marriage for love and general procreation is a creation of the last century. Before that it was a business transaction intended to raise a family's standing in the community. In meant in increase in wealth and social influence for the family of the bride. God had nothing to do with marriage because a woman was simply viewed as property. There was no difference them and land, house, livestock or a horse.
"Marriage is all about having children... A marriage and it’s vows are an insurance policy that protects the children, and keeps the adults committed to each other for the benefit of the children."
Ironside, what era are you living in? I know couples who are married and have no intention of having children. I know absolutely no one who got married for the express purpose of having children. Committed for the benefit of the children - that must be why more than half of all marriages end in divorce (6.8 per 1000 vs 3.6 per 1000).
And I will repeat for the umpteenth time - all marriages are civil unions. A couple may elect to have their union celebrated in a church or synagogue or mosque. But, legally that is an unnecessary action. Marriage is regulated by the various states - just like divorces.
I was not going to comment on this one, until Bryant raised an issue that matters to me.
"... all marriages are civil unions. A couple may elect to have their union celebrated in a church or synagogue or mosque. But, legally that is an unnecessary action."
I have no issue at with gay couples doing whatever the heck they want to do. Not my business. BUT...
I have a HUGE issue when gay couples, in the effort to be 'just like everyone else' use the government and the courts to force their way into being married in church, or on church grounds, or in forcing someone to provide wedding related services to them as a gay couple when the institutions or people involved have a stated and long standing moral/religious objection to the gay lifestyle.
Before anyone says it is not happening, it is! Research the Methodist retreat in New Jersey (which is similar to Epworth on St Simon's Island) and the photograpgher sued in New Mexico for not accepting the job to photograph a gay wedding, or a bed and breakfast in Hawaii for not accepting gay couples as guests.
Gay can be gay all they want, but when they bully their way to acceptance, that is simply not right!
The 'force their way into being married in a church' thing is something I haven't heard of, to date. I'm pretty sure the states that now have legal same-sex marriage also have stipulations in their repsective codes that specifically state that no church or minister would be required to perform a ceremony. The onus would be on a couple wishing to have a marriage performed in a church by an ordained officiant to find such accommodations.
As to businesses refusing to provide their services, then you get into state-by-state laws of 'public accommodation'. Many states have included sexual orientation in their P.A. statutes, meaning that businesses that provide various services/products to the public cannot legally deny same to a person/couple on that basis, just as they can no longer deny accommodations to mixed-race couples. Again, we're not talking about religious-AFFILIATED instituions, but businesses that serve the PUBLIC that happen to be owned by private individuals who are denying their services based on their PERSONAL beliefs.
And, yes, I know it's not the same thing...but...if you study the various anti-miscegenation laws (prior to Loving v. Virginia, 1967) and some of the various court cases, rulings, and arguments SUPPORTING these laws, you'll find that many of the arguments and rulings sustaining prohibitions on inter-racial marriage used religious and 'biblical' reasonings as to why different races should not be allowed to marry.
Now, should there BE public accommodation laws? That is, should privately-owned businesses that serve the public be able to say "We have the right to refuse service FOR ANY REASON"? That's another debate, I guess.
During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, CHURCH SERVICES (emphasis mine), gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.
When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.
It is a complicated case, with federal funding, etc being tossed into the pot.
My point is this - the Methodist Church was reasonably accomodating to the couple in attempting to meet their wants (not needs) while also preserving the religious nature of their facilities. Why could the couple NOT have the decency to respect the religious nature of the building?
This is a good a place as any for a debate - No, I do not support PA laws in all cases. In the case of a small local business with a well established (you know it when you see it) policy of preferring not to provide service to a gay couple AND when there are other reasonable, viable and local alternatives - I would NOT support a PA challenge.
A business owner should have the right to refuse service in accordance with a well established, long standing policy as long as there are other alternatives.
Sometimes change is best when it is slow and generational. I can remember when gays just wanted to be left alone - as opposed to being beat up or worse. "just leave us alone to live our lives," was the prevaling cry from gays. Less than a generation later, the menacing tone is, "Give us what we want or else, and to hell with your 'beliefs!"
At what point does a person, even a business owner, have the right to say, "I do not support this."
Lester Maddox ended up closing his restaurant (The Pickrick Restaurant, on Hemphill Ave. in NW Atlanta) rather than serving black customers...I'm assuming his refusal to serve them was "in accordance with a well established, long standing policy" where there were "other alternatives" available.
Should Vandy's be able to do that? Just a hypothetical I'll throw out there.
I agree change is better slow, but there is always going to be the single day on which something that no longer isn't...is.
Funny related anecdote, going back to the 'religious liberty' angle....
The National Cathedral in Washington has long been rightfully included on a list of historic buildings in our nation's capitol, and as recently as 2011 received $700K from the Department of the Interior for foundation repairs, stained glass restoration and other maintenance.
Some groups argued that, as a church that still houses an active Episcopal congregation, tax dollars should NOT be used facilitate this work....rather, that, like any other church, they need to depend on their adherents and staff to raise the money to maintain the structure. It's owned by the Episcopal Church and is not a museum.
Now, just recently, Ralph Reed and his Faith and Freedom Coalition...long-time advocates for undermining the 'wall' between church and state.... have joined the fight to remove all taxpayer support from The National Cathedral. Why? Because it was also recently announced that the cathedral would allow same-sex marriages to be performed there.
I anticipated some of your counterpoints.
A person eating in a restaurant is common enough as a human trait - they do not do so because they are white/black/whatever. They eat because they are hungry. Gay people marry/civil union because they want companionship. But wedding pictures are a superfluous activity. A photographer might refuse to shoot a gay couple's wedding because they are gay and because they are marrying. The photographer might object to the implications of that ceremony. The photographer is not denying them a ‘right.’
To go back to your example, a black person eats in the Pickrick with court ordered protection. OK. Now, does that customer have the right to demand to be served ethnic food? Can he/she demand that The Pickrick serve collards and/or chitterlings? So, if a wedding photographer is forced to shoot a gay couples wedding package, should he/she be forced to offer a boudoir package to the...wife? or both?
As far as federal funding for a church, yes, I would forgo federal funding for ANY church projects JUST BECAUSE the courts have allowed federal funding, for whatever reason, to pry the church open to things that are not/have never been condoned on moral grounds.
And that is exactly my point (again) - it is the "me,me,me" attitude of forcing acceptance of gay rights which undermines my potential support of gay rights. Do I think gay couples have a right to live their lives unmolested? Yes. Married/civil unioned? Sure. In my church? NO! I should have a right to be free from them and their lifestyle. Same thing applies to certain businesses, thought it is a much more tortuous argument.
Charlie, John here...
Does a restaurant customer have the right to demand that the establishment serve them 'ethnic food'? Of course not....UNLESS that establishment is serving that ethnic food to SOME of its customers and then refusing to serve the same food to ALL of its customers with that refusal shown to be based on a reason specified under the statute. You can't go to a Chinese restaurant and demand they serve you pizza....because they don't serve pizza...period.
You may see a photographer refusing to shoot a gay couple's wedding as valid based on the photographer's beliefs regarding marriage, I get that. But, what about the implications of an inter-racial wedding? Should a photographer be able to deny service on that basis? What about a wedding involving someone who is divorced? Many people still have problems with that. Again, we have to keep in mind that the business owner or service provider has made the choice to provide a service or product to THE PUBLIC, and therefore is subject to regulations and, in many cases, public accommodation laws.
If a church/denomination makes the decision to extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples, should the government be able to step in and prohibit that extension? How does that align with the 'first freedom' of religious liberty?
And you have your own church? Nice! :>) For those of us who don't own a church, we certainly have the right to expect our place of worship to hold to the standards and values with which we are comfortable and personally hold dear. If they stray from that standard, we are certainly free to exercise our right to worship elsewhere.
Enjoying the comments, Charlie. Thanks.
My own church, heavens no... :-D
So at what point does a person/service provider have a right to refuse service?
Can a convicted pedophile work at child care center? Why? Perhaps child care is the profession they know. Perhaps they have been reformed. Can the government deny them a license? Can the government deny the right to work and earn a living?
To get away from the criminal element, can a 14 y/o have consensual sex with a 35 y/o? Well, no, it's against the law! Hmmm seems like not too long ago, interracial marriage and homosexuality were too. A vocal interest group, a willing media partner, and some open minded politicians all equal an ever expanding social experiment. Next thing you know, the new slogan will be "better living through chemicals'. Oh wait...
At what point does society draw a line and say it stops here? Apparently we have not found that point yet...
Good conversation, jvestal!!
First you have to have a moral society. That morality for the United States was Christian morality. Progressives have spent decades tearing it apart. Things can not be black and white. We can not be judgemental. Deviant behavior condemed in the eyes of a Christian, is a civil rights issue to a Progressive. Progressives want to engage in this behavior and not be held accountable. They have an anything goes attitude. When we still had God in our schools we had a much more moral society. Gay marriage would never have been accepted in the 1950's. It is still unexceptible by the majority of Americans, so the Progressives use unelected judges to rule on a civil rights matter. Progressives are winning in our courts and it will destory the nation. Put God back in schools. Our Founding Fathers firmly believed that we had to have a moral society for our Republic to survive.
The idea of morality and marriage is an interesting one. A 150yrs ago it was immoral to marry outside your ethnic group or religion. In my family research I found family members that disowned because they were Methodist and married a Lutheran. Fifty years ago it was immoral to marry out of your race. Some cultures still recognize arranged marriages.
Any time there has been a change in the perception of marriage, people jump on the moral band wagon. It always seems to be a way to protect what was from what is. I have heard people say that gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage. There are so many other things that weaken the institution of marriage. Things like domestic abuse, adultery, hanging out in strip clubs, porn and general flirtatious activities. These are things that happen every day and destroy marriages every day.
People get drunk and cheat on their spouse or gamble away the money the family needs for food and housing. Are these not more morally real dangers that ever marriage faces every day. I cannot think of anyone that ended a marriage because a gay couple got married. If someone leaves their spouse because someone else (gay couple) got married, I submit they had other problems undealt with.
The point is not that any marriage ended because of a gay marriage; the point is that the word "marriage" has a definite connotation/meaning/image.
I make decisions every day. Sometimes I decide right and wrong. I make decisions that effect people's lives. Sometimes, I apply logic and precedent in order to reach my decsions. But, I cannot call myself a judge. Why? Because a 'judge' has a specific connotation/meaning/image, and I do not qualify.
If I call myself a judge, I am presenting a false image and (potentially) eroding the true power and purpose of that office.
I do understand and agree with what you are saying. Yet if we look at the connotation/meaning/image of marriage it has changed over the years. The connotation/meaning/image that people are defending is only the most recent one. The connotation/meaning/image was used during the mid twentieth century to not allow mixed race marriages.
The connotation/meaning/image of marriage was used to forbid Pols from marring French or Protestant from marrying Catholics during the 1800's. I worked with AIDS patients during the mid to late 80's, when the disease was new. To listen to them speak of their partners the people they loved, it was no different then listening to a heterosexual couple. In the end we are all creations of God and if we accept that God created everything than we accept that. It is not our place to question God's creations simply because we cannot understand why God created something. We are not God and it is not up to us to pass judgement on another's life. If we decide we are God and pass judgement then we must also play God and forgive all.
22, because the various states have rightly decided that in today's society polygamy is unacceptable. Previously, the various states decided that (for example) marriage between races was unacceptable. That was later rightfully deemed unacceptable by the much maligned Federal (gasp) government and courts.
The reasons for the prohibitions were not similar. Polygamy was reasonable in olden days when women outnumbered men because of wars, accidents while hunting or working in dangerous occupations, and so on. Some cultures even had men marrying their deceased brother's wife. Why? To provide security, assist in raising any offspring, or any other number of valid (in view of the circumstances at the time) reasons. There are no valid reasons any longer.
Charlie, I support gay civil unions and will until I die. Gay couples I have known are as devoted to each other as any heterosexual couple. If they commit to be bound by state laws regarding child support, divorce, and alimony, they should have the benefits of other married (civilly joined and recognized) couples. I do not support any religious organization being "forced" to accommodate a marriage ceremony with which the religious organization disagrees because of Biblical teachings.
Ironside, back to my original question - what era are you living in? And I mean no disrespect. But, gay marriage not acceptable in the 50's? Neither were black/white marriages in many states. "Deviant behavior condemed in the eyes of a Christian, is a civil rights issue to a Progressive" - You know, there are sexual practices conducted between man and wife which were deemed "deviant" and illegal for many years. Were the repeal of these antiquated lasw part of the Progressive agenda?
And, guess what? This country was founded on freedom of religion. It was not founded for Christians. It was founded for atheists, Jews, Muslims, Rastafarians (although they did not exist at the time)and anyone else. Our Founding Fathers were much more reasonable and farsighted than we apparently are today.
22, wrong. Polygamy involves more than two people. It plays havoc with health insurance (who's the spouse if there are more than one and the rest are uncovered since there is not a familial relationship by blood or adoption)), income taxes (you can claim married filing jointly but can you legally claim extra spouses as dependents?), civil law regarding divorce, alimony, and child support. IF you want to belabor the point you might as well trot out the old "soon they'll be marrying their dogs" tripe.
As we are learning all the things you mention are simply laws that can be changed with a vote and a stroke of the pen. I think 22 has found an excellent example to counter the gay argument.
Personally, I prefer a child marriage argument because it is still two people. No matter what argument is presented for gay marriage, I can usually substitute "child marriage" and make the same abominable argument
No, Charlie, you cannot. There are already laws regarding the age of consent to include prosecution for statutory rape. There is recognition of the fact that children and adolescents are not necessarily capable of making accurate, informed decisions. That's why contracts entered into by persons under 18 are invalid.
There is nothing about a civil union (or marriage, if you prefer) between homosexuals (sounds no worse than heterosexuals, or "normal" if you prefer) that theatens the health, happpiness, or well-being of anyone other than the two people involved.
And, Charlie, your point about changing the law could be extended to reinvoking slavery in America through repeal of the 13th amendment. Could it be done? Yes. Will it be done? No. Just as child marriage will not be reinstated. Times have changed. "Children" routinely married in prior eras at 14 or younger. Life expectancies and the necessities of survival drove those decisions. Marriages were arranged for children, somtimes at birth or immediately thereafter.
Looking back often prevents moving forward. And I know all about those who ignore history etc.
Bryant, I know the chance of a child marriage movement is slim to none. But looking back (yes, I know...) There used to be laws against homosexual behavior. Then, progressives successfully argued that the laws were wrong and all gays wanted to do was live in peace. Then, gays demanded the right to adopt children. Then gays demanded the right for civil unions and now 'marriage.'
If you could not envision the same path for pedophiles to seek acceptance, then you are wearing blinders.
BTW - the points about arranged marriages and teenage parents no longer needed as society progressed and life expectancy increased - I got that, but the gay movement is not about those things either. The core argument supporting gay marriage is supposed equality and the right of humans to choose their own path. Consider how many things a teenager can do independently of their parents or any other adult already, TODAY! Seek birth control, get an abortion, etc. Is it really that far of a stretch for a teen to use the court to 'marry' their much older partner/abuser? All it takes is one judge to say that teen has a clear mind and a right to choose....
Those who sow the wind.... Do you think the moderates who support gay rights prior to now envisioned the genie they have released? Do you believe some of them have regrets? I would.
From the anti-gay marriage faction, I have yet to hear a salient argument describing a real cost to society as a result of same-sex marriage. Putting "morality" out there is laughable, since there are wildly differing moral interpretations of the issue, skewed unsurprisingly along generational lines.
To put it succinctly, it might happen before you die or it might happen after you die, but unless the world implodes, gay marriage is gonna happen.
Lets ad polygamy, legalization of marijuana etc, youthanasia, massive off and on shore drilling, open drone fly zones, the demolition of the dome of the rock, the rebuilding of king salomons temple, Iran and North Korea perfecting a long range nuclear bomb, the morning after the morning after pill, home tattoo removel kits, oh the posabilities...unless the world ends.
Scott, sometimes there is a salient argument and sometimes there is not. I can present reasons, but if you choose not to accept them as valid, then we are at an impasse.
I do not like onions. Never have, never will. I tolerate them at times because my wife includes them as seasoning. But, she does it subtlely so that I am not repulsed. No rhyme or reason really other than I do not like onions. People call me crazy, picky etc, but I do not like onions.
I do not support gay marriage. I believe it is immoral, but I am tolerant of other people and their preferences in that area. Therefore I am tolerant of the gay lifestyle. I believe the word "marriage" applies to a man and a woman who commit to each other exclusively as humans have been inclined to do since time began. I do not consider the union of two gay people a "marriage," and my tolerance decreases as the subtle and not so subtle efforts to change my mind increase. Other people may not consider my opinions or reasonings as valid (which is itself intolerant) and call me a old fashioned a bigot, and worse. The fact remains that to me, my reasoning and opinions are valid and while I am tolerant to an extent, I have limits of my toleration and gay "marriage" exceeds those limits.
Like me, don't like me. Love me, hate me - I don't care. But DO NOT disrespect me and dismiss my thoughts and opinions, but then expect me to respect yours (not you personally, Scott)
When you arque that polygamist have no right to marry but gays do. Your just being political not truthful to the fact that it is an arguement to the freedom of marriage. Likening your opinion to agenda and not equality.
In regards to the argument about child marriage it was common practice within the last couple hundred years to married a woman when she was very young. Men usually did not marry until they were in their late 20's to early 30's so that he could become established and his new bride was often in their late teens. A woman an old maid in her 20's as late as the late 1800's to early 1900's. The thing is that as our society has changed the idea of what marriage is has also changed. Many businesses in the wedding industry have welcomed gay marriage with open arms because it is a chance to make more money and increase their customer base.
22 pot will be legalized not because it is a good thing but because it is a new take source. Prohibition went into place and the individual income tax was created to replace the lost revenue. When the tax was not enough prohibition was lifted. In this day in age when government revenue is decreasing and the need for revenue is still there, new sources will be needed. Pot is an alternative that would be workable.
A prior post alluded to the idea that the majority of Americans still objected to same-sex marriage. The most recent research tends to differ. Pew Research released their latest tracking in early February covering results for the years 2001-2012, broken down by several metrics.
"Oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally"....2001-57% , 2012-43%
"Favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally"....2001-35% , 2012-48%
While "favor" is still not the majority opinion, it is now a plurality.
"Favor", by age demographics,
Millenials (born 1981 or later)...2003-51% , 2012-63%
GenX (b.1965-1980)...2001-49% , 2012-52%
Boomers (b.1946-1964)...2001-32% , 2012-41%
Silent Gen (b.1928-1945)...2001-21% , 2012-33%
"Favor", by religious affiliation,
Unaffiliated...2001-61% , 2012-73%
Catholics...2001-40% , 2012-53%
White Mainline Protestants...2001-38% , 2012-52%
Black Protestants...2001-30% , 2012-35%
White Evangelical Protestants...2001-13% , 2012-19%
"Oppose/Favor", by regions
New England 29/62
Pacific Coast 37/54
Mountain West 40/51
Great Lakes 42/49
South Atlantic 48/42
South Central 56/35
"Favor", % change 2003-2012, by regions
New England +14
Mid Atlantic +19
Pacific Coast +13
Mountain West +11
Great Lakes +19
South Atlantic +14
South Central +14
Arquing that polygamist have the right to marry just as gays do. Has nothing to do with condoning or condemning homosexual acts or marriage. It can be said that without polygamy being a fact of human history many of us would never have been born. Nothing of the sort can be said from the history of homosexual bonds.
If marriage is not found to be sacred, then marriage is nothing more than legality. To label the act of a man and a woman, who by mutually confirming before man, there vows to love commitment and honor, the result spiritually bonding two souls as one in the form of conception as marriage. Then conception or the hope there of being the pivot for the sacred nature of the complete action of the marriage between a man and woman. Anything other bonds be it man and man or dog and cat is just legality and formality. It is as simple as this society can not servive without the pivot.
So the marriage of a man and woman where one or both are infertile, or where no intent to bear children exists is just a formality. All that commitment, bonding, honor, love, etc,, is reserved for others.
Jvestal: The polls you site and the difference in age groups, the younger the person is the more accepting they are of gay marriage, only proves that Liberalism is winning the cultural war in our society. When God was in our schools those age groups reject gay marriage. Plato said to the Greeks "If you want to know the future, it is, Who is teaching the youth and what are they teaching. It is no more difficult than that.
I have no proof of God. I do have proof of creation and conception.
22, as a matter of argument, you are entirely off base. As Charlie rightly points out, you can have the *opinion* that gay marriage is immoral and reserved spiritually for a man and woman exclusively. That's an opinion I disagree with--as do some faiths,denominations and congregations--but a valid exercise of free will and intellectual evaluation.
But to make your ideological framework regarding the "sacred" nature of marriage a basis for a *legal* exclusion of same-sex couples is worthy of a belly laugh. A substantial portion of society has already moved past traditional, theological views of marriage and transformed the union of a man and a woman into a buffet of different interpretations. Therefor, the legal definition of marriage (and the ease of divorce) indicates that from a governmental point of view, a marriage is a legal contract more than a declaration of spiritually-based commitment. This is why the legal definition of marriage is important to the LGBT community. In the same way past restrictions on interracial marriages discriminated against one group, the current iteration of marriage laws excludes another group. If you feel like returning to polygamy (and I bet you do), then understand that besides being a practice most Western religions nixed decades or centuries ago, it is also a legal nightmare.
You can't arbitrarily paste your beliefs across a multicultural society like ours. For example, I'm not a Christian, so I don't subscribe all of the same theological rationales you lay out. In the end, laws *should be* a representation of the will of the majority. Thus, my earlier comment about the shifting landscape of opinion among along age lines and the inevitability of a policy change.
I could not agree with you more. As I have mentioned in my previous posts the definition of marriage has changed so much over the centuries. I am also sure that it will continue to change and evolve as cultures and religions continue to blend.
Scott: the "will of the majority" can also be the "will of the Mob". We are a nation that lives by the rule of law. The law needs to have a moral philosophy that it is based on. Our nation's law is based on Judeo Christian Philosophy. You can argue for some other philosophy but the best one I have studied, is the one Our Founding Fathers used to create our Constitution, The Judeo Christian Philosophy.
Ironside, you left out the influences of Greek philosophy, English political thought from the Glorious Revolution and the many French philosophers used by the framers of the Constitution. Judeo Christian thought was only one of many used. And, the framers were very careful not to let religion intrude upon design of governmental powers.
Nothing is sacred without contingency. I am not saying this as a Christian. Without your mother and you father you would not know love or anything sacred. You would have no existence. So to simplify without the creation of new life, the end. It's in fact scientific. An how I define sacred man+woman=life man+man=love without man+woman=life there is no man+man=love. Without man+woman=life then nothing is sacred. That's philosophy. I don't care if you are a Christian or not it still science and philosophy.
From your comments it seems that the only marriage that is sacred is the one that produces a child. This by your explanation would mean that any marriage that not result in the creation of a child is not sacred. So that not only same sex marriage is not sacred, it would also mean that any marriage that does not result in the creation of a child by choice or medical issues is also not sacred.
It would seem that you also minimize the role of love and commitment as elements that define a marriage as sacred. So by extension a marriage that is abusive and filled with infidelity and resulted in the creation of a child would be sacred. Yet is the bible verses that were read at my wedding Jesus clearly said that love was the greats thing.
Your arguments tend to want it both ways and make no sense in the grand scheme of the overall discussion.
Sc, I say taker you take that to mean the poor and helpless. In this case you are wrong taker is taker. My thoughts above and in this post have not been of argument merely introspective. The simplest root to my own understanding of what Is sacred. Without the creation of life nothing is sacred. It is fact that naturally 2 men can not create life so the end result no mater how much love existed at the time of the 2 men. All things would end life and love. However in the simplest form a man an a woman can create life this life being sacred.... You will not understand.
No, marriage is not all about having children, this is a tired and failed argument. There is no legal requirment for married couples to procreate. Old people get married all the time and they will never procreate, there are many couple that are biologically unable to procreate and their marriage is still valid. Why? If we apply your "logic" those marriage that fail to produce a child should be invalidated.
The next is tired argument is "Seperate but equal" which was found to be un-Constitutional, so you failed again.
Next is the myth that Gays want to force churches to marry them, this is a myth which ignores reality. 1.- Contrary to what many want to believe there are several churches that do welcome Gays and do preform Marriage Ceremonies. 2.-No person would go to a place they are not welcome or are uncomfortable. and 3.-Recently a chuch refused to marry a inter-racial couple, which exemplafies why even when Gay Marriage is finally legalized churches will still be able to discriminate.
"At what point does society draw a line and say it stops here? Apparently we have not found that point yet..."
When it can provide a reasonable and logical argument that shows how a certain action can cause harm. Neither Ironside nor Charles have provided any argument that is not thinly vailed bigotry.
There is no real logical argument against Gay Marriage.
See my earlier posts. Onions will not be prominently present in my food. Doesn't mean I won't tolerate them in small quantities, nor does it mean my mission in life is to stamp them out. But they will never, ever EVER get my vote as a tasty, delicious, NECESSARY part of my diet.
Same applies in other areas.
If you cannot afford some respect to my feelings and opinions as a person, if you insist that my position is that of a bigot, well, then... so what. You ain't the boss of me. Have a good day and nice life.
Having re-read your comments, I think there is a point I failed to address...
If there is no real argument against Gay Marriage, then there will never be an argument against polygamy or pedophilia. Not that gay people do those things, but that those are particular behaviorial traits that are currently illegal, just as homosexual behavior USED TO BE IL-Legal. But, homosexuals are becoming more accepted, by more and more people. All it takes to change the law is a vocal interest group, a willing media partner and willing politicians. What logical argument could you make forbidding the marriage (or co-habitation) of your 13 y/o child to their 40 y/o partner, if they claim to love each other?
Scott is right to say that us older folks will eventually pass away, and the opposition will continue to weaken. I REALLY hate to use scripture anywhere near this topic, but this fits too well - You have sown the wind; I hope you never reap the whirlwind.
But if you do face that whirlwind, you will have written your own precedent, and I will pity you.
Phoenix77: Are you saying a church can not have the freedom to refuse to marry an inter-racial couple? Are you saying there is no religious protection in the First Amendment. Are you saying that a church has no right to deny a gay couple marriage? Why is it that the Left preaches tolerance, but the acceptance of their tolerance destroys the very freedom we fought a Revolution to secure for all Americans.
"If you cannot afford some respect to my feelings and opinions as a person, if you insist that my position is that of a bigot"
Why should I afford you respect when you are actively dening other citizens their civil rights? and Yes your position is that of a bigot, just substitute the word "Gay" with "Black" or "Inter-Racial" and see if that does not sound like a bigot.
"What logical argument could you make forbidding the marriage (or co-habitation) of your 13 y/o child to their 40 y/o partner, if they claim to love each other?"
CONSENT look it up.
"Phoenix77: Are you saying a church can not have the freedom to refuse to marry an inter-racial couple?"
No, which was the point of the example, inter-racial couples can legally marry and churches can still refuse to marry them even when they are members of that church.
"Are you saying there is no religious protection in the First Amendment. Are you saying that a church has no right to deny a gay couple marriage? Why is it that the Left preaches tolerance, but the acceptance of their tolerance destroys the very freedom we fought a Revolution to secure for all Americans."
No one has ever suggested that any church be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that they do not wish to.
"Consent" is a legal term, defined by legislature and signed into law by an executive. It is applied by a judicial system. It is a law.
My whole point from above was that laws can be changed.
Are you dense? Do I feel the wind blowing?
Bryant, Scott - THIS is why I limit my blogging.
When folks come late to the party, topics and opinions tend to be needlesssly rehashed.
End of this thread for me as well.
But not before, Ironside, if your church (your pastor) refused to perform/host an interracial marriage, why would you continue to call it "yours".
Bryant: I posed it as a question to Phoenix77. We either have freedom or we have government controlling every aspect of our lives. I would of my own free will not be a part of a church that would deny to marry an inter-racial couple. I would also stand up for their First Amendment Rights to not have these marriages.
I understand the creation of life is sacred. That creation of life does not make marriage sacred any more than it would make rape sacred. By your own definition any marriage that does not result in the creation of life, is not sacred. I am sure those that cannot have children do a medical condition or those that choose not to have child would be happy to know you do not see their marriage a sacred.
"My whole point from above was that laws can be changed."
So what? Do you really think that there will ever be a strong movement to lower the age of consent? How does denying Gays the right to marry, stop the possibility that the age of consent could be lowered? The Age of consent involves more than just Marriage.
"I would also stand up for their First Amendment Rights to not have these marriages."
That's nice, but as I pointed out before, there is no threat to that "Right". Churches currently can deny to perform marriages for couples where one person is of a different ethnicity or faith or where one person is divorced. Allowing Gays to LEGALLY Marry will not change that.
I hear and agree. But, my statements being of my own understanding. Without life nothing is sacred. There is no life without creation and conception. To establish life, from which “all things” are sacred we must have the two, creation and conception. To sustain life we must also have creation and conception. I find this all to be secular logic. We must have conseption to have anything deemded sacred. So without a man and a woman, there could in no way be, anything sacred. I find this to be my own logic of what makes up natural marriage. I am not talking about the social institution.
There are only two things sacred God and love. All things come from and are give to these two. Without them nothing can be.
I dont think anyone can actually prove there is a God. This is why a I am useing "creation and conception" instead.
You said, "Do you really think that there will ever be a strong movement to lower the age of consent?"
I don't know, but read the article related to this statement by a Catholic cardinal, "Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, the Catholic Archbishop of Durban, told BBC Radio 5 on Saturday that pedophilia was a "disorder" that needed to be treated."
I can recall similar statments about homosexuality 30-40 years ago, when NOBODY THOUGHT GAY MARRIAGE HAD A CHANCE to ever be a mainstream issue. Now it seems to be on the verge of majority acceptance. I would guess pedophilic marriage is about 40-50 years ahead of us.
I also told you to look out when you start something in motion - it can get away from you... sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
The wind is blowing.... I worry about my grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Does anyone out there notice that the Institutions in our society that teach morality are under assult by the Liberal Left in our country. The Catholic Church and other Faith Based Christian Churches on Gay Marriage, the Boy Scouts on having Gay Scout Masters, and the Military on having Openly Gay members. Looks like a political agenda to destroy morality in our society!
I don't think the LL 'intend' to destroy morality. I think they have an aversion to following rules and being told that certain behavior is frowned upon. It is much easier to indulge your every whim when there is no right and wrong, just 'alternative lifestyles.'
To you and I, freedom is the ability to pursue our dreams within the confines of society, understanding that with freedom comes responsibility and duty. We want to 'conserve' this blessing for the future generations.
To the Liberal Left (I think), 'freedom' is only the ability to pursue what they want - at that moment. If we don't like that, 1) too bad, and 2) wait a bit - what they want will change. Because to them, complete freedom - 'freedom to do anything' and 'freedom from responsibility' is the ultimate goal.
I am sure I will get some feedback. I will go ahead and answer it - Ask a Liberal sometime, on any subject that they think there is not enough freedom... ask them, "what is enough? Where is the limit." There is no limit in their vocabulary that I have found.
There's a lot of really funny stuff written here about marriage by people who see their argument. It's important to keep in mind that on the same side of this losing argument is the current situation where it is illegal to be gay in over 80 countries and punishable by death in 7 countries.
I have a co-worker with two adopted kids who has been with her partner for twenty years who can't get health coverage for her kids. You wouldn't know it if you met her, but she is gay. All she does is for her family and has been a stand-up person since I have know her.
One reason she can't get health insurance benefits extended to her kids who she has had for 14 and 16 years is because folks who think they know better hire lobbyists. The lobbyists go to state legislatures and Congress and say "hey folks, let's make sure these gays can't get access to health care". And then the lobbyists get paid by organizations like Focus on the Family and the Chick-Fil-A foundation. For some reason some "Christians" think Jesus would think it is okay to deprive adopted children of gay people health benefits.
Meanwhile, the families suffer in a real way. Instead of saving more for college, my friend and her partner have to take out expensive health policies to protect their kids. Ah yes, and they have to keep their relationship secret to many people for fear that some "Christian" individual or organization will try to peronally harass them at work and mess with their life even more than the right-wing establishment does at a systemic level.
They've told me before they are so jealous of idiots in Vegas who can just go drunk to a chapel and get married, but they could never have that same right. They don't complain about it; they just live with it.
There are plenty of good people out there like that. Unfortunately, if you think gay marriage is a bad idea or are even on the fence about it, then you have probably never heard how it's like because in many places gay people must remain reserved to keep themselves safe from physical harm. As I recall how the one openly gay person at Statesboro High School was treated when I was there, I can't say I blame them.
I am supportive of any way for friends of mine to gain a stronger legal status so that their lives are easier, whether it is with the word "marriage" or not.
Climegeist: Insurance companies do not deny coverage because a person is gay. They would be out of business in no time trying to pay for the lawsuits that would be filed. Please explain what she is denied in a Civil Union relationship?
I don't hold a certain opinion because anyone else does, or any other country does. I hold an opinion because I am who I am. Period.
Why is it incumbent upon your coworker to provide insurance? She has a partner, right? The partner doesn't have insurance either? Also, she and her partner didn't procreate these kids, there is a male somewhere. Does he have insurance. Or, did these two lesbian partners create 2 children through artificial means (which is NOT cheap) and then not have a plan to provide medical insurance. Sounds like a self created problem to me...
So, if 'Christians' hire lobbyist to espouse their position to lawmakers and gay rights advocates hire just as many or lobbyists (or have celebrities donote the time and endless amounts of $$$$), help me understand why one group is demonized for lobbyists while the other is not.
Your friends could solve most of the 'shortcomings' of not being 'married' with a lawyer, who could draw up any number of PoAs. Many lawyers would do it for free to support gay rights.
The rest of it is just whining and crying. Grow up. Face life. School's out and this is the real world. No one is out to get your friends because they're gay. They are what they are. I am what I am, and I deal with that every day. If gay people are no different than the rest of us, then why should they be afforded special provisions? If I have kids I can't afford, that is my own fault.