When Homosexuals love eachother

[Rau]

I keep reading how “marriage ensures the continuance of civilization”. No. No, it doesn’t. A man and a woman having sex does (or, to get technical, sperm fertilizing an egg does). But let’s just say that marriage in the traditional sense WAS what ensured that humans live on…

…Great. Bob and Lee entering into a Civil Marriage isn’t going to stop that…

How did the State conclude that a sexual relationship of 2 men is something it wished to acknowledge - that is the puzzle!

Two guys sharing assets, inheritance arrangements, mutual care - fine, why not? But the sexual relationship we call Marriage? Just bizarre!

 

[Finite]

How did the State conclude that a sexual relationship of 2 men is something it wished to acknowledge - that is the puzzle!

Two guys sharing assets, inheritance arrangements, mutual care - fine, why not? But the sexual relationship we call Marriage? Just bizarre!

This is the government we’re talking about. Not the Catholic Church. The government has long proved it doesn’t feel the need to included on what goes on in someone’s bedroom. Marriage is widely accepted as an arrangement between a loving couple. That’s it.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

How did the State conclude that a sexual relationship of 2 men is something it wished to acknowledge - that is the puzzle!

Two guys sharing assets, inheritance arrangements, mutual care - fine, why not? But the sexual relationship we call Marriage? Just bizarre!

Marriage today in the West is about love, not reproductive liability as such it is perfectly reasonable to extend it to gay couples. If heterosexuals didn’t break marriage for their own reasons we wouldn’t have this issue.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Marriage today in the West is about love, not reproductive liability as such it is perfectly reasonable to extend it to gay couples. If heterosexuals didn’t break marriage for their own reasons we wouldn’t have this issue.

“Marriage” is a term that describes a union between one man and one woman. It simply cannot apply to a homosexual relationship.

You can call an apple an orange…but that does not make the apple an orange.

 

[Rau]

This is the government we’re talking about. Not the Catholic Church. The government has long proved it doesn’t feel the need to included on what goes on in someone’s bedroom. Marriage is widely accepted as an arrangement between a loving couple. That’s it.

Why do you mention a Church? I didn’t.

A loving couple? Any couple?

 

[Rau]

Marriage today in the West is about love, not reproductive liability as such it is perfectly reasonable to extend it to gay couples. If heterosexuals didn’t break marriage for their own reasons we wouldn’t have this issue.

You may wish to cast your “vote” in that manner Joie. You see a flawed premise and so embrace the consequences. That’s not necessary.

How should “heterosexuals” have behaved such that “homosexuals” would not have claimed a right to marriage? What concrete behavior?

 

[on_the_hill]

…Great. Bob and Lee entering into a Civil Marriage isn’t going to stop that or slow it down. That’s what I don’t understand. I keep reading that “we need traditional marriage to survive”, but the introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples doesn’t deter or discourage heterosexual couples from getting married and making babies.

…

Straight people will still get married.

I don’t quite get it, either.
People aren’t going to switch sides, so to speak.

 

[JimG]

Actually, straight people might well decide not to get married. The more meaningless marriage becomes, the less popular it becomes. Marriage is already in a serious downhill slide, with many opting for mere cohabitation instead. Why enter into a meaningless institution? And the ultimate in making it meaningless, (after contraception, no fault divorce, children as accessories, etc.) is a ‘marriage’ which is inherently non marital, involving couples who are not sexually complementary and can never have a conjugal union. Meaninglessness begets disuse and extinction. But that’s the point, isn’t it?

 

[livingwordunity]

Love doesn’t mean to have sex with.

 

[JimG]

Love doesn’t mean to have sex with.

That’s right That’s why I never married my mom or my brother or my sister or my best friend all of whom I love. No sex.

But marriage is marital. It involves sexual complementarity. At least it did for the first 8,000 years of human existence.

 

[on_the_hill]

Actually, straight people might well decide not to get married. The more meaningless marriage becomes, the less popular it becomes.

Conversely, people might decide not to get married to show support for their gay friends and family members who are denied marriage.

The fact that gay people want to get married proves its value to them. Straight people who would believe marriage to have been devalued by gay marriage are the ones who would stop getting married.

As for me, whether or not gay people get married has absolutely no reflection whatsoever on my own marriage.

It’s not like I’d say to my wife, “Gays are getting married. I’m divorcing you.”

 

[JimG]

Conversely, people might decide not to get married to show support for their gay friends and family members who are denied marriage.

The fact that gay people want to get married proves its value to them. Straight people who would believe marriage to have been devalued by gay marriage are the ones who would stop getting married.

As for me, whether or not gay people get married has absolutely no reflection whatsoever on my own marriage.

It’s not like I’d say to my wife, “Gays are getting married. I’m divorcing you.”

I hope you wouldn’t. What the law is telling you and your wife, though, is that your marriage to your wife, a conjugal, marital union, is exactly the same as the union of one man with another man, a non marital union. They are clearly not the same thing, and yet the law will say they are the same. Your marriage is devalued by definition.

 

[on_the_hill]

But to me it’s not devalued, and presumably not devalued by God, and that’s what’s important.

And regardless of what the law says about gay marriage, I’ll never be able to take it seriously.

 

[davidv]

But to me it’s not devalued, and presumably not devalued by God, and that’s what’s important.

And regardless of what the law says about gay marriage, I’ll never be able to take it seriously.

So, if I started circulating fake $20 bills, the real ones in you pocket would not be devalued?

 

[Rau]

Conversely, people might decide not to get married to show support for their gay friends and family members who are denied marriage.

Perhaps people married might decide not to have sex to show support for the unmarried?

The fact that gay people want to get married proves its value to them.

Yes, it supports an illusion, an illusion only fulfilled if it is called “marriage”.

 

[Rau]

So, if I started circulating fake $20 bills, the real ones in you pocket would not be devalued?

If the fakes are widely agreed to be fakes, no. But if the law, TV, the movies all declare them to be the genuine article, no less valid, no less normal to the point that the young and naive are misled, well…

 

[epan]

I wonder what the point of discussing this topic on this site is? The vast majority who read the thread have much the same position on the issue. The few who dissent are unlikely to be influenced by anything posted.

 

[Rau]

I wonder what the point of discussing this topic on this site is? The vast majority who read the thread have much the same position on the issue. The few who dissent are unlikely to be influenced by anything posted.

Perhaps those discerning what is right will benefit?

 

[epan]

Perhaps those discerning what is right will benefit?

You might enjoy streaming Michael Sandel’s famous social justice series: justiceharvard.org. All of the lectures at Harvard, and much course material are freely available online.

The problem with your suggestion is that both sides perceive what is “right”.

In his final lecture of the series, Professor Sandel finally gets to the root of why that is, in our culture. In recent years, Prof Sandel has been using gay marriage as his final example to examine. He doesn’t take sides on any issues, he just runs through our cultural and philosophical traditions on various topics of social justice, as they pertain to American society and culture.

The entire lecture series is worthwhile to anyone who is interested in the topic of social justice. However you can pick and choose freely, and if you don’t have the time or the interest for the entire series, the last lecture talks about this issue.

 

[Rau]

The problem with your suggestion is that both sides perceive what is “right”.

I was referring to the “3rd side” - the undecided. As to the first 2 sides, both know that one is wrong. And that side typically starts from a flawed premise.