Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[spursncowboys]

Family and Marriage



Changing the definition of marriage would undermine the very nature that gives marriage its unique status in society. Ultimately, forcing marriage to mean all things will force marriage to mean nothing at all. If marriage becomes just one form of commitment in a spectrum of sexual relationships rather than a preferred monogamous relationship for the sake of children, the line separating sexual relations within and outside of marriage becomes blurred, and so does the public policy argument against out-of-wedlock births or in favor of abstinence.

Decisions about sex, marriage, and childbearing are not merely personal. They have deep social consequences, particularly for children.

Social Costs
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Hungary, and Iceland have all granted some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples. Same-sex "marriage" has been legal in the Netherlands since 2001, in Belgium since 2003, and in Canada and Spain since 2005.

The most extensive research we have about the effect of same-sex "marriage" on society comes from the Netherlands.

The Netherlands has seen significant changes since the 1980s in its unwed birth rate. Dutch social scientists have observed a correlation between the campagin for same-sex "marriage" and the increasing disconnect between parenting and marriage.

In an interview published in a Dutch newspaper on July 8, 2004, Dr. J.van Loon, a leading sociologist of Nottingham Trent University said, “It’s no coincidence both [the introduction of same-sex marriage and the devaluation of marriage] take place at the same time. Supporters of gay marriage often based their argument…on the separation of marriage and the raising of children. It’s difficult to imagine that an intensive media campaign based on the claim that marriage and parenthood are unrelated and that marriage is just one among a number of morally equivalent cohabiting relationships did not have any serious social consequences.”

Dutch Social Scientists on the Deterioration of Marriage in the Netherlands


The family is the building block of society. When marriages and families are healthy, communities thrive; when marriages break down, communities break down.

A Portrait of Family and Religion in America - Study illustrating the intact family that worships weekly is the greatest generator of human and social goods and least generator of social ills, and that the broken family that does not worship is the greatest generator of social ills and the least generator of social goods. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/MarriageDebate/Map_of_Religion.pdf)


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/MarriageDebate/ConsequencesMD.cfm

[boutons_deux]

"forcing marriage to mean all things"

red herring, You Lie

[EmptyMan]

If marriage becomes just one form of commitment

It already is to many people.

[Blake]

The Netherlands has seen significant changes since the 1980s in its unwed birth rate. Dutch social scientists have observed a correlation between the campagin for same-sex "marriage" and the increasing disconnect between parenting and marriage.


the word "campaign" being spelled wrong aside, I'd like to see the studies on how Dutch kids from unwed parents are doing in school and other social settings.....

from an unbiased website.

[FromWayDowntown]

So if I wish to marry my girlfriend, but we have no intention of having kids (either because we choose not to or can't for some reason) should we be "married," or would that cheapen marriage?

[spursncowboys]

Marrying anyway outside of god cheapens marriage.

[Supergirl]

Our divorce rate has been at 66% decades.

Increasingly, heterosexuals are opting not to get married, even before having children. Teenage pregnancy is on the rise.

None of this has any thing to do with queers getting married. It was ALL HAPPENING before queers started getting married.

Marriage has changed in definition throughout history. Get over it.

[spursncowboys]

Our divorce rate has been at 66% decades.

Increasingly, heterosexuals are opting not to get married, even before having children. Teenage pregnancy is on the rise.

None of this has any thing to do with queers getting married. It was ALL HAPPENING before queers started getting married.

Marriage has changed in definition throughout history. Get over it.

You seem to not hold the sanctity of being married in a very high light. Yet you treat it as some right you deserve.

[C]hildren living with single mothers are five times more likely to be poor than children in two-parent households. Children in single-parent homes are also more likely to drop out of school and become teen parents, even when income is factored out. And the evidence suggests that on average, children who live with their biological mother and father do better than those who live in stepfamilies or with cohabiting partners.... In light of these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who choose it and that discourage unintended births outside of marriage are sensible goals to pursue.

--Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope[1]

[spursncowboys]

When compared to similar children raised by two married biological parents, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to fail in school, abuse drugs or alcohol, commit crimes, become pregnant as teens, and suffer from emotional and behavioral problems. Such children are also more likely to end up on welfare or in jails when they become adults.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/sr0045.cfm

[spursncowboys]

When compared to similar children raised by two married biological parents, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to fail in school, abuse drugs or alcohol, commit crimes, become pregnant as teens, and suffer from emotional and behavioral problems. Such children are also more likely to end up on welfare or in jails when they become adults.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/sr0045.cfm

[ChumpDumper]

What makes you think Americans hold marriage in high regard in the first place?

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, the conclusion here is if gays are allowed to marry, God fearing, churchgoing families will throw up their hands and say "screw it, this marriage thing is now worthless, let's stop going to church and let our kids do drugs."

Apparently, Americans have pretty weak faith.

[EmptyMan]

Our divorce rate has been at 66% decades.

Increasingly, heterosexuals are opting not to get married, even before having children. Teenage pregnancy is on the rise.

None of this has any thing to do with queers getting married. It was ALL HAPPENING before queers started getting married.

Marriage has changed in definition throughout history. Get over it.

This.


This is like potheads shouting at everyone that it would make for great tax revenue. You don't care about taxes, you just want to light one up.

Hard religious should know by now the masses have degraded marriage quite a bit by now. You don't really believe gay marriage would crush the glory of marriage, you just don't like teh gheys.

[jacobdrj]

I find it interesting how Christians redefined marriage as something between a mankind and God when Biblical marriage is between 2 people.

[boutons_deux]

"Marrying anyway outside of god cheapens marriage."

:lol

[ElNono]

Marrying anyway outside of god cheapens marriage.

Separation of Church and State. Second time I post it this week. Please do read it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state)

[Supergirl]

Dan Savage on what marriage means:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tM0Pg_KKV8

He says it well.

[exstatic]

Social Costs
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Hungary, and Iceland have all granted some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples. Same-sex "marriage" has been legal in the Netherlands since 2001, in Belgium since 2003, and in Canada and Spain since 2005.

The most extensive research we have about the effect of same-sex "marriage" on society comes from the Netherlands.

The Netherlands has seen significant changes since the 1980s in its unwed birth rate. Dutch social scientists have observed a correlation between the campagin for same-sex "marriage" and the increasing disconnect between parenting and marriage.


Fail. They create the strawman of gay marraige, legal since 2001, as some kind of catalyst to social anarchy, and then start quoting shit from the 1980s.

[exstatic]

Marrying anyway outside of god cheapens marriage.

You have a LOT of work to do on straight marriage, then, before you should even worry about teh gayz. Shore that up, and get back to us, 'k?

[jacobdrj]

Separation of Church and State. Second time I post it this week. Please do read it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state)

But this is a Christian country based on 'Christian Values', or so my Christian acquaintances keep telling me...

[/sarcasm]

[baseline bum]

This.


This is like potheads shouting at everyone that it would make for great tax revenue. You don't care about taxes, you just want to light one up.

Hard religious should know by now the masses have degraded marriage quite a bit by now. You don't really believe gay marriage would crush the glory of marriage, you just don't like teh gheys.

What has "degraded" marriage is the fact that women have some power now that they overwhelmingly work, and thus aren't nearly as dependent on men as they were in the good-old days when a woman's choice was to stay married or starve.

[baseline bum]

.

[Blake]

When compared to similar children raised by two married biological parents, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to fail in school, abuse drugs or alcohol, commit crimes, become pregnant as teens, and suffer from emotional and behavioral problems. Such children are also more likely to end up on welfare or in jails when they become adults.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/sr0045.cfm

you are assuming that unwed parents = single parents

and you are assuming that a quote from an American president also equally pertains to Dutch society

...and for the record, I was just speaking out of my own curiosity......it wasn't really an argument.

I already knew this thread was a horrible fail......I was just wanting to see a few responses before I blew it up.

Here we go.....

[Blake]

Same-sex "marriage" has been legal in the Netherlands since 2001, in Belgium since 2003, and in Canada and Spain since 2005.

The most extensive research we have about the effect of same-sex "marriage" on society comes from the Netherlands.

The Netherlands has seen significant changes since the 1980s in its unwed birth rate. Dutch social scientists have observed a correlation between the campagin for same-sex "marriage" and the increasing disconnect between parenting and marriage.

In an interview published in a Dutch newspaper on July 8, 2004, Dr. J.van Loon, a leading sociologist of Nottingham Trent University said, “It’s no coincidence both [the introduction of same-sex marriage and the devaluation of marriage] take place at the same time. Supporters of gay marriage often based their argument…on the separation of marriage and the raising of children. It’s difficult to imagine that an intensive media campaign based on the claim that marriage and parenthood are unrelated and that marriage is just one among a number of morally equivalent cohabiting relationships did not have any serious social consequences.”


was that realllly what supporters of gay marriage were arguing?



November 9, 2009, 3:16 pm
Dutch Views on Same-Sex Marriage
By LISA BELKIN
When I wrote about same sex parenting in the Times Magazine this weekend, one of the people I interviewed was M. V. Lee Badgett, who is both the director of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law & Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law and a professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. She is also the author of “When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage,” which focuses mostly on data from the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage has been legal for nearly a decade.

My magazine article focused primarily on the effects of same-sex marriage on children. But Badgett has more to say — about the effects of same-sex couples on marriage, and also about the effects of marriage on same-sex couples.

She shared her thoughts in a follow-up email interview:

Q.Why study how gay marriage works in the Netherlands?

A.The Netherlands let same-sex couples marry in 2001, so they have the longest experience for us to see what effects it might have. And like some states here, the Netherlands also had a civil union-like status (“registered partnerships”) before same-sex marriage rights, starting in 1998. So the Dutch have had a long time for things to change — the cultural meaning of marriage, choices about marriage by different-sex couples, and the impact on gay and lesbian people, in particular. Also, Dutch couples have lots of choices for organizing their relationships, so we can see which legal institutions appeal most to couples, whether gay or heterosexual couples.


Q.Did legalizing same-sex marriage face the same objections there as here?

A.The Dutch gay activists worked on the issue for about 15 years, so things clearly moved faster there. (We’re already past 15 years of serious effort here in the U.S.) A majority of their public supported equal rights for same-sex partners and marriage rights fairly early in that process. The most powerful opponents were in the Christian Democratic Party and other religious parties. (Even now some civic officials who have religious objections to gay marriage refuse to marry same-sex couples.) The two biggest issues would be very familiar to people in the U.S.: whether there should be a separate status for same-sex couples and how to deal with children — whether adoption rights would be included and what the status of children born into same-sex couples would be. That’s why the Netherlands ended up with two legal statuses for both same-sex and different-sex couples. And married same-sex couples still don’t have the same parental rights as different-sex married couples. Same-sex married couples can’t adopt children internationally, and a non-biological lesbian parent only gets “parental authority” for a child born to her female spouse, not automatic parental rights. To get full parental rights, the non-biological parent must still formally adopt the child.

Q.Did marriage change the individuals who entered into it? If so, how?

A.On a personal level, many people said that getting married made them feel more committed to or responsible for their partners, or that they felt some larger emotional or spiritual effects, even though most of these couples had already been together for many years before they could marry. Many same-sex couples were surprised to find that marriage changes how other people see them. Marriage triggers expectations of friends and family members, who support married couples and remind them that they’re part of a larger social institution.

Q.How did people who did not marry feel about having the right to marry?

A.The right to marry even changed people who chose not to marry. Everyone I interviewed noted that they were glad the law had changed — they felt “invited to the party” in the words of one person — and they said that they felt more a part of society as a result. The long-standing anger and resignation that many lesbians and gay men felt as the result of being excluded from such an important institution as marriage is not healthy, psychologically or physically. I believe that the sense of increased social inclusion that I saw in the Netherlands has the potential to profoundly change all lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in positive ways in the U.S., too.

Q.Did the legalization of same-sex marriage somehow change marriage in the Netherlands?

A.I looked hard for evidence of changes in the cultural idea of marriage and for evidence that heterosexuals and gay and lesbian couples have different ideas and behavior related to marriage — but I couldn’t find any. The trends in marriage and divorce didn’t change. The ideas about marriage expressed by lesbian and gay couples lined up with the ideas of their heterosexual peers: marriage is about the love and commitment of two people who work together as equals to weather life’s ups and downs, become members of each other’s extended families, and often (but not always) raise children together. Couples who formalize their relationships — gay or straight — are more likely to choose marriage than a civil union.

Q.What is the “take away” for those who are debating these questions in the U.S.?

A.The big point is that all of the evidence suggests that same-sex couples will fit right into our current understanding of marriage in the U.S. Marriage itself will not be affected. Dutch heterosexuals appear to have adapted to the legal change by changing how they see same-sex couples, not how they see marriage. Now they see gay couples as people who should get married, and they are happy to remind their gay and lesbian family members of that fact!

We also see why the word “marriage” matters. The Dutch same-sex couples I interviewed saw their civil union-like status as “a bit of nothing,” as one person called it, or as a political compromise that an accountant might invent. Only marriage has the social understanding to back up the legal status, and the social meaning is as important as the legal rights. Civil unions just don’t have that social meaning. One woman I interviewed put it this way: “Two-year-olds understand marriage. It’s a context, and everyone knows what it means.”

Finally, as in Europe, in the U.S. we see the most liberal states — the most tolerant of homosexuality, the least religious, and the ones with more family diversity — taking the earliest action through courts and legislatures to legally recognize same-sex couples. That’s not surprising, of course, but it suggests that we’re going at about the right pace for social change.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/how-the-dutch-work-same-sex-marriage/

[Blake]

Why Dutch Kids are Happier Than Yours
By Lauren Comiteau Wednesday, Jul. 11, 2007

Dutch children are the happiest children in the industrialized world. Don't take my word for it, that was the finding of an extensive survey in UNICEF's Report Card 7. The Netherlands, my adopted home and birthplace of my children beat out the competition in a study that took account of material well-being, health and safety, education, family and peer relationships, behaviors and risks, and their own perceptions of their well-being. The U.S. by contrast finished second to last ahead of Britain.

So, what's the secret of Dutch happiness? "I suppose teens are happy for the same reasons adults are," says Ruut Veenhoven, professor of social conditions for human happiness at Rotterdam's Erasmus University. "Holland is a livable, rich, free, well-governed country. People are happy in those conditions." And their positive Dutch outlook is fostered in the education system.

"I think in Holland, we are very open with our children," says Esther van der Zaag, who teaches my four-year-old at Amsterdam's ASVO primary school. "There are rules, but not too many... Play is the most important thing to learn. We teach them through play, not through rules."

Play gives way, further up the education ladder, to learning based on conversation and consensus: "Sometimes the Dutch are criticized for too much negotiation, for not being strict enough or not having rules," says Tom van Veen, a father, teacher and co-principal at Het Amsterdams Lyceum. He says Dutch children are encouraged to form and express their own opinions. "They're used to negotiating at home. In school, too, it's not just, "Here are the rules, follow them.' It's a good thing, but it is tiring." The same model of consensus decision-making pervades the highest levels of Dutch politics and corporate culture.

A group of 12-year olds I cornered for an impromptu opinion poll outside their public school enthused about their teachers, their friends and their school work. Their only complaints about life in Holland? The drunks in the park, and the rain.

The freedom allowed to Dutch high schoolers would shock their American counterparts. The country's legal drinking age is 16, so at school parties — at least in Van Veen's school — kids 16 and over are allowed to drink beer and wine, although no hard liquor, in what he calls "a controlled setting." Fifteen-year-old Tess ten Pos, who I find sipping a latte with friends in a cafe during a break from morning classes, agrees. "When we read in English class about coma drinking in the States, it's crazy! We don't do that here."

"There is more freedom here," agrees 17-year old Karima Adda, whose father came from Morocco more than 30 years ago. "You can't wear short clothes, smoke or drink in Morocco, so that makes me happier here." Despite exceptions like Karima, who plans to be a doctor, immigrant children are less likely to get the best of Holland's impressive levels of investment in children. A recent city-wide survey of Amsterdam primary schools revealed that children of Moroccan and Turkish descent were being directed to lower-level schools than their Dutch counterparts, despite scoring identically on the all-important placement exams. Says Sahro Ahmed, a Somali researcher at Leiden University,"Dutch education is meant for Dutch people. Somali people have a different framework. They don't fit in. The Dutch think: You're black, your mother wears a veil, you talk funny, you're not articulate. You're not going to make it in Dutch schools." As a result, she says, "our children are learning how to make tables, cupboards and coffins. But Somalis want their children to be pilots and doctors, too."

Despite the raw deal experienced by many immigrants, the Dutch social system, with its extensive support structures and family-friendly work ethic, is clearly designed to make parenting as painless as possible. "If you're happier, it's easier to bring that over to your kids," says Clemens Klein Goldewijk, father of two. Dutch parenting is largely shared, and in the professional classes, most women and men work only four days a week, each devoting their free day to the kids. That means young children spend only three days a week at child-facilities which are employer-subsidized. So, what's not to be happy about? (Did I mention free health care until the age of 18?)

"Both parents want to have a role in their kids' lives," says Van Veen. "It's fun, interesting, and over before you know it." And obviously, beneficial for the kids. Ninety percent of Dutch families still eat their main meal together around a table several times a week. Compare that to 65.7 percent of Americans.

The real source of Dutch happiness, of course, will remain a mystery. Professor Veenhoven says that although people know they're happy, they never really know why. Not that it matters: "It's good to be happy," says Veenhoven. "Happy people are nicer, more productive, better citizens, healthier. If you're happy, you live longer." That's certainly an argument for raising my own kids here. They look Dutch, speak Dutch and, admittedly, they're from the right side of the canal. But maybe more importantly, they're on the right side of the pond.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1642488,00.html

[ElNono]

Heresy, I say!

[ploto]

I guess women who have had a hysterectomy or are past the age of menopause should not be allowed to get married either-- or guys with low sperm counts. Now that could be an interesting test to get a marriage license.

[spursncowboys]

What has "degraded" marriage is the fact that women have some power now that they overwhelmingly work, and thus aren't nearly as dependent on men as they were in the good-old days when a woman's choice was to stay married or starve.
What?
Are you referring to housewives?How are housewives dependant on men? Marriage, and the roles of the marriage are a two way road. To generalize that one is inferior to the other is pretty ignorant.

[Winehole23]

Reread it, SnC. BB wasn't making a generalization about the present.

[spursncowboys]

you are assuming that unwed parents = single parents

and you are assuming that a quote from an American president also equally pertains to Dutch society

...and for the record, I was just speaking out of my own curiosity......it wasn't really an argument.

I already knew this thread was a horrible fail......I was just wanting to see a few responses before I blew it up.

Here we go.....
single parents=unwed. There were other studies that involved unwed iving together out of wedlock


Compared with peers who had not cohabited, young adult females who had exited a cohabiting relationship were more likely to experience an increase in depressive symptoms and less likely to experience a decline in depression. Young adult males who had exited a cohabiting relationship, likewise, were less likely to experience a decline in depressive symptoms from adolescence to young adulthood than peers who had not cohabited. About one half of the cohabiting young adult respondents had experienced a breakup of their cohabiting relationships.

Sample or Data Description
Data come from the first and the third waves of the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”). Respondents were between the ages of 12 and 18 during the first wave, surveyed in 1994-95. The analytical sample consists of 8,172 individuals who married, cohabited or gave birth for the first time at an age that was below the national average age for these transitions.

Source
"Early Family Transitions and Depressive Symptom Changes from Adolescence to Early Adulthood"
Booth, Alan
Rustenbach, Elisa and McHale, Susan
Journal of Marriage and Family Vol. 70, Number 1. February, 2008. Page(s) 3-14.

http://www.familyfacts.org/findingdetail.cfm?finding=8964

[Winehole23]

About one half of the cohabiting young adult respondents had experienced a breakup of their cohabiting relationships. What's the divorce rate again?

[coyotes_geek]

Marrying anyway outside of god cheapens marriage.

Only for people who use the actions of others as the basis for valuing their own marriages. Personally, the Mrs. CG and myself choose to value our marriage solely on the love we have for each other, and God, and that the only thing that could possibly cheapen our marriage is our own actions. That's why we don't view other people making lifestyle choices that we may not agree with as a threat to our marriage, nor are we the least bit concerned over the concept of some government, created by men, passing a law giving those people the same legal rights that we have. We're not concerned because what other people do does not affect our love for each other. If you do feel that your marriage is threatened by people living lifestyles you don't agree with getting to use the same "marriage" term as you do, well, it's my opinion that you are the one cheapening your marriage. Not them.

[rjv]

relationships in america have already been redefined. adultery is at all an time high, the divorce rate is at 50%, kids are having children. but somehow we want to blame homosexuals for the decay of the sanctity of marriage?

[FromWayDowntown]

Still no answer about whether allowing marriages between those heteros who are incapable or unwilling to have children would cheapen the institution?

[BacktoBasics]

I don't look at it as being redefined. It was wrongfully redefined by organized religion in the first place. This is simply allowing the union to be what it was originally intended to be.

Time and time again I ask "what is it about marriage that makes you people, or the church, think its yours to define in the first place". The sanctity of marriage was never yours to define. It existed in many forms long before the church redefined it as a man/woman union. You people took it (stole it) and modeled it to fit your belief structure for your own benefit.

[spursncowboys]

Still no answer about whether allowing marriages between those heteros who are incapable or unwilling to have children would cheapen the institution?

Marrying outside of god cheapens the institution. str8, gay, whtever. The difference with str8 couples marrying is they can start to live in god's ways. People choosing to be in a homosexual relationship are not living godly.

[spursncowboys]

I don't look at it as being redefined. It was wrongfully redefined by organized religion in the first place. This is simply allowing the union to be what it was originally intended to be.

Time and time again I ask "what is it about marriage that makes you people, or the church, think its yours to define in the first place". The sanctity of marriage was never yours to define. It existed in many forms long before the church redefined it as a man/woman union. You people took it (stole it) and modeled it to fit your belief structure for your own benefit.
fail
what society promoted the practice of homosexuality?

[spursncowboys]

relationships in america have already been redefined. adultery is at all an time high, the divorce rate is at 50%, kids are having children. but somehow we want to blame homosexuals for the decay of the sanctity of marriage?

These are not marriage. Marriage is nothing about adultery and divorce. Marriage is decaying because of a variety of problems. One of them being the normalization of people being involved in homosexual relationships.

[ChumpDumper]

So living outside God's way should be outlawed.

Nice.

[spursncowboys]

So living outside God's way should be outlawed.

Nice.

What about laws? Somebody brought up laws. The only laws I brought up is the loss of every referendum by every state that tries to redefine marriage.
Once again what someone does in his own house is none of my business. Is that what we are talking about? No.

[ChumpDumper]

What about laws? Somebody brought up laws. The only laws I brought up is the loss of every referendum by every state that tries to redefine marriage.So you understand you want people living outside your definition of God's way outlawed.

Nice.

[BacktoBasics]

fail
what society promoted the practice of homosexuality?Ancient Greece is one that comes right to mind. There are many others. I'm not going to do your homework for you but the practice, and acceptance, of homosexuality has been prominent throughout time.

Also the union of "marriage" used to carry a much more broad scope. People married inanimate objects as well as animals, creatures, pets so on and so forth.


The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated.

[mogrovejo]

People who don't have problems with a government redefinition of marriage in order to allow gay marriage because marriage isn't about an established tradition, matrimony, the rights of those already married or those who dont' want to marry, etc., because it's only about a contract between "consenting adults" don't have any kind of argument to be opposed to state sponsored siblings marriage, dad and daughter marriage (including a 50 years old dad marrying a 13 years old daughter - if government can redefine marriage why can't it redefine what an adult is? Well, it already does.), polygamist marriage and so on.


I don't look at it as being redefined. It was wrongfully redefined by organized religion in the first place. This is simply allowing the union to be what it was originally intended to be.

I'd like you to clarify your historical point of view about marriage.

In any case, it's important to differentiate what is spontaneous change - that decided in liberty by individuals and organizations - and a "made order" - that imposed by the coercive power of state. To put it simply: nobody is required to belong to a church.

[ChumpDumper]

People who don't have problems with a government redefinition of marriage in order to allow gay marriage because marriage isn't about an established tradition, matrimony, the rights of those already married or those who dont' want to marry, etc., because it's only about a contract between "consenting adults" don't have any kind of argument to be opposed to state sponsored siblings marriage, dad and daughter marriage (including a 50 years old dad marrying a 13 years old daughter - if government can redefine marriage why can't it redefine what an adult is? Well, it already does.), polygamist marriage and so on.I absolutely have an argument.

The government definition of marriage is already arbitrary, so there is no problem in having that arbitrary definition changed to another.

[Blake]

fail
what society promoted the practice of homosexuality?

the Dutch legalized gay marriage in 2001.

close enough.

[Blake]

Marrying outside of god cheapens the institution. str8, gay, whtever. The difference with str8 couples marrying is they can start to live in god's ways. People choosing to be in a homosexual relationship are not living godly.

and if they fail to live in god's ways they can get a godly divorce.

at least they made an attempt at pushing our society forward by getting married in a church.

[BacktoBasics]

I'd like you to clarify your historical point of view about marriage.






The first known marriages occurred in ancient Egypt. There had been human mating, similar to English common law marriage, long before there were official weddings.

The first marriages were public religious ceremonies commemorating the union of the Egyptian Goddesses Bast and Sekhmet in the creation myth of the Cosmic Orgasm. The high priestess of Bast and the high priestess of Sekhmet took on the roles of their respective Goddesses for the public festivities.

This first marriage ceremony was widely popular.

Other temples in ancient Egypt quickly copied the idea, with grand public marriage ceremonies for their favoried deities (most commonly male/female couples).

It wasn’t long before the wedding ceremony spread from a religious celebration of divine unions to a religious celebration of human unions sanctified by the divine.

This was the origin of marriage and weddings.

And the first version was specifically lesbian.

While heterosexual marriage was the most common form in ancient Egypt, gay and lesbian marriages continued until outlawed by Christians.


Honestly I'd like to find something a little closer to our time but still before Christianity but I've got a lot of work right now before I leave for the day. A quick google should still suffice for "a little clarity" on the fact that marriage was long defined before the current modern day structure.

[BacktoBasics]

at least they made an attempt at pushing our society forward by getting married in a church.You've got to be kidding me. The church "pushes society forward".

Sincerely,

An 8 year old alter boys penis

[BacktoBasics]

I didn't realize that was Blake.

I should clarify for you as well.

I was being sarcastic.

[Blake]

I didn't realize that was Blake.

I should clarify for you as well.

I was being sarcastic.

I should clarify as well.

Me too.

[BacktoBasics]

I should clarify as well.

Me too.:bang I know I was piggy backing.

[rjv]

These are not marriage. Marriage is nothing about adultery and divorce. Marriage is decaying because of a variety of problems. One of them being the normalization of people being involved in homosexual relationships.

what are the other problems? are you actually implying that adultery is not one these problems?

[rjv]

:bang I know I was piggy backing.

you might not want to use that term around some of these mcarthysists in here.

[ChumpDumper]

you might want to use that term around some of these mcarthysists in here.Well, even if they piggyback each other, at least they can't get married.

[mogrovejo]

What the heck is www.prntrkmt.org? That text isn't even signed. Please refer to scholarly sources, books or peer-reviewd papers. Westermark is a good starting point, but there are many others investigative sources on the history of marriage. I have good organized bibliography that I can send you if you need one (I once had to wrote a paper on non-fault divorce and the Coase theorem).

In any case, I have to point out the irony: you started by bashing the role of organized religion on marriage, saying it was wrongfully redefined by them in the first place and that now the state should embark in the process of returning to some kind of pure, original definition of marriage. Then you put out some text about the Ancient Egypt. Are you aware Ancient Egypt was a fucking theocracy?

[BacktoBasics]

What the heck is www.prntrkmt.org? That text isn't even signed. Please refer to scholarly sources, books or peer-reviewd papers. Westermark is a good starting point, but there are many others investigative sources on the history of marriage. I have good organized bibliography that I can send you if you need one (I once had to wrote a paper on non-fault divorce and the Coase theorem).

In any case, I have to point out the irony: you started by bashing the role of organized religion on marriage, saying it was wrongfully redefined by them in the first place and that now the state should embark in the process of returning to some kind of pure, original definition of marriage. Then you put out some text about the Ancient Egypt. Are you aware Ancient Egypt was a fucking theocracy?The source is irrelevant, its widespread knowledge, and I told you I did a quick google just to provide a quote that exemplifies it better than I can. (Theocracy) I'm aware of the irony. We aren't dissecting the inner workings of society and all its rights or wrongs. I'm simply pointing out the fact that homosexual unions existed long before Christianity jumped in and began practicing "gods" version. Marriage existed throughout time. It wasn't until modern day Christianity that we're faced with some kind of "definition" of what marriage is or isn't supposed to be.

The idea of marriage being about a man and a woman solely is based on opinion and preference rooted in bigoted corrupt organized religion. I use it as an argument because thumpers for some reason feel that the sanctity of marriage is theirs to define....only that is was defined many many of thousands of years before their bigoted ways.

[mogrovejo]

Ok, I've seen you won't answer my question and that you hate Christianity. You're still wrong though (I can't care less of your angry rantings about bigots or whatever but I hold historical accuracy in a high regard). Ever heard about the Code of Hammurabi?

[BacktoBasics]

Ok, I've seen you won't answer my question and that you hate Christianity. You're still wrong though (I can't care less of your angry rantings about bigots or whatever but I hold historical accuracy in a high regard). Ever heard about the Code of Hammurabi?I answered your question. There are numerous examples of same sex unions throughout history its common knowledge. How many examples do you need. Ancient Greece. China. Europe. I don't know what more you want. It existed and was accepted on many levels since man first organized unions.

I'm not particularly familiar with the Code of Hammurabi.

I'm not a fan of the Christians. I do believe that they're at the root of this issue.

[ChumpDumper]

Hammurabi? Was he a Christian?

[BacktoBasics]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/

more modern examples.

[mogrovejo]

I answered your question. There are numerous examples of same sex unions throughout history its common knowledge. How many examples do you need. Ancient Greece. China. Europe. I don't know what more you want. It existed and was accepted on many levels since man first organized unions.

I'm not particularly familiar with the Code of Hammurabi.

I'm not a fan of the Christians. I do believe that they're at the root of this issue.

That wasn't my question. I asked for evidence that it was organized religion that re-defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman departing from some precedent norm that existed somewhere in the past. So far you've given one example of a theocratic society, ruled by organized society, where marriage as a union between people of the same sex was tolerated and a very uncommon event.

What I want to see is that correlation between the prevalence of organized religion and a dominance of a one definition of marriage.

Once again, if you need an extensive bibliography on the history of marriage I can e-mail it to you.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/

more modern examples.

I think that the thesis of equating affrèrements to marriages is, to put it gently, peculiar.

But are you aware that with this link you undermine your entire position? Never an organized Christian Church was as powerful as it was in medieval Europe (perhaps with the exception of the late Roman Empire). Affrèrements are a medievalist institution (and related to the inheritance/taxation laws, btw).

[ChumpDumper]

I asked for evidence that it was organized religion that re-defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman departing from some precedent norm that existed somewhere in the past.There are many examples of polygamy and incestuous marriage before it was redefined as a union between one man and woman who aren't related.

It's all pretty arbitrary, so I'm fine with expanding the arbitrary definition to include two members of the same sex who aren't related.

[BacktoBasics]

What I want to see is that correlation between the prevalence of organized religion and a dominance of a one definition of marriage.


I don't need to provide a correlation because its their argument. Its all we hear. "A marriage in Gods eyes is between a man and a woman"..."The bible says..."..."Jesus intended a marriage to be".

The entire basis of what currently defines a marriage is rooted in the so called word of Christ. I provided evidence, common knowledge, that unions contrary to modern day thinking not only originated many years prior but existed throughout history.

Man/Man Woman/Woman Man/Object Man/Animal those unions have existed and were accepted in many societies before and after Christ. I don't know what more you want. The people that are holding gay people hostage are doing so in the name of God or Christlike beliefs...or a multitude of modern day religious thinking.

[FromWayDowntown]

Marrying outside of god cheapens the institution. str8, gay, whtever. The difference with str8 couples marrying is they can start to live in god's ways. People choosing to be in a homosexual relationship are not living godly.

So if a person is physically incapable of bearing children, is he or she just not living a godly life? Will marriage suddenly make a barren woman fertile or do away with a man's impotency? And, if not, should the barren woman and the impotent man be allowed to marry, knowing full well that they have no chance to bear children?

[spursncowboys]

So if a person is physically incapable of bearing children, is he or she just not living a godly life? Will marriage suddenly make a barren woman fertile or do away with a man's impotency? And, if not, should the barren woman and the impotent man be allowed to marry, knowing full well that they have no chance to bear children? What is wrong with adopting if they want. Jesus never said we have to conceive.
Mathew 19:10-12
10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

As a society, we have to have more offspring to counter the elderly and dieing.

[FromWayDowntown]

What is wrong with adopting if they want. Jesus never said we have to conceive.
Mathew 19:10-12
10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

As a society, we have to have more offspring to counter the elderly and dieing.

Homosexuals can adopt, too. Most States permit same-sex couples to jointly petition to adopt and where challenged, laws prohibiting adoption by same-sex couples have (at least on some occasions) been ruled unconstitutional. So if adoption fosters the godly concerns that worry you so (at least in the context of ensuring that married couples will raise children), why doesn't the legalization of adoption by same-sex couples alleviate that fear?

[spursncowboys]

Homosexuals can adopt, too. Most States permit same-sex couples to jointly petition to adopt and where challenged, laws prohibiting adoption by same-sex couples have (at least on some occasions) been ruled unconstitutional. So if adoption fosters the godly concerns that worry you so (at least in the context of ensuring that married couples will raise children), why doesn't the legalization of adoption by same-sex couples alleviate that fear?
You are assuming too much, in regards to me.

[Blake]

You are assuming too much, in regards to me.

what's your definition of a healthy marriage?

[Blake]

:bang I know I was piggy backing.

Zing! Good one.

[Blake]

Zing! Good one.

I should clarify.

I'm being sarcastic.

[FromWayDowntown]

You are assuming too much, in regards to me.

So you're cool with adoption by same-sex couples and realize now that this worry about gay people not being able to have children is really a pretty ridiculous argument in support of your position? Or is it that you aren't really afraid of same-sex couples marrying and violating your view of God's plan, but find that contesting the redefinition of marriage suits your need to be overt with your homophobia?

[Strike]

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-06-25/1245957623862.jpg

[admiralsnackbar]

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-06-25/1245957623862.jpg

Spoken like a true divorcee :lol

[Strike]

Spoken like a true divorcee :lol

:lol Almost. Except no alimony, no child support. :toast

[admiralsnackbar]

:lol Almost. Except no alimony, no child support. :toast

Bastard. Livin' the dream :lol

[mogrovejo]

Let's sum this up so far:

BacktoBasics: Marriage was wrongfully redefined by organized religion in the first place. This is simply allowing the union to be what it was originally intended to be.

Me: Huh? Can you provide some data that sustains your stance?

BacktoBasics: Sure!! Here's an article stating that same-sex unions were tolerated in a theocracy! And here's another one stating same-sex unions were tolerated in Europe during the middle-ages, when the power and influence of the Catholic Church was at his peak.

Me: .......

BacktoBasics: I hate churches, I hate Christians, it's all their fault, bla, bla, google it, everybody knows, I hate them, bla bla.


The entire basis of what currently defines a marriage is rooted in the so called word of Christ.

This is another historical and factual inaccuracy.


Man/Man Woman/Woman Man/Object Man/Animal those unions have existed and were accepted in many societies before and after Christ

Another one. Same-sex unions, from a functional perspective, have never been the norm. They have been more or less tolerated in some societies, but mostly as an union between a woman and another women.


I don't need to provide a correlation because its their argument. Its all we hear. "A marriage in Gods eyes is between a man and a woman"..."The bible says..."..."Jesus intended a marriage to be".

Bullshit. There are many people opposed to the state-sanctioned homosexual marriages who don't base their POV in any kind of religious arguments. You can read every one of my posts and I bet you won't find a single theological-based argument. In fact, I think one would have trouble to find someone who mentioned religion and churches more than you about this issue.

In my view this isn't a religious issue de per si, rather a political one. Ironically (but not surprising), you're the one framing it from a religious perspective. Why isn't it surprising? I understand you have some very deep and personal hostile feelings towards religions, churches and Christians. I couldn't care less, but you are as much as a fanatic as one of those crazy fundamentalists. As a French communist famously said to Engels, "enfin, l'athéisme c'est votre religion" - and I'd say that for any defender of the cause of liberty, you are no less repugnant than a totalitarian theocrat.

However, the fact that this isn't a religious issue doesn't make arguments based on religion less valid. Laws are always informed by ethics and morals. And ethics and morals have always been, before and after Christ, motorized by religious thought. The idea that the public (political) discussion should be verboten territory to religious arguments is totalitarian in itself and would basically lead to the exclusion of a majority of the people and existent doctrine from the public sphere. And as guys like Stalin could explain, it's not only a bad idea but one that doesn't even work.

Finally, there's a risible component on your argument: the focus on the Christian religion. I mean, have you never thought what's the dominant religion on countries where homosexuality tends to be more tolerated? Have you never thought a second about this? If there are societies opened to same-sex marriage are those with a prevalence of Christians. Some schools of Hinduism may be au par, but that's all. And this is what makes your arguments, more than inaccurate, completely at odds with reality.

[ChumpDumper]

Same-sex unions, from a functional perspective, have never been the norm. They have been more or less tolerated in some societies, but mostly as an union between a woman and another women.No shit?

You mean homosexuals have always been a minority?

Amazing!

[BacktoBasics]

Let's sum this up so far:

BacktoBasics: Marriage was wrongfully redefined by organized religion in the first place. This is simply allowing the union to be what it was originally intended to be.

Me: Huh? Can you provide some data that sustains your stance?

BacktoBasics: Sure!! Here's an article stating that same-sex unions were tolerated in a theocracy! And here's another one stating same-sex unions were tolerated in Europe during the middle-ages, when the power and influence of the Catholic Church was at his peak.

Me: .......

BacktoBasics: I hate churches, I hate Christians, it's all their fault, bla, bla, google it, everybody knows, I hate them, bla bla.



This is another historical and factual inaccuracy.



Another one. Same-sex unions, from a functional perspective, have never been the norm. They have been more or less tolerated in some societies, but mostly as an union between a woman and another women.



Bullshit. There are many people opposed to the state-sanctioned homosexual marriages who don't base their POV in any kind of religious arguments. You can read every one of my posts and I bet you won't find a single theological-based argument. In fact, I think one would have trouble to find someone who mentioned religion and churches more than you about this issue.

In my view this isn't a religious issue de per si, rather a political one. Ironically (but not surprising), you're the one framing it from a religious perspective. Why isn't it surprising? I understand you have some very deep and personal hostile feelings towards religions, churches and Christians. I couldn't care less, but you are as much as a fanatic as one of those crazy fundamentalists. As a French communist famously said to Engels, "enfin, l'athéisme c'est votre religion" - and I'd say that for any defender of the cause of liberty, you are no less repugnant than a totalitarian theocrat.

However, the fact that this isn't a religious issue doesn't make arguments based on religion less valid. Laws are always informed by ethics and morals. And ethics and morals have always been, before and after Christ, motorized by religious thought. The idea that the public (political) discussion should be verboten territory to religious arguments is totalitarian in itself and would basically lead to the exclusion of a majority of the people and existent doctrine from the public sphere. And as guys like Stalin could explain, it's not only a bad idea but one that doesn't even work.

Finally, there's a risible component on your argument: the focus on the Christian religion. I mean, have you never thought what's the dominant religion on countries where homosexuality tends to be more tolerated? Have you never thought a second about this? If there are societies opened to same-sex marriage are those with a prevalence of Christians. Some schools of Hinduism may be au par, but that's all. And this is what makes your arguments, more than inaccurate, completely at odds with reality.

Okay.

[spursncowboys]

what's your definition of a healthy marriage?

one man + one woman for life. Becoming one.

[spursncowboys]

So you're cool with adoption by same-sex couples and realize now that this worry about gay people not being able to have children is really a pretty ridiculous argument in support of your position? Or is it that you aren't really afraid of same-sex couples marrying and violating your view of God's plan, but find that contesting the redefinition of marriage suits your need to be overt with your homophobia?

Once again you assume and insinuate. Let's stay on marriage between people of the same sex. It has nothing to do with being afraid of two people of the same sex becoming in a union and calling it a marriage.

[ChumpDumper]

Once again you assume and insinuate. Let's stay on marriage between people of the same sex. It has nothing to do with being afraid of two people of the same sex becoming in a union and calling it a marriage.So what are you afraid of?

[spursncowboys]

So what are you afraid of?

batman

[ChumpDumper]

batmanThat explains a lot, your being afraid of fictional characters and all. Many of your fears are imagined and based on make-believe.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, I find it stunning that Heritage thinks that the health and survival of thousands of marriages of God-fearing, churchgoing families is completely dependent on the government's refusal to allow gays to marry.

Is that really the foundation of those marriages?

[coyotes_geek]

one man + one woman for life. Becoming one.

Actually I think you left some stuff out.

one man + one woman + laws forcing everyone to abide by my definition of marriage + politicians who think like i do, for life*.

* "life" being defined as either all the time before death, or for as long as the man and the woman fee like. Whichever comes first.

[spursncowboys]

Seriously, I find it stunning that Heritage thinks that the health and survival of thousands of marriages of God-fearing, churchgoing families is completely dependent on the government's refusal to allow gays to marry.

Is that really the foundation of those marriages?

I hope you seriously are not interpretting it like that. You need to reexamine that data.

[ChumpDumper]

I hope you seriously are not interpretting it like that. You need to reexamine that data.What other way is it to be interpreted?

Tell me exactly how you interpret the Heritage article.

[baseline bum]

Didn't this same Heritage Foundation project us being out of Iraq something like 3 months after invasion?

[exstatic]

What is wrong with adopting if they want. Jesus never said we have to conceive.
Mathew 19:10-12
10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

As a society, we have to have more offspring to counter the elderly and dieing.

Typical religiot response. HEY!!! We don't need more people. We've got 7 BILLION of them already. In 25 years, people won't even care about oil. They'll be begging for clean drinkable water and food.

Only religions want people to breed like rabbits to keep their particular sect growing. Logical people recognize that there is a finite amount of space and resources on this planet.

[Blake]

one man + one woman for life. Becoming one.

is this in the context of making for a productive society or is it more of a religious view?

also, is happiness a factor in your definition of 'healthy' or is it irrelevant?

[spursncowboys]

also, is happiness a factor in your definition of 'healthy' or is it irrelevant?

Is happiness ever a factor of marriage?

[Blake]

Is happiness ever a factor of marriage?

yes.

is it always a factor in your defnition of healthy?

[mogrovejo]

Typical religiot response. HEY!!! We don't need more people. We've got 7 BILLION of them already. In 25 years, people won't even care about oil. They'll be begging for clean drinkable water and food.

Only religions want people to breed like rabbits to keep their particular sect growing. Logical people recognize that there is a finite amount of space and resources on this planet.

LOL, the inevitable famine, the pest and the plague! Malthusianism will never die, it seems, no matter for how long reality proves it wrong.


The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world:depressed

[spursncowboys]

yes.

is it always a factor in your defnition of healthy?

Sorry. Bad joke. Happiness is definitely apart of healthy. Large amounts of being unhappy is probably as unhealthy as you can be.

[Winehole23]

LOL, the inevitable famine, the pest and the plague! Malthusianism will never die, it seems, no matter how long reality proves it wrong. Ain't it awful?

[Blake]

Sorry. Bad joke. Happiness is definitely apart of healthy.

my point coming is based on you answering the other question.

Are you making up your definition from a religious view or a productive society view?

[jack sommerset]

:lol at two dudes wanting to get married. GAY!!!!!!!!!!!

[spursncowboys]

my point coming is based on you answering the other question.

Are you making up your definition from a religious view or a productive society view?

The religious aspect.

[FromWayDowntown]

Once again you assume and insinuate. Let's stay on marriage between people of the same sex. It has nothing to do with being afraid of two people of the same sex becoming in a union and calling it a marriage.

But, wait -- you've argued that the reason that we need marriage to be defined as a union between a man and a woman is to ensure propagation of the species and maintain a familial unit for the purposes of child rearing. If that's the overarching justification for your definition, it sure seems to me that facts demonstrating that: (a) marriage is no guarantee of reproduction -- both because unmarried couples reproduce and because heterosexual married couples may choose not to reproduce or may be unable to do so; and (b) state after state recognizes that same sex couples are adequately situated to raise children. What's curious about this "debate" to this point, is that you've offered nothing to counter either of those propositions, both of which run contrary to the fundamental point of your argument. That leaves me to believe -- reasonably, I think -- that you disagree with the prospect of redefining marriage to include same sex couples not on some logically principled ground, but on the basis of either your own subjective religious belief or some unfounded fear.

[spursncowboys]

But, wait -- you've argued that the reason that we need marriage to be defined as a union between a man and a woman is to ensure propagation of the species and maintain a familial unit for the purposes of child rearing. If that's the overarching justification for your definition, it sure seems to me that facts demonstrating that: (a) marriage is no guarantee of reproduction -- both because unmarried couples reproduce and because heterosexual married couples may choose not to reproduce or may be unable to do so; and (b) state after state recognizes that same sex couples are adequately situated to raise children. What's curious about this "debate" to this point, is that you've offered nothing to counter either of those propositions, both of which run contrary to the fundamental point of your argument. That leaves me to believe -- reasonably, I think -- that you disagree with the prospect of redefining marriage to include same sex couples not on some logically principled ground, but on the basis of either your own subjective religious belief or some unfounded fear.
Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. I am not trying to redefine. I just do not find any argument valid enough for redefining it. There are many studies done about the effects of a break down of the traditional family unit. With all this "let people live their life and be happy", I just found it interesting to see these stats.
a. Being married has nothing to do with procreating. However a man and woman can make a baby. The same sex cannot.
b. The state allowing non-married couples, gay couples or straight, to raise children could be a bi-product of the lowering of our morals and value; or the fact that their problem of having children raised without parents are far worse than raised by a family out of wedlock.

Most of my objection to gay marriage comes from my belief in what my religion teaches what marriage starts off as to what it becomes and finally what it turns into. Furthermore, is my belief that your sexual preference is just that-a preference. I feel people choose to have relationships with the same sex. Finally is the fact that the justification many people say about redefining marriage is that it holds no meaning as it is now. That should

[Blake]

The religious aspect.

If it's from a religious aspect, then why are divorce rates the same, if not worse for the religious segment of the population getting married than the atheist or agnostic segment of the population?

if God blesses a marriage that was done the right way, then why is it failing around 1/3 of the time?

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

[ChumpDumper]

Marriage is defined as one man and one woman.After it was redefined.

[Blake]

b. The state allowing non-married couples, gay couples or straight, to raise children could be a bi-product of the lowering of our morals and value;

from your religious viewpoint?

because from a secular view I doubt you have anything substantial to back up your claim that it is lowering our morals and values to allow gays to raise kids.

[mogrovejo]

However, the fact that this isn't a religious issue doesn't make arguments based on religion less valid. Laws are always informed by ethics and morals. And ethics and morals have always been, before and after Christ, motorized by religious thought. The idea that the public (political) discussion should be verboten territory to religious arguments is totalitarian in itself and would basically lead to the exclusion of a majority of the people and existent doctrine from the public sphere.

[Blake]

And ethics and morals have always been, before and after Christ, motorized by religious thought.

that's untrue.

...but it's interesting you felt the need to say "before and after Christ"

:lol

[FromWayDowntown]

However, the fact that this isn't a religious issue doesn't make arguments based on religion less valid. Laws are always informed by ethics and morals. And ethics and morals have always been, before and after Christ, motorized by religious thought. The idea that the public (political) discussion should be verboten territory to religious arguments is totalitarian in itself and would basically lead to the exclusion of a majority of the people and existent doctrine from the public sphere.

I don't think that anyone checks his or her religious beliefs behind when engaging in debate, and I agree that religious values will frequently help to define policy initiatives. But I'd also suggest that when it appears that the sole supportable objection to a particular policy initiative is that it defies a perceived moral majority that stands, for all intents and purposes only upon an entrenched religious belief, the policy itself becomes questionable in a religiously and morally diverse society.

[spursncowboys]

If it's from a religious aspect, then why are divorce rates the same, if not worse for the religious segment of the population getting married than the atheist or agnostic segment of the population?

if God blesses a marriage that was done the right way, then why is it failing around 1/3 of the time?

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

It is not that god automatically blesses a amarriage. any amount of sin will tear families apart. There are millions of reasons why anyone will live out of god's way. My point is is even after you divorce five times, that person could get married again and ask for forgiveness and live out of sin and be saved. A person marrying someone of the same sex cannot repent their sins and move closer to god, since they are living in sin. I am not saying being gay is a worse sin than any other.
As a culture there is only evidence that our society has advanced with a judeo-christian value backbone, since there has never been a successful society that allowed and promoted homosexual relationships.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/Map_of_Religion.pdf

[Winehole23]

The idea that the public (political) discussion should be verboten territory to religious arguments is totalitarian in itself and would basically lead to the exclusion of a majority of the people and existent doctrine from the public sphere.Again, that's not yet been stipulated, that I'm aware of. You just suggested it, Sir.

Was your intention to deflate the argument proleptically, or were you responding to someone who actually made it in this thread? Just curious.

[mogrovejo]

that's untrue.

...but it's interesting you felt the need to say "before and after Christ"

:lol

Is it? Maybe you should read the thread, hum?

[mogrovejo]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3909867&postcount=76

[Winehole23]

Another pellet of self-quotation. Classic.

[Winehole23]

The idea that the public (political) discussion should be verboten territory to religious argumentsWas never asserted by B2B in the posted. You did not assert it, I think.

Who did?

[mogrovejo]

Rawls among many others - marxists, for example. And it was certainly implied by B2B and others in their responses.

[Winehole23]

Rawls among many others - marxists, for example.My point exactly. You were spinning your wheels, not responding to actual posters.


And it was certainly implied by B2B and others in their responses.Bullshit. Where?

[mogrovejo]

My point exactly. You were spinning your wheels, not responding to actual posters.

LOL You have some kind of obsession with me responding to other posters, don't you?

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3918904&postcount=18


Bullshit. Where?

I've already said: in the replies.

-----

Do you do anything here besides trolling around arguing technicalities and formalities?

[Winehole23]

I've already said: in the replies.I think not.

Care to point out the pertinent language?

[mogrovejo]

I think not.

Good, we have different interpretations.

[Winehole23]

Do you do anything here besides trolling around arguing technicalities and formalities?If mentioning something twice makes me a troll, or obsessed, you've already gone completely over the edge with Edmund Burke.

[Winehole23]

Good, we have different interpretations.You can't back it up, can you?

[mogrovejo]

If mentioning something twice makes me a troll, or obsessed, you've already gone completely over the edge with Edmund Burke.

The problem isn't the repetition de per si, rather in what the repetition falls upon.

[Winehole23]

The problem isn't the repetition de per si (http://www.ciberduvidas.com/pergunta.php?id=16460), rather in what the repetition falls upon.How paterfamilias of you to say so.

[spursncowboys]

from your religious viewpoint?

because from a secular view I doubt you have anything substantial to back up your claim that it is lowering our morals and values to allow gays to raise kids.

actually u are the one without anything substantial except a distorted view of rights and your feel good stand. However when have I said something as to object about gays raising kids? I would like to see this. Maybe my writing is misinterpreted.

[spursncowboys]

I don't think that anyone checks his or her religious beliefs behind when engaging in debate, and I agree that religious values will frequently help to define policy initiatives. But I'd also suggest that when it appears that the sole supportable objection to a particular policy initiative is that it defies a perceived moral majority that stands, for all intents and purposes only upon an entrenched religious belief, the policy itself becomes questionable in a religiously and morally diverse society.

I don't think anyone has done that here, so that is straw.

[Blake]

Is it? Maybe you should read the thread, hum?

It is.

What does me reading the thread have to do with you proving that ethics and morals, before and after Christ, have always been motorized by religious thought? Maybe you should post a source, hum?

btw, you misused the word "motorized". I'm guessing you meant "motored".

[mogrovejo]

It is.

What does me reading the thread have to do with you proving that ethics and morals, before and after Christ, have always been motorized by religious thought? Maybe you should post a source, hum?

btw, you misused the word "motorized". I'm guessing you meant "motored".

You accused me of "feeling the need to say "before and after Christ"". If you could read the thread you could see I was quoting, ipsis verbis, the poster I was replying to.

[Blake]

actually u are the one without anything substantial except a distorted view of rights and your feel good stand. However when have I said something as to object about gays raising kids? I would like to see this. Maybe my writing is misinterpreted.

no, you pretty clearly mentioned that allowing gays to raise kids would be a bi-product of our lowering of morals and values.

maybe you misinterpreted your writing.

[Blake]

You accused me of "feeling the need to say "before and after Christ"". If you could read the thread you could see I was quoting, ipsis verbis, the poster I was replying to.

so you are saying you didn't feel the need to say "before and after Christ"?

[Blake]

since there has never been a successful society that allowed and promoted homosexual relationships.


so now you are going out of religious context into the secular world?

how have the Dutch been doing since they allowed same sex marriage back in 2001?

has God gone Sodom on them yet?

honestly, you're either ignorant or you're an idiot. Probably a bit of both.

[spursncowboys]

no, you pretty clearly mentioned that allowing gays to raise kids would be a bi-product of our lowering of morals and values.

maybe you misinterpreted your writing.

I misinterpret that you are not an idiot. I just spent ten minutes of my life (rereading my posts to see wtf you are talking about) that I can never get back. You are a very bad man peter.

[Blake]

I don't think that anyone checks his or her religious beliefs behind when engaging in debate,

quick, what's my religious belief?

[mogrovejo]

so you are saying you didn't feel the need to say "before and after Christ"?

No, I'm saying that I can't see what's particularly "interesting" about quoting the expression used by another poster while replying to him. But you'll surely explain.

[Blake]

I misinterpret that you are not an idiot. I just spent ten minutes of my life (rereading my posts to see wtf you are talking about) that I can never get back. You are a very bad man peter.

I just spent 15 seconds of my life reading this unintelligible post that I'll never get back.

You are a very bad poster.

[Blake]

No, I'm saying that I can't see what's particularly "interesting" about quoting the expression used by another poster while replying to him. But you'll surely explain.

you didn't really quote the expression and I don't think the poster has posted in a while.

[spursncowboys]

I just spent 15 seconds of my life reading this unintelligible post that I'll never get back.

You are a very bad poster.

That is like Ted Kennedy attacking Robert Bork. It is like an acknowledgement that you are doing a good job.

[Blake]

That is like Ted Kennedy attacking Robert Bork. It is like an acknowledgement that you are doing a good job.

Not really. It's now pretty well documented that you are doing a terrible job.

[spursncowboys]

Not really. It's now pretty well documented that you are doing a terrible job.

:idiot

[Blake]

:idiot

terrible job again.

[spursncowboys]

terrible job again.

I can always do a better job. You will always be an idiot.