Also incorrect. Having the legal marriage has meaning in the legal context. It establishes a legal relationship between two individuals where one did not exist before. Additionally, while having a marriage before our respective deities is indeed very meaningful to us, it is meaningless to those who do not follow a diety. The meaningfulness of something is either subjective or contextual.
If this is true then why are children not a required part of marriage? Why is it that a childless married couple gets benefits (albeit not as much as a couple with children) that an unmarried couple do not get? And if the couple alone is considered a family, then how is a gay couple alone not? Incorrect. Many gay couples have families and produce children. I just saw an article the other day of a lesbian couple who both just had babies, and the fathers were a gay male couple. So they will indeed be raising children. In which case why shouldn't the couples have the same benefits as straight couples raising children?
If one speaks "truth" as he sees it and someone else does not agree with it, that implies judgement? So that would imply we should not speak about what we believe to be truth......that is unless it goes with the flow of current popular/contemporary culture. I understand the "popularity game" and how it relates to peers. So if stealing is wrong for me, it may be right for you so I should stay silent about it? That, my friend, is called "moral relativism". It is what is wrong with the world today.
One does not have to support something in order to point out historical inaccuracies in an argument. However, as far as the legal status goes, since legal marriage requires neither children nor even sex, I have no issue with it being between any two or more consenting adults.
Why though? Why does it have to be all or nothing? I have my lines, just like you do. No, a mother shouldn't be able to marry her son. Yes, two gay men or women who are unrelated should be able to marry. That is not incest!
Another good point of why a legal marriage and a religious marriage are not the same thing and why trying to apply religious values to a legal institution is foolish.
By your wording, there is an implication that the mother and son would be sharing a sexual relationship. Whether you intended this implication or not, I don't know, but it is there. When looking t the legal institution of marriage, there is neither a requirement that the married couple have sex, nor that they produce children. For that matter, neither is there the requirement that they also engage in a marriage of a religious nature. While the variations are endless, let's assume a elderly mother and her son, who is the eldest of his sibs. He, for what ever reason, has no interest in "settling down" and getting married in the "traditional" sense. He is perfectly content to simply work and care for his mother. If they were married in the legal sense, there would be additional benefits that would be present, that would not exist simply as mother and son. For example, he would have the overriding medical authority for her over the siblings. She would also qualify automatically for any insurance his work provides. And this could just as easily be mother and daughter. Or siblings, or cousins. If a legalitarian marriage is about creating a stable household, and we are counting two as the minimum size of that household, then what does it matter, on a legal level, whether or not those two are already related by blood?
I just believe everyone young or old should make up their own minds about what would be considered morality. My children do not agree with my prejudices and they decided that on their own because I did not shove my beliefs down their throat. Speaking the truth as one sees it about moral issues can easily be seen as passing judgement.
What on earth is wrong with incest???They don't hurt anyone either! Are you suddenly getting judgmental on me? So you do draw lines!! Guess incest would just be a little too progressive for you right now. Maybe in another decade! Maybe in a couple decades you'll be open to pedophilia as long as the kids are consenting and no one gets hurt.
I do not believe the "free range concept" is good for children. I let my children know I am fallible but I know the One who isn't. We can read His Word together, pray about things and draw conclusions. My boys were supported to be boys. I never said anything to confuse them about their sexual identity. I instilled in them a very good work ethic.I taught them the joy of accompishment and to provide for others. I showed them examples of what happens to others that are lazy. That is judging behavior. Shoving beliefs down their throat sounds a little condescending. If I wasn't sure about what I believe....I wouldn't play the game. I am not a "country club Christian". Because I believe with every ounce of my being I believe this "there is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is the way of death". I do not want them to go that way. Now I do believe they are sovereign over their own destiny (that is between them and the Lord) and that they may rebel against authority....but I also believe this..."raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he GETS OLD, he will not depart from it. We all mature.
I voted no because I don't "support" gay marriage. I do however accept gay marriage. But your sexuality should be behind closed doors. The same place I demonstrate my hetero marriage. Two men or women holding hands in a park or on the beach is just fine. Sucking face in public is not appropriate, straight or gay.
You are correct. 'Settled law' can become unsettled but Its not a weak argument in the political context I put it in, and your reference to segregation perfectly illustrates the reasons I made the point . Segregation was visited by SCOTUS and held constitutional, and SCOTUS did reverse itself later and do a 180 , like it did in Laurence v Texas on sodomy laws, which was a total reversal of Bowers v Hardwick. . On both of those occasions, the political and social winds were blowing with the change not against the change. Segregation was growing less popular and more controversial as the civil rights movement impacted both the political and legal climate in which the reversal was seen. Likewise, basic gay rights had been making gain after gain for almost 20 years, before the 'settled decision' of Bowers was reversed. Again the political winds had a delayed impact on the legal winds. And in both those cases, there was a definite generational division, suggesting the political tide was going to continue. And both cases, there was greater blowback, legal and political, with each passing day after the original 'settled decision' I submit that when you have a 65% support level for a SCOTUS decision, and nothing but evidence everywhere you turn, that the number will grow as a new generation takes over, and in the case of same sex marriage there is virtually no measurable and concrete negative outcome on government to oblige another look. Under these circumstances your settled law, your basic precedent setting case, stays settled. Actually, I am less sure that Roe won't be completely reversed, than Obergefell v. Hodges because I think the political/ legal winds surrounding Roe are swirling and changing direction rather than constant and sure breeze ! On the other hand, I would agree that a more conservative SCOTUS might trim back the scope and pick at the edges when they can get away with it absent a total reversal. It is also true that a complete reversal of Roe might be based on a decision that undermines a right of privacy which in turn might compromise all of this law. Just my gut predictions, which does not necessarily agree with either my personal or legal views.
As long as my religion is allowed to limit matrimony to one adult male and one adult female, I accept the legal reality of gay marriage. I was tempted to say that it seems frivolous in some cases, but I think Zsa Zsa was married 8 times, and Carmen Elektra married Dennis Rodman because she was depressed that her sister had died. There were gay couples in my deep south hometown, whose relationship was accepted by the whole town, and they were more faithful to each other than many married couples. Why a state cannot constitutionally define marriage as one man, one woman, I have no idea. I've heard the arguments and they are weak in my opinion. But this is all water under the bridge. And telling my 20-something kids that someone is gay is like telling them that the person is left-handed or diabetic. They just don't care.
Your religion can limit what they choose to do . They may not be mandated to perform such ceremonies, nor will they be obliged to minister to them or even have them in their pews. However, if they are engaged in basically secular activity where their faith is incidental , outside of their church, for example in a hospital owned by your church, they may be required to treat a same sex marriage to the same rights and privileges that they would give a hetero marriage.
Your neural connections are misfiring. How you get race/homosexuals out of this is amazing, when the issue is about forbidden types of marriage. Your last sentence makes no sense.
Indeed, especially if 5 unelected old lawyers wearing black robes say so. It bothers me, however that Catholics can build a hospital with its own funds and then have no say in its policy concerning gay marriages. Maybe they should keep the money for food drives and give up on medical care.
The insinuation there is that Catholics seek to exclude gays from their pews. That's wrong, hateful, bigoted, unfair and ignorant. Nice going.
What about somebody saying whites can build the hospital so they should be able to block black people.
Dear Renee DEAR If you open a restaurant the idea is to make a profit. Refusing to serve fat people would eat into your profits. How do you think they got fat? Just no access to the unlimited desert bar with a meal deal. Meanwhile, now that I have your attention Would you support polygamous marriage if they immigrated to with such a union. Such as from Saudi Arabia. A lawful, polygamous marriage from any, over there. Thank you. Moi What's so great about monogamy to impose monogamy as the only marriage? r > g Refuse to serve Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
