|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Hall of Famer |
You raise a couple of very interesting points. I agree completely with a couple of them: 1) The effect of divorce on children. To me, this is where the anti-gay marriage legislators lose me. One of their common tropes is that marriage must be protected, because it exists to provide a stable environment for the raising of children (which strikes me as a pretty Catholic view of the institution, but that's neither here nor there). The problem with that argument is that children, and the institution of marriage itself, are far more damaged by divorces than by the comparatively small number of committed couples in the country who are of the same gender. As I mentioned before, I think that the high number of legislators who are on their second or third wives has something to do with that particular abomination being overlooked. 2) I also agree with you about the pretty lousy way many people look after their marriages. 3) I have to completely disagree with you on the pastor in the custody hearing idea, though. If the pastor wants to come before the judge and give his thoughts, that's a very good thing. Nevertheless, custody is a civil matter, not a religious one. What happens if the couple are members of different religions? Or if one has decided to leave the church? The pastor can (and probably should) be more on the side of his "team," but it would be totally irresponsible for him to allow that to come into his decision-making process, which it almost certainly would. I think that the system whereby custody is decided does need a pretty big overhaul, but that's a discussion for another thread. Dennis |
|||
|
Hall of Famer |
dennis you should start that thread.
|
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
Yeah, but I don't have kids, so I don't care...that much. Dennis I figured the "that much" would make me seem less like a snarky, childless NPR listener. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
at least your honest. snarky childless npr listener lol.
|
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Also, while marriage does provide the ideal situation for child-rearing, marriage does not simply exist for that purpose, nor is having children a pre-requisite for heterosexual marriage.
Why should homosexual marriage be any different than a heterosexual couple that can't have children, is too old to have children, or doesn't want to have children? Children simply aren't a factor here. And Hoorta, you'r so off on that post I don't even know where to begin. Homosexuality isn't passed on through genes from a gay parent to a child, so homosexuality will never die off, as you say. That's nonsense. Nor have scientists isolated a gay gene, nor do they expect to. Genes don't work like that. So perhaps you shouldn't speak from a "scientific perspective" and describe to use how homosexuality is a mutant gene like hemophilia because clearly you don't know what you're talking about. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
i stayed away from that topic Heck. that is a murky highly controversial scientific and social topic.
|
|||
|
NFL Starter |
Um... Sev.. The faith and teaching of the nordics, babyolonians, etc etc was stamped out (or attempted to) by the hedgemony of the catholic church. It is virtually impossible to understand marriage in the middle ages in Europe-- and thus America, since that is where our predominant culture comes from-- outside of that construct. Now, you keep saying that other cultures have marriage as coveant. I say they only show social contract. I have shown Jewish marriage as social contract... Sumerian marriage as contract... Please show me marriage as more than contract outside of Christianity. That is the crux of my argument. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
That's a good point, to which I'd add Jonathan Rauch's "pretty Catholic" case for gay marriage: If you think marriage is important for creating a stable environment for children, then you should be for gay marriage. Otherwise, you run the risk of many young heterosexual couples thinking that marriage is just another prejudiced, atavistic institution that doesn't deserve their respect. These people will then opt out of marriage, which will cause their children to grow up in less stable homes. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
I think it's more complicated that that, though your previous comment - "...while holding that God is involved in the union, [Judaism] sees it primary as a civil union" - was a bit closer to my take. In brief, I'd say that Jewish marriage contains both civil & theocentric elements, which are both considered fundamental to marriage. Perhaps symbolic of this is that the ketubah (marriage contract) you mentioned is written in the legal language of the ancient Near East, Aramaic, while the marriage ceremony contains a series of Hebrew blessings, one of which calls God "[He] who makes the bridegroom rejoice with the bride". If you want to discuss it further, feel free to PM me. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
I hate to be repetitive, but since we're a non-theocracy, why is it relevant what Christians V. Jews V. Arabs V. Mormons have to say about it? Isn't this about marriage as a legal institution? To give gays equal rights?
Isn't the religious side of it moot? And I agree that putting the rights of minorities to a majority vote is senseless. It's a legal issue, a matter for the courts. |
|||
|
|
NFL Starter |
No reason to PM.. You and I are basically saying the same thing. I am just shorthanding it from the previous post. I am not denying that any other religion has a cultic part in the marriage. I am saying rather, that Christianity is the only belief system I have found so far by which marriage IS FIRST AND FOREMOST... a cultic activity. |
|||
|
|
NFL Starter |
Shep.. Those are good questions. What I was arguing was that in the development of the concept of "Marriage" in the english world, the idea of "marriage" was a rite in the catholic church (and larger christian church thereafter). As a result, when the actual English word "marriage" is used, it is used SPECIFICALLY in reference to that rite. As a result, we now have a situation by which the govt. has taken a rite of a church and appropriated it to itself, and now is changing the rite. Which is where you and I actually agree... because the INSTITUTION we are talking about should open to all people. Thus, by removing "marriage" from the govt. and allowing it to be what it original was... a rite of the church (at least in the English speaking world), we sidestep the issue, create an equal enviroment in the eyes of the law for all people, and give all people the same benefits... and we also allow the Christians to have their debate over what they think of marriage...where they SHOULD have it... in teh church. Not in the public. |
|||
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
Yeah I was thinking about that after I wrote it; it was early, I had to scoot, and I probably should have clarified. "The Pastor" should complement the judge & have an equal voice (or nearly equal w/ a jury checking & balancing the two) unless there are laws being broken (abuse, neglect, theft, etc.), then it becomes the judge's show only. I think the pastor could bring a "King Solomon effect" to the hearings and help determine who really wants the child/children & who really wants the paycheck. p.s. & I completely agree with your point #1. |
|||
|
|
NFL Starter |
I gotta agree with you here Dency. I would be for a couple choosing to use me as a mediator-- instead of going to a court. But I want no part of the legal system (except for those areas where the legal system already mandates my life as a pastor... which is understandable). |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters  |
Well if we aren't a theocracy we're at least somewhat a democracy. Or we were. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Yeah, Steve, but the court system exists for cases just like this. Letting the majority decide what's fair for the minority doesn't make sense. Too many people vote for themselves, not the greater good or what's "fair."
|
|||
|
|
NFL Starter |
I wonder what is more democratic... having a populace vote.. or have 9 people vote for all the people? |
|||
|
|
NFL Starter |
Sometimes irony is quite funny...
Topic ............................................ Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post Why I am Against Gay Marriage. Page 1 2 ... 4 5 Preacher 96 666 Wed May 21 2008 03:26 PM by Preacher |
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
I knew it! So much for our board's "angel of light." Also, to Steve, America isn't a democracy; it's a republic. As I said somewhere else on the board, one of the particularly clever things about the Founders was that they built in a number of roadblocks to make things difficult for people in power, whether in the various branches or the majority. Dennis |
|||
|
|
NFL Starter |
 |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | CLEVELAND SPORTS FORUM | ||
| Servlet | eve2da013 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Groupee" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
Designed by: CreAtens