Yea, but the moment marriage is abolished, government will make new laws that only cover relationship of man and woman, that will be replacement of the marriage. In all times in all cultures, government controlled sex, and made laws about sexual relationship between man and woman, the responsibilities and benefits associated with those laws had a name marriage.
Talk about a False Dichotomy Fallacy, while reproduction on the macro scale is necessary, it is not necessary on the individual level. Thus the inability to procreation, or to procreate within a given relationship, has no bearing on overall species continuation. There is no singular natural purpose for marriage. It is a creation, be it by a deity or mankind itself. Thus it varies across time and culture, and even religion. By this very basis, the legal definition of marriage can be quite different from any given religious definition. For that matter, the definition of marriage can be different between different religions.
Completely and utterly wrong in all respects. You are essentially claiming that an infertile heterosexual couple cannot be married. Nothing stops a married gay couple from using a surrogate mother for their children or a lesbian married couple from using artificial insemination for their children.
Marriage isn't really the key component here. Marriage coupled with a culture that placed value on chastity and adherence to social conventions was an effort to control men's sexuality. Our nature says spread the seed far and wide, Western traditional values say be monogamous and true to your wife. It used to be against the law to commit adultery, that isn't any more. So you can be married and a member of a swinger group and we don't even look down in people for doing that anymore. So what made marraige a thing to be revered has disappeared from the culture. Marraige just seems like the last bit to hang on to.
but allowing same-sex couples to get married is somehow detrimental? These days marriage has been separated from sex. That really started in the 1960s.
What if it COULD be proven as fact? Would it make any difference to your argument? By "it is no longer religious", I assume that you mean, no longer EXCLUSIVELY religious? I would challenge this double standard wherever I see it. And if the Christian right WERE just as upset about the institution of marriage being destroyed by adulterous marriages, divorce, marriage not undertaken in a religious sense, are you even in a position to be able to see it? I'm guessing that there is some distance between you and the Christian right. Isn't it possible that the majority of this 83% are just against same sex marriage? If this was true of specifically respondents who said that they were against same sex relationships being legal and against gay people being allowed to serve in the military, then you would have really given me something to think about. Gallup should have made the polling more specific, breaking down the reasoning for each right. It could've made for some interesting reading. However, my hypothesis is that 26% of committed Christians would not be against same sex relationships being legal or against gay people being allowed to serve in the military. The majority of this 26% are likely to be people who aren't committed Christians but might just wear the badge, and have a bigoted view towards gay people. You have to remember, that same sex marriage is now tied directly to the cases of refusal of service for same sex weddings. This has made religious people (mainly Christians) VERY negative towards same sex marriage, and VERY negative of the LGBT lobby which has a disgusting, vitriolic, hateful element to it - which gives the lobby a bad name, just like certain Christians and Christian groups give Christianity a bad name. So when responding to poll questioning about same sex marriage, some people are thinking about more than simply whether or not same sex couples should be able to marry under the law. This is where polling fails and why it's not always accurate. It's possible that many religious people who are against same sex marriage today, were totally in favour of it when it didn't involve religious people. Unfortunately, same sex marriage has resulted in the application of certain state anti-discrimination law which compels the involvement of a party who doesn't want to be involved. The LGBT lobby now DEMANDS that these laws are enforced in cases of refusal of service for same sex weddings, which runs completely against the now ancient LGBT lobbying message of, "our marriages will never affect you, so just let us do what we want." The following would be an interesting poll question to ask religious people: Were you at one point FOR same sex marriage and are now AGAINST it or are now re-thinking your position? I would guess at least 30% would say yes! Where are you getting your math from? 36% of the population (against same sex marriage) is not less than one in 5! And who are the "remainder?" I can certainly see why people would say that it's uncool when people cite a book for not allowing them to wed under the law of the land, considering that I disagree with that position myself. Although you and others should not expect churches to marry same sex couples. I assume that is true of you and at least largely true of the gay community?
Yes, it would — the entire would would change overnight. Wars would break out from religions that are now irrelevant, many would immediately take on Christianity as their guide for moral reasoning. My only wish — if it ever was proven — was that some type of delegation would be sent to clarify many issues that people have. I can agree with this statement to an extent, marriage in the United States is primarily a civil issue however — if you are not married by the state then you are not legally married. My entire family is Christian right, so there is very little distance. I live in a very religious area or an already very religious state, again, very little distance. My statement isn’t opinion, it is fact. Christianity is a self identified ideology. There is no way to track it outside of that metric. Polling does not support that, approval has always been low with people claiming religious affiliation. It has also gone up slightly since OvH. This does goes back to a previous point though, if laws were applied equitably we would not have these issues but they are not, special protections exist for certain segments of population groups in society but not for others. If you want to say Christians should have the “religious freedom” to deny basic goods, services, medical care, housing, education, employment etc to gay people then shouldn’t gay people be allowed to deny those same services to Christians? Why not just allow everyone to have this “freedom” if it is such a major issue? 36% of the general population are against same sex marriage. 26% of the general population are against same sex relationships That means 72.2% of people against same sex unions are against same sex relationships being legal (a more accurate fraction would be less than 2 people out of 7 that are against same sex marriage do not believe gay people should be arrested for being gay). It is safe to assume that most people against same sex marriage would be perfectly fine with gay people being arrested and gay marriage is not the actual issue here — its a matter that gay people are allowed at all. I am against any attempts to force places of worship to host, service or participate in same sex unions.
Christ has been spoken of in prophecy since "the fall" in the Garden of Eden, according to Christian belief. It is also Christian belief that God knows the end from the beginning. This stuff all occurred before any person married. Without procreation, there would be no human race to speak of. Heterosexual relations are the only way that humans can procreate. That is what is natural. In your mind, sure... since you have re-defined the term to mean something else. No. Not "procreation potential (in actuality)", but rather, "procreation potential (in principle)". Meaning, while it is theoretically possible to procreate, it may not actually happen for one reason or another. Yes, that follows the line of reasoning that you have set up, but that is not the line of reasoning that I am using. In my line of reasoning, it need only be possible in principle to procreate. In principle, a child can result from the sexual relations of a man and a woman. However, there are instances where this possibility (in principle) does not come to fruition. Your example is one such example, but that does not change the fact that procreation between a man and a woman is possible in principle. In other words, that "impossibility in actuality" doesn't change the definition of the word marriage, since the definition of the word marriage is based on "possibility in principle", not "possibility in actuality". See above. While they cannot procreate in actuality, due to one reason or another, they can still procreate in principle. This ability to procreate in principle is what the definition of marriage is based on. I don't think there should be any tax benefits for marriage. But otherwise, I'd be okay with civil unions, yet I draw the line at re-defining what a marriage is.
** Technically not a "proof", as science is incapable of proofs (outside of formalizing a theory by way of mathematics/logic), but to stay on topic, I won't quibble about that here. ** Exactly. This also means that, in principle, procreation can only occur between a man and a woman. Again, you (like the others) are conflating 'actuality' with 'principle'. Marriage (and the survival of the human species) cannot occur without the ability to procreate in principle.
You continue to conflate 'actuality' with 'principle'. Procreation, in principle, is inseparable from marriage.
Yup. No they haven't. Never said that it had to occur in actuality. Only that it had to be possible in principle. Because not everybody procreates in actuality for one reason or another. They might have a genetic defect or otherwise which makes procreation in actuality very improbable, or even impossible. However, even if they can't procreate in actuality, that has no effect on the truth that they can procreate in principle. That has no effect on the natural order of procreation and sexual relations.
(in response to my claim that procreation is not possible in principle in homosexual relationships) No, it is completely correct. It is supported by Science. WRONG. Once again, like everyone else, you are conflating 'actuality' with 'principle'. An infertile heterosexual couple can still procreate in principle; they just can't do so in actuality due to one reason or another. Correct, but notice how two women must make use of artificial insemination from a man, and how two men must make use of a surrogate mother?? Procreation is IMPOSSIBLE in principle for homosexual couples, and IS possible in principle for heterosexual couples. It takes a man and a woman to make a child, in principle. This is why marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
... in principle. Yes. In fact, the child itself is a model of the very definition of marriage, of how male and female (as two separate bodies) become one body (in spirit).
I'll address all the rest later when I have time, but want to get this in quick. Given that this is one religious view and is not a universal one at that, on what basis, in a country with freedom of religion, does this singular religious view get to override secular law?
so when you go to the justice of the peace and get your marriage license you're required to procreate? I'm not really interested in folklore.
No religion is universally believed. I'm not saying that it gets to override secular law. I'm arguing that it should BE the secular law, as it is very clear that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman in which two bodies become one body. This definition of marriage is modeled by the very child that is born unto the heterosexual couple, as their two bodies contribute the DNA which combines into one body.
RDCF. From now on, any attempt by you or anyone else to continue conflating 'procreate in actuality' with 'procreate in principle' will simply be responded to with "RDCF", which stands for "Repetitious Distortions and Contextomy Fallacies", as I have directly addressed this attempt to conflate terminology multiple times already. It is not folklore; Remove the "(in spirit)" language and it is strictly science.
There's no need to get defensive. It doesn't seem procreation in principle is a necessity for marriage. You haven't rationalized that. No it's absolutely isn't science. When two people get married there still two people. No part of them merges.
Congratulations! You have been awarded an all expenses paid one way trip to Cyberia for consistently engaging in Denialism Fallacies without any attempt at credible substantiation. Have a nice life!
How would your position on same sex marriage change if you became convinced that Christianity was true? Sure, but whether or not a marriage is legal is totally irrelevant to religion. Are you saying that you have witnessed anti-same sex marriage Christians not caring about adulterous marriages or divorce or marriage not undertaken in a religious sense? I don't understand what you mean by Christianity being a "self identified ideology." The term returns no matching results on Google. How far back in time is the polling that you have looked at? Well this is not really a surprise. Some Christians may have changed their minds about same sex marriage under the law simply because it became introduced into law and knowing that it will now be widely acceptable to people. It probably means that they were never really all that much against it in the first place. You have to also remember that many paranoid Christians/Jews would have been fearing the possible next step of legally compelling churches/synagogues to conduct same sex weddings. The so called 'slippery slope' argument.' Well what are these "special protections" and what "certain segments of population groups in society" do they exist for? I concede that sexual orientation isn't included in the Federal Civil Rights Act or the laws of some states. Perhaps this is what you're referring to. Absolutely! So have gay people ever been prosecuted for denying services to Christians? Well that's what I support. Sorry, where do you get 72.2% from? Why is it safe to assume that? Can the same be said for everyone in the LGBT lobby? The same certainly can't be said for the RADICAL Beto O'rourke.
Up to now you have been making the religious argument, specifically a Christian one. Even the use of the word "sacred" place your argument as one based upon your religion. We can also argue that two bodies becomes 4 or 8 since people have multiple children. But even as one religion has never been universal, except as the individual religion may claim in their origin myth, so too has one definition of marriage never been universal. Furthermore secular law definitions are not required to be accurate reflections of the real world. The legal definition of incest in many states expand to include marriage (in which sex is not a required component) and to include those who are only legally related but not blood related (such as steps or adopted). So why should we have marriage any different when we have a constitutional basis that says that the law needs to apply to all and that sex and sex based traits are not allowed as factors in denial of a government institution?
Rather pot calling the kettle black as that is exactly what you have been doing with your claim of "in principle". You keep making the claim of in principle, but you having backed up why that is more important than the in actual or in potential.
