Why is marriage important in America today?

[Bluegoat]

Counselors have codes of ethics that they must test over, and agree to abide by in order to have the license.The ethics include not discriminating due to sexual orientation. They know that. If they can't honor that ~ a standard that the profession embraced ~ they should find another occupational role.

 

Yeah, this is the sort of thing that people think is really worrisome - the radical privatization of religion, as in the Soviet Union. They think that way of dealing with ethics is wrong and stupid. Not allowing for diversity of views, but in fact driving them out of any meaningful existence. It's a pretty impoverished idea of "ethics". It isn't like saying the doctor has to help the lady who had an abortion even if he is against abortion, it is more like saying he is required to give her the abortion.

 

There was a time when helping the person find another more appropriate person to help would have been "not discriminating" and appropriate professional conduct. It doesn't seem an improvement to me to say that councelors, (or any other professional, but maybe especially councelors) will have to practice according to whatever the dominant culture thinks is important.

 

If the "profession" decided 50 years from now that offering services to inter-racial couples is unethical, would you really argue that those who disagree really just should get out of the business and aren't cut out to be counselors?

[Joanne]

Yeah, this is the sort of thing that people think is really worrisome - the radical privatization of religion, as in the Soviet Union. They think that way of dealing with ethics is wrong and stupid. Not allowing for diversity of views, but in fact driving them out of any meaningful existence. It's a pretty impoverished idea of "ethics". It isn't like saying the doctor has to help the lady who had an abortion even if he is against abortion, it is more like saying he is required to give her the abortion.

 

There was a time when helping the person find another more appropriate person to help would have been "not discriminating" and appropriate professional conduct. It doesn't seem an improvement to me to say that councelors, (or any other professional, but maybe especially councelors) will have to practice according to whatever the dominant culture thinks is important.

 

If the "profession" decided 50 years from now that offering services to inter-racial couples is unethical, would you really argue that those who disagree really just should get out of the business and aren't cut out to be counselors?

 

The bold is a red herring.

 

To enter into a training program and progress through the credentialing that includes a code of ethics and then expect not to be held to those ethics is professionally irresponsible.

[Joanne]

"Marriage" has many names and forms of it have been around since the beginning of time. My point was regarding the church's role in marriage. In America, at least up until recently, marriage was a Christian institution.

 

 

 

So Christians who believe in the Bible (which says homosexuality is wrong) can't be counselors? I remember that case and (I may be wrong) I believe it wasn't that she refused to see the woman, but the woman being counseled wanted advice about her relationship and the counselor referred her to someone else.

 

I disagree with the bold; I would more accurately say that there are Christians who believe that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong.

 

*Licensed* counselors have a code of ethics. That code includes non discrimination due to sexual orientation. If they can't agree, they should not pursue licensure.

[Eileen Aroon]

I think we need new words. Marriage as a sacrament (whatever the tradition, Christian or otherwise) is different than marriage as a legal recognition. I think differentiating them by names would make a lot of the debates over the "institution" of marriage go away - a lot of people would agree but don't know it because they're using the same word to mean different ideas.

 

I agree. Think of the word Gentleman. It originally denoted a male with certain land, title and social status. Then in the 19th century it started to be applied to "nice guys". Back when everyone knew the specific definition of Gentleman, a shopkeeper wasnt offended if you said "you are not a gentleman". He knew that he did not fit in that definition. Today, since the word is applied to any kinda okay dude, people are offended if you say "you are no gentleman". The word has lost its meaning.

 

Marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman. you can argue money, politics, religion, love, lust, children till the end of time. But if we keep expanding the definition, soon it will mean everything and thus nothing.

 

Civil unions for gay people should give them every goodie they want financially and legally. But calling it a marriage is only going to denigrate and destroy the term marriage and thus the institution.

[Joanne]

I do think it will affect me, my children, my community, and the future of our society. I find it very disturbing that the same-sex marriage lobby habitually dismisses and denies the fact that what they are proposing is in fact a fundamental redefinition and restructuring of the most basic unit of society, the family. We have to acknowledge that fact before we can even start to discuss the possible implications, positive or negative, of such a move. .

 

The bold: true story.

 

Stable, committed, productive, culturally sanctioned and protected relationships benefit children, employers, neighborhoods and society.

 

That's one of the reasons I wholeheartedly support gay marriage.

[Dory]

So, same-sex couples who wish to be a part of this pattern of society...we and our children are just shut out? That does not seem terribly kind. And I don't understand why the variation of infertility and age seems to be fine and doesn't mess with the pattern, but the variation of a spouse's gender does.

 

I do understand that it is a stretch for some people. However, I'm not willing to cede my family's rights so that no one has to be uncomfortable.

 

It's not about us being uncomfortable. It's about the concern that taking a foundational pattern to society, and pulling it apart, will be unhealthy to the country as a whole. If all variations are considered part of the norm, there really is no norm or base to the pattern anymore, and so there really would be no pattern. No structure. No base to society. I have no desire to make same sex couples or their children feel hated or like outcasts, but since we have ways of allowing variations with everything else, without calling them the norm, I can't help but wonder why that isn't ok here. Is it not alright to say, this is a variation of the pattern, it's not the basic pattern, but that's ok.

Why in every other part of life is it ok to have variations, and call them that, but with this it isn't?

[Joanne]

Marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman. you can argue money, politics, religion, love, lust, children till the end of time. But if we keep expanding the definition, soon it will mean everything and thus nothing.

 

But calling it a marriage is only going to denigrate and destroy the term marriage and thus the institution.

 

Slippery slope fallacy.

[garddwr]

I dob't see how your argument is valid. You concede that there is room for "variation" when it comes to heterosexuals (such as with people who are infertile, or choose not to procreate or adopt) but slam the door on "variations" that involve same sex couples. This ignores the fact that many same sex couples raise children, either their own through previous marriage or through adoption, surrogacy or other means.

 

You miss the point that many same sex partners desire to be part of the "pattern" of forming a family. Instead of embracing that that you would exclude them, and damage the positives of building stable structures in the gay community. Same sex couples with (or without) children are far more likely to form long-lasting and stable bonds that help build our society when they are accorded their right to marry than when those rights are denied them.

 

Ponder that.

 

Bill

 

I think the variation you are proposing is more fundamental than can be accommodated within the traditional structure of marriage, but represents instead a significant redefinition of that structure. Gender has always been a foundational part society's conception of marriage, and to remove it from the equation is a significant change.

 

The "right to marry" which you propose is a recent construct which presumes this redefinition of marriage in its very expression. If marriage exists as the socially recognized union of a man and woman to form a new family unit--the working definition of marriage for much of our society past and present--then even the concept of same-sex marriage can be nothing but an oxymoron. Society extends to every adult the same privilege to marry--to enter into a union of a man and woman. If that union is not desirable to a particular individual, they are free to not enter into such. But to form a different kind of union and label it marriage presumes a different definition of marriage, and that represents a fundamental change in the basic organization of society.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree. Think of the word Gentleman. It originally denoted a male with certain land, title and social status. Then in the 19th century it started to be applied to "nice guys". Back when everyone knew the specific definition of Gentleman, a shopkeeper wasnt offended if you said "you are not a gentleman". He knew that he did not fit in that definition. Today, since the word is applied to any kinda okay dude, people are offended if you say "you are no gentleman". The word has lost its meaning.

 

Nooooooooooo...the word has changed in meaning, which is quite common in most languages.

 

Marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman. you can argue money, politics, religion, love, lust, children till the end of time. But if we keep expanding the definition, soon it will mean everything and thus nothing.

 

Oh really? Marriage has never included polygamy?

 

Civil unions for gay people should give them every goodie they want financially and legally. But calling it a marriage is only going to denigrate and destroy the term marriage and thus the institution.

 

Civil rights are a "goodie" now?

Again, can someone, anyone, please explain how the presence of a married gay couple down the street affects your marriage? Or the institution of marriage?

Wouldn't drive by marriages in Vegas that are easily annulled have more of an impact?

[cdrumm4448]

Marriage has historically and traditionally meant one man and one woman. Any other arrangement cannot be called marriage. Many people oppose the redefinition of marriage because they believe homosexuals are not "born that way". It is believed to be a choice. Therefore, everyone has the opportunity to marry (someone of the opposite sex from the definition of marriage). Some people choose not to.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Marriage has historically and traditionally meant one man and one woman.

 

Not in all societies.

 

Any other arrangement cannot be called marriage.

 

Why not? We can establish it has not always meant one man and one woman.

 

Many people oppose the redefinition of marriage because they believe homosexuals are not "born that way". It is believed to be a choice. Therefore, everyone has the opportunity to marry (someone of the opposite sex from the definition of marriage). Some people choose not to.

 

Even if you do not believe that, how does their relationship affect you or anyone else? How does a gay couple choosing to commit to each other as a family unit change anything in your life? What is the fundamental reason to deny two consenting adults of the same sex the same rights as two consenting adults of the opposite sex?

[AdventureMoms]

I think the variation you are proposing is more fundamental than can be accommodated within the traditional structure of marriage, but represents instead a significant redefinition of that structure. Gender has always been a foundational part society's conception of marriage, and to remove it from the equation is a significant change.

.

How would this variation "break" marriage? I'm seeing a lot of really vague stuff about structures and patterns, but no specific examples. In what way, specifically, does my marriage unravel society?

[AdventureMoms]

It's not about us being uncomfortable. It's about the concern that taking a foundational pattern to society, and pulling it apart, will be unhealthy to the country as a whole. If all variations are considered part of the norm, there really is no norm or base to the pattern anymore, and so there really would be no pattern. No structure. No base to society. I have no desire to make same sex couples or their children feel hated or like outcasts, but since we have ways of allowing variations with everything else, without calling them the norm, I can't help but wonder why that isn't ok here. Is it not alright to say, this is a variation of the pattern, it's not the basic pattern, but that's ok.

Why in every other part of life is it ok to have variations, and call them that, but with this it isn't?

 

I'm so confused by this argument. You are the one saying that this variation is not ok. I would also like to hear from you why this variation would pull society apart. It makes no sense.

 

Do you really think that marriage can survive all the crazy things that straight people do to it (Las Vegas comes to mind) but committed homosexual partnerships are going to tear it apart? If so, why?

 

As to why are domestic partnerships or civil unions not ok? Well, for the same reason that "separate but equal" was not ok during the black civil rights movement. When something is separate, it is generally not equal. If it were equal, people would just call it marriage. If people have a problem with gay civil marriage, but are ok with gay civil unions while straight people still have civil marriage, how is that not insisting on a separate "class" for those of us who are not QUITE really married.

[Dory]

I'm so confused by this argument. You are the one saying that this variation is not ok. I would also like to hear from you why this variation would pull society apart. It makes no sense.

 

Do you really think that marriage can survive all the crazy things that straight people do to it (Las Vegas comes to mind) but committed homosexual partnerships are going to tear it apart? If so, why?

 

As to why are domestic partnerships or civil unions not ok? Well, for the same reason that "separate but equal" was not ok during the black civil rights movement. When something is separate, it is generally not equal. If it were equal, people would just call it marriage. If people have a problem with gay civil marriage, but are ok with gay civil unions while straight people still have civil marriage, how is that not insisting on a separate "class" for those of us who are not QUITE really married.

 

I think the crazy things that straight people do is more damaging than allowing a variation like homosexuality in the core pattern. But I'm not sure what that has to do with it. That's a different discussion.

When something is called something different, it can't be equal? That doesn't make sense. I'm female, my husband is male, we are not called by the same name, we don't do the same things, but we are equal.

I think in many ways we are already doing this but, you can't take the core pattern to society and say, This doesn't matter, and expect it to be ok.

[Corraleno]

Marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman.

Marriage has historically and traditionally meant one man and one woman. Any other arrangement cannot be called marriage.

:confused::confused::confused:

Actually, in many societies, and for much of human history, polygamy was the standard definition of "marriage." I think what you really mean is that any other arrangement cannot (in your opinion) be called a Christian marriage.

 

At least those who admit that they oppose gay marriage because it's a "sin" (in their interpretation) are upfront about the fact that they are trying to impose their own religious beliefs on others. Trying to avoid admitting that by claiming that the universal definition of marriage = 1 man + 1 woman is just ignorant. BTW, there have also been societies that allowed same gender couples to marry.

 

My point was regarding the church's role in marriage. In America, at least up until recently, marriage was a Christian institution.

So what have Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and other non-Christians been doing for the last 200 years? :confused:

 

Jackie

[Bluegoat]

How would this variation "break" marriage? I'm seeing a lot of really vague stuff about structures and patterns, but no specific examples. In what way, specifically, does my marriage unravel society?

 

 

I think to talk about it unraveling society is probably a little strong. I think what is being said is that if we are saying that marriage is just whatever we choose to define it as, it really has no meaning at all in any objective way.

 

I think that part the difficulty is that the question is being framed differently. On the one hand you have people asking "who has the right to marry", and the other side is saying "what is a marriage".

 

Most people in the discussion do think that marriage is a "something", it has some meaning - but often there isn't much deeper consideration of the idea that it is a something at all. What does it mean if marriage is a something?

 

We really can't say much about who has the right to marry if we haven't asked and answered the question of what marriage is. It could be a bit like the guy in the Life of Brian who wants the right to have a baby - what does that even mean to someone who by nature of what he actually is can't actually gestate a baby?

 

There seems to be a group though who is arguing that we can define marriage in any way - as if it is a wholly human construct. If that were true, that would be what "breaks" marriage. It is essentially saying that it has no nature of its own at all, no end or good. And if that is true we really couldn't argue convincingly against ANY way of defining it. I could say that marriage could be between not only any adult but any person and an inanimate object, and that would be just as meaningful as any other definition. (I think most people don't really believe that, but they do tend to accept some of the arguments that come out of that position, even when they aren't really compatible with their own basic thoughts.)

 

So I think what is being said is that to talk about the right to marry without talking about what marriage is, or at least some real limits or outlines, is to make it an arbitrary institution.

[TranquilMind]

How would this variation "break" marriage? I'm seeing a lot of really vague stuff about structures and patterns, but no specific examples. In what way, specifically, does my marriage unravel society?

 

Here's a site I came across when I googled your question in which a Harvard Sociologist examines this question.

 

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/gay-marriage-harms-traditional-marriage

 

Whoops. Can't read that article. I don't know why? Trying to find it.

 

Here are a couple more in which this Sociologist, Pitirim Sorkin, is mentioned.

 

http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/01/15/the-case-against-homosexual-marriage/

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/8/wetzstein-marriage-gays-want-is-altered/

 

The following one is faith-based, ftr:

 

http://www.crosswalk.com/1241113/

 

This one is conservative (duh), but has lots of stats:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC04C02

From article:

A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.8

Edited July 25, 2012 by TranquilMind

[Bluegoat]

The bold is a red herring.

 

To enter into a training program and progress through the credentialing that includes a code of ethics and then expect not to be held to those ethics is professionally irresponsible.

 

It isn't a red herring, it is very to the point. Organizations also have obligations.

 

Large professional organizations like that are not free to be arbitrary or impose anything they like. If the national firefighters organization says that women cannot join and be firefighters, does that mean it is wrong for a woman to train and seek to be accepted - the rule is bad, not the person seeking to join the organization.

 

Secondly, it could be argued that she was adhering to the professional ethics - she made sure the individual got appropriate care when she couldn't give it. I have no doubt that she considered that she was - I would be very surprised if she considered herself to be flaunting a rule she just didn't like.

[Bluegoat]

Here's a site I came across when I googled your question in which a Harvard Sociologist examines this question.

 

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/gay-marriage-harms-traditional-marriage

 

I don't think that really says much though - it doesn't give any kind of concrete examples of how that might play out, and it doesn't really talk much about what marriage actually means. I though it was pretty poor.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It isn't a red herring, it is very to the point. Organizations also have obligations.

 

Large professional organizations like that are not free to be arbitrary or impose anything they like. If the national firefighters organization says that women cannot join and be firefighters, does that mean it is wrong for a woman to train and seek to be accepted - the rule is bad, not the person seeking to join the organization.

 

Secondly, it could be argued that she was adhering to the professional ethics - she made sure the individual got appropriate care when she couldn't give it. I have no doubt that she considered that she was - I would be very surprised if she considered herself to be flaunting a rule she just didn't like.

 

Please note she did not lose her professional accreditation. She was fired by the company that hired her. It was their determination that her inability to provide services for all clients did not meet their standards.

 

I disagree with Joanne slightly on this issue, as I believe anyone in private practice should be able to refer *anyone* they do not believe they can help to another professional.

[Corraleno]

I believe that a stable society is dependent on the establishment and maintenance of basic underlying patterns and structures. As long as such structures are in place and are generally acknowledged and adhered to, the social structure is able to withstand a certain amount of variation and remain stable. So it is possible for some members to act outside of societal and even biological norms without majorly disrupting the underlying structure. The basic structure remains in place. This happens in every society.

 

I am concerned when I see individuals and groups demanding that the norms themselves be changed to accommodate and sanction these variations. That represents a fundamental restructuring of societal foundations, and is not a move to be taken lightly.

You realize that the same arguments were used to defend slavery, desegregation, laws against mixed-race marriages, etc. — this is the proper social order, this is the way things are meant to be (even "this is how God wants it to be"), and allowing desegregation or interracial marriage will bring the end of society as we know it. The same arguments were used against giving women the right to vote. None of those things were true, society didn't collapse, and in retrospect we can see how those arguments were based on fear and prejudice.

 

I believe the same is true for the arguments against same-sex marriage. The tide is turning, the majority of young people, even many Christian young people, are in favor of marriage equality, and eventually the laws will be changed. And I believe that in the future, people will view the anti-marriage-equality movement in the same light that we now view those who fought against women's voting rights, desegregation, and mixed-race marriage.

 

Jackie

[AdventureMoms]

I think to talk about it unraveling society is probably a little strong. I think what is being said is that if we are saying that marriage is just whatever we choose to define it as, it really has no meaning at all in any objective way.

 

I think that part the difficulty is that the question is being framed differently. On the one hand you have people asking "who has the right to marry", and the other side is saying "what is a marriage".

 

Most people in the discussion do think that marriage is a "something", it has some meaning - but often there isn't much deeper consideration of the idea that it is a something at all. What does it mean if marriage is a something?

 

We really can't say much about who has the right to marry if we haven't asked and answered the question of what marriage is. It could be a bit like the guy in the Life of Brian who wants the right to have a baby - what does that even mean to someone who by nature of what he actually is can't actually gestate a baby?

There seems to be a group though who is arguing that we can define marriage in any way - as if it is a wholly human construct. If that were true, that would be what "breaks" marriage. It is essentially saying that it has no nature of its own at all, no end or good. And if that is true we really couldn't argue convincingly against ANY way of defining it. I could say that marriage could be between not only any adult but any person and an inanimate object, and that would be just as meaningful as any other definition. (I think most people don't really believe that, but they do tend to accept some of the arguments that come out of that position, even when they aren't really compatible with their own basic thoughts.)

 

If civil marriage is not a human construct, what is it? I'm not talking about religious marriage, nor is the gay marriage movement talking about religious marriage. The various religions can do whatever they want internally about that. We're talking about state-sanctioned, government-issued civil marriage.

 

And I'm using every bit of restraint I have to not scream over the inanimate object comparison (I have two sleeping toddlers or I might actually scream). It's a slippery slope argument, is enormously overused, and it is ABSURD.

 

So I think what is being said is that to talk about the right to marry without talking about what marriage is, or at least some real limits or outlines, is to make it an arbitrary institution.

 

OK, how about this for definition: A marriage is a union of two consenting adults who form a family unit.

[AdventureMoms]

Here's a site I came across when I googled your question in which a Harvard Sociologist examines this question.

 

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/gay-marriage-harms-traditional-marriage

 

Wow, that's quite offensive without giving any real examples. I'm so sorry my cheap immoral marriage is watering down all those awesome heterosexual marriages! :lol:

[Corraleno]

Here's a site I came across when I googled your question in which a Harvard Sociologist examines this question.

 

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/gay-marriage-harms-traditional-marriage

 

:confused: Unless you linked the wrong page, that's just a one-paragraph opinion post from someone defending Christian marriage on the grounds that "holy matrimony" should be what the church says it is. The poster mentions a Harvard sociologist in passing without even citing the work. The post itself is not by the Harvard sociologist.

 

Jackie

[AdventureMoms]

You realize that the same arguments were used to defend slavery, desegregation, laws against mixed-race marriages, etc. — this is the proper social order, this is the way things are meant to be (even "this is how God wants it to be"), and allowing desegregation or interracial marriage will bring the end of society as we know it. The same arguments were used against giving women the right to vote. None of those things were true, society didn't collapse, and in retrospect we can see how those arguments were based on fear and prejudice.

 

I believe the same is true for the arguments against same-sex marriage. The tide is turning, the majority of young people, even many Christian young people, are in favor of marriage equality, and eventually the laws will be changed. And I believe that in the future, people will view the anti-marriage-equality movement in the same light that we now view those who fought against women's voting rights, desegregation, and mixed-race marriage.

 

Jackie

 

Yup, one of the things that gives me great hope is the thought that my grandchildren will be able to look back and see all this as a great absurdity of our time.

[Corraleno]

Large professional organizations like that are not free to be arbitrary or impose anything they like. If the national firefighters organization says that women cannot join and be firefighters, does that mean it is wrong for a woman to train and seek to be accepted - the rule is bad, not the person seeking to join the organization.

And the reason the rule is bad is because it unfairly discriminates against one segment of the population. This is the exact opposite of the counseling situation, where the issue is nondiscrimination.

 

Jackie

[nmoira]

Here's a site I came across when I googled your question in which a Harvard Sociologist examines this question.

 

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/gay-marriage-harms-traditional-marriage

 

Whoops. Can't read that article. I don't know why? Trying to find it.

 

Here are a couple more in which this Sociologist, Pitirim Sorkin, is mentioned.

 

http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/01/15/the-case-against-homosexual-marriage/

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/8/wetzstein-marriage-gays-want-is-altered/

 

The following one is faith-based, ftr:

 

http://www.crosswalk.com/1241113/

 

This one is conservative (duh), but has lots of stats:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC04C02

 

You know, there's a real, live case study to the north. The institution of marriage isn't suffering in Canada. None of the things the prophesied by the naysayers has come to pass.

[SonshineLearner]

Wow, that's quite offensive without giving any real examples. I'm so sorry my cheap immoral marriage is watering down all those awesome heterosexual marriages! :lol:

 

Here's the thing: what if I want to enter into marriage as a union ordained by God. (and to my understanding that is a man and a woman)

 

Why can't those who want to enter into union with same gender enter into a union that is referred to as something else? Why is it the same to be in a union which is composed of opposite genders as it is to be with in union with the same gender?

 

Family can be consisted of many different looks (grandma, mom, kids....etc...) BUT it doesn't mean they have marital status.

 

Heck, I lived with my best friend (another female) while I had my daughter. BUT, it didn't mean that we were able (or wanted) to have marital status.

Edited July 25, 2012 by NayfiesMama

[Corraleno]

There seems to be a group though who is arguing that we can define marriage in any way - as if it is a wholly human construct. If that were true, that would be what "breaks" marriage. It is essentially saying that it has no nature of its own at all, no end or good.

 

:confused: It is a wholly human construct — what else would it be? Marriage is a ritual or custom in which two or more humans enter into a social contract, the rights and obligations of which are defined by that culture.

 

If you're saying that the only meaningful definition of marriage is the Biblical one, and that any other definition is meaningless and would "break" marriage, then that's pretty insulting to the billions of humans who do not have Christian marriages. And of course it means you are admitting that you think that everyone in America, Christian or not, must abide by your personal religious beliefs.

 

Jackie

[Marianne in TX]

 

I believe the same is true for the arguments against same-sex marriage. The tide is turning, the majority of young people, even many Christian young people, are in favor of marriage equality, and eventually the laws will be changed. And I believe that in the future, people will view the anti-marriage-equality movement in the same light that we now view those who fought against women's voting rights, desegregation, and mixed-race marriage.

 

Jackie

 

How do you think this might affect Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, and Muslims (and others?) who continue to adhere to their Traditions?

[nmoira]

Here's the thing: what if I want to enter into marriage as a union ordained by God. (and to my understanding that is a man and a woman)

What if I, a straight woman, want to enter into a marriage not ordained by a God? Where are the threads about that?

 

Why can't those who want to enter into union with same gender enter into a union that is referred to as something else? Why is it the same to be in a union of composed of opposite genders as it is to be married to the same gender?

And if we come up with another term (not that I'm advocating this), and people choose to say "married" anyway? How does it affect you if they do?

[nmoira]

How do you think this might affect Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, and Muslims (and others?) who continue to adhere to their Traditions?

Some Christian denominations will marry divorcees (even multiple ones). The Catholic Church hasn't crumbled in the face of it. Why would gay marriage be an issue for them?

[TranquilMind]

Yeah, this is the sort of thing that people think is really worrisome - the radical privatization of religion, as in the Soviet Union. They think that way of dealing with ethics is wrong and stupid. Not allowing for diversity of views, but in fact driving them out of any meaningful existence. It's a pretty impoverished idea of "ethics". It isn't like saying the doctor has to help the lady who had an abortion even if he is against abortion, it is more like saying he is required to give her the abortion.

 

There was a time when helping the person find another more appropriate person to help would have been "not discriminating" and appropriate professional conduct. It doesn't seem an improvement to me to say that councelors, (or any other professional, but maybe especially councelors) will have to practice according to whatever the dominant culture thinks is important.

 

If the "profession" decided 50 years from now that offering services to inter-racial couples is unethical, would you really argue that those who disagree really just should get out of the business and aren't cut out to be counselors?

 

This is extremely worrisome reasoning on the part of those who insist that their position not simply be respected, as you suggest, but wholeheartedly embraced in violation of conscience/religious principles.

 

Reminds me of the news story aweeks ago out of Germany, which no longer recognizes the right to religious circumcision, which Jews are religiously required to follow.

 

The Cologne court, ruling in the case of a Muslim boy who suffered bleeding after circumcision, said the practice inflicts bodily harm and should not be carried out on young boys but could be practiced on older males who give consent.

From NBC: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/27/12446284-german-court-bans-male-circumcision-sparks-outrage-among-jews-muslims?lite

[TranquilMind]

Corraleno: Marriage is a ritual or custom in which two or more humans enter into a social contract, the rights and obligations of which are defined by that culture.

This is a rewrite of the definition. This is the definition of marriage since the beginning of time:the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

 

It isn't just Biblical. It is the definition of marriage in all cultures throughout time...until the last few years.

[AdventureMoms]

Here's the thing: what if I want to enter into marriage as a union ordained by God. (and to my understanding that is a man and a woman)

 

Feel free to do so! I wish you the best!

 

Why can't those who want to enter into union with same gender enter into a union that is referred to as something else? Why is it the same to be in a union which is composed of opposite genders as it is to be with in union with the same gender?

 

Family can be consisted of many different looks (grandma, mom, kids....etc...) BUT it doesn't mean they have marital status.

 

Heck, I lived with my best friend (another female) while I had my daughter. BUT, it didn't mean that we were able (or wanted) to have marital status.

 

Because my relationship with my wife is deeper than your relationship with your friend. Seriously. I could equally say "my cousin lives with her boyfriend and they're happy (and have children together) so why do you need to get married?"

[Rivka]

From a Christian/church point of view, the reasons are twofold - first, marriage was originally a religious act, not a governmental one. We have legal marriage for many reasons that have already been discussed. The church also believes that homosexual relationships are wrong. (I know there are some now that don't, but I'm speaking for those against gay marriage). For the government to now come in and tell those churches that they must now perform the sacrament they initiated for relationships they don't condone is beyond their rights and hurtful to many. Second - if gay marriage is legalized and churches refuse to marry gay couples, they can face government penalties and censure. (Imagine if a church today refused to marry a mixed race couple!) The government can pull a church's tax-exempt status, as well as the other benefits non-profits enjoy, that often make it possible for small churches to stay open, and to serve their communities.

 

None of this is true. None of this is true. Churches are allowed to set whatever conditions they like regarding religious marriage in the church, regardless of whether those conditions involve protected classes of people. For example, religion is a protected class in American law, but it is common for religious institutions to refuse to perform an interfaith marriage. If I were single, I couldn't walk into a Catholic church or a Jewish synagogue and demand that they marry me to another Unitarian-Universalist.

 

Show me a church in Massachusetts, Iowa, New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, or Washington DC which has been threatened with loss of its tax-exempt status for refusing to confer the sacrament of marriage on a gay couple. Show me one. You can't. The absolute right of churches to restrict the performance of religious marriage is intact in each of those states.

 

And while we're on the subject of religious rights, I would like to bring up my own church. The Unitarian-Universalist church has been performing commitment ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples since the 1970s. Every church in our denomination would like to marry LGBT couples. We consider it to be part of our religious beliefs. And yet, in most states, our ministers are prohibited by law from marrying gay couples.

 

If gay marriage is a matter of religious freedom, why doesn't my minister get to have religious freedom? If churches get to define marriage, why is my church prohibited from defining marriage?

[Corraleno]

From article:

A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.

And what is the average length of a heterosexual relationship? Because if you're going to compare apples to apples, you need to count all heterosexual dating, courting, cohabiting, etc. That article is purposely, and dishonestly, comparing the length of heterosexual marriages with the length of homosexual relationships.

 

The whole article is so full of exaggeration, fear-mongering, and logical flaws that there's no point trying to refute it. Gotta laugh at the fact that the guy even used the words "slippery slope," lol.

 

Jackie

[TranquilMind]

Wow, that's quite offensive without giving any real examples. I'm so sorry my cheap immoral marriage is watering down all those awesome heterosexual marriages! :lol:

Try the other links. Though I suspect you will respond the same way to all of them, because, obviously, the only people who write in a serious and thoughtful way about this topic are those who disagree.

[AdventureMoms]

How do you think this might affect Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, and Muslims (and others?) who continue to adhere to their Traditions?

 

The same way all the other changes in marriage have affected them? Several of those traditions do arranged marriages. Does that mean that only arranged marriages should meet the legal definition?

[TranquilMind]

Here's the thing: what if I want to enter into marriage as a union ordained by God. (and to my understanding that is a man and a woman)

 

Why can't those who want to enter into union with same gender enter into a union that is referred to as something else? Why is it the same to be in a union which is composed of opposite genders as it is to be with in union with the same gender?

 

Family can be consisted of many different looks (grandma, mom, kids....etc...) BUT it doesn't mean they have marital status.

 

Heck, I lived with my best friend (another female) while I had my daughter. BUT, it didn't mean that we were able (or wanted) to have marital status.

 

That's the whole crux of it right there, the insistence upon the co-opting of marriage.

 

It's like me insisting on calling myself a man, instead of a woman. I'm very much equal (and in some ways superior:tongue_smilie:) to any man, but I'm not a man. I'm different. I can call myself one all day long, but that doesn't make it so.

[AdventureMoms]

This is a rewrite of the definition. This is the definition of marriage since the beginning of time:the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

 

It isn't just Biblical. It is the definition of marriage in all cultures throughout time...until the last few years.

 

That part is a rewrite on your part, at least from some historic cultures.

 

The working definition of marriage changes all the time, and has through history. English is a living language.

[Corraleno]

Why can't those who want to enter into union with same gender enter into a union that is referred to as something else?

Why does one religious group have the right to "own" a word that also has legal, civil, and secular definitions, rights, obligations, and ramifications?

 

How do you think this might affect Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, and Muslims (and others?) who continue to adhere to their Traditions?

They can continue to practice their own religion, get married in their own churches, and practice marriage as it applies to them. And others will be allowed to do the same.

 

Jackie

[raceNzanesmom]

For me, marriage is a covenant. That makes it extremely important to have with the man I've spent 27 years with. As a person that believes the Bible is the infallible, literal Word of God, I believe that covenant is to be between one man and one woman.

 

(Not reading the 20+ pages, sorry.)

[TranquilMind]

What if I, a straight woman, want to enter into a marriage not ordained by a God? Where are the threads about that?

 

 

 

ALL over the place. People write about this stuff routinely. "I left my husband when I got pregnant by my baby-daddy."

[AdventureMoms]

Try the other links. Though I suspect you will respond the same way to all of them, because, obviously, the only people who write in a serious and thoughtful way about this topic are those who disagree.

 

OK, do any of them have actual concrete examples, or is it actually more of the same unsupported rhetoric?

[Corraleno]

This is a rewrite of the definition. This is the definition of marriage since the beginning of time:the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

 

It isn't just Biblical. It is the definition of marriage in all cultures throughout time...until the last few years.

The fact that so many people keep claiming this to be true, in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary, makes me wonder if people are purposely equating "all cultures throughout time" with "Judeo-Christian religions in the last few thousand years," and excluding all other cultures and religions as being less than human, or if they have really read so little history that they don't know any better. :confused:

 

Jackie

[nmoira]

ALL over the place. People write about this stuff routinely. "I left my husband when I got pregnant by my baby-daddy."

:confused:

 

I think you misunderstand. Since we're talking about "co-opting" the word marriage as "ordained by god", I'm asking where are the threads here decrying secular marriage between opposite sex couples?

 

ETA: I've been married for almost 15 years and have yet to leave my husband to run off with a, um, baby-daddy. (And you'd only have to look at a picture of him with the kids to be assured as to paternity.)

[TranquilMind]

That part is a rewrite on your part, at least from some historic cultures.

 

The working definition of marriage changes all the time, and has through history. English is a living language.

 

Seriously. You jumped on THAT point?? That's pretty funny.

 

The witness will stipulate that Arranged marriages have happened. It probably would be better in many cases today if they still happened, actually. There is this silly show I caught on TV the other day called Parental Control, where Mom and also Dad pick out a new girl to date their son to see if they can do better than the obnoxious girlfriend the son now has (or pick a boy if daughter has obnoxious boyfriend). And they ARE obnoxious, believe me, as they sit there and view the video of the dates.

 

A high percentage of the time, the son or daughter really likes the choice of either Mom or Dad and picks that person over the current girl or boyfriend. I could so TOTALLY pick out good matches for my kids.

[TranquilMind]

:confused:

 

I think you misunderstand. Since we're talking about "co-opting" the word marriage as "ordained by god", I'm asking where are the threads here decrying secular marriage between opposite sex couples?

 

That wasn't part of my dictionary definition, though I do agree that marriage is ordained by God.

 

Why bother? I don't want a secular marriage, as I can't imagine anything emptier...when those times get exceedingly rocky in life, I'm glad my husband is in covenant not only with God but with me.

 

It's the glue, the "threefold cord that is not easily broken" that doesn't exist otherwise. But why "decry" it. People can do what they want and I'm not anyone's Holy Spirit.

 

I'd love to see a study on the differences in longevity and happiness between convenantal marriages and secular marriages though. I'm pretty sure there would be a difference in statistics, just going from observation.

[Leav97]

...

 

And while we're on the subject of religious rights, I would like to bring up my own church. The Unitarian-Universalist church has been performing commitment ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples since the 1970s. Every church in our denomination would like to marry LGBT couples. We consider it to be part of our religious beliefs. And yet, in most states, our ministers are prohibited by law from marrying gay couples.

 

If gay marriage is a matter of religious freedom, why doesn't my minister get to have religious freedom? If churches get to define marriage, why is my church prohibited from defining marriage?

 

:iagree: Why do conservative Christian religious rights take precedence over MY religious rights (also a UU)?