To all heteral sexual marriage hatters out there

[Odell]

Would you say that you hold the position that opposite-sex marriage in which they are doing so primarily to procreate and form a family holds little to no value over other couplings/marriages? Would you say it’s always held little to no value over other relationships, or would you say that it may have been important once in human history, but it’s not important now? If others are saying that governments should hold special rules for this special union are you saying: they aren’t that special or they aren’t special in a way that governments should discriminate between those couples and other couples?

 

[Gorgias]

:ehh:

Hmm… I’m a little confused at what you’re getting at. Mind if I attempt to summarize, and you can tell me if I’m getting what you’re saying?

(First off, though: your title seems to say that those who advocate for same-sex relationships are “heterosexual marriage haters”. I think its radically dishonest, when someone takes a person’s positive position (like defense of same-sex marriage, or defense of the right to life, or defense of heterosexuality) and accuses that person of ‘hatred’ of the opposite position. So, “defense of same-sex marriage” becomes “heterosexual marriage hate”, “defense of right to life” becomes “anti-choice hatred”, and “defense of heterosexuality” becomes “homophobia”. OK… I’ll get off my soapbox now… )

Anyway, it seems that you’re trying to find out why those who advocate for same-sex marriage, actually hold these positions. Among the possibilities you offer for consideration are * Primarily based on the notion that the possibility of procreation should never take priority over other considerations

• Primarily that the possibility of procreation had value in the past, but no longer holds any value?
• Primarily that any attempt to distinguish the ‘value’ of a relationship based on gender is invalid?

Is this what you’re asking?

Blessings,

G.

 

[Odell]

No need to get off the soap box I totally agree. The title was primarily to bait those who advocate homosexual marriage to the thread. Possibly bad taste on my part. Sorry

Your questions you are asking are what I’m getting at just rephrased.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Nope, I don’t think that marriages that produce children are any more special. I also don’t think that whether or not a couple procreates is something that the government should concern themselves with.

 

[bmullins]

Nope, I don’t think that marriages that produce children are any more special. I also don’t think that whether or not a couple procreates is something that the government should concern themselves with.

Why should ‘marriage’ be a part of government at all. Marriage is a religious institution and should be under the authority of the church.

 

[Garyjohn2]

What’s a marriage hatter? Do they make the hats for the bride and groom? At my wedding I actually wore a lovely tophat and I didn’t even have to use a hatter, just went online and got one! j/k j/k!

 

[Polycarp1]

Why should ‘marriage’ be a part of government at all. Marriage is a religious institution and should be under the authority of the church.

I agree. Why should same sex marriage proponents be interested in a sacremental marriage? Because they want to give the impression that their union is somehow in accordance with God’s will? They are kidding themselves and want to kid us too. If they want some kind of legal union so be it. Do up a legal contract but quit pretending that in your heart of hearts that you don’t know it’s sinful and contrary to God’s will.

 

[Gorgias]

Nope, I don’t think that marriages that produce children are any more special. I also don’t think that whether or not a couple procreates is something that the government should concern themselves with.

I think the argument here proceeds from the question of the benefit to society of having the next generation of citizens (1) procreated, (2) cared for and protected, and (3) raised in environments other than ‘wards of the state’.

This approach raises a number of questions: is this explicitly (one of) the motivation(s) of the state in regulating marriage? if it’s not an explicit motivation, can it be inferred in the various statutes and juridical decisions that have been made manifest?

The ‘historical’ question comes into play here: if it can be asserted that these considerations were once part of the rationale for the government’s participation in the institution of marriage, have these considerations declined in importance to the point where, today, they are relatively irrelevant?

These are interesting questions. However, another question is necessary: even if government had been motivated by these concerns, are there additional, more fundamental reasons present to justify the state’s role in marriage, that perdure even if the social considerations of ‘procreation’ (and ‘protection of women’) have faded?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

What’s a marriage hatter? Do they make the hats for the bride and groom? At my wedding I actually wore a lovely tophat and I didn’t even have to use a hatter, just went online and got one! j/k j/k!

I had a similar thought, only the hatter thing called to mind an old joke involving a French idiom “Une capot noire”…
…and no, I won’t tell the joke, although it is not dirty, it is too “earthy”, and has no business being on this forum

 

[Odell]

What’s a marriage hatter? Do they make the hats for the bride and groom? At my wedding I actually wore a lovely tophat and I didn’t even have to use a hatter, just went online and got one! j/k j/k!

You got me I can’t go back and change it either

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

What’s a marriage hatter? Do they make the hats for the bride and groom? At my wedding I actually wore a lovely tophat and I didn’t even have to use a hatter, just went online and got one! j/k j/k!

You’ve got it. And if the couple refuses to pay their bill, then you have a Mad Hatter!