Defend Marriage Between a Man and a Woman!

[Milk-Drops]

I think the main difference is that we both have different respects for our own infrastructure yet still have basically the same concern.

Banning Same sex marriage won't fix morality in this country. Its not even a symptom. You mentioned personal responsibility. That is something that we can agree on. I find the groups that are lobbying against same sex marriage to not be in favor of personal responsibility, but more of a self-serving stance.

If its divorce that is the problem, maybe we should be looking at why divorce is so high and do our best to solve that issue. If its about how kids are raised, then maybe we should go after that issue. If its about our culture in general, then we should tackle that.

At the end of the day, keeping gay men and women from their 14th amendment protections is not going to fix anything.

 

[reba]

Changing the histories old male female marriage wont fix anything.

Some years back a girl/woman wanted to go to school at the citadel. (some all guys school) She went the rules were changed to accommodated her. Once the rules were change it was no longer the same school she had wanted to go to. She gained nothing.

Wouldn't bother me if the old laws for adultery were still in effect. Divorce is just another slap in the face of God/God's Word.
Divorce comes back to personal responsibility.
Our culture has become one of self serving, quick gratification, zero responsibility

 

[jasoncran]

to all. being the only soldier here. i inquired on the affect doma and on the chaplain corps. it will not imediately affect them but once they allow gays to marry in the service as each battalion has a chaplain to it and not all of them are of the myriads of faith. ie im a pentacostal, i can fellowship with all believers but.. i wouldnt attend a jewish svc nor a muslim or buddhist one even though these may be my unit chaplain. so to say that no christian chaplain will be forced to marry gays isnt really the case. remember these work for the govt and are under its rules. when and if they do as my chaplian has said he looses his ordainment and is defrocked and he out of the army for that.

 

[Mike S]

Who are these liberals then? It surely isn't the Democrat party. I'm not phased by boogeyman talk. If you have a real person to present me, we'll talk about him/her. Talking about hypothetical groups is just silly.

And I'm not convinced by vague nonsense about people that only exist in hypothetical.

I'm OK with your not being convinced. I'll state my opinions, when I feel it's appropriate. But I'm not the least bit concerned about it if you disagree, I'm not trying to convince anyone.

 

[reba]

Men and women are not the same. More than fixing something,, in a few short years a lot would change...

I am not apposed to civil unions. Civil unions could well be open to all peoples. Now if equality is what is being asked for that should do the job. I believe changing society is the real focus. The desire of a few is set to effect the many.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I agree with reba on the civil unions vs gay marriage issue. I think that marriage has been a heterosexual union given various state benefits because its understood that the union will be stable, many (most?) will result in offspring, and society will benefit. Its sort of individual affection+benefits to society+stability for the family, which is the building block of society.

Civil unions would allow homosexuals (and hopefully others, but I don't know the laws) to have legally recognized relationships without calling it "marriage." To me, having gay marriage isn't a sign of tolerance so much as it is a sign that we as a society have lost sight of what marriage is really about. Marriage is usually about a long-lasting (hopefully permanent) union between a man and a woman that benefits the couple and society as a whole. The couple can dissolve the union if serious problems arise (OK, with no fault divorce, its pretty easy...but still....) and the state has a right to prevent certain people from marrying (and void some marriages, in certain cases) if society would be harmed (or just not benefit).

Religious issues aside, I don't think there's ever been a society until now that has tried to treat homosexual unions and heterosexual unions as being somehow equivalent. I'm no anthropologist, so I may be wrong, but I seriously don't think its happened. Speaking as someone who has been involved in homosexual activity, I think its kind of odd that we'd try to pretend that gay relationships are "just like" straight ones. They're not. They're more "open," more fragile, more prone to failure. They lack male/female balance.

 

[Christ_empowered]

your tone is...more than a little harsh. I think many people--I would assume most Christians--would be more comfortable giving LGBT couples civil unions and everything associated with marriage (without calling it marriage) than we would be making actual marriage available to same-sex couples.

 

[reba]

It can not be exactly the same.
homosexual or not, men are men and women are women. We are not the same in emotions or physically, we not the same. We dont have the same mussel mass or bone structure. We dont have the same amounts of natural hormones...

Meatballsub .... When was the last time you had a simple biology class?

So equality in the 14th is not really what your wanting?

 

[reba]

As i said ....I am not apposed to civil unions. Civil unions could well be open to all peoples. Now if equality is what is being asked for that should do the job. I believe changing society is the real focus. The desire of a few is set to effect the many.

The busting of Christian tradition or other wise is your aim Meatballsub.
Civil unions gives equality under the law.

 

[handy]

I do believe that there is a difference between civil unions and marriage. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and woman... Marriage is a lot more than just legal paperwork...

But, I am for civil unions and I believe civil unions can be between any adults who want to legally protect their joint assets and have their relationship recognized.

This can mean anyone from gay and lesbian couples to older men and women who can't marry because it would mess up their social security, or even maybe two sisters who want to live together and own a home together.

I remember reading a story on the blogosphere, which I never bothered to authenticate, whether or not it really happened isn't as important that it certainly could happen given current laws...

Anyway it was about a single woman who moved in with her long-time friend after the friend's husband died. The friend had a son who was a right piece of work and estranged from his mother. Anyway, the two friends lived together, in the same house for over 30 years. Not as a lesbian couple, just friends.

Then the woman, whose house it was, died...leaving the friend and the estranged son who hadn't been around the entire time.

He proved he was the woman's next of kin... and kicked the friend out of the home she had lived in for 30+ years.

Now, it's true that the woman could have prevented this by going in and making a very tight will, but even with a will, the son could have had the will overturned because there was no legally recognized relationship between the two women and the son was next-of-kin. The law is very big on "next of kin".

A civil union could certainly have helped in this matter.

I don't believe in redefining marriage... but at the same time, the constitution requires that all be treated equally under the law, and our marriage laws have set up a legally imbalanced situation given a society in which more and more couples are building their lives together outside of marriage.


Here's a question for everyone who wants to defend marriage between a man and a woman:

Which is more harmful to the institution of marriage? Gay marriage or no-fault divorce?

And a question for everyone who wants marriage to be defined as any two (or more) people who choose to be married because of the legal benefits of marriage:

If civil unions were made to give gay and lesbian couples each and every legal benefit a married hetero couple has... would that be satisfactory?

I ask because so many state the reason why marriage needs to be redefined to include same-sex couples is because of the legal inequality. If we take the legal inequality out of the picture... satisfying all aspects of the 14 Amendment... would that be satisfactory?

 

[reba]

Divorce

 

[Mike S]

As i said ....I am not apposed to civil unions. Civil unions could well be open to all peoples. Now if equality is what is being asked for that should do the job. I believe changing society is the real focus. The desire of a few is set to effect the many.

The busting of Christian tradition or other wise is your aim Meatballsub.
Civil unions gives equality under the law.

Those insisting on gay "marriage" rather than civil unions, are not looking for legal equality, they're looking for moral equality. They want absolute affirmation that homosexuality and heterosexuality are of equal moral value, and they want the government to force that outcome. For that reason, they will NEVER be satisfied until religious organizations are forced to submit to their demands. They may say they can live with religious exemptions, but they can't. This is not really about equality, it's about power, it's about forcing submission to a liberal secular view.

 

[reba]

Those insisting on gay "marriage" rather than civil unions, are not looking for legal equality, they're looking for moral equality. They want absolute affirmation that homosexuality and heterosexuality are of equal moral value, and they want the government to force that outcome. For that reason, they will NEVER be satisfied until religious organizations are forced to submit to their demands. They may say they can live with religious exemptions, but they can't. This is not really about equality, it's about power, it's about forcing submission to a liberal secular view.

Agree Mark

Your thoughts have been reinforced by Meatballsub very clearly.

 

[reba]

Meatballsub you have exposed your desire to under cut the Christian traditions. You are not being honest about the equality in the law...

Remember you got some real names earlier,

 

[jasoncran]

@dora the problem with civil unions is that the military doesnt recognise them for the insurance benefits. and the chaplains im sure wouldnt be well looked upon if they counsel them to live right with god especially if theres a kids involved.

 

[Milk-Drops]

It seems like my last slew of posts were deleted. My main point is basically the same as Handy's. I agree that civil unions would be fine as long as they had the exact same rights.


I just think its silly to worry about the name Marriage, because what ever its called won't change anything about a traditional marriage at all. I really don't know why my posts were deleted for "christian reasons" when I didn't go after any Christian scripture and just asked Mark to define who his "they are";)

 

[reba]

2.14: Please do not use the message board to air your grievances against other fellow members. If you have observed a violation of the Terms of Service please let a Moderator or Administrator know. (This includes violations or allegations of inappropriate actions by the moderators and administration.) If the grievance is with a staff member please contact them privately. If you deem it necessary to go beyond that then take it to the next level of Leadership authority.

 

[Comprehender]

Lets pretend for a second that Gay marriage is made completely illegal. All the Marriages performed are forcefully divorced. All the children in Same sex house holds are taken away by the government. And it is made illegal to mention anything about he reality of LGBT, and that all information is censored.

I never mentioned anything about taking children away from parents.
Children need what's best from them, not to be the toy-thing of 2 parents who want society to be legally required to honor their sexual deviations.

How then dose this fix the US's problem with divorce, Single Parents, Gay people, and all the other plethora of issues the socials conservatives throw out to object to gay marriage and people?

Nice try using logical fallacy of begging the question.
You illogically try to argue that marriage between a man & a woman won't solve the world's problems.
Of course not!
But at least it doesn't add to more problems by legalizing sexual deviations & the host of problems they have statistically proven to be associated with.

Gay Marriage actually has nothing to do with Children.

Yes, gay marriage supporters don't even consider what's best for children.

Its about extending the same protections to same sex couples, we give to Opposite sex couples. that is it. Same sex parent adoption is an entirely different issue.

WRONG.
Same-sex couples already have rights under common law marriage and cohabitation agreements.
The only reason to legalize gay marriage is to try to force society to honor sexual deviations & meanwhile, those most affected by marriage - the future of society - children - suffer for it.

Also, your posts forgets that the 1st amendment also protects the rights of those that disagree with your stance. The first Amendment dose not protect people from learning about LGBT or about Gay People. Children don't have a right to not learn about Gay people, as they don't have the right to not learn about people of different races, religions, nationalities, or about people in general. Also Children don't have the right to both parents being opposite genders.

Yes, nature dictates that not only do children have the right to be raised by both parents to thrive & learn best from both sexes, they (& all of us) would not be here if it weren't the union of a sperm (from a man) & an egg )from a woman!

 

[Comprehender]

God intends for a marriage to be between one man and a woman.
To love one another through thick and thin no matter what.
In the eyes and laws of God.
Until only to be departed by death and death only.

Yep!
We each are living proof that God/Creation creates via a man and a woman.

 

[Comprehender]

I think gay marriages a) won't be as common in the gay community as they are amongst heterosexuals and b) will have a shorter duration and higher divorce rate.

I think if we legalize in one state (or a couple states...) and then wait it out and crunch the numbers, we'll see that homosexual marriage is even more prone to failure than modern heterosexual marriage. I think we'll also see that AIDS rates won't be affected and neither will other problems associated with homosexual behavior (drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, mental health problems).

After that, it'd be up to the powers that be to either legalize it everywhere based on ideology or follow the numbers and grant civil unions but restrict marriage to heterosexual couples.

Yes & studies already indicate this (besides the obvious evidence of changing partners more often & STDs/AIDS among those with homosexual preferences)...

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]

"A recent study offers the first systematic
review of same-sex unions and divorce rates
based on accurate national register data in
Sweden from the 1990’s.​

[/FONT]​

[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]1​

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]

The study found that gay male couples
were 1.5 times as likely (or 50 percent more
likely) to divorce as married opposite-sex
couples, while lesbian couples were 2.67
times as likely (167 percent more likely) to
divorce as opposite-sex married couples
over a similar period of time.​

[/FONT]​

[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Even after
controlling for demographic characteristics
associated with increased risk of divorce,
male same-sex couples were 1.35 times as
likely (35 percent more likely) to divorce,
and lesbian couples were three times as​

likely (200 percent more likely)."
[/FONT][/FONT]http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SSdivorcerisk.pdf