I’d like to second that. A great post, showing excellent reasoning and decency.
kanicbird, I appreciate reading your input, but you’re making assertions about the definition of “marriage” without showing what you think is backing them up, other than your opinion.
Good point. I missed that post earlier. Very well put, Crotalus!! I think you absolutely nailed the rational, Christian perspective on this subject.
I want to add my voice to those praising Crotalus. That was the most rational, well-stated post on this subject I’ve read. Crotalus, thank you for being a Christian who actually uses the brain that God gave you for the purpose that God meant it: to think.
I started a thread a few months ago asking essentially this same question. No one could give a rational answer then, and kanicbird certainly hasn’t here.
I just don’t get how other people’s marriages have any effect on yours. This crap that our President is spewing now, about how marriage needs to be protected; I don’t get it. Protected from what? How does the marriage of two men harm your marriage?
I mean, Christians watch TV. Does the fact that some people use their TVs to watch porn lessen the value of your TV, or the value of whatever TV shows you like? Does “The 700 Club” lose meaning because a cable channel is showing porn?
It would have been reasonable and appropriate also to put quotes around the words “sanctity” and “marriage.”
I have never understand the opposition to SSM, and especially how adamant they are against it. SSM would strengthen the institution by showing that even for those of ‘alternative lifestyles’, the end goal should be a partner for life based on love, not casual relationships built on lesser foundations.
And I have never seen or heard anyone demand that churches must allow SSMs, only that the state does, so the ‘sanctity’ of marriage is not even an issue. It is the state-sponsored and created institution of marriage that same sex couples want to partake of.
As another wag put it, Britney Spears has created a bigger mockery of marriage than any same sex couple has.
:eek: Now let’s not get carried away here!
I agree with this also, I have no doubt that hetro civil unions would come about or some other term that would allow splitting up and true marriages would be rare.
[/QUOTE]
Can someone please lay out the difference between secular “sanctity” and religious “sanctity?” I’d like to understand how the word is applicable in my world.
I sincerely hope I’m not exposing you to some massive pile-on in asking this, but would you be willing to explain why the underlying assumption in this statement is held: “why do we want to call something that is not marriage a marriage.” I can of course grasp the idea that some people hold that a marriage should be one man and one woman – but suppose that two people of the same sex in Massachusetts or Canada go, get a marriage license, go to church and make their vows in a marriage ceremony. How does this fail to constitute a marriage in your perspective? This is not so much an argument as a quest for understanding.
Yeah, I am not sure why I made that word singular. 
It’s not a basic unit of humanity in modern civilization.
As pointed out above, the basic unit of humanity in modern civilization, man and woman living as such a unit, complementing each others strengths and ‘protecting’ each others weaknesses.
I have no reason to doubt what you said, but have a question for you (both), is it possible that one of you is a ‘female living in a body of a male’ (or the other way around)? I suspect that a large percentage of gay people (perhaps half) are people that are sort of transgendered, one gender trapped in the body of the other, which would explain their desire for the same sex - note this does not mean that they want to have sex assignment surgery.
Don’t worry I’m used to it. Your question touches many aspects that I just don’t have the time to go into right now.
Let me begin by saying that I support SSM. With much the same reasoning that Crotalus used.
(This may be a bit of a hijack, if people want to take this over to another thread I’ll be glad to follow.)
The concern I have, though, that seems to be ignored by most of the SSM supporters I see. I do not believe that a national sanction for SSM can be enacted without likewise removing the ban against poly-amorous marriages.
Most often the reasoning that I see against the conclusion I’ve put forth is that a marriage between two partners is infinitely more simple than any poly-amorous relationship would be. I don’t disagree that SSM can be added to the current marriage laws without any change other than to the definition of what parties might be involved in a marriage.
I just don’t see how, in justice, the state could continue to ban poly-amorous marriages after making the change to allow SSM. It would be a pain the arse to set up, no question. But isn’t the opposition to polygamy, for example, based on religious standards - not legal ones? If it’s proper and just to adapt the definition of marriage to specifically include SSM, why wouldn’t it be equally proper and just to adapt it to allow for poly-amorous marriages?
I guess part of this is that I just dislike the idea of defining proper behavior based entirely upon what’s easy to accomplish. I know it happens often. I just don’t like it.
(hijack ended)
kanicbird; if you believe a gay couple consists of a “masculine” partner and a “female” partner (a view i’m sure is going to get a lot of comments), what is your explanation of bisexual people like me, who surely cannot solely one or the other?
Wow, many things went wrong with that last post. Let me try again.
kanicbird; if you believe a gay couple consists of a “masculine” partner and a “feminine” partner (a view i’m sure is going to get a lot of comments), what is your explanation of bisexual people like me, who surely cannot solely be one or the other?
Omigosh. I’m too tired to start a whole “difference between gay (who you’re attracted to) and transgendered (what you are)” thread, but really, dear heart, these are two entirely different issues altogether.
Beats the hell outta me.
What do you base this supposition on? Frankly, it sounds like little more than an after-the-fact rationalization to support your belief that men cannot be attracted to men.
But let’s assume that you’re right. All that does is change the mathematics slightly. So, there are 50% less “true homosexuals” than there were before. How does that change the moral equation (pardon the pun)? Do you feel less troubled by discrimating against only half as many people as you othewise would?
And this is a reason to not let gays marry because…
Incidentally, I was under the impression that the “basic unit of humanity” was the human, singular. If the married couple is the “basic unit” of humanity, by definition a person who is not married is not a human. I suspect, however, that this is not what you mean to say, and that you are simply throwing around terms without understanding what they mean. As usual.
And again, leaving the “basic unit of humanity” nonsense aside, how does this not apply to a gay couple?
No, it’s not possible, and for Christ’s sake, would you read a book before you postulate such abominably stupid ideas? The idea that homosexuality is the same as gender dysphoria has been discredited for fifty years now. If you’re going to insist on weighing in on these discussion, could you please at least become minimally informed first?
Translation: “Your question is too hard for me to answer.”
It’s not a religious concept, it’s a social concept. Atheists get married all the time. It would be more accurate to say that it’s a social concept that reflects many (but not all) religious practices in the US.
Well, so what ? How is that any skin off my nose ?
Like it or not, people fear change. This is a part of the human makeup, all of us do it over various things and to various degrees. And trying to force too much change too fast can result in blowback and a retreat to uber-conservative idealogy. People crave some consistency in their lives. The KKK came to power everytime there were massive movements of immigration, civil rights and social change that threatened the old ways of life in the 1860s, 1920s and 1960s. Islamofascism is according to some thinkers like Bernard Lewis a response to the rapid changes their civilization has undergone. Bin Ladin himself said that Islam is undergoing the biggest threat since the time of Mohammed, which is arguably true. Throw too much change at people too quick and they become intolerantly nostalgic about the ‘good old days’.
So if you ask me, no there is no reasonable non-religious argument against SSM. But none of us are totally reasonable. I strongly support SSM but worry that pushing too hard, too fast for too many social changes could just lead to massive backlash and the rise of intolerant conservatism.
I personally feel it is best to support civil unions now and wait 10 years or so for gay marriage.