Comments on A shame that is a part of Christianity's legacy

Go to Religion in the Modern WorldAdd a commentGo to A shame that is a part of Christianity's legacy

Troosha - all arguments against same sex marriage that focus on the

institution itself, inevitably point back to how badly heterosexuals have messed things up.

It is however ultimately a moot argument. Marriage is a civil right, what the individuals make of it or not, is also their right. Where it can be argued that there is some value in maintaining an unworkable marriage for the sake of the children involved, procreation is but one reason why people choose to marry. Companionship, convenience, legal protections and purely economic reasons, are also considered valid by the heterosexual community, or at least receive no objections when people marry for these reasons. But somehow all of these things in some people's minds are now invalid if one is speaking of same sex marriage.

I predict that we are slowly emerging from the dark ages of social injustice. The arguments against same sex marriage in my country for example, are no longer discussed. It is a dead issue, this will be true in all industrialized secular democracies within a couple of decades.

Then we can waste our time arguing over different pointless issues.

posted by gomedome on May 19, 2009 at 10:26 AM | link to this | reply

gomedome
The issue of same sex marriages has caused an uproar among many church leaders and traditionalists who argue the government does not have the right to redefine marriage. There’s the rub - the “definition” of marriage.  We must makes a transition between a new consciousness and old definitions.
It is surprising how often the topic of "straight" divorce comes up in the discussion of homosexual "marriage". The arguments go something like this: "No-fault divorce has cut the link between marriage and permanence. Everyone accepts this. Easy divorce has also called into question the idea that marriage is an institution for the good of the kids. A society that accepts unilateral divorce is a society that is willing to sacrifice the welfare of children to the comfort and happiness of adults, at least to some extent. Since straight people are unwilling to give up no-fault divorce, you can't very well claim that heterosexual "marriage" is about permanence and children. So how can you justify excluding homosexuals from marriage?" (an excerpt from an article written by Jennifer Roback Morse). I think no-fault divorces and by extension the increase in divorce makes straight people who oppose homosexual marriages a little uncomfortable with their position.  People who have lost confidence in marriage as an institution of exclusivity and permanence are simply going to lose their gusto or passion to fight over homosexual "marriage". It would appear, at least on the surface, rather hypocritical.

posted by Troosha on May 19, 2009 at 8:44 AM | link to this | reply

Pat_B - Re: I'm in a weird mood this a.m. Sometimes I think Jim's right...
One could argue that point with some merit, as well as simply saying that the perspective of marriage being between one man and one woman is a self serving view. As it is an argument that has no premise in practicality or sound reasoning, it inevitably points back to the comfort level of the persons expressing such an opinion. 

posted by gomedome on May 19, 2009 at 7:51 AM | link to this | reply

I'm in a weird mood this a.m. Sometimes I think Jim's right...
The reason churches keep insisting marriage is only between a man and a woman is the organization's insurance policy, their way of making sure there will be new little churchgoers bringing their tithes and gifts into the next generation.

posted by Pat_B on May 19, 2009 at 6:22 AM | link to this | reply

very good argument for same-sex marriages

posted by Xeno-x on May 18, 2009 at 1:40 PM | link to this | reply