Fine, let same sex couples enter into legal contracts for their own purposes, but don’t call it marriage, because it’s not, and can never be.
I’ve already discussed the fact that apparently it’s alright with some people to pick and choose what we’re ‘comfortable’ with society accepting in the terms of sexual deviance, and as such the ‘it’s wrong’ argument isn’t sufficient reason to fight gay marriage legislation while accepting other marriage laws.
:clapping:
Society can, however, change the common meaning of the word. The Church isn’t the arbiter of the English language.
Agreed, however we should work against divorce/remarriage, deviant sexual acts, and contraception with equal fervor or we should accept the fact that we are being discriminatory… which is not always a bad thing.
Oh, you don’t believe that promotion of homosexuality is part and parcel of the Population Control agenda?See, it’s arguments like this that cause us so much trouble.
Population control? Contracept, abort, homosexual union ourselves out of existence?
Ei, ei, ei.
Okay, I know it doesn’t actually address homosexual marriage but there are a couple of these that I seriously don’t see a problem with.
I stayed home for about 4 months to do exactly that and almost went insane. Some women are more suited to work outside the home, and some men need to get over that fact. Work experience helps to create a more well rounded person who can then apply that experience and knowledge in raising their children… for that matter, why can’t men stay home while women work? I get that the woman needs medical leave to recover, but after those ~6 weeks?Certainly. Do we have to work against all of them at once or one at a time? Divorce, contraception, aberrant sexual practices all work against marriage, so yes, we ought to work against all of them. The only thing that distinguishes same sex marriage is that it for the first time in history, removes the basic element of sexual complementarity. Once that is removed, there is no argument against any type of ‘marriage.’ Some think polygamist marriage will be next. I think pederast marriage may beat it to the punch.
Thank you. All of the pronouncements of the late 1960s were designed by special interest groups to lead to what we have now. You’ve done all of us a great service. Those who seek to undermine stable families and responsible, committed relationships in one man, one woman households have not created something better today. The anarchists of the past have passed on their beliefs. Anarchy is not a good thing.
Wise words, Jim. Especially about discrimination. It is related to “generalizability,” a concept that has lost favor in the western world for fear of “painting with a broad brush” or “sterotyping.” We make generalizations about the world all day, every day. It is a sophisticated way of navigating a very complex world. If we didn’t make generalizations, we would be paralyzed by a need to assess every situation we encounter as if we had no previous experiences from which to proceed.
The laws we create are designed to discriminate against certain behaviors and they should be based on sound reasoning. When homosexuality was removed as a disorder due to pressure from radical gay activists and closeted homosexuals in the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, years of research were discarded and what was a disorder then, became not a disorder the following day.
Perhaps I should clarify. I didn’t mean the use of the term discrimination as a generalizing tool, but rather as a fine tuning tool. We discriminate in the choosing of friends not on a generalized basis but on an individual basis. A person who is a discriminating wine connoisseur is one who is able to make fine distinctions, not general judgments.
Anthropologists and archaeologists who’ve used the Bible to find ancient sites that the wizards of smart in the more secular world said never existed might disagree with the, shall we say “spirit” of your post.
They can change all the definitions they want. But they cannot change natural law.
You discriminate every time you buy one product over another.
Oh, I guess the title of the thread influenced my answer.
Children are neither required nor necessary for a marriage. If the whole point of marriage is about procreation then why allow sterile people that those that don’t want kids to get married? And don’t say that it’s because they could have kids in the right circumstances because that isn’t how it works, if marriage is only about procreation then only people who can and want to have kids should be allowed to marry.
Thanks for the straightforward response. But I think it’s pretty clear that the Catholic conception of marriage hasn’t been unanimously used throughout written history.
If you felt that your rights were being violated, would you compromise them? Would you settle for your oppressors just making some concessions, and then complaining that you’re being difficult when you point out that you’re still being oppressed?