The Purpose of Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SextusEmpiricus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
In that case it is an invalid argument because a civil relationship should suffice to obtain federal benefits.

The purpose of marriage should be to safeguard the family - and especially children.
Click to expand...
All that is being asked for is civil marriage.
 
davidv said:
The various activities in several states proves this is not the limit of what is being asked for.
Click to expand...
Would you be kind enough to toss a couple links to news reports my way? I tend to live under the proverbial rock.

Thanks!
 
mek42 said:
The Episcopalian Church allows same sex marriage. This article simply shows a civil marriage conjoined with a religious marriage where it is allowed. I don’t think this demonstrates your point. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
O yes, the babies…
 
Ion said:
O yes, the babies…
Click to expand...
I read that. I am almost certain to regret this, and I feel compelled to forewarn that I have a logic trap in mind depending on the answer, but what is the objection to the children?
 
mek42 said:
I read that. I am almost certain to regret this, and I feel compelled to forewarn that I have a logic trap in mind depending on the answer, but what is the objection to the children?
Click to expand...
Experiments on kids, but who cares?
 
Ion said:
I don’t know if anyone have attempted a mathematical model of a homosexual society to show how fast is going down. It is clear that if everybody is a homosexual means the extintion of that society in a very short time. Homosexuals anyway don’t care because they do not have the burden of the future generation. “Little change” in the marriage laws have no meaning for them other than they can mock the straight persons. Adoptions are not enough for real families that can’t make their own children, so from where do they “want” to adopt them?
Click to expand...
There is no “they”, as if homosexuals are in some secret worldwide conspiracy who all think the same. Get real, homosexuals are not alien invaders or zombies from a low budget movie.

Fewer than four in every hundred Americans are gay but many Americans believe it’s one in four. This extraordinary overestimate shows how wildly homophobic and paranoid some sections of American society have become.

gallup.com/poll/147824/Adults-Estimate-Americans-Gay-Lesbian.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

How come you put all homosexuals together as bad guys if Catholics are supposed to “love the sinner and hate the sin”?
 
mek42 said:
*In that case it is an invalid argument because a civil relationship should suffice to obtain federal benefits.
Click to expand...
Why is a civil marriage necessary if a civil relationship suffices to obtain federal benefits?

Isn’t the purpose of a civil marriage to safeguard the family - and especially children?
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
Why is a civil marriage necessary if a civil relationship suffices to obtain federal benefits?

Isn’t the purpose of a civil marriage to safeguard the family - and especially children?
Click to expand...
A civil marriage is a civil relationship. And I agree that children, adopted or natural, should see benefits if their same sex guardians have a civil marriage.
 
mek42 said:
The Episcopalian Church allows same sex marriage. This article simply shows a civil marriage conjoined with a religious marriage where it is allowed. I don’t think this demonstrates your point. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Yes, you are missing the main point. The gay lobby is not stopping at civil unions. In Minnesota, as in other states, legislation has been enacted redefining marriage.
 
tonyrey said:
Why is a civil marriage necessary if a civil relationship suffices to obtain federal benefits?

Isn’t the purpose of a civil marriage to safeguard the family - and especially children?
Click to expand...
I just saw that equal marriage was passed into law in the UK this Wednesday. Stephen Fry, gay icon, is quoted as tweeting "‘Thanks, Your Majesty, for the Royal Assent. You soon won’t be the only married queen in Britain. Hurrah, hurray hurroo!’ 😃

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/media/3800571/P3_celebrate same sex bill.jpg

*Speaking during the Third Reading debate on Monday, the Bishop of Norwich, the Rt Revd Graham James, who gave evidence during the Committee Stage of the Bill, said: "It is no secret that the majority of Christian Churches and other world faiths do not believe that same-sex marriage accords with their understanding of marriage itself.

“However, many of us, including on these Benches, welcome the social and legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, and believe that our society is a better and healthier one for such recognition.” - churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/19-july/news/uk/with-royal-assent,-gay-marriage-passes-into-law*

Good for him, good for the UK. 🙂
 
inocente said:
There is no “they”, as if homosexuals are in some secret worldwide conspiracy who all think the same. Get real, homosexuals are not alien invaders or zombies from a low budget movie.

Fewer than four in every hundred Americans are gay but many Americans believe it’s one in four. This extraordinary overestimate shows how wildly homophobic and paranoid some sections of American society have become.

gallup.com/poll/147824/Adults-Estimate-Americans-Gay-Lesbian.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

How come you put all homosexuals together as bad guys if Catholics are supposed to “love the sinner and hate the sin”?
Click to expand...
Less than 1%, 25% is kind of some wet dream/ horror movie.
Absolutely conspiracy! They have manipulated the system; politicians with no beliefs (or forced to do politics out of their their beliefs) were more or less spectators. There should have been more to learn from the nazi/communist experience than the simple fact that nazi/ communism are wrong. People should be less commited to put in practice what they think is good at the expense of the whole society. Atheist have a mark on this because they simply do not care what comes after them and are willing to make any social experiment. If some elucubration is ok in their mind they simply can’t resist it.
And the problem is not with the sinners but with the sin.
 
davidv said:
Yes, you are missing the main point. The gay lobby is not stopping at civil unions. In Minnesota, as in other states, legislation has been enacted redefining marriage.
Click to expand...
Civil marriage is a civil union. No external force is redefining religious marriage.
 
inocente said:
I just saw that equal marriage was passed into law in the UK this Wednesday. Stephen Fry, gay icon, is quoted as tweeting "‘Thanks, Your Majesty, for the Royal Assent. You soon won’t be the only married queen in Britain. Hurrah, hurray hurroo!’ 😃

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/media/3800571/P3_celebrate same sex bill.jpg

*Speaking during the Third Reading debate on Monday, the Bishop of Norwich, the Rt Revd Graham James, who gave evidence during the Committee Stage of the Bill, said: "It is no secret that the majority of Christian Churches and other world faiths do not believe that same-sex marriage accords with their understanding of marriage itself.

“However, many of us, including on these Benches, welcome the social and legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, and believe that our society is a better and healthier one for such recognition.” - churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/19-july/news/uk/with-royal-assent,-gay-marriage-passes-into-law*

Good for him, good for the UK.
Click to expand...
It is ironic that the Royal Assent has nothing to do with the Queen’s personal opinion…

And blowing the politically correct trumpet by climbing on the gay bandwagon does precisely nothing to answer the questions:

Why is a civil marriage necessary if a civil relationship suffices to obtain state benefits?

Isn’t the purpose of a civil marriage to safeguard the family - especially children?

Perhaps you would care to answer them… or is there some reason for not doing so? 🙂
 
mek42 said:
*Why is a civil marriage necessary if a civil relationship suffices to obtain federal benefits?
Click to expand...
In the case of gays it is a superfluous duplicate relationship!
And I agree that children, adopted or natural, should see benefits if their same sex guardians have a civil marriage.
Click to expand...
There is no reason why children should not be accorded cash benefits if their same sex guardians have a civil relationship but nothing can compensate them for the needless loss of a father or mother figure - particularly during adolescence when they have same sex guardians. I know **from personal experience **the disadvantages and detrimental effects of being brought up without a father figure throughout my childhood…
Click to expand...
 
mek42 said:
Civil marriage is a civil union. No external force is redefining religious marriage.
Click to expand...
Civil marriage is a civil union which should safeguard the family and especially children - regardless of the purpose ofreligious marriage.
 
tonyrey said:
In the case of gays it is a superfluous duplicate relationship!

There is no reason why children should not be accorded cash benefits if their same sex guardians have a civil relationship but nothing can compensate them for the needless loss of a father or mother figure - particularly during adolescence when they have same sex guardians. I know **from personal experience **the disadvantages and detrimental effects of being brought up without a father figure throughout my childhood…
Click to expand...
When I was twelve I asked my mother to get a divorce as what I wanted for Christmas. My father figure, shoot, actual real father, set me an example that I’ve had to continuously overcome and that still dogs me today. I am sorry for the grief you have of your childhood, but you may not have necessarily been better off if things had been different.

I believe that loving and caring and kindness tempered with discipline are more important for a child than the plumbing of the guardians.

We already have a legal construct that works well for a union between people who desire permanence and legacy. Why experiment with some other thing that will be less, especially less protection for children?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top