Public Education

If it is not invented by religion, then there is no religious need or right to disallow homosexuals to marry either.What reason or basis, besides the bible disallowing it, would you cite as a reason to disallow homosexuals to marry? Would not limiting marriage to only heterosexuals be a narrow and subjective idea? Or what if my suggestion was implemented to alleviate the concern?Why not create a proviso that allow fundamentalist churches to marry only heterosexuals and let secular society do as it pleases?

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I've been trying to explain the idea of the destruction of a social institution by rendering it null. That's what has already happened to marriage in the last few decades as it is, and homosexual marriage would just finish it off. There's probably nothing that can be done to stop it because that is the way things are going but some of us are going to continue to try to stop it. It's not about gays, it's not about people, it's not about individual marriages, it's about preserving the meaning of an institution for the sake of principle, order, social stability.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Except, there are places in the world where it IS allowed that prove that to be untrue. You are putting forth opinion as fact.

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

I think it was Jefferson Davis that said that first..........

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Marriage is just a word.So what if some homosexuals also want to classify their relationship with the word "marriage"?It doesn't for one moment affect heterosexual marriages, or what they may mean to anyone.If a married heterosexual person goes to bed crying at night saying, "I can't believe it. I just heard Bill and Fred classify their relationship as a "marriage", which is the same word I use to classify my relationship. My life is ruined...it's the end of civilisation..." then it's clear that the word "marriage" actually means nothing at all to that person.

Ok lets try this.
What is "the meaning of an institution for the sake of principle, order, social stability."?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You mean the order and social stability we have in my country, even after we allowed gays to marry?

No.

Ha ha, exactly this attitude IS the destruction of the meaning of marriage. Congratulations, you're right in the avant garde of bringing down an ancient social institution.

I'm intolerant because I want people to have the same basic rights? You'll have to explain that one to me.

Care to explain what you do mean then?

Abraham Lincoln was one of the guys on the tail end of bringing down an ancient social institution, too.What's your point, Faith?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Woo hoo, now marriage is equated with slavery!! Way to go, Coragyps. You'll out nutty them all with that one.

I didn't say that, Faith. I said that slavery was another ancient social institution, and I will stand by that. Ancient doesn't mean, necessarily, that something is still useful.Marriage a couple of centuries ago in European cultures was a form of ownership, where women were chattels of their husbands. Is that sort of relationship your preference? It isn't mine, and I would be the owner if we still held to "ancient social institutions."

Words are just labels. "Marriage" was traditionally used to label (supposedly) heterosexual relationships that were endorsed by the church or state. That "institution" still exists, because there still are heterosexual relationships that are endorsed by the church or state - and they are still labelled as "marriage".The fact that the same world is used to label homosexual relationships that are endorsed by the church or state does not, in any way, affect the "institution" of heterosexual marriage. If it did, it would be a pretty flimsy, superficial and meaningless institution.