Congratulations!
cornopean, how can this relationship not deserve as much respect and consecration as a Britney Spears drunken Vegas hookup?
I am not sure if he was referring to Judaism. Calling it a “major religion” is a bit of a stretch, since by the most generous estimate there are only about 20 million Jews worldwide.
Wait…So if you lived next door to a gay family, you would be all neighborly, and then once you became closer, you would “bring up the subject of marriage” without any capacity to accept his lifestyle. How would you bring up the subject of marriage?
“hey, you two aren’t really married. Not according to my own personal definition-- that requires the capacity for natural procreation. You guys should straighten out and find some women if you want to call yourselves married. Thanks for hosting the cookout though! I am judging you like crazy, but love thy neighbor, right?”
Congratulations! That’s awesome!
Well, he can’t have been referring to Islam, and he can’t have been referring to Hinduism… what’s the Buddhist take on the subject?
Why can’t he have been referring to Islam or Hinduism? Buddhism is not generally considered a theistic religion, so it’s not that either (I left that word out of the phrase he used.)
Most Buddhist sects have no part in marriage. Sure, you could pay some monks to come offer prayers, if so inclined. But they don’t have a roll in the wedding. It’s considered a secular thing, is all.
Do they have any other kind of bread, or is it against their religion?
I’m going to invent a religion that is against wheat in bread. Then I’m going to get a job at Panera and force them to make someone else serve the bread with wheat in it while I sit in the back and play Diamond Digger on my phone.
If they have a child they’re not infertile. If they thought they were, they were wrong.
But what about couples who actually are infirtile? They may not know it, not for certain, but I’m the one who created this hypothetical couple for the sake of this question, and I assure you they are.
I assume you believe in an omnipotent and omniscient deity, so let’s assume that deity knows this couple is infertile. Can we call them married anyway?
And continue to call “marriage”. Are you under the impression that we no longer call different-sex marriage “marriage”? I can’t even begin to imagine why someone might think that, in the face of a great deal of evidence.
[QUOTE=cornopean]
This thread originally started with wondering what gays gain from calling their relationship a “marriage”.
It’s not about legal rights.
[/QUOTE]
You have asserted this, but not defended it, and from everything I’ve seen, it is not actually true. It may not only be legal rights, but that is very much one of the reasons.
I think he included those in “single mothers.”
I know someone who was never married to, and barely (if at all) lived with, the biological father of her child, and yet he has certain legally recognized obligations to that child.
I’ll concede that there are some differences between children conceived between and raised by their biological parents and adopted children ( whether they are adopted by gay, straight or single parents ).
No one has ever accidently adopted a child they didn’t want or didn’t have the means to care for.
No woman has ever adopted a child for the purpose of forcing a reluctant male marry her.
Adopted children are almost universally brought into a family that wants them and is able to care for them. And this fills a need in society – it’s not like we don’t have enough people but we do have a surplus of children, a lot of them non-white and a lot of them past infancy, that desperately need families to love and care for them because the whole “biological kid” thing doesn’t always work out. Not all biological families are June and Ward Cleaver – some biological parents die young, some of them commit crimes and go to jail, some of them have drug addictions and abandon their kids, some of them have psychological problems that keep them from being adequate parents and some of them just don’t want their children.
Myself, I think one of the beautiful things about opening marriage to all couples is that it creates lots of loving families with a need and desire to take the unloved children of the world and make them their own. I think that should be a Christian value, too…and it is in the church I was raised in which supports SSM.
But some “Christians” are more concerned about who sticks what body part where than they are about love and charity. They can go bite me.
I think we may have run him off. Maybe it was the Monty Python quote–they never seem to sit well with the “Family Values” set.
On the next one of these witnessing threads, we should try throwing in some Monty Python early and see if it works.
-VM
Nah he just caught up with the rest of the anti-gay movement, recognizing they lost the gay marriage fight they’ve moved on to claiming they should be personally exempt from the 14th amendment due to their bigoted beliefs.
You can find him in this thread now.
You can try some Monty Python over there.
As I have said about a thousand times, if my sister and her wife ain’t married, I don’t know anyone who is.
They want to call it a marriage because that’s what it is. And if you don’t agree that emotional, and, yes, spiritual support are more important than who does what in the bedroom, you are wrong. Two people of the same sex can have the same relationship as two people of the opposite sex.
If we’re talking about losing body parts, what if a gay person asked you to undergo (hypothetical) neurosurgery to remove the part of your brain that has you thinking you’re advancing a good idea? I’m confident it is far less useful to you than an arm.
Thanks for the tip; not a thread I would ordinarily be interested in. However, it may already be too late. He hasn’t posted there since yesterday. Hasn’t posted anywhere since yesterday.
Nonetheless, I’m getting my Monty Python quotes ready, just in case. I’m thinking of trying “This potroast is good enough for Jehovah” or maybe a verse or two of “Every Sperm Is Sacred”.
How awesome would it be if we established that you can use Monty Python quotes to ward off the Christian Right? Or, for that matter, that they did anything useful?
-VM
Pfft. Next you’ll be suggesting that knights can be warded off with a single word.
While I agree with everything you’ve said (but I don’t really recommend that people experiment with having the same relationship as I have with my wife), clearly you’ve missed the significance of “capacity to procreate”–the whole damn argument hinges on it. As I understand it, this “capacity” refers to two people who, if placed together correctly, might conceive a child. Key Point: There is a special exception for people who are unable to actually procreate together for any reason, unless the reason is “they are the same gender”.
That is, people should only be able to be “married” if they can procreate. However, if they can’t procreate, they can still be married, as long as they’re not gay.
Apparently, there is heterosexual implication to the word “capacity” that the rest of us were unaware of.
Oh, and if this line of reasoning offends you, well, it shouldn’t. Because children.
-VM
Not likely, based on the way people responded to my idea for migrating coconuts.
-VM
I’m curious what the reaction would be if studies showed that gay marriage actually did lead to poorer outcomes for children, like the New Family Structures Study did. That was roundly criticized and seems to have been faulty. But what if it were bulletproof? I wonder if anyone would even care, outside the right. Or people would just say they’re free to make poor choices, or similar language re: single parent households.