0 likes

   0 likes

There have always been committed relationships without marriage, as well as marriages without committment. I think that it is too early to tell the long term effects of gay marriage on society, let alone on traditional marriage.

And besides, I was told in the 1960′s the no-fault divorces would destroy marriage; gay unions cannot own that reputation. And interracial marriages can’t claim that accomplishment either.

The only thing that destroys marriages are the people in them. Sometimes for good reasons and sometimes not.

   0 likes

“Why use the name of a religious institution as the name for a civil/legal construct?” Exactly! So what was wrong with CA having a civil form of domestic partnerships? Why did proponents need to go further and insist on calling it the religious institution name of marriage?

   0 likes

   0 likes

forgot, it wasn’t deemed “disruptive;” it was deemed to be immoral because blacks were thought of as being subhuman.

   0 likes

For me, marriage is a committment to my husband sworn before family and friends. It’s as much about tradition as Sunday morning pancakes and and opening one gift on Christmas Eve. But it’s also about making a life with someone. For us getting married was not about God, religion, or church. So, why must marriage be a religious institution, and therefore exclusive of same-sex couples?

The separate-but-equal philosophy is crap. RDPs are not given the same rights as married couples. I know–my own company does not honor, for example, benefits for opposite-sex domestic partners, ostensibly because these people *could* get married if they wanted to.

I would like to see us head toward states *requiring* civil unions of anyone who wants to be viewed as a couple in the eyes of the government for tax, property and other purposes. Then people can do whatever they like in their churches or synagogues or temples to satisfy their own religious needs. Why not make church and state just a little bit more separated?

   0 likes

That aside, what is the secular reason for marriage in a society? It’s a matter of contract law to maintain an orderly society and a family order. An oath in church is sacred, but not legally binding. One of the problems of modern marriage is that it is far too easy to break the contract. Right or wrong Zach, interracial marriage in south was deemed disruptive at that time. Society has to ask if gay marriage is beneficial to orderly family relationships today. These are decisions society as a whole has to make.

You see it as a civil rights issue. You say my examples of bigamy or incestual marriage are red herrings, but really, they are quite logical examples under the arguments for gay marriage… “if two people love each other, who is anyone to stand in the way of us being together and having the same rights as traditional couples.” Under such logic I would say you are correct. You can call it orientation, sexual practices, or whatever, but leonel, would you really deny someone who wanted 3 wives, to marry his sister, or his cat if that’s what he really wanted to make them happy?

You ask if equality is too much to ask for — what exactly would that be? With many companies and goverments allowing for domestic partnerships with equal benefits and rights, isn’t all this about owning the term “marriage.” I think that will come with due time, but not by forcing society into it. But I can’t wait til it happens coast to coast because then America will have a much lower divroce rate! Right Zach?

   0 likes

(sorry, been a long day!)

   0 likes

Seriously, the whole point which we seem to agree with is that there has been no collapse on the religious institution of marriage.

As for bigamy, brother/sister marriage, and every other slippery slope argument? It is rather disturbing to see them continuously being brought up in the context of a discussion about same-sex couples. These have little to nothing to do with sexual orientation.

The root issue is that all couples, regardless of the two people’s orientations, deserve basic protections regardless of anyone’s religious belief. Granting rights to both set of couples doesn’t damage or diminish one or the other. Eradicating or prohibiting rights from specific groups is a completely different story. I just don’t understand why equality is so much to ask for..

   0 likes