Redefining Marriage

[rojse]

Mormon Times - State job is not to redefine marriage

Can't get any better than this.

Someone posted this in another forum, and I think it worth discussion to a wider audience.

I disagree Card in that we cannot redefine marriage.

Once, marriage was between those of the same religion, and it was inconceivable that Catholics might marry Protestants. It was redefined so that a man and a woman of different religions could marry, but no one would accept marriage between people of different races. After civil rights movements, the definition of marriage was again changed so any man or woman could marry.

I think that homosexual marriage is the next boundary in how marriage will be defined. And, in the latter part of this century, I wonder what boundaries in marriage will be shattered as our society progresses into the future?

 

[Sunstone]

I think society might eventually allow any marriage arrangement that's between informed, consenting adults.

 

[Nessa]

Someone posted this in another forum, and I think it worth discussion to a wider audience.

I disagree with Card in that we cannot redefine marriage.

Once, marriage was between those of the same religion, and it was inconceivable that Catholics might marry Protestants. It was redefined so that a man and a woman of different religions could marry, but no one would accept marriage between people of different races. After civil rights movements, the definition of marriage was again changed so any man or woman could marry.

I think that homosexual marriage is the next boundary in how marriage will be defined. And, in the latter part of this century, I wonder what boundaries in marriage will be shattered as our society progresses into the future?

Interesting points, we've re-defined marriage regarding age limitations as well. It was common for young girls to marry centuries ago and now society frowns or attempts to prohibit it.

Remember how rapidly gay marriage has become a requirement. When gay rights were being enforced by the courts back in the '70s and '80s, we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage

I'm curious about this statement from the OP. It clashes with the civil rights movement of our time. Can anybody offer some insight into what the author is asserting.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think society might eventually allow any marriage arrangement that's between informed, consenting adults.

Well, lots of people have their hands in the cookie jar.

Insurance companies certainly don't want it done this way, because they will have to completely re-write and re-think everything. Sure, they could charge more money for premiums, but it would take quite a while for legislators and employers to negotiate out the horrible mess that this would cause.

For every non-traditional marriage that works, there would be ten that fail, and we'd have to re-structure every aspect of our infrastructure - which indeed is failing now with traditional marriage. Properties, credit, and insurance would need to fit in the "mutual agreement" as it works and then we'd have to redistribute it equitably when people separate. It's bad enough with two people.

 

[blackout]

It's bad enough with two people.

You're right.
Let's just do away with the whole damned thing.

 

[blackout]

Well, lots of people have their hands in the cookie jar.

Insurance companies certainly don't want it done this way, because they will have to completely re-write and re-think everything. Sure, they could charge more money for premiums, but it would take quite a while for legislators and employers to negotiate out the horrible mess that this would cause.

For every non-traditional marriage that works, there would be ten that fail, and we'd have to re-structure every aspect of our infrastructure - which indeed is failing now with traditional marriage. Properties, credit, and insurance would need to fit in the "mutual agreement" as it works and then we'd have to redistribute it equitably when people separate. It's bad enough with two people.

Good thing the founding fathers weren't so squeamish about re-structuring when it came to people's freedoms.

 

[McBell]

The whole article is nothing more than a preaching to the choir.
A security blanket for those wishing to ratify their beliefs.
It merely promotes the usual half truths, mis-information, and flat out lies used by those against same sex marriage.

And before any one starts whining...
I AM being nice and polite in this post.

 

[Kungfuzed]

You're right.
Let's just do away with the whole damned thing.

I second that. Give marriage to the various religions and leave the government out of it. The rest of us can commit to our loved one in whatever way we see fit.

The LDS church already has the ordinance of temple sealing that has little to do with civil marriage. Gay marriage would have no effect on their sacred ordinaces. The church will still retain all the authority to say who goes in the temple and who doesn't. They face more pressure to make things work than the government could ever put on a couple.

I don't claim to have any understanding of gays. But if the tables were turned, and gays ruled the country, and told me I can't marry my sweetie because we're straight, I'd be ****** too. I think Orson doesn't believe that gays are even capable of the same kind of love that straight people experience. He just thinks they are screwing around with friends and are trying to gain acceptance of their behavior by legalizing gay marriage. Like it's just some sort of game to undermine the traditional family. Makes no sense at all.

You can't honestly tell me that if gays get married that straight marriages will loose their meaning, and that families will loose their solidarity. My commitment is to my wife, because I love her, God and government have nothing to do with it.

 

[rojse]

Well, lots of people have their hands in the cookie jar.

Insurance companies certainly don't want it done this way, because they will have to completely re-write and re-think everything. Sure, they could charge more money for premiums, but it would take quite a while for legislators and employers to negotiate out the horrible mess that this would cause.

For every non-traditional marriage that works, there would be ten that fail, and we'd have to re-structure every aspect of our infrastructure - which indeed is failing now with traditional marriage. Properties, credit, and insurance would need to fit in the "mutual agreement" as it works and then we'd have to redistribute it equitably when people separate. It's bad enough with two people.

I wonder where the one working for ten failing statistic comes from.

Right now, with the religious bodies getting their way for marriage, we are on about one marriage working for eac marriage that fails, and the average family unit is either mother, step-father and children, father, step-mother and children, or a single parent.

As for a complete re-write of insurance, it would still be the same terminology - spouse, widow, husband or wife and so forth, would it not? And I am sure that any gay couple that is willing to put the effort to getting married will pay extra in their premiums.

Lastly, for the it's bad enough with two people, is that a jab at polygamy?

 

[ladybug83]

Once, marriage was between those of the same religion, and it was inconceivable that Catholics might marry Protestants. It was redefined so that a man and a woman of different religions could marry, but no one would accept marriage between people of different races. After civil rights movements, the definition of marriage was again changed so any man or woman could marry.

Inspite of all the changes that the legal definition of marriage has gone through, the constant between them can't really be ignored. Throughout time, one thing has never changed: "man and woman." Religious and racial prohibitions may have collapsed, but the underlying definition of marriage--the one constant--has always been the union of man and woman.

 

[Sunstone]

Inspite of all the changes that the legal definition of marriage has gone through, the constant between them can't really be ignored. Throughout time, one thing has never changed: "man and woman." Religious and racial prohibitions may have collapsed, but the underlying definition of marriage--the one constant--has always been the union of man and woman.

So how do you explain those cultures which have allowed homosexual marriages?

 

[Kcnorwood]

I think all this really comes down to people wanting to control who can get married & who can't. Like most things it's about power it shouldn't matter what sex someone is, if you love them & they love you then that's what truly matters. Not the rambeling some some religion group who seems to think they should the say so in everyone lives.

 

[Alceste]

I wonder where the one working for ten failing statistic comes from.

 

[stacey bo bacey]

Yea I've never bought the whole "union between a man and woman" thing, even when I was being taught in Catholic school that that's the only definition of marriage. Like someone else said, if the tables were turned, how would you feel? Love is LOVE...there is no such thing as straight love, gay love, whatever. It's all the same emotion. Who is anyone to say love is wrong or restrict it in any way? That's the part that makes me so mad.

I'm ashamed to live in a place where people aren't granted the same rights based on their sexual orientation. To people who don't support gay marriage, how does that not sound ridiculous??

 

[Starfish]

So how do you explain those cultures which have allowed homosexual marriages?

Where are they today? How are they doing? How long have they lasted?

No major society throughout all of history has accepted anything other than man-woman marriage. Only isolated pockets practiced homosexual marriage.

 

[Father Heathen]

Where are they today? How are they doing? How long have they lasted?

No major society throughout all of history has accepted anything other than man-woman marriage. Only isolated pockets practiced homosexual marriage.

Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, the later of which fell after adopting christianity. When the church split between the catholic and the orthodox it also caused the empire to split and then gradually decline.

You're not suggesting that homosexuality emits a magical energy that causes nations to collapse, are you? That would be just plain goofy.

 

[Kcnorwood]

Where are they today? How are they doing? How long have they lasted?

No major society throughout all of history has accepted anything other than man-woman marriage. Only isolated pockets practiced homosexual marriage.

Ask the Roman catholics that question they were the one who wiped out the other faiths & sent them running.

 

[madhatter85]

Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, the later of which fell after adopting christianity. When the church split between the catholic and the orthodox it also caused the empire to split and then gradually decline.

You're not suggesting that homosexuality emits a magical energy that causes nations to collapse, are you? That would be just plain goofy.

No, but it is counter evolutionary. a society within itself that adopts homosexuality as a normal thing and encourages the behavior, will eventially dwindle and perish because there will be no new posterity unless you inbreed.

same thign happens in polygamist groups they have to resort to inbreeding because everyone becomes related eventually.

 

[madhatter85]

So how do you explain those cultures which have allowed homosexual marriages?

where are those cultures now?

 

[Storm]

uhm, Greece. Do a Google.