R
Rau
Guest
Do adoptive parents really say that ?
N
Neithan
Guest
Since sodomy and fornication (especially in combination) spread disease, an argument can certainly be made that it is to the betterment of society that these practices be legally prohibited. It’s just not practical to use police resources though, so we’ve opted to place the burden on healthcare (one might argue that’s a better strategy for drug abuse as well). I think a monetary fine would be fine. If you place public health at risk, pay up. Of course that’s not going to be popular in a democratic government. As for same-sex relationships getting the same tax benefits as married couples, if all that is about is a licence for tax benefits then that was really a losing battle from the start.
Last edited:
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
As a bit of a tangent regarding imposing beliefs and marriage, what do the believers here feel about laws that require a non-religious person to either be married by a religious celebrant or by a judge? Some US states allow for non-religious celebrants while others still impose a religious requirement on celebrants.
N
Neithan
Guest
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Call them all civil partnerships and let people apply for them however they want to for whatever tax credits or deductions they feel entitled to. “Marriage” has been emptied of any essential meaning under the common law or civil law.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
The definition of marriage is ‘the process by which two people make their relationship public, official, and permanent’ (from Psychology Today). The meaning of marriage that those two people give it is entirely up to them. Nobody else is in a position to contradict it.
N
Neithan
Guest
Sure, we’re free to believe whatever we want about our relationships, whether or not they are physically possible (as long our psychology can define it) . And no need for the state to legally regulate that kind of pretense.
Last edited:
J
Jesuslover
Guest
Although I disagree that Jesus would support modern-day socialism, I do agree that America was not founded on Christian roots. Freedom is not a Christian value. Many of the Founding Fathers were Masons who believed in Deism rather than Christianity. In fact, Catholics were strongly discriminated against in this country well into the 20th century.
U
upant
Guest
marriage was between a man and a woman, the union of two people of the same sex being defined as marriage is new. it is a change, different from before and not universally accepted. in many parts of the world, it is still illegal.
apples and oranges. nothing is being redefined. father has multiple meanings.
F
Freddy
Guest
I wouldn’t say ‘believe’. That can imply that it may not be true. As in ‘you can believe it if you like’. The meaning that anyone gives to their relationship is not open for discussion. It is true for them.
Someone can argue that a gay marriage is not actually a marriage as they themselves define it and I can’t see any anyone putting up a reasonable argument why they shouldn’t be able to do that. But we can’t tell the people involved that is has no meaning. That’s for them to decide and for us to accept.
F
Freddy
Guest
It wasn’t so long ago that two men or women living together in a relationship was illegal. Good grief, it is still within living memory that even sex between two people of the same gender was illegal. And in some places still is for heaven’s sake. In some places the punishment is death. Have we moved on from that? You bet.
So now we don’t punish people for who they love. And we don’t mind them living together. A gay relaionship is looked on as being as valid as a hetrosexual one. So the obvious step has been taken to recognise the relationships as being a legally valid relationship.
I’m sorry that you feel the term marriage has been changed for the worse because of that. But it wasn’t your term to begin with.
U
upant
Guest
worse? i don’t see it in that term. I said it changed. The term is not what it was and really the secular meaning no longer agrees with the religious. why does this offend people?
R
Rau
Guest
The termed was not owned by anyone. But by and large it was widely understood to have a meaning that could not conceivably encompass 2 persons of the same sex. The majority was persuaded that denying gay people the “marriage badge” was unfair, and the lobbyists were clear that only the genuine badge would do.
F
Freddy
Guest
I don’t know. But I keep getting the feeling that religious people feel the word has been hijacked by the left/secularists/atheists/gay rights activists/lobbyists.Freddy:
worse? i don’t see it in that term. I said it changed. The term is not what it was and really the secular meaning no longer agrees with the religious. why does this offend people?
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
Yes, the meaning has changed. That’s not a bad thing in itself. You’re effectively saying that you prefer things the way they were. That’s understandable.Freddy:
The termed was not owned by anyone. But by and large it was widely understood to have a meaning that could not conceivably encompass 2 persons of the same sex. The majority was persuaded that denying gay people the “marriage badge” was unfair, and the lobbyists were clear that only the genuine badge would do.
U
upant
Guest
it just means different things to different people. how do you define husband and wife in gay marriage? do the partners actually take on these roles? or is it completely different? you just can’t assume it is all the same. it is a different thing altogether.
R
Rau
Guest
Correct.
I’m saying, in my opinion, society is better off acknowledging the uniqueness of the marital relationship of man and woman and not blurring that by incorporating other relationship types.
F
Freddy
Guest
It means this:Freddy:
it just means different things to different people. how do you define husband and wife in gay marriage? do the partners actually take on these roles? or is it completely different? you just can’t assume it is all the same. it is a different thing altogether.
Take on roles? Are there roles that a wife must do and some that are just for husbands?
F
Freddy
Guest
And I fully support you in the right to express that opinion.Freddy:
Correct.
I’m saying, in my opinion, society is better off acknowledging the uniqueness of the marital relationship of man and woman and not blurring that by incorporating other relationship types.
L
lilypadrees
Guest
Imposing my beliefs on others? No.
Discussing my beliefs with non believers when the topic comes up, yes.
Discussing my beliefs with non believers when the topic comes up, yes.
J
JMMJ
Guest
Exactly this.