Traditional Marriage

[Cute Tink]

What does a certificate have to do with a relationship?

Legal recognition.

 

[bhsmte]

What does a certificate have to do with a relationship?

It has to do with how the law recognizes the relationship.

 

[Sammy-San]

It has to do with how the law recognizes the relationship.

The article I quoted early says marriage is not essentially a sexual relationship.

This is such a confusing discussion.

 

[bhsmte]

The article I quoted early says marriage is not essentially a sexual relationship.

This is such a confusing discussion.

Marriage laws dont delve much into sex.

 

[Sammy-San]

Marriage laws dont delve much into sex.

Do you agree marriage is a broad and confusing concept?

 

[Ken-1122]

To me the problem with making the church responsible for marriage is then they also have to be responsible for an divorce hearing and if a divorce is granted then the church would also have to make sure the divorce judgment is carried out. I've been in church leadership, I have no desire to be part of that granting and enforcing divorce.

If a specific church doesn't want to have to deal with the issues that come with granting marriage, they don't have to get involved with granting marriage.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not sure what "rarely" means in the sense that you are discussing here, but given that there are many gay households with children (and those figures are from 2010 when gay marriage wasn't even legal everywhere) and that will probably increase as more gay couples are allowed to adopt (since apparently there are an estimated two million LGBT people who want to).

I was pointing out that children of gay parents are usually a result of adoption, or one of the parents having a child via heterosexual means; not born from the gay relationship.

That being said, married couples have always had those benefits regardless of whether they have children, so creating a reason to apply it against gay couples that has never been an issue before is a bit disingenuous.

While true, married couples have always had those subsidies, if you ask me, they should have never had them in the first place. But that’s not the point. I was asked to present an example of people outside religion who disagree with gay marriage. It isn't necessarily a position I hold, but that is one of several positions I have heard people voice.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

It seems as though someone else has already pointed out some of the fallacies, to which you hand waved them away with the excuse that your real point was that some people believed it, logical or not.

It’s not a matter of me waving anything off, someone suggested only religious people are against Gay marriage, I disagreed and claimed some people outside religion are against it as well. He asked me to give an example so I did. This is not a position I hold, but I have heard people who do hold this position voice it. Whether you find the position logical, reasonable, or absurd is not the point; the point is, whether you like it or not, these people do exist! Now everybody and their mother joins in asking me to defend a position I do not hold. I’ve been very clear of my position; that marriage should be between the church and those involved; whether it be heterosexual, homosexual, incest, polygamy, or whatever; if you can find someone to marry you and bless your relationship, that can be between you and them, and the government should stay out of it. Now if you want to challenge me on a position, challenge me on a position I hold instead of one someone else holds.

The real question is this. Are all reasons equally valid to you? Is a argument based on, say, voices in someone's head weighed the same as an argument based in logic?

Really??? You call that the real question? C’mon; you can do better than that. Care to try again?

 

[Cute Tink]

I was pointing out that children of gay parents are usually a result of adoption, or one of the parents having a child via heterosexual means; not born from the gay relationship.

Then in response to those who hold this position, they are still raising children just as much as any other couple and they are taking children out of the government system, saving everyone on taxes

While true, married couples have always had those subsidies, if you ask me, they should have never had them in the first place. But that’s not the point. I was asked to present an example of people outside religion who disagree with gay marriage. It isn't necessarily a position I hold, but that is one of several positions I have heard people voice.

K

I understand where you are coming from then.

 

[Queller]

I never said it was a requirement.

Most marriages result in children. The infertile, the elderly, and those who choose not to have children is such a small percentage, it isn't worth making an exception for them.

And same-sex marriages will be an equally small percentage. Why should an exception be made for them but not the others?

Now this was just an example that some people might have. As I said before, MY argument was that no marriages should be recognized by the state, that all marriages should be between the people involved and their church.

What if two people don't have a church? They can't get married?

 

[SilverBear]

No, I am pointing out what some people see as a legitimate reason. Just because you don't agree with or think you can find fault in the reasoning doesn't mean there aren't any people who feel this way! Remember; I am not trying to convince of the reasoning, I am answering a specific question that was asked.

If YOU have a problem with the reason I gave, or somehow find it to be illogical, why don't you point out why you find my point illogical and perhaps we can have a conversation.

 

[Ken-1122]

Then in response to those who hold this position, they are still raising children just as much as any other couple and they are taking children out of the government system, saving everyone on taxes .

Good point, which is why I find it a rather outdated position to hold.

 

[Ken-1122]

And same-sex marriages will be an equally small percentage. Why should an exception be made for them but not the others?

I guess the same argument could be made for incest, polygamy, and every other relationship that isn't blessed by the Government via marriage.

What if two people don't have a church? They can't get married?

I guess the same could be said for Baptism. If marriage is only a religious thing, why would you feel a need to be married if you don't have a church?

 

[Queller]

I guess the same argument could be made for incest, polygamy, and every other relationship that isn't blessed by the Government via marriage.

That may or may not be but doesn't answer the question I asked, does it?

Let me rephrase the question;

Since having children is not a requirement to attain a marriage license for heterosexuals, why should it be a requirement for homosexuals?

I guess the same could be said for Baptism. If marriage is only a religious thing, why would you feel a need to be married if you don't have a church?

Where did you get the idea that marriage is only a "religious thing"?

 

[Ken-1122]

That may or may not be but doesn't answer the question I asked, does it?

Let me rephrase the question;

Since having children is not a requirement to attain a marriage license for heterosexuals, why should it be a requirement for homosexuals?

Where did you get the idea that marriage is only a "religious thing"?

That may or may not be but doesn't answer the question I asked, does it?

Let me rephrase the question;

Since having children is not a requirement to attain a marriage license for heterosexuals, why should it be a requirement for homosexuals?

It is not a requirement for homosexuals. I just added, it isn’t a requirement for incest, polygamy, or any of the other relationships that are restricted from marriage either.

Where did you get the idea that marriage is only a "religious thing"?

Currently marriage is a religious and a legal thing. I’m just saying the legal part needs to go away and leave it as only a religious (and perhaps traditional) thing.

 

[Queller]

It is not a requirement for homosexuals. I just added, it isn’t a requirement for incest, polygamy, or any of the other relationships that are restricted from marriage either.

Currently marriage is a religious and a legal thing. I’m just saying the legal part needs to go away and leave it as only a religious (and perhaps traditional) thing.

Why?

 

[Ken-1122]

Why?

Why does the legal part need to go away? Because I don't think it is fair for people who choose to get married to get financial subsidies from those who choose not to.

 

[Queller]

Why does the legal part need to go away? Because I don't think it is fair for people who choose to get married to get financial subsidies from those who choose not to.

But why should people who aren't religious not be able to get married?

 

[Ken-1122]

But why should people who aren't religious not be able to get married?

Usually a church will want you to be a part of the church before they marry you. How ever if a non religious person can find a church that is willing to marry them without being a member, no law will stop you; but the law won't a church to marry you either.

 

[Queller]

Usually a church will want you to be a part of the church before they marry you. How ever if a non religious person can find a church that is willing to marry them without being a member, no law will stop you; but the law won't a church to marry you either.

Why should a non-religious couple need to go to a religious organization to get married? Seems like nothing more than a way to force religious beliefs on someone else, in violation of the First Amendment.