Do you support imposing your belief system on non-believers?

[Dan123]

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.

I’m still interested in the difference between a childless heterosexual couple and a childless homosexual couple. Usually when asked about the unique and special bond people always point to the procreative nature of a man and woman, but that doesn’t exist for a couple that either chooses not to have kids or where one or both is sterile. Is there a succinct way to describe the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage that includes sterile and childless couples but excludes homosexual couples?

 

[upant]

Take on roles? Are there roles that a wife must do and some that are just for husbands?

what were these thrown out when the definition changed?

no, marriage means different things to different people. will your definition work in Saudi Arabia?

 

[Sarcelle]

Marriage has already been redefined long before the appearance of gay marriage activists.

With the coming of birth control and then no fault divorce laws, marriage has already been reduced to a contract two people make for mutual gain and support.

Gay marriage proponents basically use this same definition that heterosexuals use of marriage.

 

[Rau]

Is there a succinct way to describe the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage that includes sterile and childless couples but excludes homosexual couples?

Why do you take a specific relationship rather than see the set as a whole? To deny the uniqueness of the marital relationship of man and woman is to declare black is white.

 

[Pattylt]

I’m adopted. In 1952…my parents used to read me a little storybook called, The Chosen Baby. I don’t remember ever not knowing I was adopted and chosen. It definitely helps when adopted children go through the usual traumas of realizing what that means.

 

[Dan123]

Why do you take a specific relationship rather than see the set as a whole? To deny the uniqueness of the marital relationship of man and woman is to declare black is white.

I see homosexual couples as in love and dedicated to each other as any heterosexual couple I know, married or not. I do not see one type of relationship as intrinsically more capable of love and devotion than another.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Take on roles? Are there roles that a wife must do and some that are just for husbands?

what were these thrown out when the definition changed?

no, marriage means different things to different people. will your definition work in Saudi Arabia?

I think that ‘roles’ for people in a marriage has something of a quaint connotation. But we both agree that the meaning of marriage is different for different people so if a couple want to designate what role they will play in the marriage then that’s up to them.

And no, my definition wouldn’t work in Saudi Aurabia. Or Nigeria. Or Iran. Or a depressingly relatively long list of countries where you can be executed for just having gay sex. But you knew that anyway, so I’m not sure why you asked. Was it to make a point?

 

[Joe_5859]

Absolutely. The legalization of same sex marriage came after a long period of time where we as a culture increasingly lost sight of what marriage actually is. It’s more the consequence than it is the cause.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Absolutely. The legalization of same sex marriage came after a long period of time where we as a culture increasingly lost sight of what marriage actually is.

Yes, and for the longest time the culture of “what marriage actually is” involved whites marrying whites, blacks marrying blacks, and so on. Not all changes in culture are bad.

 

[phil3]

There needs to be only two types of law our governments either accept or create.

Natural rights- those are right that exist because I am human

Then there are laws that are created because we have civilized,

 

[Rau]

I do not see one type of relationship as intrinsically more capable of love and devotion than another.

That’s fine.

 

[upant]

Was it to make a point?

just to show it is a change of definition and not accepted universally. some think the definition of marriage hasn’t changed.

So why do you insist marriage does not have multiple meanings?

I don’t, it does mean different things to different people. the original meaning has changed, some accept the new, others hang on to the old.

You are also free to consider that only a biological father can be a child’s parent.

didn’t say that either, I said “father” has multiple meanings.

Your rights are not being restricted because it is within a voluntary context - specifically interacting with other people.

not true at all, not agreeing with the agenda has consequences: loss of a job, loss of business, dropped book deals, not allowed to open a franchise, etc.

 

[upant]

Remember, gay marriage is legal. Your participation in activities that you disagree with is voluntary on your part. You are free to avoid them.

there is more to it than just avoid them. they want you to accept and agree with them.

if you don’t accept/agree with same-sex marriage, it has consequences: loss of a job, loss of business, dropped book deals, not allowed to open a franchise, etc.

 

[Rau]

there is more to it than just avoid them. they want you to accept and agree with them.

No one has control of your beliefs but you.

if you don’t accept/agree with same-sex marriage, it has consequences: loss of a job, loss of business, dropped book deals, not allowed to open a franchise, etc.

It’s true that some actions you may take, based on your beliefs, may land you in contravention of the law, of lead to various kinds of rejections by others. This is somewhat inherent in a “majority rules” democracy when your beliefs are not shared by the majority.

 

[Maximian]

There are two issues: giving homosexual couples equal rights, and giving them identical terminology.

It would have been better if the law had recognized civil unions between homosexuals, while reserving the word “marriage” to refer to heterosexual unions. This would have achieved the same result without causing offence to Christians who believe that marriage is a sacrament

 

[upant]

No one has control of your beliefs but you.

it is the external control they seek, things you don’t control. note the action below by the 2 banks, they were notified by a person with an agenda to have all businesses stop supporting anything that doesn’t accept the LGBT lifestyle. people/businesses want to donate but are shamed for donating.

Two of America’s largest banks will stop donating millions of dollars to Florida’s private school scholarship program after discovering that some of the beneficiaries discriminate against LGBTQ students.

The decisions come less than a week after an investigation conducted by the Orlando Sentinel which found that 156 private Christian schools have anti-gay views and teach more than 20,000 students across the state.

The paper reported: ‘Florida’s scholarship programs sent more than $129million to these religious institutions. That means at least 14 percent of Florida’s nearly 147,000 scholarship students last year attended private schools where homosexuality was condemned or, at a minimum, unwelcome.’ (daily mail)

It’s true that some actions you may take, based on your beliefs, may land you in contravention of the law, of lead to various kinds of rejections by others. This is somewhat inherent in a “majority rules” democracy when your beliefs are not shared by the majority.

it is a violation of your religious rights.

 

[Rau]

it is a violation of your religious rights.

Well, this is the conflict. What precisely are one’s religious rights? Does a Catholic school have a right to reject a potential employee because he is in a same sex marriage? Absent some religious exception, that action would be illegal under other laws.

 

[poche]

There was a time when that was the case.

 

[Neithan]

Absent some religious exception, that action would be illegal under other laws.

It’s a serious conflict, and unless we are willing to trample on freedom of conscience and expression, it needs to be resolved in favour of those freedoms. We cannot discriminate against people for what they are, but we can discriminate for what they do. A Catholic school cannot discriminate against a potential employee for their sexual attractions, but they can discriminate against a potential employee for entering a legal contract that places them in a direct conflict of interest.

This is why we need the government to quit any semblance of solemnity or sanctity that it deems to bestow on people’s relationships — we can look at Obergefell v. Hodges as an example of the legal system’s incapacity for dealing with this — because it’s interfering with fundamental freedoms.

 

[goout]

goout:

So I say 'hey, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and it makes heat and light and makes things grow"…

Those are scientific facts and cannot be disputed.

So let me see if I understand you…
when we say that men and women uniquely form something called “marriage”…because they uniquely among all relationships can form a family…

This is more of an intellectual concept and they can disagree with it since it is only philosophically evident. Besides the Church uses specific definition for clarity and a secular government has the freewill to use a different one if they want and that’s the reality.

It is only philosophically evident? Really?