Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

You still have not proven that marriage is related to the definition of procreation, nor procreation is related to the definition of marriage. Your "in principle" is just a claim without support. Especially in light of the history of marriage containing more incidences of trade or power arrangements than of love or procreation purposes.

 

RAAA. Already addressed.

 

Love is the unitive factor in marriage,
not the capacity to produce offspring.

 

Sterile couples can't reproduce in principle either by your logic. If the goal of institutional marriage is to produce children, then as long as children are produced, it shouldn't matter if they're the same sex or even in a polygamist marriage where two sterile people have a surrogate married into their relationship.

Says who? If the principle is producing children, then polygamy should be legalized. You have a better chance producing children that way. In fact, monogamy is rather rare among mammals.

Or one man and five women.

 

YOu raise some excellent points.

What Is the history of "marriage". How die the concept of "marriage" begin?? Did it start for economical reasons, cultural ones, religious ones or legal ones. Or a combination of ...

Who decided that a relationship should be made formal via a "marriage"?? Was it to benefit society in some manner?? The humanoid di not always get Married.............to maintain long term relationships....ie. partnerships. Marriage is technically a partnership........and this partnership is surrounded by the cultural factors of the time. The operative words being"of the time".

 

Why are you upset what two people who love each went through the legal process to be recognized as a married couple? How is it harming you?

 

Marriage is the unity between one man and one women. Not one man and a goat, one women and a pig, or any other definition. Ever try to plug in the female end of an extension chord into an electric socket? That would not be "marriage" either. You folks are changing the definition to "gender" anyway....so whatever blows your dress up! To an awful lot of us, the definition hasn't changed anyway.

 

So your argument os basically that marriage is a religious union, which is no longer true when the state started sanctioning marriage and applying legal rights it — and that marriage has been destroyed by heterosexuals and you are upset that homosexuals have rightfully identified that marriage is no longer a religious institution but a civil one…

Gay rights advocates tried to appeal for being allowed to just have civil unions to allow the holy rollers their precious word — but people like you said even that was to far and pushed laws banning all marriage like contracts.

They were going to do exactly what you are vocalizing you wanted, after opposition they figured why not push for full equality.

Your ‘faith based definition’ is an imaginary one, not backed up by the laws of man. Your bible advised you to heed those laws.

 

I will maintain it harms the culture because it diminishes the meaning of marriage. You changed the definition....how would it harm you to call it by another name? Guess now we have to add a hyphenated term like "Christian Marriage" , "Judeo Marriage" since we now have "gay marriage". To be right, you always have to define the term. There is a difference you know.

 

You know little about my faith and equating me as a "Holy Roller" is demeaning in it's intent. I never was against you calling them "civil unions".....you just wanted to force bakers to put same sex mannequins on wedding cakes and shove it down their throats.

 

You cannot support Freedom and Libertarianism, and yet oppose same-sex marriage.

Same with legalizing marijuana.

Neither harm society, at all. Its about freedom of choice.

 

And? How does that harm people?

There are already hyphenated marriages. There's a guy I know who is planning on having a Viking marriage. Then there's Jewish and Hindu marriages. Marriage doesn't have to be only between two Christians. Let me ask you this, which is more valid? Two gay Christians marrying, a heterosexual Hindu couple marrying, or a polygamist marriage between one man and two women?

 

I never called you anything, my statement is accurate. Your wants and desires do not reflect in the overall consensus of religious person‘s that did not want any type of formal recognization of same-sex unions.

You and yours started a battle that ultimately cost you the war that you have stated was the actual purpose. Had the right just said let’s turn the term marriage back into a religious definition and institute a new legal term, I don’t believe anyone would’ve had an issue with that. But the goal was control.

As to the bakery, people have been fighting for equal accommodation for in goods and services for generations. Blacks did it, women did it, Native Americans have done it — Did you believe these groups were “shoving it down other’s throat’s” when they were pushing for this?

 

Are you saying two men or two women loving each other is the same thing as wanting to **** a sheep? Wow.

This is why you guys do NOT have the pulse of America, when it comes to Freedom.

 

Do you want to know what diminishes the value of marriage?
Adultery
Divorce

Two significant items that are completely and fully endorsed by the republican party, which is compromised almost wholly of individuals that are now fighting against the continued recognization of same-sex unions

More people wanting to be faithful to their partner through legal kinship does not devalue what marriages mean, the definition of which is a union

 

I am in complete agreement with what I have emboldened. As I addressed in a previous post, those are examples of the beginning of a slippery slope. Are you trying to state that redefining the word has made marriage more stable? Gays break up and have bitch fights. It just diminishes what marriage was meant to be from the Beginning.

 

I have an answer to some of those questions.

I don't have a complete history of marriage because I don't think we know when it began but we do have a large chunk of history for it.

My guess is it started for cultural reasons. Tribe A has a person that means a question from tried to be to help facilitate peace between the tribes this would be a cultural reason but it also be a diplomatic reason. I don't doubt that it was part of religion because religion was created for civil control.

The union being made formal in public was about controlling the sexuality of the man primarily. Men's nature is to impregnate as many women as they can marriage binds them to one.

 

Nope, it is the capacity to produce offspring ("be fruitful") that sets marriage apart.

 

A sterile couple is still comprised of a man and a woman though. That's the whole point. You still don't know what 'in principle' means, obviously. It means relating to the definition of (procreation).

The discussion is about the definition of marriage, not the goals of it. Coming up with artificial ways to procreate does not change the natural way of procreation nor does it change the definition of marriage.

You still have no idea what 'in principle' means, even after I have defined it for you countless times. Until you can accept my definition and make use of it in your responses (or offer up a better definition if mine is somehow inadequate), there is no conversation to be had since you'll just continue talking right past me.

 

marriage has been mini things depending on what you’re defining as the beginning. Marriage has been seen to represent financial transactions, broker peace, satisfy debts, transfer ownership of a woman, or in some cases a child — what I am stating is that more people wanting to join into a monogamous faithful union does not damage marriage, what damages marriage is no-fault divorce, adultery and the promise being devalued.

Who do you believe feels their marriage is worth less because of same-sex couples being allowed to marry, because I would argue those people have a very sad marriage to begin with if they are worried about other peoples unions. Is your marriage worth less to you?

 

Only in your view — legally it doesn’t

 

Same sex couples in no way threaten those already committed to marriage. My concern is the culture, young children and what they perceive marriage to be. You know, the idea of Mommy and Daddy? The idea that Mommy is the nurturer and care giver while Daddy is the provider and protector? Hey, I know, some would like to turn that completely around, but we were not made that way! "Women respect your husbands"......but "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave His life for her!" "Husbands, live with your wife in an understanding way!"
Should we now eliminate those terms in favor of non-gender terms? Well many are trying to do that, starting with the children!

 

Gender roles were already being reversed prior to same-sex marriage, women were demanding equal rights far before gay people even dared asked to be treated equally.

Why do you feel that children will view marriage as anything other than a family?

 

Never forget the ONLY people looking to ban same-sex marriage, are Right-Wing.

so much for "freedom".

 

The idea of marriage has changed a lot since it began. It will continue to change as cultural values and norms change. The family constellations have changed completely as well. As far as Children are concerned........what matters is that they are brought up in a nurturing loving safe and teaching environment.....

What is one person's idea o f "marriage' might be something quite different in other cultures.What is meaningful for one may not be so for antoehr.

Marriage in western culture has been influenced by religion and the law. Traditions factorinto. All of these ......changes with time and new thinking. Religion seems to be the only component that prefers to keep things the same following some old teachings......... that may or may not apply to current times.

Bottom line: "marriage" is what people want it tobe.......along the current social standards. ...which too are evolving and changing.

Wether iti s a partnership between man and a woman........or two PEOPLE...............depends on one's' personal views. & philosophy.......