You're right, two males in a sexual relationship can never be equal to the normal male/female relationship. I stand corrected. The male/female relationship has much more weight. The 'government' is The People...regardless of what liberals think it is. Because we are the government. You know...the men and women of the US and their procreated families.
So you admit that it's not legal parity. You have too much of an emotional investment to discuss this topic objectively I'm afraid. Of course, you're the one that wants big government to "protect" your grandchildren from the gays--when you know that's your job. But, typical big government paternalist that you are, you'll just let the bureaucracy handle that for you. Congratulations, they have got you right where they want you. By the way, you really need to strike that Reagan quote from your sig line--not only do you not understand even its most basic premise, you disserve one of the great political quotes in American history.
What does any of that have to do with the religious concept of marriage as defined and totally ignored in #1? Marriage in a federal sense is a legal process, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the religious connotation and theological constructs of marriage, indeed many faiths merely recongnize civil unions (as they term federal marriage) until such time as it is sanctified before the church. So, by forcing the government to call them homosexual 'marriage' rather than civil unions? Who do you think is folling who, and why is a word choice about the same legal benefit so frought with meaning? Because, as has been pointed out, this is not entirely about 'marriage' is it? Again, how can you say that government sponsores 'marriage' is the gold standard, but that government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all? Well, the government already is. It already combines and separate assets, etc. and it does with homosexual linkages that start and fail as well. Legal writ is based on practicality of issues brought before the court, and should not simply be dismissed based on mistaken ideological constructs. Semantic word choices do not afford different legal benefits. This is indeed about normalizing homosexual activity. As I have stated pretty clearly, and as you have clearly avoided, the ACTUAL theological roots of aversion to 'marriage' of homosexuals remains unaddressed. You cannot force a belief to change, as prohibition and or recent adventures in the Middle East should make clear. Calling everything bigotry? That is just going to make things worse over the long haul. The matter of theological acceptance of homosexuality will require the homosexual community to actually acknowledge the concerns, the actual concerns, raised. And having achieved 'marriage' .... the constant screaming of bigotry will fall on increasingly deaf ears. I thought that was the gold standard? But isn't? Something cannot both be and not be. And if all they wanted was equality, civil unions are it. There is no religion of homosexuality. Agh, I see, you demand respect for you side, and yet show deliberate disrespect to any who disagree with you? Well, perhaps you should go have uprotected sex with hundreds of men and contract aids then? Is that acceptable in discourse? Funny? I certainly don't think so. Funny that rude, inappropriate comments are considered the rage by atheists in the drive for equality.
It depends on when you are living. In the bible, marraige is a financial transaction. A father sells his daughter to another man so she can have his chldren and take care of him. That is all it was back then. It wasn't until the 1700 and later that the idea of marriage for love became common.
I ignored your position regarding the religious/theological aspect of the cultural tradition of marriage because it is irrelevant to the discussion of the CIVIL INSTITUTION which is the topic of this thread as stated in the OP. If you want to discuss the religious aspects of marriage, you can start another thread on that topic. But I'll save you the trouble and give you my answer now: "I don't care." You are free to make marriage mean whatever you want in the cultural tradition of your choice--as is every other American. But that is not what this thread is about, so please try to stay on topic. Precisely. And that is the topic of this thread. Good for them. Irrelevant to this thread, but good for them. As far as my position is concerned, this is about legal parity. Nothing more, nothing less. The arbitrary stipulation to gender contained in most states' marriage statutes violates this very simple legal principle. Civil marriage is a contract between the parties--nothing more and nothing less. Like any contract, there are certain necessary and appropriate requirements to enter a legally-binding contract. Gender is not one of them--in any case for any reason. The "marriage contract" should be no different. Because both are factual statements. Yes, that is an excellent statement of the obvious. If it were not, then I could not take the position that I have now, could I? Not sure I understand your point. Please clarify. You may call it what you wish but I think I have made my position quite clear: government out of marriage, and if not, legal parity for all citizens. Period. Then we can move on from this boorish pettiness and go out and live our very short lives in peace and happiness, comfortable in the knowledge that our government is meeting its obligation to us as citizens and protecting our hard-won rights. And as I have stated pretty clearly, that is 100% completely and totally irrelevant to a discussion of the civic institution. I certainly hope you don't refer to me with that declaration. And for the fourth time, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR: I could care less about theological acceptance of anything. We are discussing the civil institution here, not your church or Joe's church, or Fred's church, or The Church Of The Perpetual Beer Drinking Madonna. Not relevant! OK, let me restate for you. Read slowly. When it comes to legally-recognized interpersonal and financial relationships, "marriage" as defined by the CIVIL INSTITUTION is the gold standard. Do you understand? Would you like me to translate into another language for you? Would you like me to have your buddy Dixie Hunter translate it into his language for you? Please cite where I have "demanded respect." Also, please tell which is "my side." Finally, stating a fact as I did vis-a-vis the Catholic pedophiles is not a sign of disrespect--it is simply a statement of fact. I'm not sure my wife would approve. She's a pretty cool lady, but I'm going to have to guess she'd draw the line at that... at least after the first dozen or so. The problem is if you're going try to insult someone, you ought to make it at least relevant to the person you're trying to insult. You were insulted by my factual statement regarding the Catholic Church (which is, frankly your problem). I was not insulted by your suggestion that I might enjoy sex with men. The irony is that my factual statement was just that--and yours was actually a deliberate insult (or a lousy attempt at one). But I digress... nice try though! If you really want to insult me, you can say some mean things about my Red Wings, like how they can take 60 shots on goal per game to their opponents' 25 and STILL manage to let Lord Stanley's cup slip through their fingers THREE YEARS IN A ROW! Yeah, that would probably do it. Them's fightin' words where I come from fella.
It's an odd thing that when voluntary marriages are compared to traditional arranged marriages, the arranged marriages win in regards to longevity and the success of marriage. "pick your own and marry for love" has proven to be a dismal failure. Marriage should be made on more practical concerns such as economics, religious compatibility, agreement on important issues such as having children, type of occupation, where do we live, etc. Having strong family support also improves the chances for a marriage. All this is decided by older, wiser minds not smitten by puppy love in traditional marriages. I'm not saying to go back to the old ways, but the old ways had its charm.
It's an odd thing that when you compare divorce rates among the religious and the irrelegious, the religious get a lot more divorces than the irreligious. "Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience." http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Oh BS. This is just another poll that no doubt shapes atheism into as selective a definition as possible to eliminate the uinwanted trash of humanity from atheism. Its no different than the poll that makes a person have to openly define himself as atheist, while deliberately ignoring all those who openly declare no religion, to state that atheists are actually less prone to criminality. No doubt the numbers here are similiar. After all, if you think that atheism, or any other faith choice, alone makes you more or less prone to divorce .... then you are simply denying reality.
One divorce is one to many. The divorce rate is a clear failing of the Church and its ability to shepherd the congregations. That is why I wish many of the Churches would stop talking about who can get married and start talking about how we can keep them together. The fabric of the Church is threatened when the family separates. It leads to suffering for the children, depression for the parents, and a break down of the support network for all those involved. The body of Christ needs to be whole and unbroken. We cannot allow the fractures to keep appearing. You want to know why people turn away from the Church? Want to know why crime increases? How about why there are so many children born out of wedlock? The reason is because the flock is not being attended to properly. There was a time when a person had a problem they went to their Priest first. Then that Priest helped them solve that problem. Now many would not even consider that option. Divorce is so much easier then working through problems and asking for help. Now I am not saying that the Priests are not trying to do their job. But the Church need to concentrate more on building (to quote St Augustine) a City of God. That is where the Church congregation all work as one to glorify God and act as our Lord would. We would support and love one another. We would turn to our neighbors and our Priests for advice. But most of all we would promote a culture of peace and responsibility. Marriage in the first block of a stable community. Without that the community will have a harder time promoting a healthy society.
While marriage success rates among Christians is not much better than secular couples, the story is quite different when observing marriages that have lasted 50 years or more. Almost without exception their lifelong marriage was forged and sustained by religious faith. They are strong believers and a compelling testamony to others.
