Support for same sex marriage grows... ever stronger

[Ben Kenobi]

There is no suggestion that giving these benefits to homosexuals will not also increase the same things that marriage among heterosexuals increases.

The results have shown out of wedlock births to increase, and marriages rates have continued to decline.

I'm sorry if you don't like my posts, Jon.

[Jon Miller]

There has been no modern society which has had homosexual marriage allowed for a long length of time, the amount of time to notice such effects.

Marriage rates have continued to decline (and out of wedlock births to increase) everywhere, whether the government made homosexual marriage legal or not.

JM

[MikeH]

Personally I don't think Ming's been breaking the rules in this thread, pointing out Ben's hypocrisy and strongly defending his position, yes, being malicious and trying to drive Ben away from the site, no.

That's the problem with moderation, so subjective.

[Jon Miller]

That's why it is generally best to not moderate at all. Ming might be trolling Ben, Ben might be trolling others, as long as they keep it to this thread and don't go overboard it should be fine.

JM

[MikeH]

JM FTW.

[Lorizael]

Well, that's why all I did was issue a warning for it not to go any further. But wouldn't it be a lot of fun to ban Ming?

[rah]

The results have shown out of wedlock births to increase, and marriages rates have continued to decline.

And what do attribute the number 1 cause for this?

[Ming]

That's actually a really good question. Marriage isn't easy. Religion helps bring you closer to your wife then you would otherwise, and gives you the strength to bear with the difficult times. It also gives you a community that you and your wife will be a part of that hopefully supports you in your decisions.

What BS... The closeness people feel has more to do with the people that are married than whether it's relgious or not. The actual commitment made when you get married gives you the strength to bear with the difficult times.
You don't need religion for that. I'm sure there would be a lot of people who have been married outside the confines of some religion that would be insulted by the way you are dissing their commitments. To claim that they can't be as close simply because it wasn't religious is just total BS and ignorant.

That's the thought anyways. I wouldn't want to take on a marriage without having the benefit of the church.

That's your CHOICE... and just your opiinion... Many would disagree... and that's what freedom is all about...

You would have us turn a blind eye, but perhaps taking the church out of marriage isn't really the best idea. Divorce is endemic these days.

Divorce happens in both civil and relgious marriages, so what's your point?

And the state doesn't agree either. The definition has changed more in my whole life, then it has in centuries. I'm not all that old either.

What are you talking about... there have been different forms of marriages for centuries.

What confidence do I have in a state that will soon approve of polygamy and allow pretty much anything to go? How do I know that in 5 years that the law is going to resemble anything that we see today?

Again... your point? The concept of different types of marriages has been around for centuries. Again, who cares what one person thinks.

They are the only ones who truly believe in equality.

Total BS...

In the secular world, a woman is at the whims of feelings of desire which fades and changes over time. She can wake up one morning and find herself alone. What is the security of that kind of marriage? How do people trust over time, knowing that if it's just a contract that it can be broken without any say so?

Ben, that happens in relgious marriages as well. Divorce happens in relgious marriages. With or without relgion, people break up.

Christian marriage on the other hand, gives the women the protection that she desires in having a husband who won't walk out on her the next morning.

Pretty sexest on your part here... and again, you are ignoring that religious people divorce as well.

That is true, that the ideal of one man and woman in marriage is not universal, but we are going to soon see the consequences of the wholesale abandonment of the ideal. One could say that laws against murder are not universal, and use that as justification to remove all laws. Or we could simply say, we know this works best for society and we aren't going to engage in foolish social experiements.

So now marriage and murder are the same? Typical nonsense on your part.
How do you know what works best for society. You might try to point out to lame economic data, but the fact is, there is no real way to know what would have worked better. You would need some really highly controled tests to prove anything, and they haven't happened.

Ming, my generation, my whole life has been a social experiment at the hands of a generation that knows crap all. I don't want to be a part of a social experiment. I want the same life that my parents had an opportunity to be in, the life that they tossed away as if it were worthless.

Some would call it an evolution and not a social experiment. And frankly, what's stopping you from have the same life as your parents. Allowing gays to get married has no impact on how you choose your life. All they want is the right to make the same choice.

It's obviously been a great success for western society. Why do we need to change things, when it is obvious that the changes of the last 50 years are a complete and utter failure?

Speculation at best... no proof. There are so many factors that come into play that it is impossible to point to single thing that causes success or failure.

The Civil Marriage Act of 1836 in England was the first to permit 'civil marriages.' So yes, it's a modern innovation. Prior to that you had to have a priest or a pastor.
Why don't you actually man up and provide some evidence for all your claims?

Even a simple search proves how stupid that statement is.
Marriage was possible without religion in both ancient Greek and Roman societies... so why don't you man up and simply say you are making this stuff up as you go along.

Yet you would cram your idea of marriage down my throat. Wonderful. Why should your idea of marriage take precedent?

I'm not asking you to marry man... but you are saying two men can't get married... who's the one doing the cramming here.

I'd be all for refererendums and ballot initiatives, but the truth is wherever it has been put to a ballot, the measures have lost. They have all been implemented in the same way, through judicial fiat.

So when it does get approved by a vote of the people, you will then think it's ok?

How so? They are both sacraments. Why don't we see 'atheist baptisms' too?

Atheist baptisms... You're not even making any sense.

Well, seeing as the law no longer requires a formal commitment, simply living in the same place for 2 years is enough to be 'married'. Are you saying that those who don't make a public commitment shouldn't be considered married at all?

I'm not even sure what you are tying to say here

Marriage has been a sacrament for 2000 years. Civil marriage is less then 200 years old.

Check out the ancient Greeks and Romans...

Sure, but people have been getting married inside churches for much longer.

There was marriages long before their were churches...

That is true. Some religions allow you to marry as many people as you want.

And allow gays to get married... there is no universal truth. So why not let people choose, as they should. We call that relgious freedom. The same right that allows your church to deny gays marriage allows other to accept it.

People have lived together for thousands of years. I'm sure Og clubbing his wife over the head and dragging her into your cave counts as a 'marriage' too.

If you remember, the middle ages weren't to hot either, with the majority of marriages having nothing to do with love, but purely economic reasons... arranged by families between people who had never met. Would you call that love?

We are going to need some ground rules first, if we are going to discuss exactly what is required for a marriage.

And why should you be the one making the ground rules for others that don't share your particular fantasy of god?

Because it's worked for thousands of years. Why should we piss on it just to experiment?

Again... please explain how gay marriage would have any effect on your choice to marry a woman.

I'm sure you'd prefer to live in those areas, bastions of freedom.

Yeah... like in the middle ages when the Church went along with no love marriages. When the "sacrament" meant that two people who had never met before were forced to spend their lives together. That's real freedom for you.

All the other alternatives just don't work that well in the real world. The atheist way is crap. We have rising divorces. We have falling marriage rates, we have more and more children missing their fathers and their mothers. In the last 50 years, it's gone up 4 to 5 times as likely. The numbers are stark. A boy without a dad is far more likely to get into a gang and go from there.

The relgious way is just as crappy. Again... are you trying to say that divorce doesn't happen in Christian marriages...

Polygamy is crap as well. Look at the societies which engage in polygamy. They are wracked with constant war. The best benefit of Christian marriage is that each man can have his own wife, and each wife her own husband.

Yeah... the Christians were so enlightend... are you forgetting the crusades.
And are you also forgetting all the great wars that occured in Christian Europe... War has occured through out history. But please, go ahead and blame wars on polygamy. That's pretty typical of someone who is as enlightened as you claim to be.

[MikeH]

Well, that's why all I did was issue a warning for it not to go any further. But wouldn't it be a lot of fun to ban Ming?

Only time he banned me was.....

I should start a "don't post in this thread" thread.

[MikeH]

MikeH, please stop threadjacking this thread.

[Alinestra Covelia]

MikeH, please stop threadjacking this thread.

Threadjacking is a revered Poly tradition. If you don't threadjack, I will lose some respect for you as a mod.

[Alinestra Covelia]

My (by-now-largely-superfluous) two cents:

This is going to be like Virginia v. Loving. The social segments who can't tolerate it will fall back on "gut feeling" style arguments, which will slowly collapse against the legal protections of personal freedoms. The other argument, of religious prohibition, will be relegated to their own observances and will not be upheld as general laws to limit the public conduct.

Population growth in the urban and other socially diverse areas will necessitate a laissez-faire attitude towards personal choices. Expect to see the demographic shift some time before you see the political legislation changes, though - the elected officials will take a few years to realize that there aren't nearly enough votes to be won with the hardline social conservative agenda to justify the effort.

[Q Classic]

And what do attribute the number 1 cause for this?

Well, clearly gay marriage. If that becomes legal, straight people won't want to get married because they don't want to do anything too gay, and what's gayer than a celebration with lots of pastel colors, flowers, and dancing?

And if straight people don't want to get married, but keep on ****ing, as they're wont to do, they'll breed, ergo more children out of wedlock.

That's why homosexuality's unhealthy, it causes kids of straight people to live in houses where their parents are unmarried.

[rah]

That's the answer I expect from BK, but with slightly different attitude.

I guess that's my biggest problem and one that has never been really addressed.
If Asher wants to marry his SO, how does that impact my marriage. The answer is 0, and nothing he says will change that. I'm not going to immediately divorce my wife. I not going to scream out that my marriage is being demeaned. Now if it BK feels it will make his marriage less meaningful, he's the one with the problem, not the gays. But then based on 20 pages of this, everyone else already realizes this, and we're just waiting for him to figure it out. Futility at it's best, when logic is replaced by faith and bigotry.

[rah]

And I like to know what happened to the catholic church. I guess since gays weren't really an issue when I was young there wasn't a focus for all the hatred. The catholic church I grew up in went out of their way to preach tolerance and acceptance. It was a higher moral ground that you could be proud of. Now I'm ashamed to admit I'm catholic (oh the child boinking priests are icing on the cake). No wonder their number is dropping.