DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
Good thing we're about more than just a biological basis.
We are..?????
Love
Dallas
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Good thing we're about more than just a biological basis.
We are..?????
Love
Dallas
Well can anyone? Do any even exist?
Shifting sands counselor. Which is important, traditional or biological? You were making your case on biological.In what way has our environment changed so that a traditional family is not the optimum structure in which to raise children?
Since ancient times, the family has been, and continues to be, the core of our social structure.
We have learned from thousands of years of human history that the best environment and structure in which to raise children is a family consisting of a man and one or more women. Without this fundamental, stable structure, society would not prosper.
We should be very careful, proceed very slowly, in changing this structure, lest we undermine it, and do so only for the most compelling reasons. The desire of a few gay people to formalize their romantic relationships, while admirable, is not a strong enough reason to tinker with the core building block of our society.
There is a reason that we build our societal structure around this model of marriage. There is a biological truth that underlies this structure. Human beings have evolved to raise children with the help of two biological parents, one of each sex. While children do grow up in other arrangements, this is the structure that we have evolved to use, which is why it works so well.
Other arrangements may serve when this is not available, but they are not as desirable. This is the only arrangement that is reflected in our traditional concept of marriage, which furthers, promotes and fosters it.
While gay people may have children, their parental relationships do not grow out of this biological reality in the same basic way that heterosexuals do. There is no need or benefit to formalizing gay parenting relationships by trying to force them into a biological model that they do not, in fact, fit. Gay people can adopt each other's children, thereby cementing their lifelong commitment to the children.
Since gay people cannot reproduce together, out of their sexual relationship, there is no need to formalize this relationship in the same way. If they wish to do so, there are a variety of other legal mechanisms they can use.
This would be an excellent question for Barrack Obama. He supports Civil Unions for Gays and Lesbians. Could it be the fact that being raised by a white grandparent and being half white himself, would be a possible explanation for this obvious oversight on his part? I may have to change my opinion of him being a member of Reverend Wright's church. Being a member of a black church did very little to shape his understanding of the black struggle. Could he really be telling the truth about not having any knowledge about Wright? What did he do for all those years in the church, sleep?If the rights are the same, there is no functional difference.
However, one is still left with the question of why one group of people can get "married" while another group of people can only be allowed "civil unions." To draw an analogy with the Civil Rights movement, even if separate but equal were truly equal (and obviously it was not), there would be the question of why things were separate in the first place.
If they already are capable of making the distinction, then the "marriage is a sacrament" argument loses a lot of validity. And since they are capable of making the distinction for other groups of people (atheists, divorcees) but not gays and lesbians, that to me suggests that the objection isn't about protecting marriage so much as being against gays and lesbians.
This would be an excellent question for Barrack Obama. He supports Civil Unions for Gays and Lesbians. Could it be the fact that being raised by a white grandparent and being half white himself, would be a possible explanation for this obvious oversight on his part?
I may have to change my opinion of him being a member of Reverend Wright's church. Being a member of a black church did very little to shape his understanding of the black struggle. Could he really be telling the truth about not having any knowledge about Wright? What did he do for all those years in the church, sleep?
Luis, My post was balanced before. I was even agreeing with Lilithu on this rare occasion. You only addressed half of it.Cheap shot, ain't it? And so unwarranted.
I must say that I do not support atheists or divorcees marrying.
You don't support atheists marrying?!? Why on earth not? *can't wait to hear this one*
The next major social movement coming to your neighborhood: Atheist Marriage.
Luis, My post was balanced before. I was even agreeing with Lilithu on this rare occasion. You only addressed half of it.
Unwarranted? In a nutshell, I said I believed Barrack now. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Uh? Do you honestly believe that is a valid reading of what you wrote before? :areyoucra
I do see how hypocritical some religions have become however. Too many churches are selectively choosing what part of the bible they subscribe to and what part they want to ignore. How convenient of them practicing their self serving homophobia. Just as I support any Churches decision on who they marry, I hold dear the right of others to refuse to marry any couple for any reason. This is religious freedom. It should not affect others who do not agree however.
You raised an excellent point. Selectively eliminating one group but allowing another to join in matrimony while ignoring the scriptures for one group while enforcing them on the other to the letter is proof positive evidence that they are more interested in attacking Gays than they are living by the scripture.
But it still does not make that cheap shot any less of a cheap shot, sorry...
Your definition of marriage and mine are different dear. When you hear the word marriage, you think of legal rights. Just so you understand, I am all for your legal rights. We all should have Civil unions that bestow legal rights equally to everyone.
When I hear the word marriage, I think of a union between a man and a woman joined together by God. Death do you part? For better or worse?
Irreconcilable differences is NOT in the Bible. :no:
Your definition of marriage and mine are different dear. When you hear the word marriage, you think of legal rights. Just so you understand, I am all for your legal rights. We all should have Civil unions that bestow legal rights equally to everyone.
When I hear the word marriage, I think of a union between a man and a woman joined together by God. Death do you part? For better or worse?
Irreconcilable differences is NOT in the Bible. :no:
When I hear the word marriage, I think of a union between a man and a woman joined together by God. Death do you part? For better or worse?
When I hear the word "marriage" I think a union of two things, not necessarily meaning a romantic couple being joined legally. How is either of our definitions more legitimate than the other one? Tradition?
Do I really need to bring up what "traditional" marriage used to mean again? :no: