Results 181 to 210 of 320

Thread: Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
    The primary function isn't producing children. That's the logical hopskotch that pvc went through where he claimed infertile women shouldn't be allowed to marry. As for calling it a civil partnership, that's seamus's point too, so...
    The is an important difference in the way PVC and myself presented these points though. PVC (IIRC) argued the point with producing children in order to justify the relevance of heterosexual marraige today. On the other hand, I was putting it more in a historical context, since I had just made the points on the meaning of marriage when it was institutionalised into the legal system, and explained the role of the traditional nuclear family etc.

    I was saying that our idea of marriage has its roots in the nuclear family, although it is no longer justified by these. Historically, heterosexual couples generally produced children, they generally functioned very well as a social unit etc.

    Because of these functions, we have over the centuries gained our understanding of what marriage is. Whether or every heterosexual couple actually produced children, or functioned well as a family, they generally had one thing in common - the one man and one woman.

    This is the 21st century, much of the practical side of the old hetersexual marriage is irrelevent. A lot of people can't be bothered with kids, their role in life is not longer determined by their position in the extended family. But it is because of these historic functions that marriage came to be what it currently means to us.

    And I was in reply mode before I was able to read what seamus wrote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
    A lot of opposition to civil unions is because the proposed laws regarding them have left many rights off the table, and have often not been applicable outside of the state that granted them (I believe).

    Atheists can get married right? But isn't that non sacramental?

    Essentially, religions have no more right to object to non-holy marriages than they do to atheists and non-christians celebrating christmas. They don't have to call it x-mas, or "civil gift giving holiday". I can't help but find it a petty objection. You have to live and let live more than that.
    Although religious ideas are intertwined in the minds of those who opposed gay marriage, our arguments have never been based on them, but have been strictly secular. I never said gay marriage should be illegal because God says it is an abomination.

    The question here remains simply whether or not homosexual couples deserve legal status as being 'married'. They are, of course, free to have a ceremony in their own church/gay person's club/whatever, and carry out a ceremony there, and call it marriage, if they feel so inclined.
    Last edited by Rhyfelwyr; 08-14-2010 at 23:59.
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO