I would say I am against it unless the child has no other options. Mainly due to the cruelty of many children. If an adult makes a decision to live with something like that fine. But as with many decisions adults make, is it fair to drag a child into it? I know when my son-in-law decided to become my daughter-in-law it stirred up my own life more than I would have guessed.
Do we accept gays if we don't accept gay marriage?
Is it actually possible to not accept gays for "religious" reasons?
Suppose the question was, do we accept marriage among black people? Would that be a question any real religion would ask?
We accept our fellow human beings, or we don't. One is religious, the other is not.
I don't think anyone has a monopoly on that or any other opinion. From the best to the most sick of opinions there seems to usually be someone that agrees with it.
I think one solution is to ensure that the state cannot publicly endorse anyone or any position. Even better would be to remove the state entirely, but that's a whole other discussion.
I am actually with TortoiseDream on that one. Marriage is very much a religious and/or personal relationship. I do not see why it should be of any concern to the state. And no, I do not think married people should get different tax treatment than single people just based on the fact they are married/not.
Taken from Wikipedia 'Marriage' Page.
It's interesting to learn that marriage isn't something religious but has many different reasons. Now with the knowledge I will always say that the joining of 2 people for life should be accepted by all no matter what age, gender, race....
Even then, people lived with a partner and often raised their kids, etc. before even the creation of the state. In other civilizations like those of the Native Americans, people lived in family units and got married even though there wasn't a legal system like that we have with contracts, etc. And precedent aside, it is still a relationship that the two involved make today in a very personal decision. I just don't see the need for the state in it.
It only holds water with those that believe it is a "sacrament". Much of what is marriage depends on the ones living in that marriage.
I'm speaking legally though. The entire argument against same-sex marriage can be watered down to 'it's a sacrament' or 'it's a religious institution and so marriage shouldn't be legally recognized period'. But if you look at history you find that marriage has always been a civil and secular institution and that it's connections with religion are relatively recent.
Legally speaking it is only a contract. That would not mean much to some people. Of course marriage does not seem to mean much to some people anyway.
Legally speaking it is only a contract. That would not mean much to some people. Of course marriage does not seem to mean much to some people anyway.
It might be a contract but it's a contract that not everyone can enter into. Say 2 gay men go to a church and ask to get married, they get turned away. This is fine, the Bible is quite clear on that point. Then that same couple goes to courthouse and still get turned away. This despite the fact that our civil gov't is secular. You don't see the problem?
I will be honest, it is not at the top of my worry list. But if they stopped letting anyone get married at the courthouse it would not worry me either. Marriage has always been more of a religious process to me anyway.
Similar threads
