So, Nick, what is your definition of
"marriage?"
A
union between two people in love. Yours?
John: Sooo, does
that include a grown man and a 10 year kid? I am guessing it does not, but how
do you deal with that problem, lower the age of "consent?" And
polygamy. If you don't believe in that, what is your justification for
"one on one union with anyone" in the face of a weeping woman telling
you how much she loves all the men she is currently sleeping with? In other
words, if you get rid of the historic definition, how do you come up with an
"end all" definition for "marriage." (Not trying to
argumentative, here. I really want to know how you go forward with any
definition, at all).
Nick: I hear you John. Good questions.
John with a final word: I saw my first headline on the question of polygamy 5 hours after the morning announcement of the Court. What has just happened is the end of the historic institution of "marriage." If not "one man to one woman" (and Old Testament man was hardly monogamous despite God's stated desire in Gen 3), there is no existing definition for "marriage." Ask a LBGT for he/she definition and you will not get one . . . . . because none exists. Me? I intend to ignore the Court's decision, teach the need and truth of the historic definition, and continue with my life. "They" only win when we surrender. Its not their lifestyle that is the ultimate prob, but the fact that many want to destroy the institution of marriage, altogether.
John with a final word: I saw my first headline on the question of polygamy 5 hours after the morning announcement of the Court. What has just happened is the end of the historic institution of "marriage." If not "one man to one woman" (and Old Testament man was hardly monogamous despite God's stated desire in Gen 3), there is no existing definition for "marriage." Ask a LBGT for he/she definition and you will not get one . . . . . because none exists. Me? I intend to ignore the Court's decision, teach the need and truth of the historic definition, and continue with my life. "They" only win when we surrender. Its not their lifestyle that is the ultimate prob, but the fact that many want to destroy the institution of marriage, altogether.
The SCOTUS decision is not a redefinition of marriage, but rather a part of its evolution. If you look at the history of marriage, you will see that it has evolved through times when it's purpose was polygamy, expansion of family, child-bearing, legal and economic protection, and, yes, same-sex unions (in Native American culture, China, ancient Greece and Rome and Mesopotamia). Currently, in the U.S., it is primarily a legal contract. The blessing of a religion is an option, not at the foundation of the current state of the institution, as some religious fanatics would like us to believe. SCOTUS has simply granted equal legal status to legal and economic protection to all gay people. "Love wins" is a nice sentiment, but it's more about legal and economic equality, as has been true of marriage throughout most of its history.
ReplyDeleteYou can have legal and economic protections for all gay people without changing the definition of "marriage." Your history lesson has little to do with American history. Even in polygamous Old Testament times, the stated preference from Gold was for one man and one woman. Children raised in "traditional homes" are more stable, as a rule. Fathers tend to add to the conscience of the child while a mother's influence goes to the child's spirituality, whatever that is, or so goes my training and experience in family dynamics.
DeleteThe Court did not SIMPLY provide legal status. More than this, the Court changed the legal standard for marriage and in so doing, made defining "marriage" an impossibility. That is why the Left, such as yourself, has no working definition for "marriage." Before the Court's decision, there was a definition and it is a little silly to deny this fact. "Comments" is not the forum for an extended debate. Your comments are appreciated. Write a brief, if you prefer, and I will post it. We can debate in that forum.
Or you can respond to my comment.
DeleteObama is +1 in Gallup's daily poll, one of your leading candidates Donald Trump was just fired by NBC for racist comments, and the SCOTUS affirms that marriage is not solely a religious institution - the way right wing zealots think it is.
ReplyDeleteTo which I say, "So what?" Not trying to be flippant, but, seriously, "So what?"
DeleteSame sex marriage isn't gay privilege, it's equal rights. Privilege would be something like gay people not paying taxes ... like churches.
DeleteWho said anything about gay "privilege" But to believe that the gay community is not given privilege in our media and college campuses is as wrong as what gay men do at a teabag party.
DeleteCatholic scholar at Yale John Boswell has published evidence that same-sex marriages were sanctioned by the early Christian Church, shortly after the time of Christ. John Boswell was a historian and religious Catholic who dedicated much of his scholarly life to studying the late Roman Empire and early Christian Church. Poring over legal and church documents from this era, he discovered there were dozens of records of church ceremonies where two men were joined in unions that used the same rituals as heterosexual marriages.
DeleteGay marriage - originally a Christian family value.
"Dozens" of early gay marriage sanctioned within the Roman Catholic Church? You think this establishes gay marriage as an early Christian value?! Assuming the validity of Boswell's historical sources, and that is not above question, you have a few examples out of a sea of Catholic history, against such marriages. You do know that I am not a Catholic, right? The Pope does not determine my values nor does he define any point of faith for those who are not Roman Catholics. I regard him as a Christian, of course, but in some areas, is much confused.
DeleteBack to Boswell. Here is a site (http://newevangelizers.com/blog/2013/08/14/3-catholic-responses-to-john-boswells-same-sex-unions-in-pre-modern-europe/) giving an opposing opinion. Boswell was gay, himself, and undisciplined in his gay activity. One would expect his thesis to say what it says. He died of AIDs in 1994 at age 47. Very intelligent and very undisciplined. See the article here: https://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/john-boswell-a-wasted-gift-of-intellect/
I am wondering why Anonymous failed to mention the facts stated above. Hmmmm.