quote:That's fine. Other people don't. Other people doing something the "wrong" way has no affect on you. I personally think many things religious people do are downright nutty. I would never try to prevent them from doing those things just because I think that.quote:Perhaps the subjectivity of it all bothers me. Not 100% sure. I do subscribe to a Natural Law understanding of marriage and sexuality, which is fairly objective in my understanding.
What I don't understand is why marriage can't be the things listed above for some, and all the things you consider it to be for others.
Ryan Anderson on Marriage
23,724 Views |
276 Replies |
Last: 9 yr ago by SapperAg
quote:What does natural law say about monogamy?quote:Perhaps the subjectivity of it all bothers me. Not 100% sure. I do subscribe to a Natural Law understanding of marriage and sexuality, which is fairly objective in my understanding.
What I don't understand is why marriage can't be the things listed above for some, and all the things you consider it to be for others.
Further if you want to limit marriage to procreation then you have do that completely. No just pickling on the gays. And I still don't see what discrimination does to benefit you.
quote:I don't quite believe this. The same goes for people doing something the "right" way. Or even things that are morally neutral. This line of thought, when taken to it's logical ends seems to state that we are islands in a sense. I think we are all connected to greater and lesser degrees... like ripples in a pond.
Other people doing something the "wrong" way has no affect on you.
Hmm.. Banhammer test!
Count me in the Seamaster/747 camp on this one. My question is this....
If this subject was only about the legal/healthcare/tax benefits of marriage under the law, then why is the idea of CIVIL UNIONS rejected by the SSM crowd? I really don't care what two consenting adults do in their bedroom, and I do think two committed people should be able declare the other as their SO for healthcare decisions/visitation, etc. I think the majority of Americans would support a "civil union" that holds the same legal benefits as marriage today. Why is this not acceptable?? Why the need to attack traditional marriage??
Like it or not, a man and a woman being married is a VERY different thing than a man/man or a woman/woman. Only one is able to produce offspring. It is okay for society to hold that distinction in a special place as unique.
If this subject was only about the legal/healthcare/tax benefits of marriage under the law, then why is the idea of CIVIL UNIONS rejected by the SSM crowd? I really don't care what two consenting adults do in their bedroom, and I do think two committed people should be able declare the other as their SO for healthcare decisions/visitation, etc. I think the majority of Americans would support a "civil union" that holds the same legal benefits as marriage today. Why is this not acceptable?? Why the need to attack traditional marriage??
Like it or not, a man and a woman being married is a VERY different thing than a man/man or a woman/woman. Only one is able to produce offspring. It is okay for society to hold that distinction in a special place as unique.
quote:Another father here with one child (and one on the way) that tatum can feel sorry for. Then again, tatum feels sorry for me since I'm not a Christian. Apparently anyone who believes the Bible isn't born-again.
Count me in the Seamaster/747 camp on this one.
How is this thread still going?
quote:Sir, you just bumped it TTT.
How is this thread still going?
quote:
Count me in the Seamaster/747 camp on this one. My question is this....
If this subject was only about the legal/healthcare/tax benefits of marriage under the law, then why is the idea of CIVIL UNIONS rejected by the SSM crowd? I really don't care what two consenting adults do in their bedroom, and I do think two committed people should be able declare the other as their SO for healthcare decisions/visitation, etc. I think the majority of Americans would support a "civil union" that holds the same legal benefits as marriage today. Why is this not acceptable?? Why the need to attack traditional marriage??
Like it or not, a man and a woman being married is a VERY different thing than a man/man or a woman/woman. Only one is able to produce offspring. It is okay for society to hold that distinction in a special place as unique.
If you want to call all gay and straight government recognized marriage civil unions I'm fine with that. Right now govt calls the legal and financial binding of people marriage. It's a govt contract. If you're asking for separate but equal then it should be obvious why the ssm crowd rejects that. It's been shown to not be equal.
You don't have to be married to produce offspring so your argument falls completely flat. You also don't have to be monogamous to produce offspring.
quote:quote:Another father here with one child (and one on the way) that tatum can feel sorry for. Then again, tatum feels sorry for me since I'm not a Christian. Apparently anyone who believes the Bible isn't born-again.
Count me in the Seamaster/747 camp on this one.
You may be a Christian I have no idea.
I feel bad for seamasters kids because their father has demonstrated he cannot carry on a logical conversation or make an articulate argument nor is he willing to address counterpoints to his nebulous claims. His worldview can be dumbed down to "because I said so. "
quote:bigtatum answered this very well. If everyone, gay or straight, obtained a "civil union" from the government for purposes of legal recognition, and then had the option of pursuing a "marriage" from their church for purposes of church things, that would be fine. But creating two separate legal systems makes them inherently unequal, and creates easy opportunities for unequal treatment of the two in a legal sense. Gay people don't have their own separate set of laws for any other legal arrangement; they shouldn't here either.
Count me in the Seamaster/747 camp on this one. My question is this....
If this subject was only about the legal/healthcare/tax benefits of marriage under the law, then why is the idea of CIVIL UNIONS rejected by the SSM crowd? I really don't care what two consenting adults do in their bedroom, and I do think two committed people should be able declare the other as their SO for healthcare decisions/visitation, etc. I think the majority of Americans would support a "civil union" that holds the same legal benefits as marriage today. Why is this not acceptable?? Why the need to attack traditional marriage??
Like it or not, a man and a woman being married is a VERY different thing than a man/man or a woman/woman. Only one is able to produce offspring. It is okay for society to hold that distinction in a special place as unique.
quote:Then I'll ask you the same question I asked seamaster: What specific ripple does my marriage send in your direction? Is this ripple currently getting to you simply by my being in a relationship with a man, or does the ripple effect only start once the state recognizes us as being married?quote:I don't quite believe this. The same goes for people doing something the "right" way. Or even things that are morally neutral. This line of thought, when taken to it's logical ends seems to state that we are islands in a sense. I think we are all connected to greater and lesser degrees... like ripples in a pond.
Other people doing something the "wrong" way has no affect on you.
quote:
I think the majority of Americans would support a "civil union" that holds the same legal benefits as marriage today. Why is this not acceptable??
Since we are talking about the "legal" aspect of marriage, then why have different names for what would legally be viewed as the exact same relationship?
quote:
Why the need to attack traditional marriage??
It doesn't "attack traditional marriage". It's simply applying the same wording to a relationship that, as you stated above, would provide the exact same legal benefits. If it is "attacking" anything, it's attacking the government's long-standing definition of marriage, but changing the government's definition does not impact the church's definition. If it does, that is the fault of the church.
If the government insists on being involved w/ these relationships, then why not just call all government-sanctioned relationships "civil unions"? Either call them all "marriage" or all "civil unions". No need for the government to use different words to describe the exact same relationships.
I'm not sure what is more ridiculous, seamaster's consistently horrible gay marriage arguments or "feeling sorry" for another poster's kids because you disagree with them.
Here's a hint tatum: When you speak about seamaster's parenting ability, you sound like just as much of an ass as seamaster does when he speaks about beer baron's (potential?) ability to parent because he's gay. Seamaster is probably a good father because he's probably loving and devoted to his kids. Same goes for anyone else, gay or straight.
This board is infuriating.
Here's a hint tatum: When you speak about seamaster's parenting ability, you sound like just as much of an ass as seamaster does when he speaks about beer baron's (potential?) ability to parent because he's gay. Seamaster is probably a good father because he's probably loving and devoted to his kids. Same goes for anyone else, gay or straight.
This board is infuriating.
quote:
I'm not sure what is more ridiculous, seamaster's consistently horrible gay marriage arguments or "feeling sorry" for another poster's kids because you disagree with them.
Here's a hint tatum: When you speak about seamaster's parenting ability, you sound like just as much of an ass as seamaster does when he speaks about beer baron's (potential?) ability to parent because he's gay. Seamaster is probably a good father because he's probably loving and devoted to his kids. Same goes for anyone else, gay or straight.
This board is infuriating.
that's part of the point. I want him to know that there are people that think he is just as terrible for society as he thinks gays are. The difference is I don't want the government to go tell him he can't get married or can't have kids.
I am proposing that under the law a "Marriage" would be reserved for a man+woman, and a "Civil Union" would be reserved for a man+man / woman+woman. The term marriage would not be applied to a SSM. The two terms (marriage and civil union) would carry the EXACT SAME legal rights and would be seen as interchangeable, and would be inseparable under the law. If a change is made to one it is changed for the other. The only difference is the word used to describe the relationship.
Why?
I think that's a good idea, Franklins, in a pluralistic society such as the U.S.
What about two atheists getting? Marriage or civil union? What about a woman who has had a hysterectomy and a man who had a vasectomy?
quote:But why have two terms for the exact same legal arrangement? Why not call them all "civil unions" then?
I am proposing that under the law a "Marriage" would be reserved for a man+woman, and a "Civil Union" would be reserved for a man+man / woman+woman. The term marriage would not be applied to a SSM. The two terms (marriage and civil union) would carry the EXACT SAME legal rights and would be seen as interchangeable, and would be inseparable under the law. If a change is made to one it is changed for the other. The only difference is the word used to describe the relationship.
quote:Just because two different things have the same legal benefits does not mean they are the same thing semantically. Marriage is between a man and woman and is a unique relationship (the most basic) within society. Forming civil unions, other than marriage, that carry the same legal benefits as marriage is a good compromise.
But why have two terms for the exact same legal arrangement? Why not call them all "civil unions" then?
Then you want separate but equal. And the only justification for that semantic distinction is religious. Decidedly not Constitutional.
Side note: I find it interesting that conservatives are trying to argue that it's the LGBT community that demanded marriage. There was such a massive backlash against even the idea of civil unions, and the civil union ideas put forward were not equal to marriage, that they had little choice but to go for marriage equality.
Side note: I find it interesting that conservatives are trying to argue that it's the LGBT community that demanded marriage. There was such a massive backlash against even the idea of civil unions, and the civil union ideas put forward were not equal to marriage, that they had little choice but to go for marriage equality.
quote:This is "separate but equal." That is not equal.
I am proposing that under the law a "Marriage" would be reserved for a man+woman, and a "Civil Union" would be reserved for a man+man / woman+woman. The term marriage would not be applied to a SSM. The two terms (marriage and civil union) would carry the EXACT SAME legal rights and would be seen as interchangeable, and would be inseparable under the law. If a change is made to one it is changed for the other. The only difference is the word used to describe the relationship.
quote:The distinction is social: man, woman, and child is the most basic unit of society. The covenant union between the man and the woman is unique.
Then you want separate but equal. And the only justification for that semantic distinction is religious. Decidedly not Constitutional.
Side note: I find it interesting that conservatives are trying to argue that it's the LGBT community that demanded marriage. There was such a massive backlash against even the idea of civil unions, and the civil union ideas put forward were not equal to marriage, that they had little choice but to go for marriage equality.
And I suspect even if civil unions were initially granted, the redefinition of marriage would still be pushed (as evidenced by BB's post above).
quote:So the definition is based on society at that given point in time? Social definitions/norms of "marriage" have varied from culture to culture, and age to age. Call them all "civil union", and leave the "social" definition to society, not government.quote:The distinction is social: man, woman, and child is the most basic unit of society. The covenant union between the man and the woman is unique.
Then you want separate but equal. And the only justification for that semantic distinction is religious. Decidedly not Constitutional.
Side note: I find it interesting that conservatives are trying to argue that it's the LGBT community that demanded marriage. There was such a massive backlash against even the idea of civil unions, and the civil union ideas put forward were not equal to marriage, that they had little choice but to go for marriage equality.
And I suspect even if civil unions were initially granted, the redefinition of marriage would still be pushed (as evidenced by BB's post above).
Or, even better, stop with this obsession with having government sanction everything.
I'm sure it eventually would. But don't pretend that everything was happy-go-lucky until a couple malcontent gays showed up.
Your definition is still religious. "Basic unit of society," defined by gender, is not a scientific position, but a philosophical one, and a recent one at that.
Your definition is still religious. "Basic unit of society," defined by gender, is not a scientific position, but a philosophical one, and a recent one at that.
quote:Well hopefully we're not calling into question all non-scientific definitions. Because we would be left with silence!
I'm sure it eventually would. But don't pretend that everything was happy-go-lucky until a couple malcontent gays showed up.
Your definition is still religious. "Basic unit of society," defined by gender, is not a scientific position, but a philosophical one, and a recent one at that.
It is not "separate but equal". It is equal with a unique title given based on the sexual make-up of the two individuals. If they are male+female it is called "Marriage", and if they are same-sex it is called "Civil Union". Legally, there would be zero difference. zero. This is really not a difficult concept.
(and Thanks, Chuckd)
(and Thanks, Chuckd)
quote:"Based on society" in the sense of the basic unit of society: family. Not that whatever society defines is what it is.
So the definition is based on society at that given point in time? Social definitions/norms of "marriage" have varied from culture to culture, and age to age. Call them all "civil union", and leave the "social" definition to society, not government.
Or, even better, stop with this obsession with having government sanction everything.
And the government sanctions it because it is a civil institution.
quote:If there is no difference, then there is no need for different wording. Call them all "civil unions". It's really not a difficult concept.
It is not "separate but equal". It is equal with a unique title given based on the sexual make-up of the two individuals. If they are male+female it is called "Marriage", and if they are same-sex it is called "Civil Union". Legally, there would be zero difference. zero. This is really not a difficult concept.
(and Thanks, Chuckd)
quote:It's almost like this system would create some sort divide between the two groups. A "separation" between them, you could say.
It is not "separate but equal". It is equal with a unique title given based on the sexual make-up of the two individuals. If they are male+female it is called "Marriage", and if they are same-sex it is called "Civil Union". Legally, there would be zero difference. zero. This is really not a difficult concept.
quote:
And the government sanctions it because it is a civil institution.
Then use the same word for all of these civil relationships that government insists on sanctioning.
quote:
"Based on society" in the sense of the basic unit of society: family. Not that whatever society defines is what it is.
So gay couples, even those with children, aren't a "family"?
quote:If you had two children, one girl and one boy, the relationship to the girl would be called "daughter" and the boy "son." Even though many things are the same legally, they are not semantically. We don't all of a sudden blur "daughter" and "son" into a new word and use that exclusively.
If there is no difference, then there is no need for different wording. Call them all "civil unions". It's really not a difficult concept.
I guess the Christian gay couples who want to get Christian-gay-married don't get to decide what would be a civil union or a marriage then. Only heterosexual Christians would decide that.
Either just call it all marriage or call it all civil unions and let individuals and churches or whatever group you want to belong to call it a marriage if you want. I rather like Retired's proposal. But I think everyone, gay and straight, would rather say "we got married" than "we got civil union'd." There's a lot of tradition and baggage there associated with the term and the concept, regardless of sexual orientation.
Either just call it all marriage or call it all civil unions and let individuals and churches or whatever group you want to belong to call it a marriage if you want. I rather like Retired's proposal. But I think everyone, gay and straight, would rather say "we got married" than "we got civil union'd." There's a lot of tradition and baggage there associated with the term and the concept, regardless of sexual orientation.
quote:And as far as the law is concerned, they're both a "child."quote:If you had two children, one girl and one boy, the relationship to the girl would be called "daughter" and the boy "son." Even though many things are the same legally, they are not semantically. We don't all of a sudden blur "daughter" and "son" into a new word and use that exclusively.
If there is no difference, then there is no need for different wording. Call them all "civil unions". It's really not a difficult concept.
Featured Stories
See All
85:33
8h ago
4.2k
Texas A&M earns top-25 win over Creighton in Las Vegas, 77-73
by Luke Evangelist
7:22
12h ago
7.2k