177 replies to this topic

[chris v]

Read again - the answer is in there. Such a couple can do whatever it wants about children. But it's the "category" that matters. Enough man/woman marriages DO produce children, such that the institution has a purpose. But since NO gay couple can produce children (without a third party), that entire category fails in that regard.

That's scary to me. You can systematically say that this couple can be married because they can have kids and this one can't because they don't have the right parts? I guess I don't view marriage as a child factory. I see it as a bond between two people that with time grows into something you can't really put words to. I understand and respect your opinion but I just don't see it.

[Rich_T]

That's scary to me. You can systematically say that this couple can be married because they can have kids and this one can't because they don't have the right parts? I guess I don't view marriage as a child factory. I see it as a bond between two people that with time grows into something you can't really put words to. I understand and respect your opinion but I just don't see it.

There is no need to be "scared". Marriage Type A (formerly known as "marriage") only exists in our society because people decided it was the right way to create families. Just because some people in Type A marriages can't or won't have children makes no difference. Marriage Type B (gay marriage) partners cannot have children, ever, as the product of their intimate relationship. So it's a different category, with a different justification - i.e. the "committed relationship" reason. This is the "redefining marriage" part.

I think that most people, including you and The Dude, view marriage only as something that committed people in love can do if they want. I treat the definition of marriage differently (not about "making babies", but about providing a haven in which to raise the next generation), and see no reason that "a piece of paper" is needed to prove love and commitment. If I defined marriage only as an expression of commitment, then I would side with you, and it would be about "equal rights". But since I view Type A and Type B as having different purposes, then the marriages are not "equal", but merely "equivalent", in which case I'd prefer to call Type A "marriage" and Type B a "domestic partnership", otherwise known as "gay marriage", with the word "gay" required in order to make the distinction.

You have hopefully realized by now that I am not arguing AGAINST gay marriage as much as I am arguing FOR "traditional" marriage. And it's not a matter of "how does my gay marriage affect your traditional marriage" (at the individual level), it's "the purpose of traditional marriage does not apply to gay couples" (at the collective level). I know you disagree, and I know why you do. I can live with that.

[tsukiji]

LoL, a committed relationship in the US? Oxymoron?

It seems that there is no real answer to this. It depends on your underlying belief system, religious (man+woman), evolutionary (procreation), sociological (natural rights). Each will lead to a different opinion -- which will we allow to more strongly influence our legal system? Who's to say which belief system is better?

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

"Traditional" marriage has already changed by leap and bounds. Historically people got married for economical reasons (not for love), marriages were often arranged, women had subservient roles. Society doesn't seem to mind that we've moved away from traditional marriage in those respects.

[Rich_T]

"Traditional" marriage has already changed by leap and bounds. Historically people got married for economical reasons (not for love), marriages were often arranged, women had subservient roles. Society doesn't seem to mind that we've moved away from traditional marriage in those respects.

I'm just going by what I have understood marriage to be in our society for many generations. The things you mention were still subservient to the overriding principle of upholding an institution for raising the next generation - at least in my opinion. The principle itself was not being changed.

On a side note, "society" is doing lots of stuff these days, but it isn't necessarily making for a stronger future.

[EAH]

I'm just going by what I have understood marriage to be in our society for many generations. The things you mention were still subservient to the overriding principle of upholding an institution for raising the next generation - at least in my opinion. The principle itself was not being changed.

On a side note, "society" is doing lots of stuff these days, but it isn't necessarily making for a stronger future.

You are absolutely right! And one of those things is having alot of children ( I am looking at you Duggars, who by the way are NOT Mormon or Catholic).

I understand that procreation is VERY important in the Mormon community, as well as the Catholic community, however if we really want to talk about making a STRONGER future and better world for our children, I don't think advocating for larger families is socially or environmentally responsible.


Traditionally religions advocated for large families and many children because it would serve that particular religions purpose: to increase membership and power of the church. Nowadays this thinking has fallen out of favor with the educated public ( more highly educated people are choosing NOT to have children these days).

I am not saying that YOU are not educated, you obviously are by your well thought out reply to me, as are MANY Mormons and Catholics, however just as I disagree with MANY traditional religious values of the Catholic church, I also disagree with Mormonism in regards to their stance on what marriage means and the whole procreate!, preocreate! issue.


Institutions cannot be static and unchanging in this fast moving world of ours. They must change and be fluid as we become more educated and learn from our past.
This is a big problem in the Catholic church these days, few Cathoilics in America follow all the Doctrines of the church because to do so would be irresponsible and quite frankly stupid.


And to get back to the topic- I say BRAVO to CFA President Dan Cathy!!! That took some big balls to come out publicly and stand behind his beliefs, I actually really respect him for that. I don't agree with his beliefs however so just as he has EVERY right to his belief I have EVERY right to choose not to support it!
Yea AMERICA!!!!!!

[Rich_T]

I don't think advocating for larger families is socially or environmentally responsible.

Well this is truly a separate topic now. I've thought about this over the years, and in the end, I think it's fine that some people in developed countries choose to have many children, since overall the "native" population is not in danger of exploding. Whereas in developing countries (which are typically associated with unsustainable population growth) it can be an issue. FWIW my wife and I have one child, so we are "perfect" in terms of our environmental duty.

Traditionally religions advocated for large families and many children because it would serve that particular religions purpose: to increase membership and power of the church.

I disagree. I think they simply were living the Biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply".

I think you'll find that no one in the LDS church is harping on procreation. On the other hand, the family is the central focus of the church, and it's not unnatural that many large families exist.

Institutions cannot be static and unchanging in this fast moving world of ours. They must change and be fluid as we become more educated and learn from our past.

Depends on the institution. Man-made institutions should indeed bend with the times. For the religiously minded, God-made institutions are not up to Him to change, but rather are up to us to uphold. If this or that church is going to recast its doctrines to mirror society, then it has lost its credibility.

I say BRAVO to CFA President Dan Cathy!!!

As I understand it, he merely responded to a prompting question during an interview, and was not making a big deal about it, or trying to gain publicity. It was the media that wanted to make that happen.

[Carl G]

...
I disagree. I think they simply were living the Biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply".
...

The quote from Genesis 1:28 says in part "...Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it..."

The earth has been filled and this doesn't really apply as a result. Nowhere in the Bible does it say women need to be baby factories. Whether a large family or no family, it is all part of our Christian freedom.

[The Average Joe]

... however if we really want to talk about making a STRONGER future and better world for our children, I don't think advocating for larger families is socially or environmentally responsible.

Not for the West. We are officially below the self-sustaining level of births to keep our population. This will result in many bad economic conditions, as well as sociological. Several European countries are losing their culture as they lose populace. Try reading Mark Steyn's book America Alone where he outlines what shifting demographics will do. We need more educated, successful people having more children, not less.

[EDH Jen]

Not for the West. We are officially below the self-sustaining level of births to keep our population. This will result in many bad economic conditions, as well as sociological. Several European countries are losing their culture as they lose populace. Try reading Mark Steyn's book America Alone where he outlines what shifting demographics will do. We need more educated, successful people having more children, not less.

Fabulous book.

[old soldier]

I will tell you when I am really going to get worried. When I see castles with walls going up on the high hills and obama and company start telling the folks on the gov dole it will really be cool if he calls them serfs.

this worked for a long time in europe which is the direction he seems to be heading to...the good thing might be he would discover the gulitine which would clear death row quicker than those painless injections they seem to raising all the fuss about

[supermom]

I will tell you when I am really going to get worried. When I see castles with walls going up on the high hills and obama and company start telling the folks on the gov dole it will really be cool if he calls them serfs.

this worked for a long time in europe which is the direction he seems to be heading to...the good thing might be he would discover the gulitine which would clear death row quicker than those painless injections they seem to raising all the fuss about

But we have that in folsom; actually pretty close to In N Out--Which serves beef, not chicken.

Huhhh----something funny 'bout the way that worked out.



ps...you know what the Chick Fil-A directly faces, right?

[caligirlz]

I think these topics need to be split. I'll take care of it tonight unless another mod beats me to it.