Marriage, or no marriage

[da_nolo]

This is the only place I found that maintains a more political focus with a backing of Faith. so maybe this post is in the right place.

Recently, marriage has come under question as to what or who creates a family, which may benefit society, and what is or may be (U.S.) constitutionally legal or illegal.

Yes, this is about homosexuality marriages, and a possible solution to the division within the U.S. and maybe else where.

Currently; the ‘pro’ sides consider marriage a right for all.

still there are no readings w/in the constitution that satisfies an individuals right or belonging to any sort of life style. govt. can not and should not satisfy a possibility in which would open to forcing some into or out of any action.

in other words; if govt. had a legal obligation to give marriages, then they may take them away. in which then lies the question: who does govt. take away from?

then aren’t these so called civil ‘rights’ activist actually their own opposite? they accept that govt. may disallow any type of marriage, oh - but not theirs. govt. should never act in this manner. to focus the joys or likeness of the few (whether that be a majority or minority).

therefore I would propose this: no marriage.

Instead of leaning on govt. to decide what is or isn’t only to satisfy its own conception for citizen benefits. govt. should only accept what has come to be known as civil unions. allowing the final decision of marriage to being w. the person(s) it involves.

thoughts?

 

[SonCatcher]

There is great value in government recognizing marriages as marriages. Sadly, even for the last several decades it has not properly recognized marriage for what it is. The prevalence of “no-fault” divorce and marital contraception demonstrate this.

I do not support the government’s shifts but do recognize its autonomy. Hopefully, we can turn around our own members through good example and bring society to what God has called it to.

 

[tabycat]

I cannot think of one good reason to be for homosexual marriagel

 

[EviPolevhia]

I am for the Government allowing two consenting adults to enter into a legal arrangement regardless of gender. If I want to sell my car, I don’t have to sell it to someone of the opposite gender. If I want to sign a trade agreement, it doesn’t have to be someone of the opposite gender. But if I want cohabitation, to share my taxes, my income, and my life with someone it has to be of the opposite gender? That makes no sense.

What I am against is in any way shape or form forcing churches to recognize these arrangements. I’ve supported gay marriage for a long time but people need to realize we’re not trying to come into your churches with this. This is simply a governmental arrangement, not a religious one.

You think man lying with a man is a sin, ok, I’m down with that. You can think it’s a sin. Jews think eating pork is a sin, yet I can go down to Denny’s in the morning and eat my fill of pork if I wish. Why does one religion get to enforce it’s religious beliefs onto secular common law and not others?

 

[TeeEm]

But if I want cohabitation, to share my taxes, my income, and my life with someone it has to be of the opposite gender?

What about the aspect of marriage as a union between two adults equipped (sexually) to bear children together(if they are so blessed)?

The family is the first unit of society. Marriage is an age old institute, one of the few constants in every culture, society and era throughout history. You cannot reinvent the wheel.

Airy notions of adoption aside for same sex couples, the roles of ‘mother’ and ‘father’ cannot be replaced by a government law.

A spade is not a spade if its a hammer.

 

[Andre1000]

The government has no right to marry anyone. For me civil marriage is no differed than two people living together without marriage.

 

[EviPolevhia]

What about the aspect of marriage as a union between two adults equipped (sexually) to bear children together(if they are so blessed)?

Show me where in the law of the land it says anything about marriage being about bearing children together and then I’ll concede your point. We allow sterile/infertile people to get married and that goes against marriage being “a union between two adultes equipped to bear children together” as two men or two women.

The family is the first unit of society.

First in what way? And how do you know this? Maybe the tribe came first. Or maybe society was more individualistic in the beginning. This is a sociological issue and not a religious one.

Marriage is an age old institute, one of the few constants in every culture, society and era throughout history. You cannot reinvent the wheel.

Except marriage is constantly reinvented. You could sell your daughters, now you can’t. You could marry multiple people, now you can’t. You couldn’t marry someone of a different skin tone, now you can. Just say the word and I’ll go look up pages and pages of information for you about how marriage not only differs from culture to culture in modern times, but how it’s differed over the centuries. And I won’t accept the slippery slope argument. Letting blacks and women vote hasn’t led to hamsters and dogs voting yet. When my pet rabbit gets a vote, I’ll concede the slipper slope argument as far as marriage.

Airy notions of adoption aside for same sex couples, the roles of ‘mother’ and ‘father’ cannot be replaced by a government law.

Mother and father are terms specifically involving children and adults. When and if you can prove procreation is a necessary trait of marriage then we’ll talk about the terms mother and father. I know some very happily married people who’ve been married for years, decades in one case I can think of at least, where children(and thus the terms mother and father) have never figured in.

The government has no right to marry anyone.

Technically it does. If you’re saying they -shouldn’t- have the right to marry people, then who does? The RCC? If that’s the case, then would it be illegal for non Catholic’s to marry? Marriage is not a single denomination’s sole concern. It is shared by every religion and lack there of.

For me civil marriage is no differed than two people living together without marriage.

Glad you’re not the one defining legal terms then.

 

[da_nolo]

After allowing this to float a bit, I will discuss a position for it (since there isn’t one currently) and try to answer a few other comments and such position.

da_nolo:

Instead of … govt. to decide what is or isn’t only to satisfy its own conception for citizen benefits. govt. should only accept what has come to be known as civil unions. allowing the final decision of marriage to being w. the person(s) it involves.

For a long period now, govt. has declared what is and is not a “marriage” based on society’s morals. However, this is always changing and carries little barring today. The age of consent has risen and fallen since America’s foundation, who may marry has carried concern, and now what is marriage has strained resources and efforts into a ‘cold war’ or stalemate.

1. As a Catholic; Marriage is defined by and only by God. its shown to us by His Word and proven through history that a union should be 1 man/1woman w/ variation on conditions of marriage as we humans progress through time. No govt. position means I may enjoy my acceptance w/o hinder from govt. or others.

1.A. Currently it seems pointless to argue against anyone on govt. position in marriage when through out history our govt. (and that of others) have never had a steady example to what is or isn’t and what should be or shouldn’t be. Such moral influence have been rooted in religion and society in general (opinion based).

1.B. If the argument is not there, the struggle is not there. Opening efforts and resources to other areas of concern. (This over all idea would be in some manner similar to efforts early in U.S. history to compromise from two positions; e.g. “the great compromise”).

For example: age of consent was once 10yrs w/in U.S. while European nations maintain 16yrs as ancient societies … well I’d rather not say what occurred.

1.C. The truth is out there, yet no one seems to know what it is or they simply don’t care.

1. The purpose of govt. acknowledging marriages is to manage population growth and societies health. ‘civil unions’ would not dissipate and control may remain to the individual states, not federal.

2.A. 1st cousins among others can’t marry/interlope due to social/moral unlikeness (as in it is wrong morally) and biologically effects genes in reproduction (causes mutation).
Such may -as it still is - remain intact.

2.B. financial benefits may still be present, however necessity to facilitate such benefits may not be present. some legal study and law work may occur to satisfy this.

In conclusion, govt. having no position is the better way. opening resources for other issues; allowing debate be based upon solely society instead of govt. influence w/ ever changing laws/govt. waste; our freedoms will not become or be easier to become political ‘ammo’ nor target by federal or state officials.

There is great value in government recognizing marriages as marriages. Sadly, even for the last several decades it has not properly recognized marriage for what it is. The prevalence of “no-fault” divorce and marital contraception demonstrate this.

I do not support the government’s shifts but do recognize its autonomy. Hopefully, we can turn around our own members through good example and bring society to what God has called it to.

Govt. does not have any autonomy. the people do. we are self-governed, as we should -though many lack- regulating govt. influence.

agree though social example is key among other means…this would take away political gain and influence to turn the issue purely social. a person voting because he/she supports or doesn’t support a certain civil marriage opinion would be no more.

please, if you may. explain the benefits or importance to govt. recognizing “Marriage”?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I am for the Government allowing two consenting adults to enter into a legal arrangement regardless of gender. If I want to sell my car, I don’t have to sell it to someone of the opposite gender. If I want to sign a trade agreement, it doesn’t have to be someone of the opposite gender. But if I want cohabitation, to share my taxes, my income, and my life with someone it has to be of the opposite gender? That makes no sense.

It’s also not a correct statement of the law. Same sex unions are recognized in a majority of the states. In CA, there is no legal distinction between a marriage and a civil union, except with respect to what it’s called. The question is thereby crystalized as, “What is a marriage?”
EviP:

What I am against is in any way shape or form forcing churches to recognize these arrangements. I’ve supported gay marriage for a long time but people need to realize we’re not trying to come into your churches with this. This is simply a governmental arrangement, not a religious one.

The problem is that marriage is a public institution. So, by changing the public definition by expanding it to include same sex unions, there is an inevitable clash between church and state that will occur. A society cannot hold two separate and irreconcilable definitions of marriage.
EviP:

You think man lying with a man is a sin, ok, I’m down with that. You can think it’s a sin. Jews think eating pork is a sin, yet I can go down to Denny’s in the morning and eat my fill of pork if I wish. Why does one religion get to enforce it’s religious beliefs onto secular common law and not others?

Imagine how the owner of a jewish deli would feel if the term “kosher” was redefined to include pork.

Peace,
Robert

 

[EviPolevhia]

A society cannot hold two separate and irreconcilable definitions of marriage.

Not asking Society to have 2 definitions. Asking for an amendment to the Law’s definition, and I don’t care one bit for your Church’s definition. The Church and State have different definitions on other things without leading to the collapse of western civilization…

Imagine how the owner of a jewish deli would feel if the term “kosher” was redefined to include pork.

I really don’t think that analogy works. A better term would be food. As Muslims, Jews, and gay Christians still do get married in this world. It is not a sole possession of general Christianity like kosher is to the Jewish. However, like marriage, food is something people of every group do partake in. I would expect the Jewish Deli you mention to acknowledge pork as food, just not food they serve, nor would I ever expect them to. Just like the Catholic Church could say that a gay couple can be married, just not married by the Catholic Church and such a union would not be recognized by the Church. That’s 110% fine with me. What you do and don’t want to do within a religion as long as it harms no one and is between consenting adults, have a blast.

But you can’t say “My Religion defines word X as thus-and-such, therefore common law must view X as thus-and-such.” If there were a movement to get pork outlawed as a food item, I would be against that too.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Show me where in the law of the land it says anything about marriage being about bearing children together and then I’ll concede your point. We allow sterile/infertile people to get married and that goes against marriage being “a union between two adultes equipped to bear children together” as two men or two women.

Perhaps not. Of course, there are two questions. One question is do we know they are sexually fertile or not at the time? And furthermore, is it reversible? Most infertility problems are fixable or reversible.

All this said, the conception of children and the raising of them in a family of one man and one woman has not only been proven to increase the mental health of the children in comparison to those raised by two men or two women (or three partners, or one), but is also vital to powering the economy. No working-age people = no/ a tiny economy. Marriage has been between a man and a woman precisely because it serves both the state and the people of the state. Gay marriage does not intrinsically.

First in what way? And how do you know this? Maybe the tribe came first. Or maybe society was more individualistic in the beginning. This is a sociological issue and not a religious one.

I agree. As the case may be even atheists and pagans have come to know the value of nuclear family. How many atheist families are polygamous or bestial? A lot of atheists here in America do practically practise (if you will) the nuclear family.

And even in those cases where the nuclear family did not exist or was not widespread, there are reasonable arguments for why they weren’t, and why these no longer apply today. A Protestant Bible scholar, JP Holding, has a channel on YouTube called tektontv. In it are a lot of so-called “Wheel of Stupid” videos dealing with the subject of non-nuclear marriages (especially those which existed in the Bible). I would ask you to examine what he has to say on the matter.

And I won’t accept the slippery slope argument. Letting blacks and women vote hasn’t led to hamsters and dogs voting yet. When my pet rabbit gets a vote, I’ll concede the slipper slope argument as far as marriage.

K, dude. When it become legal to have sex with your rabbit, will you listen to us?

Mother and father are terms specifically involving children and adults. When and if you can prove procreation is a necessary trait of marriage then we’ll talk about the terms mother and father.

Uh… biology 101. When a man orgasms, sperm comes out. When sperm and egg meet in the fallopian tubes, one sperm goes into the egg and it begins to grow. It shows all characteristics of being life.

This requires - now listen closely - one man and one woman. Two men do not make the cut. In fact, the body was not made for sodomy.

I know some very happily married people who’ve been married for years, decades in one case I can think of at least, where children(and thus the terms mother and father) have never figured in.

Actually I think there has been some misinformation circulating about in our camp. Truth is, not all marriages, even in Catholicism, have to produce children. This is evident in the marriage between Mary and Joseph.

If it is known that one party is sterile I think the marriage cannot go through. But if they choose never to have sex and offer up their sexuality for the good of Heaven, like monks, priests, and nuns do, this is also acceptable.

Technically it does. If you’re saying they -shouldn’t- have the right to marry people, then who does? The RCC?

In my mind, the argument can go two ways: wither the government has the right - and duty - to offer civil marriages (or civil unions) to people for the sake of keeping the economy alive for all people (as I mentioned before), for increasing the mental health of children being raised (as before mentioned), and to protect (or at least aid) children and the parents of their children from (with) financial disasters when they strike.

OR, the other argument is, religion is really a religious institution between a man, a woman, and God. Therefore, only religions should be able to “marry” people, and marriages should have no secular effect on society or the economy at all. As it is a “religious” thing, like baptisms, confirmations, ordinations, and chrismations. After all, since when does the government baptise people? Or forgive sins which are out of their power or definition as a non-religious entity? Therefore, what right have they to say they can marry people when they have nothing to do with God or karma or what have you?

These are two potential arguments.

Now tell me this: of what value are gay marriages to the state, to the society, or to the two who wish to “marry” in question?

I propose that they are a financial sink, contributing nothing to the society economically or socially, and in fact costing taxpayers. Since they do not produce children, and the mental health of their children is lower, they are less effective than traditional marriages and are inherently obsolete.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Not asking Society to have 2 definitions. Asking for an amendment to the Law’s definition, and I don’t care one bit for your Church’s definition. The Church and State have different definitions on other things without leading to the collapse of western civilization.

Would you care to name one? Perhaps one with some relevance to the economy and to mental and physical health?

 

[ASimon]

I’ve said it before. The quickest way to guarantee that we never see gay marriage in this country is for religious folk to petition the government to stop granting marriage licenses. Civil unions for all. Then the churches really can have the final say on what marriage is.

 

[EviPolevhia]

No working-age people = no/ a tiny economy. Marriage has been between a man and a woman precisely because it serves both the state and the people of the state. Gay marriage does not intrinsically.

Making things illegal on the basis of them not intrinsically helping The State first off sounds like North Korea, second off it is not the reason we decide on the legality of things. Why are you mentioning this then? If you’re not trying to argue that it should remain Illegal because it doesn’t help society, then why bring it up?

K, dude. When it become legal to have sex with your rabbit, will you listen to us?

Haha, sure.

Uh… biology 101. When a man orgasms, sperm comes out. When sperm and egg meet in the fallopian tubes, one sperm goes into the egg and it begins to grow. It shows all characteristics of being life.

This requires - now listen closely - one man and one woman. Two men do not make the cut. In fact, the body was not made for sodomy.

You’re severely missing my point either on accident or purpose, not sure which. I said “When and if you can prove procreation is a necessary trait of marriage” not “How is baby formed”

In my mind, the argument can go two ways: wither the government has the right - and duty - to offer civil marriages (or civil unions) to people for the sake of keeping the economy alive for all people (as I mentioned before), for increasing the mental health of children being raised (as before mentioned), and to protect (or at least aid) children and the parents of their children from (with) financial disasters when they strike.

OR, the other argument is, religion is really a religious institution between a man, a woman, and God. Therefore, only religions should be able to “marry” people, and marriages should have no secular effect on society or the economy at all. As it is a “religious” thing, like baptisms, confirmations, ordinations, and chrismations. After all, since when does the government baptise people? Or forgive sins which are out of their power or definition as a non-religious entity? Therefore, what right have they to say they can marry people when they have nothing to do with God or karma or what have you?

These are two potential arguments.

Now tell me this: of what value are gay marriages to the state, to the society, or to the two who wish to “marry” in question?.

I like what you say there. (for the most part anyway) I would actually be fully supportive of the state providing civil unions that have the full secular benefits that a marriage (performed by the government) would normally have. Just do away with the government using the term marriage at all. And likewise religions can use marriage to their heart’s content, define it however they wish, and I would no longer ever utter the phrase gay marriage ever again. Government can do contracts, religions can do baptisms, and we can keep all of that separate and happy.

“of what value are gay marriages to the state, to the society, or to the two who wish to “marry” in question?” The same value of an infertile couple, or a couple that never procreates. It goes FAR beyond simply dealing with children.

 

[da_nolo]

Show me where in the law of the land it says anything about marriage being about bearing children together and then I’ll concede your point. We allow sterile/infertile people to get married and that goes against marriage being “a union between two adultes equipped to bear children together” as two men or two women.

That’s hard.
Laws on marriage differ in states, so unless you want a lawyer or 10 links supporting each statement - it probably won’t come up. however there are laws in place to prevent siblings and 1st or sometimes 2nd cousins from marring due entirely because of children.

Tax benefits are laws and the manner in which IRS(govt.) have regulated these taxes (i.e. tax benefits) is in support of family (child bearing). whether this includes a couple being pregnant? these incentives did begin when that or adoption was the only way; so lets say its implied.

There are also federal/state laws against sodomy.

First in what way? And how do you know this? Maybe the tribe came first. Or maybe society was more individualistic in the beginning. This is a sociological issue and not a religious one.

The religious developed sociology…
Being of religion or being on a religious forum or having declared being apart of a religion or having stating religious views does not exclude anyone from this discussion.

What is society? in essence it is the family extended.
sociology and even psychology go into detail about families influence on society as well as the individuals w/in family.

this may be clearly identified in biology too. humans are sociable by nature, this will always begin w/ the family as that is our very first group interaction. . not to mention that the entire human race developed by family first. yes, family was the first ‘society’. What are tribes? 1 family - though may be multiple families, they are still under 1 family.

if a group of ten families (evenly numbered w/ kids - as in society) developed their own commune and cut off from the world. they would be their own society. now society’s laws and morals are already set. a + b = c.

no matter how or why, one family changes this concept. this new concept now influences society and may alter society as a whole.

Mother and father are terms specifically involving children and adults. When and if you can prove procreation is a necessary trait of marriage then we’ll talk about the terms mother and father. I know some very happily married people who’ve been married for years, decades in one case I can think of at least, where children(and thus the terms mother and father) have never figured in.

prove is the trick word here. how can you ask someone to ‘prove’ something that you have clearly already decided is incorrect? no matter what could be provided or stated, you may just as easily ignore it.

Now, for an answer try history or biology.
Biology= procreation involves necessary chemical changes w/in the brain in both father and mother during sex and pregnancy. this has been suggested to create or start the “I’m a parent” mentality. it is often seen in dads. I have spoken to many to which have changed their entire lives in order to be a father.

Obviously there is a lack in this as well. However, this is mostly if not always seen in parents that do not have the same connection w/ whom they wed or are not wed. they are not present for most of pregnancy, etc.

As for those sterile or can not have a baby (I think the Church still Marries them); I’m not saying they wouldn’t be good parents. simply stating there is a chemical change and even connection between husband/wife and child(ren) that may not be present otherwise - and may influence manner between 2.

history= where has there been homosexual marriages?

Technically it does. If you’re saying they -shouldn’t- have the right to marry people, then who does? The RCC? If that’s the case, then would it be illegal for non Catholic’s to marry? Marriage is not a single denomination’s sole concern. It is shared by every religion and lack there of.

If marriage is simply looked at as a word, but a concern for all…then how may it then be defined by govt.? govt. defines it and it is set for all to accept, such as the defining a black slave as property. if you want to maintain your own concept, then govt. must have none. otherwise you force your own concept to be accepted by others. those who don’t - well by your own enthusiasm…screw them.

look at this neutrally. consider the opposite shoe. what if the tables were turned?
consider it please.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Not asking Society to have 2 definitions. Asking for an amendment to the Law’s definition, and I don’t care one bit for your Church’s definition. The Church and State have different definitions on other things without leading to the collapse of western civilization.

Do you not see your self-contradicting statement. If the law recognizes “marriage” as a relationship that includes same-sex couples, those who believe contrary must be compelled to accept it, contrary to what their conscience tells them to be true. Again, I’m not relying on Church definitions here. I’m relying on a common understanding of marriage the crosses many different religious, cultural, and social boundaries.
EviP:

I really don’t think that analogy works. A better term would be food. As Muslims, Jews, and gay Christians still do get married in this world. It is not a sole possession of general Christianity like kosher is to the Jewish. However, like marriage, food is something people of every group do partake in. I would expect the Jewish Deli you mention to acknowledge pork as food, just not food they serve, nor would I ever expect them to.

Jews already acknowledge pork as food. The analogous concept would be telling jewish people that pork was now “kosher” under the law of “State X” and/or the laws of the United States.
EviP:

Just like the Catholic Church could say that a gay couple can be married, just not married by the Catholic Church and such a union would not be recognized by the Church. That’s 110% fine with me. What you do and don’t want to do within a religion as long as it harms no one and is between consenting adults, have a blast.

But my point is that redefining marriage as the pro-gay-marriage advocates contend harms the public institution, which in turn harms everyone. Again, I’m not reducing my argument to only the Catholic position. So, stop limiting your comments to the “what you do in your church is fine with me, just leave me alone” line. That argument is non-responsive.
EviP:

But you can’t say “My Religion defines word X as thus-and-such, therefore common law must view X as thus-and-such.” If there were a movement to get pork outlawed as a food item, I would be against that too.

I’m not making that argument! I’m saying marriage is what it is, and its fundamental orientation towards procreation and rearing of children is ascertainable by simply viewing the relationship in its natural context, separate and apart from what revealed religion says on the matter.

Finally, your argument cuts both ways. I can say that just because your group wants to redefine marriage (or kosher laws) to suit your own tastes, that does not mean that the law of the land must change. No one is stopping the gay community from forming its own standards, and calling whatever you want a “marriage.” Just don’t force me to accept your definition as what I understand a marriage to be. Your problem with this argument is that IF laws of the State change (as you propose), then contrary to your “live and let live” argument, those who see marriage as between man and woman will be compelled to accept same sex unions as “marriages” upon pain of civil and criminal penalty.

Peace,
Robert

 

[SonCatcher]

Govt. does not have any autonomy. the people do.

We refer to the various governments as sovereign. The actions of government are separate from those of individuals, as is necessary for the regulation of society. This is true even in a total democracy since the government acts differently than the dissenters would like. Yet the problem of having no government is greater than the problem of a government that is contrary.

we are self-governed, as we should -though many lack- regulating govt. influence.

I don’t know what you mean by this.

please, if you may. explain the benefits or importance to govt. recognizing “Marriage”?

Sure. The responsibility of government is to facilitate just society. To the extent it does that, it succeeds. To the extent it does not, it fails.

Marriage is naturally ordered toward bonding a man and woman together and toward their begetting and raising children (who would, in turn, continue the cycle). In order to establish this in the most successful way, and for robust continuance of the process, it is necessary to do everything reasonable to ensure that each marriage is well-established and lasting. (some ways to do that include required premarital counseling, requiring a cause and counseling prior to civil divorce and enforcing a penalty on infidelity - at least in family court). That helps the married couples to stay married and children to have reasonable expectations for their own lives.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Making things illegal on the basis of them not intrinsically helping The State first off sounds like North Korea, second off it is not the reason we decide on the legality of things. Why are you mentioning this then? If you’re not trying to argue that it should remain Illegal because it doesn’t help society, then why bring it up?

Because gay marriage is quite the opposite. It confuses the point of marriage. The point of marriage has never been solely or primarily about this romantic notion of “love” (until recently). The reality of marriage has always been partially or wholly an economic contract of some kind. The point of secular marriages, whatever the case, is to increase the family and the society’s productivity, economic prosperity, and power by having children and raising them to be upstanding workers and citizens, and to preserve the parents’ futures by having their children preserve them when they grow old.

Gay “marriages” are not conducive to this in the least. It is impossible for two people of the same sex to conceive children. They are not technically marriages because of this. (And as I have said before, infertility is almost always treatable in heterosexual couples. It is an irrelevant question for gays because the problem has nothing to do with infertility.) Gay marriages are more like legal recognition that two people are “best buddies forever”.

Haha, sure.

Well, OK, then.

You’re severely missing my point either on accident or purpose, not sure which. I said “When and if you can prove procreation is a necessary trait of marriage” not “How is baby formed”.

As I said above, throughout history, marriage has been intended to create economic security and prosperity by producing children. Whatever the definition of marriage, it has never been divorced from birthing and raising children until now. But without children to bear or raise, there really is no point for two people to declare themselves “married” in the secular sense. Just as there’s no point in calling oneself “religious” if one is not bound to believe anything by God or by anything aside from your five senses.

I like what you say there. (for the most part anyway) I would actually be fully supportive of the state providing civil unions that have the full secular benefits that a marriage (performed by the government) would normally have.

-With the caveats I’ve mentioned before. Civil unions should be for the economic reason of bringing children into the world and raising them for your own good and for society’s good. Since gays cannot do this, civil unions could not be applied for gays.

OR civil unions would have absolutely nothing to do with the economics of it, and could be given to any two people who felt this “best buddies forever” thing. Of course, it then wouldn’t be limited to gay or straight couples and could be applied to anyone, since such a “civil union” has no connection with the economy or the society at large, but is more a legal recognition that you love someone else. To which society might as well say, “Whoop-dee-doo. You love each other. Who cares? It generates nothing for the GNP or the treasury, and helps no one in the society. Do you want a gold star when you make pee-pee, too?”

“of what value are gay marriages to the state, to the society, or to the two who wish to “marry” in question?” The same value of an infertile couple, or a couple that never procreates. It goes FAR beyond simply dealing with children.

Not at all. Parents are as much contributors to the government, the economy, and the society as workers out in shops, factories, and offices are. After all, people are the cornerstone of every economy.

Part of the parents’ contribution is showing their children how a man and woman must come to relate to each other in order for society to continue to grow, prosper, and maintain happiness. They show not only how children are conceived and come into the world, but how to relate to each other as humans, as different sexes with different needs of all kinds. You don’t get this with two men or two women.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I recommend reading Robert’s posts on the subject. He seems to know what he is talking about in a way I’m not sure I do…

 

[EviPolevhia]

I have been reading Robert’s posts. They’ve illuminated very well that you guys and I have differing base definitions that I see no way to reconcile at the moment. Thank you for giving me your opinions, they have been very informative.