Sorry, but the faith argument is bound by one problem. I don't buy into it.
I don't have to. It's just your religion, and I'm not into having
any of it. You can keep the tenets of your religion as you choose, within the
context of law, but if that's the argument you're going to make for
this, or any other point, it's not going to wash.
@HutteriteDid you even read the article? The whole premise of the
book is that there are reasons BESIDES FAITH to opposed gay marriage. Faith
isn't even discussed.Honestly, this is one area where the
anti-gay marriage side has really shot themselves in the foot: There are many
rational secular arguments as to why gay marriage should not be allowed, but all
the anti-gay marriage lobby can do is scream "because God said so!"
Don't you people realize that argument carries no weight with the largely
atheistic pro-gay marriage side?
" legal recognition should be limited to marriage as marriage has been
universally defined for millennia."One glaring problem with this
proposition is that marriage never actually had a "universal definition"
in the first place.Many cultures have practiced polygamy.Several cultures have practiced polyandry.Ancient Greece and
ancient Rome both encouraged homosexual relationships. At least two Roman
EMPERORS married men.Same-sex unions have been known throughout
history, in many cultures. This supposed "universal
definition" for marriage is nothing more than an imaginary and false
construct. As for that "conjugal view" of marriage -- it is
easily dismissed once one actually applies logic to the concept.1.
No, same-sex couples can not biologically produce children who share only the
couple's DNA.Neither can millions of other infertile couples.
Nonetheless, we legalize infertile marriages every day.2. No, two people of the same gender were not biologically designed to produce
children together.Humans are also not biologically designed to
fly.Nonetheless, we fly in airplanes every day.The fact
is, we human beings overcome our biological limitations every day. There is no
reason to suddenly declare that same-sex marriages are somehow ineligible for
the benefits of civilization.
To Hutterite:You obviously didn't read the article very well.
The referred to defense of traditional marriage in the article is based on the
scholarly work (book) written by Ivy league schooled doctors whose primary
premise of argument is philosophically and socially based... and not faith
based, as you are asserting. That book is based primarily on common sense, not
the tenets of anyone's religion. The only way for you or anyone else to
even attempt a valid rebuttal would be to first the read the book, something you
obviously haven't done. And until you do (and hopefully with an open mind)
it's your argument that isn't going to wash.
Mr. Peterson and Sir Robin, We are waiting. What are the many
rational secular arguments for opposing gay marriage? The article so accurately
describes what is trending and why, but doesn't expose a single argument
for the prohibition of gay marriage while claiming that volumes exist. Please
don't tease us, we want to know the rational reasons you claim exist.
@EDMRead the book...that's what it's there for.
All the claims that marriage must be intact for reasons of producing children,
etc, completely miss the point. Besides the logical problems with that laid out
nicely by Contrarius, gay marriage in no way will reduce the number of
heterosexual marriages. Society will produce the same number of children, and
there will be the same number of "traditional" families. However, there
will also be the existence of non-traditional families that can provide
supportive homes and further increase domestic coherence within society. Again, gay marriage in no way reduces the number of heterosexual
marriages producing children. Thus, all the warning about how families are
needed to do so for society are nothing but a smokescreen for the ignorant.
Finally, the smoking gun!Watching the comments to Peterson's
articles (and certain other articles) over the past couple of years, I've
suspected that at least some of the commenters haven't even bothered to
read the articles to which they're responding.EDM, above,
illustrates what I mean. Peterson's article calls attention to a book in
which, he says, rational reasons are laid out. So EDM writes in, ostentatiously
demanding to know where such rational reasons are laid out (and insinuating that
Peterson can't actually point to anything).But Hutterite
confirms my suspicion, in her case at least, beyond any doubt: She dismisses
Peterson's "faith argument" when Peterson didn't make one, and
despite the fact that he plainly says that the book he's talking about
doesn't rely upon religion or revelation either.In other words,
she -- and this applies, very possibly, to EDM, as well -- is responding
reflexively to the issue in general, rather than reasonably, to Peterson's
To Contrarius, EDM,OHBU and the similarly minded:You are still
missing the primary premise of this article. It's not about faith, religion
or the ability to have children. And with a limit of just 200 words in this
comment section, there isn't room to list and explain and expound the
reasoning behind the referred to book in a justifiable manner. Until you
actually do read the book, you are simply trying to make arguments for your
preexisting feelings, and nothing more. Please, please actually read the book
“What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” and its accompanying
website at whatismarriagebook.com so that you actually understand what it is you
are trying to argue against. None of you yet has indicated that you have.And by the way, Contrarius, and perhaps not just coincidentally, the
once great ancient Roman Empire soon fell after it became liberalized enough to
espouse homosexual marriages and similar practices. It's all part of
history and once again, something easy to read about. Do some research with an
open mind for learning... and not just for arguing. Are we smart enough to learn
@VerdadHow do you know if the book makes a rational argument? Have you
read the book? If so then you should be able to respond to EDM. The book
lays out the same false premises that have been articulated over and over again
in the in these threads and in the courts. The scientific evidance does not
support their claims of the effects of being raised by opposite sex parents and
same sex parents.
I suggest people read a portion of the arguments in the book before making
assumptions. Please do the following Google search for the 50-page PDF in
"Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy":"What is
marriage? Sherif Girgis Robert P. George & Ryan T. Anderson"
re: TatorsSorry, I am actually familiar with the book. The book is
full of a lot of fallacies. For one, that marriage has always been regarded as
a conjugal relationship between a man and woman. Marriage has been variously
defined throughout history. Secondly, the authors seem concerned with
investigating what marriage is, and they settle on the idea that it is a
comprehensive union between man and woman in both body and mind. They also rely
heavily on the flawed assumption that children raised by same-sex couples are at
a disadvantage--something that has not been supported by the research on the
matter. Finally, the book falls into the slippery slope mentality that if we
allow gays to marry, we must consent to all sorts of variations.Here's where it all falls apart. The debate in this country is about
legality and constitutionality. None of the authors arguments provide a reason
why it should not be allowed legally. They bracket religion, but then rely on
shaky evidence to assert that certain things are "better" for society,
with no evidence to back it up, appealing to logic only comprehensible to a
certain religious mindset.
(ran out of words)In the end, the authors do indeed point to the
idea that marriage is primarily about children, only arguing off the points
about infertile couples, etc, as necessary to establish a healthy set of
societal norms. Despite all their efforts to the contrary, the
premises of the book in question come back to the same things being argued about
more explicitly elsewhere--that marriage must be about raising children (when in
practice, it has a lot to do with things like taxes and medical benefits) and
that being raised by heterosexual parents in inherently better, of which there
is no evidence.
@Tators --"And by the way, Contrarius, and perhaps not just
coincidentally, the once great ancient Roman Empire soon fell after it became
liberalized enough to espouse homosexual marriages and similar
practices."Errr, no.Actually, both the Roman
civilization and the Greek civilization lasted for roughly 1000 years each. In fact, Edward Gibbon -- the historian who wrote The Decline and Fall
of the Roman Empire, widely regarded as the definitive history on the subject --
believed that Rome fell in significant part because of its overdependence on
Christianity, in addition to its excessive use of mercenaries.Speaking of learning from history....
I actually agree with Dr. Peterson in that I think people should look at
non-religious arguments for traditional marriage AND for marriage equality as
well— and that they should also read multiple and opposing arguments
on the topic rather than just from one viewpoint. Certainly the book and article
he refers to deserves consideration as do numerous others that disagree with
My support for gay marraige has nothing to do with my belief in traditional
marraige. I think INCLUSIVENESS is the word. Both traditional (man-woman) and
gay marraiges can exist in the same world. I believe that it is more important
that we have good people in the world. The only fear I see, coming from
straight, traditional couples, is that gay couples, tend to do it better. My own
traditional marriage was never threatened by any body but my husband.
I used to spend all day giving rational arguments for why I believe in giving
special recognition to the Family and traditional marriages (as I understand
those to be).I learned to argue on political, legal, constitutional,
biological, and philosophical grounds. I learned how to argue alright. What I
never seemed to learn is how to make people see sense. It's cause it's
not possible. Whether you hold my own position or an opposing one, there is no
way to 'make another see reason'. The Greek philosophers knew that
people had to obtain for themselves, that it couldn't simply be shown to
them. I have learned this principle to be true.For for those crying
"give me rational grounds", I have only this to say.To
assume that an opposing opinion is without grounds for reason is either a
display of intellectual infancy or blatant contention. Those who are willing to
exercise themselves unto intelligence may readily find good reason on both sides
of a debate. What is required? The will to listen. You can't demand others
to brighten your intelligence and raise your understanding, you have to search
it out for yourself.
"Religious reservations, for instance, don’t translate well into
discussions with non-believers. "Plus it'd be
unconstitutional. "Perhaps they’ll even change their
minds."Pretty much nobody ever changes their mind going from
support to opposition? Well... except for politicians half a dozen years ago who
ran away from their support because it wasn't politically expedient enough
at the time like Obama did with that "evolving" nonsense. Here's
the thing, even if you convinced me that marriage was primarily for the raising
of children... infertile and elderly couples (and couples who choose to not have
children) are still allowed to marry and in-vitro and adoption are options so
that's not a good reason to use it to ban only same-sex marriage. If you
convinced me that children with same-sex parents do worse on average with things
like juvenile detention or SAT scores (this isn't even shown to be the case
in data but for sake of argument let's pretend it is) then I could easily
point out we let poor people marry even though their kids do worse on average in
these categories too so why only ban same-sex marriage?
@Brave Sir Robin"Don't you people realize that argument carries
no weight with the largely atheistic pro-gay marriage side?"Roughly 50% of the nation supports same-sex marriage but only around 15% are
atheist-agnostic. The majority of people who support same-sex marriage are
religious. @Tators"the once great ancient Roman Empire
soon fell after it became liberalized enough to espouse homosexual marriages and
similar practices."There is no logical connection between social
acceptance of homosexuality and Rome's fall. The empire got too big and
unwieldy and was attacked from many different angles from many other groups.
Also didn't help to have a massive slave population that can be liberated
by invading forces.
When the obvious is inevitable the smart thing to do is learn to accept it and
work to make the best of it. It is here, it is now and it is here to stay. So
why make the suffering any worse.
To Contrarius:Once again you've taken things out context and
mixed your facts. Edward Gibbon wrote 6 volumes, from 1776 to 1789, about the
fall of the Roman Empire. His work was well done and documented. If you actually
studied it, you would find he believed (in his own words) that:The
Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual
loss of civic virtue among its citizens. They had become weak, outsourcing their
duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so
numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire. Romans, he
believed, had become effeminate (again, his own words), unwilling to live a
tougher, "manly" lifestyle, characterized by their homosexual
acceptances. In addition, Gibbon argued that Christianity created a
belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to
the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for the
Empire. He also believed its comparative pacifism tended to hamper the
traditional Roman martial spirit. As such, it was their mistaken view of
Christianity and not Christianity itself that contributed to their demise.
"....The book methodically presents a concise, calm, lucid case for the
proposition that legal recognition should be limited to marriage as marriage has
been universally defined for millennia...."______________________________If that's as close as Peterson
wants to come to telling us what that case is, he's failed miserably to
intrigue me in the slightest as to what it has to say.
Yes, I've read the book.And I hope that others will, as well.
Most of what I see in the comments here is just rehashing of preconceived
opinions.One note for "atl134," though: Voting on the basis
of religious convictions isn't "unconstitutional." Citizens are
entirely free to vote on any basis they want, rational or irrational, religious
or secular, good or bad, on the basis of sound information or out of ignorance.
They can, if they want, vote for a candidate because she's cute or vote
against a candidate because he's ugly. They're at liberty to vote for
a fellow Catholic or against a Muslim or a Mormon. Nobody from the Supreme
Court or the Department of Justice is sent to polling places in order to bar
people from voting on the basis of religious reasons -- something that would
TRULY be unconstitutional.
Whether you oppose same sex marriages on religious grounds or on
"rational" secular grounds, it doesn't really matter.In
this country we have a Constitution that grants equality to ALL US citizens, not
just those you like.Get used to it.
The big problem with this issue is that the term "marriage" has been
allowed to migrate into the realm of government. This, in my opinion, has
created the current controversy. The obligation of government should
extend no further than to recognize a legal contract entered into voluntarily by
two or more parties with a lawful objective. When a corporation is created
through contractual methods, does the government choose whether or not to
recognize that corporate contract based upon the sexual orientation of corporate
members? Of course not. We have all kinds of legal contracts in society and
government’s obligation is to recognize them as long as they are entered
into legally.Throw the term "marriage" completely out of the
realm of government. Let religious institutions define marriages to their
hearts content with government staying out of the marriage business period, and
then perhaps all this nonsense about what should qualify as a so called
"marriage" will be eliminated.
@RanchHand,"In this country we have a Constitution that grants
equality to ALL US citizens, not just those you like."I demand
that I be given a license to practice medicine, regardless of the fact that I
have not or will not attend medical school. It's my Constitutional right.
For the record: Most if not all of the issues and objections raised here are
actually treated in the book and on the related website to which Peterson
provides a link.It would be nice if the discussion could get beyond
these stale talking points, with nobody actually listening to the other side.
But that's probably way too optimistic.
Here's the difficulty: this is a reasonable article telling us about a book
and urging that we read it. But the arguments in the book are being outstripped
by events. So why bother?
This is the second article (at least) that the DesNews has run on this book -
the main premise is that since heterosexual relationships can result in
unintended pregnancies, heterosexual couples should be encouraged to get married
so that unintended children will be born into a stable relationship.The book fails to address why wanted/planned/intended children should not also
have that stability.Contrary to any claims made in this article or
in the book, every argument the book presents has been addressed and proven
wow, the misattributed Churchill quote isn't even close to being the lamest
part of the article. we have a book that is so clear and rational and not just
the same warmed over conservative arguments everyone has heard before (honest!),
that it will convince all same-sex marriage proponents of the error of their
ways. but, we won't bring up any of the oh, so compelling arguments
presented.... because.. ummm... well... if you'd just read the book
you'd be convinced, ok?
Contrarius,It may not have had a monolithic definition across all
cultures, but the general concept was pretty clear - marriage = man + woman.The ancient Greece and Rome argument is often put forth but it fails.
They might have had little problem with homosexual relationships, but they did
not allow same sex marriage. As to what Roman Emperors did, they could do what
they pleased and call it what they wanted. Who could oppose them and not lose
their life for the privilege? If the Emperor said he was a god, best go along
with him.You say that same-sex unions have been known throughout
history but I am unaware of any widespread practice of legal/societal
recognition. If you have it, please provide it. Marriage was
historically extended to non-fertile couples because (at least for the young)
there was no way of knowing beforehand who was fertile and who was not (or if an
apparently non-productive marriage would later yield children).There
is nothing "sudden" about not recognizing same sex marriage. The only
thing happening "suddenly" here is the rush to recognize what has not
been recognized in our history.
All one has to do is take some time to read about the history of marriage. Dr.
Peterson's "traditional view" would have been ridiculed not so many
centuries ago. If the creative force of the universe really cared that marriage
had meaning outside the boundaries of human thought, then something other than a
few iron age passages should have been offered to the planet's humans
thousands of years ago. So silly.
@Tators --"he believed (in his own words) that..."You are misquoting both Gibbon AND Wikipedia. ;-) Luckily,
I've got the full text of Gibbon's work right here.Gibbon
did cite loss of civic virtue, as well as dependence on mercenaries -- as
I've already noted. Yes, he said Romans had become effeminate -- also
pacifists -- which he actually ascribed in significant part to their dependence
on Christianity.However, Gibbon threw the word "effeminate"
around indiscriminately. Gibbon also called Indians, Syrians, Egyptians,
Armenians, Italians, and even all of Asia "effeminate" -- so don't
imagine that he meant anything specific when he used that word.Also,
Gibbon never used the word "homosexual", much less "homosexual
acceptances", anywhere, even once.OTOH:1. Gibbon did
note that only *one* of the first fifteen Roman emperors was entirely
"correct" (straight). That's fourteen gay or bi EMPERORS, several
hundred years before Rome fell.2. Julius Caesar himself was referred
to by his own peers as "every woman's man and every man's
woman". About 500 years before Rome fell.3. The Roman historian
Polybius reported that homosexuality was widely accepted in Roman culture by the
6th century BCE -- roughly 1000 years before the empire officially fell.
@ Twin Lights: Actually, marriage has often been man+woman+woman+woman. Many
Native American tribes had traditions of same-sex marriage, as did the
aboriginal cultures of New Zealand and Australia. There is evidence that
same-sex marriage was practiced in China.Hand-fasting was performed
in many pagan and heathen cultures and was valid for a year and day and then the
relationship was over. If the couple decided they wanted a longer relationship,
they would have a second ceremony on the year anniversary - the day before the
relationship ended.In many cultures, the man not only had his many
wives but also his many concubines.Some cultures were maternal
instead of paternal and in those cultures women would mate with multiple men in
order to ensure the best offspring.
RE: Contrarius,The short version of the authors' basic argument:
Therefore, a comprehensive union of persons (aka marriage) must include both
bodily union (heterosexual sex, as it organically connects the individually
incomplete reproductive systems of a man and a woman into a larger whole) and
mental union (consent). Or, …God ‘made them male and
female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother=(
G. mater) and be joined to his *(τὴν) *wife, and the two shall
become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. (Mark
10:6-8).* Greek Definite singular article and noun ,* Wife.RE: Kdee, What Is Marriage? Etymology Man and Woman. "matrimony,
marriage" French directly from Latin matrimonium. Through Greek origin,
matermony, mater=mother+mony(monism), single entity( the family unit)."
@Twin Lights --"the general concept was pretty clear - marriage
= man + woman."Not quite.For examples in the Romans
-- Martial and Juvenal, both Romans themselves, tell us that same-sex marriages,
complete with traditional rites, were not uncommon in their time. Gay marriages
weren't officially prohibited in the Roman empire until around 300 AD.For more Roman examples, see the book Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern
Europe.In other cultures ----Same-sex unions were
recognized in Mesopotamia (see the book Homosexuality in the Ancient World).--Ancient Assyrian religious texts included blessings for same-sex
unions, and treated them as equal to opposite-sex unions. --Same-sex
unions were recognized in some parts of China, including contracts and elaborate
ceremonies (see the books Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual
Tradition in China and also The origins and role of same-sex relations in human
societies ).--In more modern times, check the paper "Same-Sex
Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrement"
for examples of legal unions in medieval France.--Same-sex unions
were widely recognized in Native American societies.There's
more, but I'm out of space!
@ Sharonna: And yet wine, cheese, and spices all marry just fine.
@sharrona --You're mixing religious and non-religious arguments
again. Remember, the whole point of this book is supposedly that the anti-gay
crowd DOESN'T have to resort to religion to prove their point. Did you give
up on that goal already?"a comprehensive union of persons (aka
marriage)...."I'll wholeheartedly agree with the
"consent" part. I'll even agree provisionally with
"bodily union", even though husbands and wives do not always even live
together. But it's a huge leap from "bodily union" to
"heterosexual sex". Those two are not equivalent at all. And the same
rebuttals that have been used many times before still apply here.Oh,
and as for etymology -- did you know that one of the original meanings for the
word "wed" was "to bet or wager"? Of course, with our current
heterosexual divorce rates, I guess that still applies now! ;-DAnd
anyway, you've got your etymology wrong. "Marriage" is derived from
the Latin "maritatus", not from "matrimonium". And
"maritatus" means literally "give to a man", reflecting the
property status of women in ye olden dayes, or in animals and plants, "to
mate" or "to couple", or "to be grafted together".
To OHBU, "and that being raised by heterosexual parents in inherently
better, of which there is no evidence."And to all who devalue
the benefit to children of being raised by their two, opposite gendered,
married, biological parents, you need to read the most comprehensive study on
that subject published just last year. Since I cannot post the link directly,
you'll have to find it the way I did, Elder Dallin Oaks talk published on
the LDS Church website from Nov. 2012 entitled, "Protect the Children".
Go to the notes at the of the talk, find number 19. Paste the link into your
browser to find the article. Then click on the link in the article to read the
abstract the article references.I read through the entire abstract
and all of the accompanying charts. To shout the claim of no evidence is just
ignorant. Social scientists have shown over and over that for children, being
raised in an intact, two- parent home by their biological parents where there is
no child abuse will always be better. Both genders are required for the
healthiest outcomes in children. The books by the Three Doctors should also be
of interest to you.
Further, over and over the argument is used that heterosexual parenting is
flawed because of infidelity, divorce, and abuse. That's true. But using
that argument as an excuse to sink more deeply into the quagmire is inherently
@AkMama --That "study" you cite is actually a newspaper
article, which refers, secondhand, to the infamous study perpetrated by Mark
Regnerus.And Regnerus has already been soundly and widely debunked,
many times.The fatal flaw -- and it's VERY fatal -- in
Regnerus' work is that he compared **unstable** homosexual homes with
**stable** heterosexual homes. He fatally confounded his results -- and his
study is widely disregarded because of it.Many studies have
confirmed that stable homes are better for kids than unstable ones. So it
isn't any surprise that Regnerus got the results he did. But he
did NOTHING to prove any conclusions about orientation -- only about
stability.Incidentally, one of the findings of the National
Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, an ongoing **30 year** study, is that kids
growing up in **stable** lesbian homes are SAFER than kids in stable
heterosexual homes -- less likely to be abused than in straight homes.
Additionally, kids in lesbian homes do just as well as kids in straight homes.
And this is comparing STABLE lesbian homes to STABLE straight homes -- unlike
what Regnerus did.Marriage increases family stability. Family
stability helps kids. People who think kids are important should SUPPORT gay
Amazondoc & Kdee,My point that "marriage = man + woman"
does not preclude multiple husbands or wives nor does it address paternally or
materially led societies. Simply to note that marriage has not typically
included same sex couples.It does not appear to me that the examples
you cite from Rome or China included official recognition.The Native
American tradition may or may not include official recognition – it seems
unclear (from my quick search).Short term ceremonies (recognized or
not) would not seem to be the same as marriage.
@ Twin Lights: So, in your opinion marriage only means what you want it to mean
- sorry, not a valid legal reason to prohibit other marriages.
I don't need to read that book because the bottom line is that law-abiding
tax-paying citizens of this country should have all the benefits afforded all
the other law-abiding tax-paying citizens of this country, and that includes
thousands of benefits - legal, financial and social - bestowed upon couples who
are married. To deny a segment of the population those benefits is gross
unfairness. It does not matter your opinion. You have no say in it. It is a
matter of law.
But, as a matter of fact, it ISN'T a matter of law.All SORTS of
"segments of the population" are denied the "right" to marry --
and will presumably continue to be denied it. Siblings, parents and children,
first cousins, minors, those deemed by legal authority to be mentally incapable
of entering into a marriage, groups, etc. -- none of these are permitted to
marry in most jurisdictions.The question isn't whether there
will be an absolute right of everybody to marry everybody. There won't be.
The only question is, What shall be the limits?I'm struck,
though, by your resolution not even to CONSIDER an opinion contrary to yours.
It saves time, I suppose.
The winds blow loud and strong right now, but in the end, our society needs some
way to encourage parents of children to stay close together in a special
relationship that is more than a matter of convenience. We used to
call it marriage. If we need to call it something else, we will, and it should
be given preferential treatment in as much as the parties that participate build
the next generation of society. If we cannot manage to accomodate
this, we will only continue to confuse and destroy what makes our country sound
and solid. Storms pass and they do their damage, and after they blow over, we
learn from them. We will rebuild and fortify what we must. And prepare for the
next change. That's just how we are. So stay true to a solid foundation and
regardless of what trends your neighbors are following, you'll be fine.
@raybies --"in the end, our society needs some way to encourage
parents of children to stay close together in a special relationship that is
more than a matter of convenience"And marriage provides that --
for both straight couples AND gay couples. Gay marriage will increase family
stability just as much as straight marriage does.@Twin Lights --"Simply to note that marriage has not typically included same sex
couples."Marriage will not "typically" involve same-sex
couples even after gay marriages are legalized. After all, homosexuals make up
only about 3-5% of the population. The vast majority of marriages will still be
"straight"."It does not appear to me that the examples
you cite from Rome or China included official recognition."I've given you several examples of recognized same-sex marriages,
complete with contracts and ceremonies. If you refuse to see them, there's
not much more I can do."Short term ceremonies (recognized or
not) would not seem to be the same as marriage."Tell that to the
Romans. Even in their straight marriages, they seemed to have little use for
either monogamy or longterm relationships. But they had no trouble applying the
word "marriage" (maritatus), nonetheless.
George Gilder, 30 years ago, wrote a book called Men and marriage. I still find
that book the most validating book ever in regards to the institution of
marriage. As stated, no matter what 'society' says or does in regards
to the definition of marriage, largely the result of fear, disregard of
God's word, and continued misinformation and chaos in society, if I were a
betting man, God's definition of marriage will not only last, but thrive.
Welcome to the new world!
History needs to be looked at more closely. We're not the first society to
go this direction. What happened to the others that did? People say that Rome
got lazy and that is why it fell. No, the reason is that they turned away from
traditional morales and went with a hedonistic lifestyle. Then came the fall.
We'll be repeating that cycle here soon enough becasue no one will listen.
@Kate Hutch"It does not matter your opinion. You have no say in it. It
is a matter of law."This sounds very un-American to me. In fact,
it sounds like a dictatorship to me.
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his
sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the
unjust. (Mattew 5:45)______________________________There will
always be religious undercurrents on this and other issues in society. But
here's the bottom line for me. In America, religious beliefs must not be
the basis for public law which applies to all, the religious and the
Article quote: "More fundamentally, though, polls and trends demonstrate
only that a view is popular, not that it’s correct."And
THAT, folks, is the heart of the matter, something that liberals foolishly do
their best to absolutely refute: they try to ignore the reality that truth is
independent of "opinion" and "polls".How long, Lord,
@JimE -- "History needs to be looked at more closely."I think YOU need to look at history more closely.Edward
Gibbon, the preeminent historian on the fall of Rome, concluded that Rome fell
in significant part because of its overdependence on Christianity. Other major
contributors included a loss of civic virtue (that's CIVIC virtue, not
sexual morality), overdependence on mercenaries, over-refinement (effeteness,
over-cultured, unmilitary), and corruption in the Praetorian Guard.More modern historians emphasize the economic and military factors in
Rome's fall, of which there were many.NOBODY of note believes
that it had anything to do with homosexuality.In fact, homosexuality
was widely practiced and accepted throughout Roman culture for many hundreds of
years before the empire fell. If you'll just bother to read some of the
preceding comments in this same thread, you'll get a better idea of some of
the REAL history behind Rome's fall and the complete irrelevance of
homosexuality to that fall.I am constantly amazed that so many
people who tell us to "look at history" don't actually know history
Social anthropologists have studied cultures around the globe. Marriage
between male and female is universal. What differs are matters of familial
relationships of intended spouses, who authorizes unions, number of spouses, the
lineage of offspring and customs. Examining ethnographies of diverse cultures
with different marriage customs ethnographers have asked "What is the
function of marriage across cultural lines? Is there a universal common purpose
for marriage?" The answer came that the function of marriage is to produce
legitimate offspring. Other types of sexual relationships were not considered
@Verdad"Voting on the basis of religious convictions isn't
"unconstitutional." Citizens are entirely free to vote on any basis they
want, rational or irrational, religious or secular, good or bad, on the basis of
sound information or out of ignorance. They can, if they want, vote for a
candidate because she's cute or vote against a candidate because he's
ugly."Right. My apologies for being unclear. What I meant was
that the laws we have must have a secular foundation, even if there are people
who support it for religious reasons. The Prop 8 lawyers have struggled their
first two go's at it to come up with that secular foundation. Maybe they
need to read the book.
I ask yet again, what harm does it do to your marriage? I have never gotten an
answer to this.
Amazondoc,I am simply trying to root out the issue of if there has
been official recognition of same sex marriage on any sort of wide spread
basis.The sources I am looking at indicate there has not been, even
after looking at the sources you recommended.Either the data is
there or it is not. We can neither wish it away nor wish it into existence.But, if we are to radically change our society, we should be sure the
new model will work and that there will be no adverse side effects.MaudineSee above.
Societies that have few children have economies that go down hill. Japan
stopped having lots of babies in 1990 and have gone down hill since then, same
with Europe, same with USA; nations become rich, have less children, and the
economies decline. Children equal wealth. Families equal wealth. Nations
that have babies have a future. This is a national security issue. I,
myself, have no kids, and count myself among the selfish.
Prophets Peter and Paul told the Saints to be one, form communities and be one
and live strict moral code, which is freedom; they knew if communities go
around disagreeing on major issues, they would break up and die; we can all
disagree on art and science and philosophy and literature and flowers and dance
and what to eat and how to spend one's summer; but on the major issues--be
one or go live in the wilderness. The first principle of the Word of Life is
hope and trust, not argument and contention. Whatever you believe, put money
behind it and go door to door, converts follow a postive message.
LDS are using the same arguments today to defend traditional marriage, that they
used 120 years ago to defend polygamy, sometime word for word. 1.
Traditional marriage established by God2. Family values3. Health
concerns for the spouses4. Religious freedom5. Healthier &
happier children6. Avoiding sexual misconduct7. It is the will of
If marriage is about having and raising children in a loving family... what
about this?Utah Code 30-3-1(2) First cousins may marry
under the following circumstances:(a) both parties are 65 years of age or
older; or(b) if both parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding
by the district court, located in the district in which either party resides,
that either party is unable to reproduce.
When it comes to an arguement about Constitutionality. What would happen in a
world where people did not abuse government to support their own agenda is we
would honor the Seperation of Church and State. The word church however means
group or assembly and was used anciently for political groups as it was for
religious groups. The government defining marriage at all is a political tool
first used to disenfranchise Mormon women and now it is being used to rally
against organized religion.If you were really concerned about the
separation of church and state the government would only sanction civil unions
whatsoever to hetero or homosexual couples. Marriage would be defined by
cultural groups not the government. The Pro-gay marriage people could go to some
liberal church and the traditional marriage supporters could go to a
conservative church.But that is not what is happening here.All this supposed logic: humans arent supposed to fly, poor people marrying is
filler. An undistributed middle logical fallacy to be self-righteous.There is a Universal stigma against childless couples whether fertile or not
for not having kids. Universal stigmas offer great insights into how humanity
works before social theorizing.
@plainbrownwrapperDivorce statistics are irrelevant, and is a
symptom of other societal problems
@plainbrownwrapperYou know that is not the truth.Lifted
From theblaze article :A 2012 speech by Masha Gessen, an author and
outspoken activist for the LGBT community...Gessen shared her views on the
subject and very specifically stated:"Gay marriage is a
lie.""Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying
about what we're going to do with marriage when we get there.""It's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not
exist." (This statement is met with very loud applause.)The push
for gay marriage has less to do with the right to marry, it is about diminishing
and eventually destroying the institution of marriage and redefining the
"traditional family."End of items from article.While gays may want the government benefits of marriage, the real truth is
much more insidious.
@truth --"You know that is not the truth."Actually, it IS the truth. Do a web search on those words ("we don't
want gay marriage, we want marriage") -- you'll find hits on a wide
range of sites -- like the Belfast Telegraph, abc.net Australia, the blurb for
the book "Why Marriage Matters", even one of the "answers" on
Answer.com . That is, indeed, a rather common phrase used by the gay rights
movement."Lifted From theblaze article :"LOL!"theblaze" is owned by Glenn Beck. 'Nuff said.Nonetheless, thanks for bringing Masha Gessen to my notice. I hadn't
heard about her before. She does seem to be off the wall.Of course,
blaming the whole gay marriage movement for Gessen's apparent insanity is
just as logical as blaming all of Mormonism for Warren Jeffs. He has his
supporters as well -- but that doesn't mean he reflects what Mormonism is
all about. Similarly, Gessen obviously doesn't reflect the mainstream of
the gay rights movement."Divorce statistics are
irrelevant"They are very relevant, when somebody claims that gay
marriage will destroy marriage as a whole. That claim simply isn't true,
based on facts we already know.
The further we drift away from the issue of faith, the more confused and
misinformed we get--on all sides of this issue. There is only one central
question: is there a God? If so, what does he think about all this?Gibbons, historical/anthropological practices in differing societies, an
appeal to sociological studies, statistics, man's philosophies, secondary
sources, "evidences" extrapolated from conclusions of specific studies,
appeals to "truths" that are in direct opposition, all this is vanity.
Where are we willing to exercise our faith? In God? In Science? In Law? History?
It's about time we came to our senses. But Shakespeare may have
had it best" "What fools we mortals be!"
@Dektol"If marriage is about having and raising children in a loving
family... what about this?Utah Code 30-3-1(2) First
cousins may marry under the following circumstances:"Technically
that rather does involve a loving family (in a sick, twisted way). It's not
like Utah laws make sense. Same sex couples can't adopt but single people
(including single homosexuals) can.
@G L W8;What if there is a god and it yours isn't it? What
My wife and I got married knowing that we could not conceive children. Do I not
have a marriage? Did I just have a temple "union"? For years my wife and
I were a family. We've since adopted two beautiful children to add to our
family. I come to learn that being a mother or a father has nothing to do with
blood, but has everything to do with a willingness to fulfill a role. Sure my
kids have "birth" parents, but I know who they call mom and dad. If you
treat my like I'm a sibling, then I'll be your brother. If you're
a good person, then there's no real reason to deny you my love and support.
Ranch, your questioning whether it's my God or your God or no God avoids
answering the central point: that is, to set about finding out if there is one,
and if you find out there is, finding out what he thinks. I could "bear
testimony", but that wouldn't do you any good unless you're
willing to try to find out for yourself. Maybe you have, and feel you have an
answer, and I can accept that, even if it's different from the answer I
feel I've got. My point is general: for those who have not exercised the
effort, they need to do so before arriving at an opinion that's taken no
effort--in loose terms, "an exercise of faith."
To I know it. I Live it. I Love it.That is probably the most wise
and intelligent post I've ever seen and I see a lot of them. Thank you.
Once I got in an argument with my mother, because I was insisting that the Scots
circa 1000 practiced polygamy, and she argued that they were strict
monogamists.The point was important because I was plotting a
historical fiction about Margaret of Scotland, positing that Malcolm MacDuncan
III was still married to his first wife, Ingebiorg, when he first proposed to
Margaret.We went to the internet. To our mutual surprise, we came
across the old Scots law about marriages, with the twelve different levels of
marriage. All were heterosexual unions, and each had to do with children.The antipenultimate form of marriage was deigned to be
"marriage" between a woman and her rapist. Because they had conjoined
and created a child. This kind of marriage was about assigning responsibility
for a child.The lowest form of marriage was between two individuals
who were mentally incompetent, possibly because there really wasn't anyone
competent to care for the child.I think it's unfortunate that
our knowledge of those days is so incomplete. The old Scots lived complex
conjugal marriage. I'm sorry we will have to re-learn the lessons they
could have taught us.