Because they are not equal rights defenders. A phrase which, like “equal marriage”, accepts by its very use, every premise on which these people base their actions and leaves little room for dispute of their validity. We kind of get hoodwinked into using it, by people fond of playing games with language.Still, why is that equal-rights defenders don’t think about the importance of encouraging young men and women to get married and start a family?
Ah so you jump to legal when moral is discussed and back and forth? How do you separate the two?So encourage them. Again, the small number of gay people getting married doesn’t make the encouragement of young men and women to get married and start a family illegal.
This is not a zero sum game.
I don’t doubt it. An exciting topic like that is certain to get a lot of attention.So is human sacrifice, and studies show it more widespread than isolated tenured profs looking for their next book to publish.
Because we are discussing CIVIL gay marriage. Not the morality. Lots of things are legal but not moral. That’s where our commitment to our faith comes in, that’s where we answer to a higher calling. No matter what the state legalizes, we have commitments in our personal lives that outweigh it. Despite some of the ideas to the contrary, legalizing something doesn’t force people to engage in it.Ah so you jump to legal when moral is discussed and back and forth? How do you separate the two?
Legally doesn’t gay marriage set a precedence for polygamy.
By this standard why do we have marriage at all, because of the vested interest of the Government? Certainly its not the Church interest.Because we are discussing CIVIL gay marriage. Not the morality.
No nothing is automatic, It sets a legal precedence in court which is most known by the Mormons.automatically lead everyone to polygamy
Actually, only 25 states prohibit first cousin marriages. California and New York allow them with no restrictions.‘Equality’ argument for gay couples being allowed to marry is bizarre. Marriage is forbidden for brothers and sisters, first cousins, multiple people, and people and animals. Any of the people can argue they love each other and there can be equality when they can be treated like anyone else under the law
Fact that states prohibit such marriage proves the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not provide a right to marry whoever you want
Your source is lying to you. Same sex marriage was legalised in 2009 in both Norway and Sweden. Data from 1990 to 2000 would not have been affected by same sex marriage.Social scientist Stanley Kurtz found that out of wedlock births increased about 10% from 1990 to 2000, the time after marriage was redefined in Norway and Sweden
I think the objection to polygamy had something to do with inheritance laws. How does one decide which wife is entitled to what? This isn’t a problem with SS marriage.Ah so you jump to legal when moral is discussed and back and forth? How do you separate the two?
Legally doesn’t gay marriage set a precedence for polygamy.
I know. I try to understand different sides to a lot of issues. I’d like to think most reasonable people try too. You might think divorce laws would be a hot topic. And there are other things Christ talked about that I’d think would be hotter topics than they are. But no the hottest topics on this forum seem to be abortion and homosexuality. With some Republican politics thrown in.I understand why people oppose SS marriage and feel that their faith compels them to express their opposition to it. However, to be honest, I wish more Catholics would speak out as forcefully against current divorce laws. If the issue is defending the Biblical definition of marriage and preventing civil efforts to undermine it - then I would think divorce laws would be a hot topic on this forum. But they’re not.
Of course and moral and many other things as well.I’m confused, tell me, when we discuss Civil Gay marriage, are not the objections both cultural and religious?
I believe Islam resolves that question which will follow suit also. I believe its bit of an alarmist view. Presents a real situation though.I think the objection to polygamy had something to do with inheritance laws. How does one decide which wife is entitled to what? This isn’t a problem with SS marriage.
De facto gay ‘marriage’ came into effect in Denmark in 1989, 1993 in Norway, 1994 in Sweden in same sex partnershipsYour source is lying to you. Same sex marriage was legalised in 2009 in both Norway and Sweden. Data from 1990 to 2000 would not have been affected by same sex marriage.
Beware also of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Can we blame any decline in marriage since 2001 on the 9/11 attack? Merely because one event precedes another there is no logical argument for a link between the two. An actual mechanism needs to be shown.
rossum
Good point. That takes care of the polygamy distraction to the topic.I think the objection to polygamy had something to do with inheritance laws. How does one decide which wife is entitled to what? This isn’t a problem with SS marriage.
Not according to the logic of the ever evolving society of the modern culture of the USA that has come along way in many areas of culture. And who suggest its time for equal treatment for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation and preference.Good point. That takes care of the polygamy distraction to the topic.
Details magazine:Good point. That takes care of the polygamy distraction to the topic.
…Plural love is having a moment right now. That’s thanks in no small part to the increasing acceptance of gay marriage: If two men or two women can get married, why can’t two men get married to one woman? In Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal for six years, a case that’s expected to go to the Supreme Court could make our neighbor to the north the first Western country that doesn’t outlaw polygamy. Here in the U.S., Republican leaders like Mike Huckabee and Michelle Bachmann have made ominous suggestions that legalizing gay marriage will lead to group marriage…
… indeed, some in plural relationships are adopting an activist mind-set. “We’re going through right now what homosexuals went through 30 or 40 years ago,” says Matt Bullen, a 42-year-old writer and married dad in Seattle who is part of a polyamorist cluster that encompasses five people and two legal marriages. “We need to start putting photos on the desk of ourselves and our partners together. When I’m out in public with my wife and my girlfriend, I need to say, ‘These are my partners.’”
My emphases… Matt Bullen is cautious about exposing his 9-year-old to the family’s lifestyle. “It gives me nightmares that our family is from some awful seventies adult movie where my son comes down a swirling staircase and sees all kinds of shenanigans going on,” he says. He and his wife, Vee, have sought to be “age-appropriately honest” with their son. When the boy saw his father kissing Terisa and asked about it, Matt explained to him, “There are ways of loving that you just can’t understand yet.”
The New York Times last Sunday published an opinion piece [as part of their reaction series] by Stanford Law Professor Ralph Richard Banks that essentially argues that American society has notachieved “marriage equality” by allowing same sex couples to marry. He argues that polygamy and incestuous marriage between adults should be legalized in order to evolve to full marriage equality:
So, as I and others have argued, the real issue is “marriage deconstruction” not “marriage equality” in the debate over whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry. In other words, the fight is between those who believe that societies have the authority to encourage people to have sex and make babies only within a pubic institution called marriage, defined uniformly for all as one man and one woman. The opposite view is not “allow same sex couples to marry,” but to abandon any common, culture-wide definition of marriage and allow each person to do what he or she things is right in regards to marriage, sex and family. However, the consensus of world cultures has rejected this self autonomy view of marriage because of its harmful results. The common experience of human societies since the beginning of time is that the “self autonomy” model results over time in irresponsible men exploiting women and neglecting the children the men produce.
Jonathan Turley is probably not the most popular man right now with supporters of same-sex marriage. The George Washington University law professor has filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Utah’s anti-polygamy laws — and his argument is based on a landmark 2003 Supreme Court gay rights decision. That’s not good news in the view of most gay rights supporters, who don’t want their cause linked to that of polygamists any more than they want to see parallels drawn with people who engage in incest, bestiality and other taboo sexual practices.
… The 2003 gay rights case, Lawrence vs. Texas, was also a criminal matter unrelated to same-sex marriage. The court overturned the conviction of two men found to have violated a state law against same-sex sodomy. But in reaching that conclusion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy offered a paean to intimate relationships defined by sexuality that easily can be transferred to the context of same-sex marriage, and potentially to polygamous marriages as well.
articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/31/opinion/la-ed-polygamy-20110731… like Lawrence, a ruling sympathetic to unconventional sexual behavior could plant the seeds of a future campaign for full marriage equality. In that case, governments would have to prove that it’s rational to limit marriage to two individuals, homosexual or heterosexual. That might seem obvious, but so, at one time, did the argument that marriage should be confined to opposite-sex couples
I asked for an example of same-sex “marriage” being seen as the same as heterosexual marriage.I don’t doubt it. An exciting topic like that is certain to get a lot of attention.
However, your effort to discredit Sabine Lang is pretty transparent. Her books are well researched and the primary sources she cites are credible. Native American Studies is hardly a lucrative field and I wouldn’t be surprised if there are only a few people within it who specialize in gender relations. That doesn’t mean their work shouldn’t be respected.
Monkey1976 wanted “one example” of SS marriage being “adopted by someone at some point in history”.
North American Indian perspectives on gender complicates the issue, because it would be as strange to them as it is to us for “two men” or “two women” to get married. That is, two people with the same gender identity. However, because they defined gender based on work (and this is quite true) the pairing of two people of the same sex seems to have been acceptable, but then again as you point out - so was human sacrifice.
If our modern view is getting rid of sex, gender identity and gender roles when it comes to love and marriage, why cling to such Victorian notions as number, or even species?Not according to the logic of the ever evolving society of the modern culture of the USA that has come along way in many areas of culture. And who suggest its time for equal treatment for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation and preference.
Why stop at SS that sounds well contradictory. Just saying.
Equal rights.