusive. I used to support same sex marriage. Then I read: http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defen...
It's about redefining marriage itself. Family life/stability will weaken.
It is NOT conclusive. You're waving around your tiny handful of studies and pretending that they're superior to every other study done on the issue. You're choosing to put faith in the ones that justify you acting like a bigot. That's all.
Except it is because of the flawed methodology in all but 8 of those studies. If you want to be open minded read the book I linked and get back to me. If you want to not act like a bigot then actually try to understand the SECULAR arguments against.
Have you personally objectively read every single study done on this topic and come to the conclusion that those ones are in fact the only ones without flaws, or are you just choosing to believe one source because it satisfies your beliefs?
If it is the peoples business- as you claim- then the people have spoken- it is equal as per your definition though I think you picked this topic for the controversy and resulting response- so God bless you!!
There weren't two sets of laws, that's a straw man argument. There was one set of laws applied equally to everyone.
Marriage equality is primarily about the financial aspects, like health benefits, inheritance, and rights to property in a divorce, that have been available to married hetero couples but not gay couples. Why shouldn't gay couples be treated equally.
If marriage is just a friendship and not intrinsically ordered towards family life then what basis does the gov. Have to regulate or provide and benefits to married vs. unmarried couples?
Just 2 pick 1 point in time-400 BCE-marriage was father selecting husband 4 13 yr old daughter & giving her 2 him in a ceremony. That is 1 definition of traditional marriage Travis wants. http://www.historyforkids.net/ancient-greek-weddin...
And where did I advocate for that?
When you advocated for 'traditional marriage' is when you advocated it - if you want traditional marriage, which version of this apparently 'unchanged' thing do you want? The original version is the 'most traditional' bt treats women badly....
Premise1: I think marriage exists solely between a man and a woman.
Conclusion: Therefore I advocate misogyny and "treating women badly".
Go ahead and fill in that missing premise. I'll wait.
Jump to yr own conclusions. That's not what I said. U speak of traditional marriage elsewhere here + that the def has bn changed. It's changed a lot since 1st versn where women r property. which version do u want? Unchanged? Or admit its changed b4.
You made the accusation above for anyone to see. I've explained my position. Now supply that second premise...
And by the way Marriage as we know it, wasn't it originally a business deal between two families that often had little to do with love. And also if I can get real many violate a major rule of old.
APA study refuted: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
Great source: http://www.familystructurestudies.com/articles/
You're linking to an abstract. Did you actually read the entire study?
The country didn't implode when same-sex marriage was not legal.
The reason I said that was because some people seem to think legalizing same sex marriage is the beginning of some chaotic moral descent. Simply trying to point out it's been a law for over a decade and that's not the case.
SSM is a domino within the cultural shift away from valuation of the family. If you haven't seen the spikes in divorce, single parenthood, and broken homes then you simply have your eyes closed. SSM is simply a symptom of the sexual revolution.
And there you have it! SSM makes marriage a loving commitment between two people rather than an ownership contract for female reproductive organs. That's the redefinition anti-equality people fear, women no longer being lesser creatures to own.
Who said marriage wasn't a loving commitment? Marriage is a union ordered towards family life though, fact. You need to try a little less shrill caricature I think.
Words on a screen can't be shrill. SSM is a union ordered towards family life. You just can't see men and women as equal participants or understand that people of the same sex can love each other romantically and build a family together.
SSM is not oriented towards family life because a SS couple cannot procreate. Marriage is reduced to being a deep friendship, and the gov. has no bus. regulating friendships.
+ your definition of marriage is arbitrary right? Just your opinion.
Travis - just because people are gay doesn't mean their reproductive organs cease to work. Their child's DNA may not be shared by both parents but neither r adopted children's. I am gay, married and have a child = family. Pls try again
@TW You prove my point. You are incapable of seeing that two people of the same sex can love each other and become a family. You don't see a woman as anything but a baby factory if marriage is meaningless to you without biological children.
So do you consider it a "friendship" when a heterosexual couple gets married but chooses not to have kids?
And don't you think kids are better off being adopted by a loving same sex couple than growing up without a family at all?
I didn't say that they don't work. MM or FF are not ordered towards the production of children because they cannot produce children within that pair. Their organs do not sexually compliment each other. Can't do comprehensive bodily union. Sorry.
Travis - the world is over populated - don't you think maybe God intended homosexual unions as a form of population control?
No I don't.
A MF marriage sans children would be a difference in degree but not in type. SSM is a difference in type and a complete departure from the model.
Yet, I'm in a SSM and we have a child with plans for more. We are much like an adoptive family except our child shares one of our DNA. So are you saying that unless the child shares both parents DNA it's not a family?
You can't participate in comprehensive bodily union. You can't produce offspring without an opposite sex pairing. You and your partner are not intrinsically ordered towards family life. I'm sorry but that's the truth.
So what r u trying 2 say? Becus my child has another's DNA that isn't my wife's we aren't a family? That becus gay couple can't accid have kids they cant marry? Do you feel the same 4 those who marry KNOWING they r infertile? Or just gays?
Marriage is a union intrinsically ordered towards the production of children, that's why the gov regulates it. If marriage is just an emotional union then the gov has no point regulating it any more than it should any other friendship.
You still didn't answer the question.
Marriage is more than procreation, more than an emotional Union. Funnily enough, I wonder when more str8 couples would realise that - given the divorce rate is huge, it's not us gays throwing it away.
But your def. of marriage restricts it to merely being an emotional Union.
Infertility is a difference in degree but not of type.
Merely? Yet yr theory is its solely abt procreation. Emotion is part of it, but not all, procreation can be part of it, should never b all of it. Except, any1 can procreate u don't need 2 b married. at least gays don't have 'accidental children'
We're going to just disagree. See majority opinion in the Ober. ruling. It's merely an emotional Union under consent based definition. Conjugal definition it is intrinsically ordered towards, but not solely abt.
Why shld M be a permanent Union?
The problem is that the types of relationships you are endorsing are not the types of relationships that human beings are built for. Christ Himself affirms marriage as being between a man and a woman. That's the hard truth.
And Christ himself shouldn't define things for people who don't believe in him. What Christ says means squat to me because I'm not a Christian, so that "truth" is most definitely not a truth to me (and many others).
If Christ is Lord then it carries weight regardless of your opinion. If Christ is not Lord then all definitions of marriage are fundamentally arbitrary- and so you lose either way. But the whole discussion here is tangential to the secular arguments
People who don't believe in your God invented marriage and used it as a legal institution long before Christ's birth. Your church can marry whoever it likes and this isn't a theocracy like you want.
Where did I say I want a theocracy? I oppose SSM on both SECULAR and religious grounds. If God is- then your opinion doesn't matter. If God isn't- then your definition is arbitrary and your opinion can be discarded.
TRUE, it will be soon
Interracial marriage is denial of recog. of a pair that can have children.
SSM is forced recog. of a pair that cannot have children.
They are not analogous arguments at all. My arg. work against prohibitions on interracial marriage.
Yet, My SS wife + I have a child. Born from my body. After we were married in a SSM. So is ye problem that the parents don't all share DNA with the child? What abt adopted children? Just becus 1 is gay doesn't make 1 infertile. Wht r u trying 2 say?
Redef. For SSM is not intrinsically ordered towards family life. If Mar. Is just a type of friendship then the gov. shouldn't regulate it.
You want to understand my perspective. Read the secular book I linked in my answer and get back to me.
Your links aren't secular. I've had a look. Repost secular one if you think I've missed it. Marriage is more than friendship, and more than procreation.
Secular book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A69JZG0/ref=dp...
If marriage isn't intrinsically ordered towards procreation and is just an emotional union- then it is just a deep sort of friendship.
It's more than an emotional Union. Funny though, I don't see u protesting those who choose 2 remain childless - if it was really about the fact that marriage is abt procreation, it wouldn't be just b SSM u have a problem with
Difference in degree but not type. Under the consent based definition marriage doesn't have to be anything more than an emotional Union. Your M is by nature not ordered intrinsic. Towards family life and is an emotional Union. Read that book.
This is a case where the buffalo is humping you.
Marriage has been evolving since forever, often by the religious extremists. Eve w Cain/Abel. Abraham w Sarah & Hagar. David w Bathsheba (sans Uriah). Solomon & his thousand wives/concubines. Dowries, arranged marriages. Change is the only co
Why shouldn't marriage be between three or more consenting adults? I'm sure that some sort of legal framework could be hammered out. It has been before.
I hardly have any moral issue with that, but if you want to be the one to hammer out the complex legal framework, I'm sure you could send them a draft!
Tell me, does hubpages still restrict hubs which take on the question of traditional marriage and SSM and try to defend the former? If not I'll write you a hub.
Actually I'm not sure it is finished in America! At the moment there are 'battles' going on as some want to get married in churches despite the fact they don't go and are forcing their ideas on those who do go and don't agree with! is that fair?
@Travis Why not check out the existing hubs against marriage equality and see how they are managing? Then you can write something that provides information they don't. Avoid hate speech and your hub will pass QAP.
Thanks. Will do.
Adam are you ok with 100 people getting married? How about 100 people, a 1986 Chrysler Lebaron, and a sparrow?
Nicomp - really? You do understand consent don't you? And the fact that animals + inanimate objects + children cannot consent? If you don't..... The100 people marrying - there are religions who are fine with it. Christianity likes concubines...
Hey! If inanimate objects and animals won't to get married? Let them! It's their lives despite being manufactured and/or apart of nature and completely don't follow our ideals as homosapiens.
Nicomp, looks you are desperately looking for a reason why same sex marriage is not ok. You've got to do better then the last ludicrous comment. lost case big time.
Want to get married* As well. I don't quite understand the point Nicomp is attempting to make here. But once more, I'll state. Let people do what they want with their lives.
If you want a reason to be opposed to same sex marriage, this book lays out the secular case against: http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Overruled-Marriage-Rel...
And especially: http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defe
LOl, nicomp is truly off the wall.
I think he wants to marry a 1986 Chrysler Lebaron, That's fine with me, people do fall in love with their cars. LMAO
Thank you for the reference, I'm surprised you didn't come up with a quote from the bible. I love my car too, a Renault Clio. But I'm afraid it's dying. Ah what the heck, why not marry her, I will get the heritage.. Lucky me.
Have you ever noticed how activists trot out the word 'homophobe' to oppress and intimidate whoever disagrees with them?
No, a homophobe is a person who fears and actively tries to oppress gay people. For instance, they want gay people to be treated as lesser beings. If you think I mean you, you must feel that's what you do.
I don't want gay people to be treated as lesser human beings. They have all the same rights that everybody else has. I oppose the redefinition of marriage.
So, because you like the recent definition of marriage, it was quite different 100 years ago, you support denying people the Liberty to do what they want so long as it doesn't hurt anybody. This country was founded on Liberty, not definitions.
Given that women are no longer property + actually have 2 consent 2 the marriage + you can't sell your daughter 2 her suitor 4 3goats + a cow - the definition has changed. Yr arguments have been used b4, many many years ago
Do you support the right of voluntary gladiators to fight to the death in Yankee stadium? Do you support bringing back dueling to settle social disputes?
The definition hasn't changed, sorry. Did I say any of those things?
Evolution of marriage/relations is constant, often by bible thumpers. Eve w Cain/Abel. Abraham w Sarah & Hagar. David w Bathsheba (sans Uriah). Solomon & his thousand wives/concubines. Dowries, arranged marriages. Xtians love relational redef
The pattern for marriage is laid out in the relationship between Adam and Eve before the fall and that pattern is affirmed by Christ specifically. You confuse description of for endorsement of.
Travis - you do realise that Adam and Eve weren't married don't you? Also...given Eve was made 'of' Adam, it was also incestuous. Just saying
Lol, what makes you think that? Because the gov. didn't give them a piece of paper? God ordained them and it's referred to as the model upon which marriages seek to emulate.
so, you have no issue with it being incestuous marriage then? As if you believe in Creation then Eve is made
From Adams rib, therefore incredibly closely related....therefore the union is incestuous. I know which id have more issue with.
Lol, why don't you define for us what "incestuous" relations are and why you think they are wrong...
You concede that they were married?
Married? No. Marriage existed LONG b4 religion - so no, they weren't.
Incest - closely related people in a sexual relationship (consentual or not) - wrong? Shallow gene pool causes genetic mutations, often passed along to grand-children etc. Y Lol?
If Adam and Eve were then there was no marriage prior to them. That holds true regardless of a YEC or OEC take on Genesis.
I think that given the mitigating circumstances and this being prior to the fall should be taken into account.
Anything remotely 'icky' that God condones + shouldn't is always explained away by "mitigating' circumstance - if he was all powerful/all knowing then the incest thing should have been rectified - therefore, it's condoned.
You just don't like the fact that these mitigating circumstances exist.
Prior to the fall we aren't looking at genetic corruption.
Where are eve's female chromosomes coming from? Not Adam's rib. She is genetically unique.
But all off topic.
Come on Trevis, you can't actually believe ano 2015 that Adam and Eve actually existed. Or do you?
I'm an OEC, not YEC.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, for we write fiction to suit ourselves."
No, it's not that they exist, it's that they aren't applied equally. The bits that made God look dodgy get 'mitigating circ' (incest, slavery etc), the bits that out of all context make others look bad - even context isn't accepted. It's annoying.
On slavery: http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html
Christianity is why slavery ended.
Except Christ did affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman. Christ also didn't speak against abortion, does that mean that he therefore was for it?
No, he didn't. You're likely referring the "hardening" of Christians hearts Jesus described in Matt 19 & Mark 10 regarding Moses and divorce - not gays.
Also, Jesus was for abortion if he followed scripture. Numbers 5. Look it up.
On homosexuality: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-christian-perspec...
On numbers: http://christianthinktank.com/hept.html
Not interested in your links to someone else's opinion. If you can't articulate your own beliefs, they can't be very well informed & you haven't really thought about it.
Regardless of attempts to explain away what the scriptures say, I can read t
250 characters is hardly enough room to provide a developed and cogent clarification on your misunderstandings. If you were honestly open minded I would think you wouldn't mind a good link out.
Where in Numbers does it say she is pregnant?
Numbers 5: 22 says "Now may this water that brings the curse enter your body and cause your abdomen to swell and your womb to shrivel." Where does it say that she is pregnant? There is no child as a result of infidelity, and therefore no abortion.
The innocent who aren't cursed w sickness are allowed to conceive going forward. So for the unfaithful it's essentially an infertility potion. Which Hobby Lobby would (incorrectly) call an abortifacient. Fair enough. But still not very pro-life.
So you concede that you were incorrect. Thanks.
If life begins at conception, then yes.
Why is that not "pro-life"?
To Justin Earick: You're picking and choosing what you want to hear from the bible but not actually listening to what it says.
We had marriage equality. The same laws applied to everyone equally. No one was discriminated against.
Yeah like you see someone about to get murdered you're like: Not my problem! Is that what you're saying
So to you murdering and getting married is the same thing Benedict !
Doesn't that apply to the Federal Gov because marriage is a state license.
Why do we need govt for marriage at all?
Peter, I was about to say the same thing. I wonder if Benedict suffered a terrible marriage.
Well even the romance your comparing too is highly flawed.
I'm not sure it's completely erasing, because a trans man + his cis male partner can marry, as well as many other combinations. The requirement of gender even if it's the same could be the erasing issue if you are gender neutral, thinking abt it.
"Marriage" has never had one clear definition in history. In fact, historically, (including biblical myth) marriage WAS polygamy - one man, several wives. Changing definitions is okay - "citizen" used to only be white men. We redefined it. :)
Marriage has pretty much everywhere been recognized to be between a man and a woman. The Bible sets a clear precedent for one man and one woman based on the ideal of Genesis and the words of Christ. This is the erosion of the family.
I'm an atheist, so biblical standards (which included polygamy, by the way, I've read that thing!) don't apply to me. We also don't live in a theocracy, and we separate church and state, so again, particular religious objections are irrelevant.
Cite for me where God specifically endorses polygamy. Description of something or the regulation of a reality on the ground is not specific endorsement. You don't have to be religious to subscribe to traditional marriage. See book above
Why is there so much polygamy in the Bible? And incest, rape, and concubines, even among the most important biblical men (Abraham, etc)? Not Christian, so it doesn't matter to me, but the gov't doesn't and can't define marriage religiously.
Description of and even attempts to regulate and make better what is a hard reality on the ground are not endorsements of. Nothing "religious" about defining marriage as being man and woman. See the secular book that I cited in my answer
There's no secular benefit in restricting gay rights. Without gay marriage, couples and families (that exist anyway) lack legal protections. It also leads to a homophobic culture in which gay couples are lesser. Allow gay marriage for happier society
The discussion is over the nature of marriage at it's most basic level, not rights to. On that point you're dead wrong. The sociology clearly affirms that by legalizing SSM we erode family life which pretty much guarantees broken homes.
No, no sociological study has proven that. There will always be gay couples, many have kids, by protecting them we protect families. Gay parents have proven just as capable as straight. Gay marriage SUPPORTS families. No proof of the opposite at all.
You are in denial.
You're the one who keeps linking the same thing over and over again while claiming all the many studies, which are considered the MOST reputable and conducted through leading psych agencies, are biased. The APA is the MOST valid source in this case.
Bad methodology: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
Show me something that isn't flawed and then we can talk.
If you've ever taken a critical thinking or research methods class you'll know that no study is perfect. The fact that you seem to think the ones you're presenting are without flaws just proves your bias.
You should know that convenience sampling invalidates making generalizations. I'm sorry if you don't.
Now you're just trying to make excuses. It's no good. The science is on my side.
No, I'm not making excuses. If you want to invalidate any study that isn't perfect you're going to be left with nothing, including the stuff you want to believe.
You have the studies that don't suffer from methodological bias. But you don't like the implications of those studies so you're trying to rationalize them away.
I love when people think they're smarter than the organizations that publish this stuff professionally (like the APA). Internet access makes everyone an expert, I guess. Why did I even bother going to school when I have google to tell me what's up?
The papers I referenced were peer reviewed. I think that you're just addicted to this little argument of authority that you've got going on. Apparently whatever the APA says is right- even if it's methodologically flawed.
The APA's stance is based on a huge amount of peer reviewed studies. And yet you're certain that your studies > the studies the APA has chosen.
Except that they are based on convenience samples and don't reflect the population as a whole. You seem to be fine with just ignoring that. That's a huge red flag. You aren't willing to follow the evidence wherever it goes. Read that book. I did.
I feel that the APA's abilities to choose studies to cite, methodological flaws and all (because yes, EVERY STUDY HAS 'EM!), is more reliable than some random dude on the internet citing biased support for studies that fit with his views.
She thinks that Loren Marks is just some "random dude on the Internet" LOL!!
She thinks that every demographic survey has major methodological flaws, LOL!!
LOL all you want, I've been in university for 8 years learning how to conduct, read, and critique studies. I'm quite comfortable with my assessment of this situation. You're entitled to your opinion but please stop insisting that it's fact.
You need to demand a refund then. I'm sorry but you're wrong. Methodological flaws are flaws. Prove to me that you're as open minded as you flaunt yourself: read. Dare to entertain a contrary point of view for just a second. Read the book.
Erm, of course methodological flaws are flaws. I don't recall saying otherwise? I'm saying NO STUDY IS PERFECT!
I'll spend money on the book as soon as I get my refund. ;)
Reeeeally? You made a jump from changing the legal definition of marriage to a complete language collapse? I mean, A+ for creativity I guess. Haven't heard that one before! Always finding new ways to justify discrimination. *sarcastic thumbs up*
Except it is about the redefinition of the institution, not the inclusion of a previously excluded group. Your tone indicates you probably can't have a rational discussion about this.
When Hitler defined the Final Solution as legal, was it?
Sure, let's drag Hitler into a discussion about gay marriage.
Laws change and progress all the time.
Well you deflected the question, but that's understandable. I must disregard labels (so I'm going to tell). The public condoning of homosexuality is a specific judgment poured out on a culture that fails to acknowledge the Creator as creator.
Let's take the comment about marriage as a contract under God. Who's God? yours? Mine? Manjula's? There r 1000s of worshipped Gods, many who have no issue with homosexuality - so who's God? Is it 'conveniently' the one u happen to believe in?
What u or I or thousands believe does not affect who the creator of spacetime is.
I didn't answer your question because once again you've taken something that really doesn't change your life at all and compared it to something extreme.
So you would bring back harems of women for NFL players? That seems like the way forward?
Your solution makes some sense but it wouldn't please the anti-equality people because plenty of churches have been marrying same sex couples without legal approval for decades. The anti-equality crowd wants gays to be unable to marry in any fashion.
Marriage s be a religious ceremony & they can marry whomever they chose, it just won't be sanctioned by the govt. For the govt we need a new vehicle without connection to marriage. That vehicle needs to protect the parties. True sep of church &am
When your beliefs infringe on other people's rights to equality then yes, I hope people deprive you of those beliefs being translated to laws.
YOUR religion should not dictate how OTHER people live their lives.
excellent review- when people try to impose their prejudice and personal insecurities as law - then God help that society. The God I worship and support, supports everyone who proposes love.
Michael, Nobody is depriving you of your beliefs, you can still get married in a church, under God, it's you who are depriving others of their beliefs and their human rights, therefore, you are the oppressor.
Yes. Stick it to hate-filled religious extremists who use their chosen beliefs to persuade gov't policy against core American values on equality.
What we are looking at is the forceful redefinition of marriage to be something that marriage is not. Then we have institutions being threatened if they don't comply and bend the knee to the new liberal orthodoxy. That isn't right.
YOU'RE SUCH A HIPOCRITE!
The thing in contention are the two alternate definitions of marriage. They cannot co-exist. SSM is not simply an inclusion of- but the wholesale redefinition of.
The definition you believe isn't the one shared by most in the first place. Most see marriage as two people making a loving commitment and becoming family. Very few see it as the transfer of rights to a woman from a father to a husband anymore.
I think you should get out more, it's not. Regardless you would say that your definition is ultimately arbitrary no? and thus you undermine any basis for yourself. Under your view marriage is merely a form of deep friendship. Why regulate it then?
And there we see how your definition of marriage is so very different from the majority's. The belief that marriage is about the ownership of a woman's sexuality is no longer the norm and it hasn't been for half a century.
Except that nowhere have I said or implied that marriage is the "ownership of a woman's sexuality". So nice straw man but no banana.
It's a common traditional conservative Evangelical Christian belief your comments about the sexual revolution imply you share. You don't believe the man is dominant in marriage and the woman must submit and obey him then?
Are not all members of household called to submit to one another? I think that you have a poorly drawn caricature. See pt. 4 especially: http://christianthinktank.com/femalex.html
Christianity is pro-woman. But this train of thought is irrelevant.
Christianity is pro-woman? Riiiighht. Hmmm biblical marriage = woman is property. Where a rape victim is to marry her rapist? Where a non-virginal woman is to be stoned to death? Where is Christianity pro women? Certainly not its Holy Book.
Women were property in the pagan and ANE cultures. Christianity changed that by giving them parity with men. Read the link. Here's another: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004EPYPY4/ref=dp...
"Their equality infringes on my right to infringe on their rights" is basically what you just said. Which is pretty funny.
3 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Show
3 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Hide