Convince me

[elliotfc]

1) There is no overturning. The government would simply stop enforcing religious/tradtion based discrimination. Churches can refuse to marry whoever they want. People now married would still be married. [/B]

Laws and traditions would be overturned. You can't possibly say differently.

2) You have a funny definition of universal. Any basis for that? I can refute it simply by stating that I do not adhere to your "universal" definition. I'm going to go out on a limb and say I am not alone.

I wasn't talking about individuals, or even religions. Rather, I was talking about government and civil policy and enforcement and guidelines, none of which have ever supported or recognized same-sex unions. The universal breaks down recently, within the past generation. Of course I obviously think this recent rethinking goes against what is a seamless garment of thinking on this matter, as far as civil policy goes (not individual/religion).

How does a "universal" tradition (assumung one exists) as opposed to just a tradition justify discrimination? If every society from the begining of time practiced racial segregation, is that segregation then O.K.? Isn't this just an appeal to the majority on steroids?

But every society from the beginning of time has not practiced racial segregation, and those who have (the majority) have not used the same standard, but a different one depending on local conditions. In contrast, the standard ban (same sex) is a consistent and universal one.

I just want to know what the grounds are, besides religious tradition. That is it. Is there a reason beyond simple dislike? Dress it up as long held tradition or whatever, it still boils down to at best "just because" and at worst "because we don't care for their kind."

That's the negative way of looking at it.

The positive way of looking at it is that human beings have respected the concept that a man and woman come together, assume roles, and becoming ritualistically united. The government and society embrace this concept and support it through policy, and consider it the foundation of the society. Yes, people desiring same-sex union could very well take that personally. Anybody could take anything personally.

Government is somehow expected to use the force of law to enforce a particular religious/cultural definition of marriage on the general public. How in the heck is this acceptable?

Easy. It's always been acceptable.

Just because we allow this sort of thing for hundred of years does not make it right.

Nor does it make it wrong. Or, it could make it right if that is what your argument is based on. Or, it could make it wrong if your argument is based on something else.

Right/wrong, what is the ideal? Is it a secular ideal? If so, why not respect the secular tradition, as opposed to the progressive invention?

You bring up right and wrong, and I am just wondering why you think your morality is better than anyone elses. What is the moral standard that everyone should follow?

Just because a majority may favor it doesn't make it right.

I agree.

A solid reason why keeping gays from marrying would at least be a start in making it legitimate.

Because marriage was an idea conceived for opposite sex unions, and not for same sex unions. You might as well ask why I can't fly in Air Force One. Air Force One is for the president and staff and reporters.

Also gays CAN in fact marry. They just can not marry members of the same sex. So they are not, in fact, discriminated against. They can marry just as I can, but they have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

There are rules governing who you can or can't marry. You can't marry a kid, or your sister, or commit bigamy, and included with that is someone of the same sex.

To them, maybe, but government is not supposed to take its cues from religious based tradition.

How about anthropological tradition?

Giving the same right to gays that is already given to hetrosexuals is not giving gays more than is given hetros. Saying discrimination is OK simply because the right is "special" really is just the same "just because" religious tradition argument.

Gays have the right to marry! It just has to be someone of the opposite sex.

Murky? How about it being a completely unsupported assumption? If there were a solid reason for why our civilization is harmed by gays being married, then we have a different story.

Just another brick out of the wall. I don't think it will cause the wall to collapse. It changes the concept of what marriage is when we expand the definition, or declare the traditional definition to be out of order. Since our civilization is founded on this tradition, destabilization must result.

Societies must have standards for behavior and interaction and acceptance. We disagree about this particular standard. Why should the traditional secular idea of marriage be altered by a recent secular development? In this case it is harmful to agree that a radical new idea is superior to anthropological realities.

Embracing same-sex marriage by giving it societal acceptance would equivocate homosexuality with heterosexuality. Homosexuality is inherently sterile, and there is no reason why that sexuality should fall under the definition of marriage.

However, all that is offered at this point is "it is tradition," it is obvious," "it means we have to let people marry their car" and other fuzzy and/or fallacious declarations.

It's enough for me. You can keep saying that these people should get this thing in this circumstance and I don't see any solid reason for that. What is the harm in the current policy? Hurt feelings? You do not make your position clear either. You do not persuade me that indisputable anthropological reality is wrong on this issue. You do not persude me that a same-sex union is as valid as a heterosexual union. You do not persuade me that restrictions should be removed from marriage rules.

Traditionalists want it both ways. They want government to recognize their tradition by giving certain special rights to those that take part. However, they want government to discriminate just as they would as to who is eligible for those benefits. Government should not be in that business.

The tradition, in this case, comes before the government. The government could never have existed if it did not respect this tradition. Government is in fact in the discrimination business, just look at the tax code.

Government is not a tool for the advancement of one viewpoint.

Except you would have it advance your viewpoint.

People are welcome to their religious and cultural beliefs and traditions. What they are not welcome to is the use of government to distribute rights and benefits only to people that their traditions deem worthy of respect.

If gays want the rights and benefits, all they have to do is marry people of the opposite sex.

Marriage can exist just fine without government. If we are going to bring government in to this mess, then benefits should be available to all, and not restricted based on a certain groups religious tradition, majority tradition or not.

I'm not particular about the benefts. Marriages have not universally received governemental benefits. It's the recogntition that is the sticking point here.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

A quick metacrawler search produces the following:

In Christianity



Ancient Greece




And I will keep looking for more.

Thanks. My argument had to do with governement policy, and not religious policy.

By the way, regarding Serge/Bacchus
http://www.ucc.ie/milmart/sergorig.html

For what its worth.


-Elliot

 

[Suddenly]

Laws and traditions would be overturned. You can't possibly say differently.

I can say differently as to tradition. Is part of the Christian tradition of marriage the denial of governmental recogniton of other forms of marriage? How is that?

But every society from the beginning of time has not practiced racial segregation, and those who have (the majority) have not used the same standard, but a different one depending on local conditions. In contrast, the standard ban (same sex) is a consistent and universal one.

I have serious doubts that this can be verified. These sorts of things until recently were dealt with on a very local level, and I'm not sure how you know that nowere were people of the same gender permitted to live in a spouse like relationship. There are links and mentions of these sorts of things in this thread. Your distinction between religion and government w/r/t SFG's link discussing homosexuality in early Christianity really doesn't hold as government and religious authority weren't exactly seperate.

Nor does it make it wrong. Or, it could make it right if that is what your argument is based on. Or, it could make it wrong if your argument is based on something else.

Right/wrong, what is the ideal? Is it a secular ideal? If so, why not respect the secular tradition, as opposed to the progressive invention?

You bring up right and wrong, and I am just wondering why you think your morality is better than anyone elses. What is the moral standard that everyone should follow?

My morality was never brought into issue. My claim was that believing something for a long time doesn't make it right.

Because marriage was an idea conceived for opposite sex unions, and not for same sex unions. You might as well ask why I can't fly in Air Force One. Air Force One is for the president and staff and reporters.

150 years ago, it was held that the constitution was concieved to establish rights for white men only, and not black men. Your argument here is almost exactly the same one Tawney made in the Dred Scott case.

You say marriage was concieved for hetrosexuals only.
He said the constitution was for white people only.

This is the same argument from tradition in an attempt to avoid or at least slow down the end of a useless and discriminatory practice.

Also gays CAN in fact marry. They just can not marry members of the same sex. So they are not, in fact, discriminated against. They can marry just as I can, but they have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Same argument the State of Virginia made to defend their law forbidding interracial marriage, claiming it wasn't racial discrimination because black and whites could marry, just not each other...

There are rules governing who you can or can't marry. You can't marry a kid, or your sister, or commit bigamy, and included with that is someone of the same sex.

Those rules have a legitimate governmental purpose, and if they don't, they should be taken out as well.

How about anthropological tradition?

For starters, more than your bare assumptions about human past and homosexuality will need to be established. Then we have to factor in changes in the human condition in modern times.

Gays have the right to marry! It just has to be someone of the opposite sex.

Right. How big of you. Nothing better for a society than a sham marriage.

Just another brick out of the wall. I don't think it will cause the wall to collapse. It changes the concept of what marriage is when we expand the definition, or declare the traditional definition to be out of order. Since our civilization is founded on this tradition, destabilization must result.

You mean like how it all fell apart when women were alowed to vote and no longer considered the property of their husbands? Society was once based on that idea as well.

Embracing same-sex marriage by giving it societal acceptance would equivocate homosexuality with heterosexuality. Homosexuality is inherently sterile, and there is no reason why that sexuality should fall under the definition of marriage.

Sterility is hardly a problem in this day and age. We now have more children than we do stable families to raise them. Adding gay marriage to the mix can't but increase the number of stable families that can adopt. This not only would lessen the number of familyless children raised by the state, but it could make adoption more attractive and lower abortion rates.

Like I said in the other thread, which would you rather see in a dark alley, someone raised by the state in a home or someone raised by a two loving parents that happened to be both men?

Are traditionalists happy to sacrifice the futures and perhaps lives of these children to maintain their precious "tradition?"

It's enough for me. You can keep saying that these people should get this thing in this circumstance and I don't see any solid reason for that. What is the harm in the current policy? Hurt feelings? You do not make your position clear either. You do not persuade me that indisputable anthropological reality is wrong on this issue. You do not persude me that a same-sex union is as valid as a heterosexual union. You do not persuade me that restrictions should be removed from marriage rules.

It isn't a question of which is better, it is a question of government making a distiction without sufficient reason.

The tradition, in this case, comes before the government. The government could never have existed if it did not respect this tradition. Government is in fact in the discrimination business, just look at the tax code.

Again, discrimination is permissible with a valid government purpose. Tradition does not qualify.

Except you would have it advance your viewpoint.

That government should not discriminate in an arbitrary manner?

If gays want the rights and benefits, all they have to do is marry people of the opposite sex.

Nothing like a loveless marriage, eh? Society needs more of those. Our children aren't quite screwed up enough, and we always could use more domestic violence...

I'm not particular about the benefts. Marriages have not universally received governemental benefits. It's the recogntition that is the sticking point here.

-Elliot

I guess semantics are more important than the well being of the children. I'm sure that child crying himself to sleep would feel better that he isn't in a home with loving properous parents if he understood that his being there would be a tragic subversion of all that is good and right with the world...

Isn't inventing crisis fun?

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Just to add a little more history to the debate:

Throughout history in general

The truth is that same-sex marriage has a long and distinguished history. Judaic scripture, for instance, indicates that same-sex marriages were recognized in ancient Egypt. Of course, it's no secret that the ancient Greeks and Romans recognized homosexual marriage, not to mention imperial China and some Native American tribes and a host of other peoples living around the world.

More from Christianity

From the 5th to the 14th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church conducted special ceremonies to bless same-sex unions which were almost identical for those to bless heterosexual unions. At the very least, these were spiritual, if not sexual, unions

And I continue to research.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by elliotfc
We all have sinful natures.

. . .

My view is that sexual desire is not inherently evil but is still out-of-order.

-Elliot
Originally posted by Ipecac


I am so glad I dumped these out-of-date, absurd notions. The self-loathing and guilt that these concepts encourage among so many people is one of the chief evils of religion.

Same here. But it's worse than that. On one hand they have the gaul to call homosexuality "unnatural" (although it is pretty much genetic, has existed in homo sapiens sapiens for as long as history has been recorded AND has been observed in a myriad of other species) and on the other to act against nature and call sex and sexual desire "sins".

Sex is a natural process. Sexual desire is a natural process (pheromones, anyone?). People forming long-time or life-long attachments is natural. Homosexuality, just like heterosexuality, is natural. I don't have references anymore, but there was a study that showed that the percentage of homosexuals increases as a population increases.

Western religions are renowned for trying to label natural proclivities as "base" or "sinful" or "banal" and it is actually harmful.

When will we learn!?

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Sure there would be effects of homosexuality. Here is a link:

http://www.afajournal.org/archives/23060000011.asp

Ummm, are the views expressed there antiquated as well?

-Elliot

In a word, yes.

The view expressed here are, first, unashamedly religious (Please note the fish on the home page's banner), and second based on wild accusations stemming from a decades old definition based on fear.

It clearly states in the article itself that most gays do not molest children and homosexual advocacy groups denounce the practice of pedophelia. This is all true.

However, it then goes on, through various logical fallacies too numerous to mention, to essentially equate all homosexuals with NAMBLA.

It also states that NAMBLA is allowed to march in the gay pride parades under its NAMBLA banner.

Let's make something perfectly clear: NAMBLA is a group advocates male on male pedophelia. They are, in fact, trying to change the law. However, they represent an INCREDIBLY small group of homosexuals and they are allowed to organize under the laws of this country. In addition, having lived in Boston, I am aware that this group is constantly having to fight to be a part of any gay parade. Ultimately, they are allowed to because of the laws governing free speech.

The article continues by quoting Jeffer Satinover, who is also not only unashamedly religious, but a proponant of the Bible Codes, which has been debunked by not only the scientific and psychological community, but alsom by most christian churches and organizations.

In short, the article has an obvious agenda, which is amusing since it claims that of homosexuals.

 

[Ipecac]

Understanding one's desires and keeping them in check does not mean you loathe yourself.

If the opinion that adultery is wrong is an out-of-date and absurd notion then whatever. I'll stick with it regardless of the label applied.

Without guilt we'd have a sociopathic society. The greatest monsters do not experience guilt.

-Elliot

Who said anything about adultery? I was referring to your "we have sinful natures" and "sexual desire is out of order" comments.

Adultery is wrong because it's a betrayal of trust. Not because sex is involved.

Guilt is very useful. However, most fundamental Christians I've known feel intense guilt over things they shouldn't. Generally, these people have nothing to feel guilty about but they constantly beat themselves up because their religion tells them to feel guilty about nearly everything.

 

[Ipecac]

The concept of divorce is necessary for, in my opinion, extreme circumstances (husband beating wife etc.). Marriage needs to be protected from abusive and despicable behavior (more specificall the abused party, but the institution as well). Even religions have the possiblity of annulled marriages.

-Elliot

Surely you would agree that heterosexuals get married and divorced all the time for foolish or even trivial reasons. This goes against the idea that divorce is necessary for extreme circumstances. Do you propose further limitation of divorce?

Marriage doesn't need to be protected from anything. How do you protect something like that?

 

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by elliotfc
The concept of divorce is necessary for, in my opinion, extreme circumstances (husband beating wife etc.). Marriage needs to be protected from abusive and despicable behavior (more specificall the abused party, but the institution as well). Even religions have the possiblity of annulled marriages.

-Elliot
Originally posted by Ipecac


Marriage doesn't need to be protected from anything. How do you protect something like that?

Marriage is currently a "members only" club for heterosexual couples. That's what they want to protect. But since marriage is not a private organization or under the jurisdiction of any one religion, how they can continue with this charade is beyond me. It is correct to assume that religion and marriage have close ties - well, any bond that related to fertility, keeping the population growing, birth, and so on was considered "miraculous" and lots of time was spent praying and ritualizing to fertility gods. On the other hand, I don't ever remember religion having any influence in the long-term relationships of other animal species. Must be a human thing...

Homosexual long-term relationships are just as stable (or unstable) as heterosexual ones. I've been with my partner for over 10 years and know couples that have been together longer, much longer.

Next strawman or fallacy, please.

(More or less responding to Elliot).

 

[C.J.]

Well, an interesting discussion. I want to make an off-topic point, but I'll keep it brief, and then get to something on-topic.

[ot]

However, most fundamental Christians I've known feel intense guilt over things they shouldn't. Generally, these people have nothing to feel guilty about but they constantly beat themselves up because their religion tells them to feel guilty about nearly everything.

My concern is a relatively minor one with your use of the term shouldn't. Christians, fundamental or otherwise, have chosen to accept a variety of standards for themselves, and it's not unreasonable to feel guilty about not living up to a standard you value. You may consider Christian standards impossible to achieve or non-sensical, but that only means you wouldn't feel guilty about "missing the mark," not that that someone who has committed to those standards shouldn't feel guilt. If Christians want to play by those rules, though, that's their concern.
[/ot]

To bring things back to topic, I don't know that I can provide SFG with the type of rationale he desires, and I don't know if such rationale is possible. If some of the points Elliot has been making (e.g.; allowing homosexual marriages will be destabilizing for the society that does so) had sound empirical support, maybe, that would help. Are there any historical/anthropological records of a society that allowed homosexual marriages and suffered destabilization/dissolution because of or related to such marriages? And if the arguments are theoretical and not empirical, can they meet the "no religious arguments" condition SFG proposes?

C.J.

 

[elliotfc]

To bring things back to topic, I don't know that I can provide SFG with the type of rationale he desires, and I don't know if such rationale is possible. If some of the points Elliot has been making (e.g.; allowing homosexual marriages will be destabilizing for the society that does so) had sound empirical support, maybe, that would help. Are there any historical/anthropological records of a society that allowed homosexual marriages and suffered destabilization/dissolution because of or related to such marriages? And if the arguments are theoretical and not empirical, can they meet the "no religious arguments" condition SFG proposes?

C.J.

Howdy CJ.

There can't really be empirical support when the institution of homosexual marriage is not to be found in history.

If you view this as another step in the process of supplanting traditional morality when it comes to sex issues, you could say that similar efforts to re-define acceptable standards have, in fact, made society suffer.

-Elliot

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Howdy CJ.

There can't really be empirical support when the institution of homosexual marriage is not to be found in history.

If you view this as another step in the process of supplanting traditional morality when it comes to sex issues, you could say that similar efforts to re-define acceptable standards have, in fact, made society suffer.

-Elliot

Elliot, have you even read any of the links I provided? The institution of homosexual marriage is found THROUGHOUT history. The prejudice against it is a relatively minor invention.

 

[C.J.]

Ah. Thanks for the response, Elliot. Analogies are certainly welcome. I wonder, though, if that's the sticking point.

One can claim, for example, that "the societal acceptance of sex outside marriage has led to increases in blehdy-bleh, and using that as a model we would likely see blahdy-blah if homosexual marriage were legalized"(blehdy-bleh and blahdy-blah being some negative outcomes). However, if all one has is argument by analogy, folks who disagree will have a field day picking at it, trying to show how the analogy is inappropriate (and let it be said I don't necessarily disagree with this practice).

The sticking point has arrived. You have an analogy that suggests a practice is harmful, but no direct evidence that it is so. Your opposite wants this evidence; without it, he is free to pick at the discrepancies between your analogy and the current situation. Even should you present a good reason as to why the analogy is valid, your opposite can always say "it is not close enough, and in that distance is the difference."

Many if not most posters here really want to see the data. I would certainly be willing to entertain the notion that, if a strong correlation can be shown between non-traditional sexual morality and negative outcomes, that homosexual marriage could possibly lead to negative outcomes, but you need to show me: a) that the correlation you are basing your analogy on is strong and reasonable, and b) a good, logical argument that the same dynamic would likely result with respect to homosexual marriage.

The thing is, SFG wants to be convinced without recourse to any religious stuff, and people have notoriously different ideas about what strong, reasonable correlations are and what constitutes a good, logical argument.

I have hopes you know of such data, Elliot (or any other poster, for that matter), and can make such an argument; I'd like to see them and to see if it meets SFG's level of logic.

Dang, these boards are cool.

C.J.

[n.b.: edited for spelling]

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Elliot, have you even read any of the links I provided? The institution of homosexual marriage is found THROUGHOUT history. The prejudice against it is a relatively minor invention.

Stupid lack of sleep...


That should read MODERN invention.

 

[csense]

Convince me...

Here's something to think about:

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and it is based in part, or correlated if you will, with the only fundamental distinction of the human species: gender...and this fundamental distinction is true whether you subscribe to evolution, or creation.

If you alter the qualitative element of the principle of marriage, then you also alter the quantitative, since one infers the other.
Dissimilarity (traditional marriage) yields a fixed quantity, whereas similarity (gay marriage) yields a variable quantity.


Polygyny, polyandry, and polyamory are very real issues that must be considered as inevitable and necessary consequences to altering what is known as traditional marriage, and these consequences must be taken seriously.

 

[elliotfc]

Elliot, have you even read any of the links I provided? The institution of homosexual marriage is found THROUGHOUT history. The prejudice against it is a relatively minor invention.

All i can say I disagree. The links refer to Boswell's research, which is faulty and shoddy.

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage7.html

Have you ever read Boswell's book? The links are striaght out of it, I've seen the info before and it is not presented honestly.

More importantly, the governmental recognition of same-sex unions were distinctly different from the recognition of heterosexual marriages. I don't have a problem with same-sex unions as much as same-sex marriage.

I'll say it again. There have never been same-sex marriages. The key word is marriage. Government/society have never held the same-sex unions to be equal to same-sex marriages.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Ah. Thanks for the response, Elliot. Analogies are certainly welcome. I wonder, though, if that's the sticking point.

One can claim, for example, that "the societal acceptance of sex outside marriage has led to increases in blehdy-bleh, and using that as a model we would likely see blahdy-blah if homosexual marriage were legalized"(blehdy-bleh and blahdy-blah being some negative outcomes). However, if all one has is argument by analogy, folks who disagree will have a field day picking at it, trying to show how the analogy is inappropriate (and let it be said I don't necessarily disagree with this practice).

Good point. This is all specualation. From my point of view, why tinker with the institution? If we quibble about whether it would be beneficial, or harmful, to society, I see reasons to assume either position, but overriding this is the reason to take the default position that it will be harmful. Experimenting with this issue for the sake of theory seems to me rash, and governmental intervention to change societal norms is out of order.

The sticking point has arrived. You have an analogy that suggests a practice is harmful, but no direct evidence that it is so. Your opposite wants this evidence; without it, he is free to pick at the discrepancies between your analogy and the current situation. Even should you present a good reason as to why the analogy is valid, your opposite can always say "it is not close enough, and in that distance is the difference."

Fair enough.

I can't escape having the opinion that homosexuality is a fundamentally and essential flawed form of sexuality. The ban/taboo against gay marriage would not exist if this opinion was the widely held as well. In this case I would suggest that homosexuality (which can never result in a new human being, leads to lower lifespan, and causes psychological and social trauma) is a harmful course of life that should not be made equal to other healthier courses of life. In other words, if I viewed these sexualities as equal, I would not be against homosexual marriage.

At this level, since homosexuality is harmful, state blessing/sanction must also be harmful. Do people have the right to live a non-ideal life? Yes. Does the government have to sanction/bless/approve of such lifestyles? No. The government recognition of marriage is a moral judgment call that follows the consistent historical tradition. I feel government is free to recognize gay unions in a different way, separate from the institution of marriage.

Many if not most posters here really want to see the data. I would certainly be willing to entertain the notion that, if a strong correlation can be shown between non-traditional sexual morality and negative outcomes, that homosexual marriage could possibly lead to negative outcomes, but you need to show me: a) that the correlation you are basing your analogy on is strong and reasonable, and b) a good, logical argument that the same dynamic would likely result with respect to homosexual marriage.

Well non-traditional morality when it comes to sexuality is one of the defining themes of the 20th century.

Just some facts:
-Divorce rates have never been higher.
-Pornography is a billion dollar industry.
-People are getting married at a later age and having fewer children.
-Abortions continue to occur at a high rate (the abortion figures are wrong and low, all ex-abortionists tell how they underreport abortion figures for tax reasons i.e. underthetable)
-Sexual abuse towards children and women is happening more and more frequently.

All of this because we are being told that sex is natural and normal, that sexualities are equal, that judgments against sexual activity should not be made. All of these new dogmas (and that is what they are, dogmas) run counter to traditional sexual dogmas. The idea of homosexual marriage goes hand in hand with the other ideas - abortion on demand, contraceptives on demand, do not judge sexual acitivities, etc.

I see the same people that advocate a new sexual morality also advocate homosexual marriage. It is difficult, then, not to link all of this together. Since I feel the data proves that our culture is a sexual mess, and I feel that is correlated to the past century of eroding traditional sexual morality, I make the jump.

I have hopes you know of such data, Elliot (or any other poster, for that matter), and can make such an argument; I'd like to see them and to see if it meets SFG's level of logic.

What data do you want?

Data that proves something about homosexuality, or something about sexuality in general.

Apologies, I'm not sure what exactly you want.

I can't prove that homosexual marriages will further destabilize our sexual morality, or morality in general, because homosexual marriage can not be found in non-contemporary history.

Now, today there are homosexual marriages (Hawaii, Mass, Calif). In California, are homosexual marriages in San Fran helping or hurting society. In Mass, is the fact that a court legislates helping or hurting society? I have my opinions about this of course.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Elliot, have you even read any of the links I provided? The institution of homosexual marriage is found THROUGHOUT history. The prejudice against it is a relatively minor invention.

I know I'm repeating myself here, but just to be clear:

My problem throughout my posts has been homosexual marriage as equally recognized as heterosexual marriage. I shortened that wording obviously to read homosexual marriage.

Your links refer to unions that were never considered to be equal to heterosexual marriage.

The prejudice, in fact, is not a minor invention. Take Greece. There was a tremendous prejudice against homosexuality. It was criminal for a citizen to have homosexual sex with a slave, but not criminal for a citizen to have heterosexual sex with a slave. The homosexual unions in Greece were legalized (I even mentioned that in a previous post) but were under strict control and regulation, not to mention the peer-control that made it institutionalized.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Marriage is currently a "members only" club for heterosexual couples. That's what they want to protect.

Yes, "they" want to protect it from several alternative unions, and homosexual is one of them.

But since marriage is not a private organization or under the jurisdiction of any one religion, how they can continue with this charade is beyond me.

It is publicly sanctioned, which is why guidelines and morality are in place. All publically sanctioned insitutions have rules and guidelines and limitations for membership. All of them. Name a publically sanctioned institution and I will provide people who are excluded.

It is correct to assume that religion and marriage have close ties - well, any bond that related to fertility, keeping the population growing, birth, and so on was considered "miraculous" and lots of time was spent praying and ritualizing to fertility gods. On the other hand, I don't ever remember religion having any influence in the long-term relationships of other animal species. Must be a human thing...

Religion is a human thing, that's the whole point, humans are different from other animals.

Homosexual long-term relationships are just as stable (or unstable) as heterosexual ones. I've been with my partner for over 10 years and know couples that have been together longer, much longer.

Of course there are always anecdotal point to be made.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/946594/posts

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Surely you would agree that heterosexuals get married and divorced all the time for foolish or even trivial reasons. This goes against the idea that divorce is necessary for extreme circumstances. Do you propose further limitation of divorce?

I do agree.

The idea that divorce is necessary for only extreme circumstances is a religious, and not secular, idea.

I'm not sure how I feel about limitations on divorce, to be honest. I think it is too easy to get a divorce, but divorce restrictions etc. are variable throughout human history.

Marriage doesn't need to be protected from anything. How do you protect something like that?

Well certainly you would have some marital standards in place. Right? You wouldn't let anyone get married to anyone else for whatever reason, with no restriction on number/species/incest?

If marriage is important to society, then society should want to protect the insitution by having guidelines for its implementation.

-Elliot