« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The case against gay marriage without using religion and ways to handle it if the government gives in.

By: ennaneko (Diary)  |  May 12th, 2012 at 09:10 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

If gay marriage becomes a reality, the meaning of marriage will change.  Marriage will no longer be used as the name for that ancient institution between a man and a woman.

For a secular person the main reason to defend traditional marriage is to defend something like an ancient “trademark” or “copyright.”   Marriage was a word given meaning by heterosexual men and women who entered the traditional union between a man and woman for the purposes of resource sharing, breeding, etc.   Gay people didn’t have anything to do with it. They haven’t been the ones keeping it alive throughout the centuries.

If the activists for gay marriage manage to redefine the secular meaning of the word, religions of the world and people who practice true marriage can stop using the word marriage altogether.  Marriage would then just come to mean civil union, no?

At the end of the day, a gay marriage will never be the same as the ancient institution between a man and woman.

 

What do you guys think?

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • renny

    or moral prohibition, like the ancient Greeks or Romans, like the Hindus of India, the Toaists and Shintoists of the East, or any of the animist religions of various peoples and tribes throughout the world for known history have ever seen the reason or need for homosexual marriage.

    If the Greeks of ancient Thebes that had the famed Theban Band with pledged male partners did not institutionalize homosexual marriage, then there is no legal or social reason to have it imposed on the West that has thousands of years of Biblical and Koranic history that opposes homosexuality on moral and religious grounds.

  • WmCraig

    I have covered it before so I won’t repeat the logic, but there is a reason that Marriage is different. Marriage is a unique partnership contract. Children are potential interested third parties with rights that survive the end of the partnership. When children are born they immediately alter the partnership arrangement, regardless of the intent of the parties. This is the only form of partnership contract that includes this capability. The government’s involvement is to insure that the children are treated properly should the partnership be dissolved through legal means or unexpectedly. Since children cannot “come into existence” in a monogamous intimate relationship, without the involvement of a third party except when the partnership is between two people of the opposite sex there is a specific reason to maintain the unique definition.

    It is proper that the government should regulate marriage for the benefit of offspring. The reasons are so compelling that government also rightly imposes obligations on the biological parents of children borne of out of wedlock, under the theory that, at the moment of conception a contract exists, however vague or fleeting, between the biological parents of the child that is conceived.

    The key difference is the “biological” aspect of being a parent. For all other relationships between nurturer and dependent there are separate regulatory structures.

    WmCraig

    For the more complete post see my diary entry:
    http://www.redstate.com/solvoreor/2012/02/18/what-is-marriage-gov-christie-vetoes-same-sex-marriage-bill/

  • ennaneko

    - Homosexuals are not self sustaining, they rely on heterosexuals to make their adopted children.

    - procreation is a heterosexual process for human beings. A sperm and egg joining together is a “heterosexual” event.

    - The institution known as marriage has been given meaning by heterosexual unions for thousands of years.

    - The institution of marriage has been an exclusively heterosexual construct for thousands of years.

    - Wouldn’t the definition of marriage change to “civil union” if gays get their partnerships recognized by the state? The context and meaning of “marriage” will simply become the equivalent of a “civil union.”

    Wouldn’t the religious right and the social conservatives simply stop calling their “unions” something else and start differentiating between secular civil marriages(unions) and their own brand of “marriage?”

  • zachv

    Simply because two same-sex partners can’t procreate, the children of same-sex couples don’t deserve the protections of marriage? Really? If your argument is “for the children” then it should be for the children and not Sally gets marriage protections but Billy doesn’t because his moms are gay.

    If you seek to protect children, protect all children and don’t pick and choose like some progressive welfare redistributionist.

  • PowerToThePeople

    that while I disagree with the lifestyle, the teachings that would come with it concerning the lifestyle choice ( although I would disagree with an atheist teachings), and the claims that having children are a right, I would agree with anyone that just as a straight couple can and would provide a loving caring sage home for a child, so would same sex couples.

    That being said, having children does not entitle a gay couple to be married. As to the protections you keep talking about, a same sex couple get the same “rights.” You can adopt or hire a person to carry the baby or provide sperm, you can sign your child up for school, make life decisions on the child, cover the child with insurance, claim them on your taxes, visit them in the hospital and even set the level of care there, and so on. Being married or not being married has nothing to do with the child or marriage protections as you state.

    You are making the same disingenuous arguments the above guy made. I agree that marriage should not and never has been defined solely as a procreation tool, so I hate when people try to use it as an argument. But I also hate when you side makes disingenuous arguments based on non factual heart string pulling nonsense.

  • WmCraig

    Your statement has no baring on the issue i presented. It is a distraction intended to cut off discussion.

    I think you and I have been through this before and you do it on purpose. Marriage doesn’t protect children, Marriage, at least until people redefine it imposes restrictions on the otherwise consenting adults. Focus on the contract between the consenting adults. Normally in a partnership the number of partners in a partnership cannot change and the equity of the partners in the partnerships cannot be altered without terminating the agreement. Marriage is different in that this is precisely what happens.

    The children change the equity arrangement and the children have rights that survive the end of the partnership. But, the key here is that this applies only to children conceived during that contract.

    For children conceived outside of marriage, and technically all children conceived by a same sex couple must be conceived outside the relationship, the government is interested in the biological parents. Remember the implied contract no matter how brief or fleeting? It applies here. What is more only the biological parents incur these obligations. So same sex couples aren’t really equal, period.

    As for protecting the interests of the children as it applies to adoptive parents, that is what the adoption process is about. In this case, the children are not conceived as a result of intimate relations, they already exist. The partners choosing to adopt are consenting to a change in the partnership agreement. It doesn’t simply happen. The two adults must consent to the adoption, and the change to the partnership that results. And therefor there is no reason for the unique characteristics of marriage,

  • PowerToThePeople

    nt

  • WmCraig

    But failure to procreate is grounds for divorce.Just thinking out loud.

    Keep in mind, I am old enough to remember when two people who were of opposite sexes could not rent an apartment together, unless they were married. This was at a time when homosexual acts were criminal offenses in many places.

    There was a struggle to free people from the interference of government into their personal lives.

    So why on earth would we want government to get involved in what is the most intimate and personal decision two consenting adults make. Especially two consenting same sex adults given the terrible history this group has with government oversight!

    The answer is simple. When two people of the opposite sex enter into a contract of marriage, they are saying, in advance, yes, the terms of this agreement might change, and if it does we acknowledge that and accept the additional burdens upon us jointly and severally.

    Same sex couples do not have to face that, so there is a distinct legal difference, And it is this distinct legal difference that makes the term marriage mean something unique.

  • ennaneko

    - Homosexuals are not self sustaining or replicating, they rely on heterosexual processes to make their adopted children.

    In order for them to have children they rely on a sperm joining an egg.

    Homosexual acts can not lead to offspring.

    It is not in the nature of homosexuals to reproduce homosexually or to acquire children through homosexual “means.”

  • ennaneko

    - Wouldn

  • earlgrey

    from marriage by the state, and if SSM becomes a reality, I think it would be very wise for some churches to seek to reinforce the traditional views of marriage in their churches. Perhaps it would allow the church to be able to ask more of the couple they are marrying (pre-mairital counseling).

    Perhapys the problem with marriage today is not that it is too easy to get a divorce, but maybe it is too easy to get married.

    I don’t know. I am still “evolving.”

  • renny

    the ecclesiastical marriage is held in the church and recognized by religion.

    The marriage that legally counts is the contract with the state that is the marriage license or banns in Europe, which is why you can get married by a judge or ship’s captain without the need of a minister or priest.

  • WmCraig

    Of course, why should the state get involved. People enter into contracts every day, and the government doesn’t get involved unless there is a dispute at some point.

    The answer is that when two people enter into a partnership where children can be conceived the number of “partners” changes. In a standard partnership contract this cannot happen without a new agreement. Marriage is that unique partnership agreement that provides for flexibility in the equity distribution or number and types of partners, as well as providing recognition that the claims of the offspring will survive the termination of the partnership agreement.

    It is a unique contract, what makes it unique is the burden placed upon it by conception and birth, and therefore if we change marriage to mean the same thing as a civil union, we will have to come up with a new name for marriage to identify it’s unique characteristics.

  • PowerToThePeople

    to the right person which I believe would be Zach. Although I think your child claim is disingenuous, I agree that children do not entitle one to marriage. So different views but same goal it seems.