Of course you know about the religious right...

[RileyG]

Well. that's not true. Even the Bible says that David had eight wives and his son had more than that.

Fair enough

 

[RileyG]

A civil marriage isn't sacred.

I disagree. The institution shouldn’t be changed based on the whims of adults.

 

[RileyG]

And the Catholic Church (among others) does not recognize civil marriage to begin with so there is nothing to be destroyed.

A marriage between one man and one woman is still considered a natural marriage though.

 

[RileyG]

It goes without saying that a gay couple who wanted to live their lives together before SSM was legalised did so anyway. In countries where it hasn't been legalised they are doing so right now. So what changes when it does become legalised? Well, they get rights in regard to each other that they didn't have before. And that's about it.

Why on earth would someone attempt to argue against that?

But....goes the cry...marriage is a sacred institution! Well, for a small minority it is. For the last year that figures are available, in Australia 4 out of 5 marriages were conducted by a civil celebrant. So no, it's not regarded as a sacred matter by the vast majority. Australia - share of religious and secular marriages 2018 | Statista

All we are left with is a petulant cry by some that 'hey, marriage is something which we define. And our definition is the one that counts!'

My biggest problem is forcing others to provide services to a same sex wedding when they don’t want to because hey find it wrong. No one should be forced to violate their conscience.

 

[BCP1928]

I disagree. The institution shouldn’t be changed based on the whims of adults.

Are you saying that civil marriage once was sacred? Sacred to who?

 

[BCP1928]

A marriage between one man and one woman is still considered a natural marriage though.

OK, but those kinds of concepts are of no interest to anyone outside the church. I think I see what you may be driving at, though. Traditionally, people have regarded the getting of the license and the ceremony in the church as all part of the same process, when they are actually two different processes. The clergyman serves two functions as well, he administers the sacrament but he also serves as a legal witness to a civil contract.
Maybe it's time we untangled all that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I disagree. The institution shouldn’t be changed based on the whims of adults.

On the contrary, our political system empowers citizens to regulate society by totting up the 'whims' of adults.

 

[Bradskii]

I disagree. The institution shouldn’t be changed based on the whims of adults.

But only a small proportion of marriages have any connection with religious beliefs. What you should be saying is that you disagree with what has already happened. In which case, fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. But most of us could care less about it. Life goes on.

When I wore a younger man's clothes I was about as conservative as one could be. Church 3 times on Sunday, all social life revolved around the church, alcohol was banned in the house, homosexuals were thought to be the lowest form of life, sex before marriage simply didn't exist...It was a very cloistered life. Can I blame my parents for the attitudes they instilled into me? No. Because it was how they had been brought up.

But when I left home - something they never did, as we all lived in my paternal grandparents home (and both parents died there), I saw things weren't as they thought they were. They were wrong. And I had to admit that I was wrong. Which wasn't easy. It took time. And I still carry the remnants of that upbringing. But I had to make a choice. Remain stuck in the limited world in which I grew up like some insect trapped in amber. Or accept the world for what it was. And treat people how they deserved to be treated. Not as others thought I should treat them.

 

[Bradskii]

My biggest problem is forcing others to provide services to a same sex wedding when they don’t want to because hey find it wrong. No one should be forced to violate their conscience.

I've no problem with that.

 

[Merrill]

Well, only if it might be "disturbing" for someone if they did. That's the law in Texas. As you know, some far-right people are disturbed that kids learn about what went on back then.

As someone remarked, they are terrified that their grandchildren might learn what they were doing at the time.

And sometimes, as in Florida, they just want to put a happier face on the institution of slavery.

Again

your claims that Republicans are banning the discussion in slavery in schools, or trying to "put a happier face on the institution of slavery" are leftist talking points and conspiracy theories

it's fake news, exaggerations, distortions, whatever

 

[The Barbarian]

Again

your claims that Republicans are banning the discussion in slavery in schools

According to the law they passed, only if it's "disturbing" for people. History has to be revised in Texas, eliminating any truths that are "disturbing."
That's the law.

or trying to "put a happier face on the institution of slavery"

That's the Florida standard. Teachers are required to tell kids that slavery was a good thing for slaves in that they learned trades.
Florida’s public schools will now teach students that some Black people benefited from slavery because it taught them useful skills, part of new African American history standards approved Wednesday

New Florida standards teach that Black people benefited from slavery because it taught useful skills

The standards, which were blasted by a statewide teachers' union as a "step backward," were approved Wednesday by the State Board of Education.

www.nbcnews.com

Of course, the standards don't include the fact that slavers stole the earnings of such slaves.

 

[RileyG]

But only a small proportion of marriages have any connection with religious beliefs. What you should be saying is that you disagree with what has already happened. In which case, fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. But most of us could care less about it. Life goes on.

When I wore a younger man's clothes I was about as conservative as one could be. Church 3 times on Sunday, all social life revolved around the church, alcohol was banned in the house, homosexuals were thought to be the lowest form of life, sex before marriage simply didn't exist...It was a very cloistered life. Can I blame my parents for the attitudes they instilled into me? No. Because it was how they had been brought up.

But when I left home - something they never did, as we all lived in my paternal grandparents home (and both parents died there), I saw things weren't as they thought they were. They were wrong. And I had to admit that I was wrong. Which wasn't easy. It took time. And I still carry the remnants of that upbringing. But I had to make a choice. Remain stuck in the limited world in which I grew up like some insect trapped in amber. Or accept the world for what it was. And treat people how they deserved to be treated. Not as others thought I should treat them.

Yes. Thanks for sharing. I treat everyone well regardless of how they live their life. It’s none of my business.

 

[RileyG]

I've no problem with that.

Thank you

 

[RileyG]

On the contrary, our political system empowers citizens to regulate society by totting up the 'whims' of adults.

Fair enough. Still think people have the right to not participate in any ceremonies they see wrong.

 

[RileyG]

Are you saying that civil marriage once was sacred? Sacred to who?

The institution itself.

 

[Bradskii]

The institution itself.

Marriage is an agreement between the two people. If desired it can be formalised either within a civil setting or a sacred one. It's not automatically one or the other. The two people make that choice. 80% choose civil.

 

[RileyG]

Marriage is an agreement between the two people. If desired it can be formalised either within a civil setting or a sacred one. It's not automatically one or the other. The two people make that choice. 80% choose civil.

By sacred I wasn’t referring to civil or religious. Rather, the institution itself is harmed.

 

[KCfromNC]

The EO is against same-sex marriage. That's. a fact, sir. Those are faithful are opposed to it.

Seems weird to connect political correctness on a very specific topic with religious faithfulness, but then again can't say I'm surprised.

 

[KCfromNC]

Sure, and they don't actually call that "marriage" in many cases. Things like property, children, etc. need to be considered and the state has an interest in such things. But the state doesn't have to be in the marriage business to do that. And it solves all these issues when some religions want the state to be enforcing their particular beliefs.

But given they already are and a significant amount of case law and bureaucracy has developed around that situation, the easier thing would be for groups which don't want to partake to just choose a different name for it. Religious union, perhaps?

 

[Bradskii]

By sacred I wasn’t referring to civil or religious. Rather, the institution itself is harmed.

I just explained. The institution is what people themselves conceive it to be. You don't get to decide how someone else views it. And 80% of people view it soley as a civil matter. The institution isn't harmed. It's your view of it which is compromised. That's just a matter for you. It affects no-one else.