Gay marriages... dictated by religious authorities - Page 6

Darryl_P · #51 07-10-2006, 08:53 AM

I should add that there is some level of brainwashing that is impossible to not do, in that kids will ask a lot of questions about the basic issues of life, some of which will require an opinion or stance.

As a parent, you can remove yourself from answering these by diverting it to society at large, giving them the consensus view every time. But in this case, the kid will not develop a sense of identity. He will feel like a child of society rather than a child of your family. One could argue that this is not a bad thing, but since parenting takes a lot of time and effort, I don't want to be doing it just to serve society. I might as well just be another Mother Theresa if that's what's important.

Alternatively, you can say: this is what I believe but a lot of people don't agree. If your behaviors are consistent with your words, ie. he sees you being friendly with similarly-minded people and not-so-friendly with others, then the kid will adopt your ways anyway and since it's presented to him in a non-overbearing way, it may be the most effective brainwashing method of all, even if you don't intend it as such.

Then there's the overbearing method of drilling stuff into him like a drill sargeant. That will likely make him confused because he won't see why it's so frickin' important and there's a good chance he'll revolt but then later in life (after you die) feel guilty that he rejected everything you stood for. Not good.

OK this is very oversimplified and there are zillions of other possible scenarios, but these are some that seem to happen pretty often.

MidGe · #52 07-10-2006, 09:05 AM

Metric,

I agree with you, have no issue with the religious meaning of marriage. However when the law starts discriminating between its own citizens about economic advantages I have an issue. That is the essence of my OP. Any churches, mullah, rabbis, whatever should NOT dictate the legal position which should be without discrimination.

I am very happy that a secular marriage be, or not, recognized by the catholic or other churches. That is NOT the issue. However when the catholic or whatever, or whenever, church or religion starts to interfere and dictates what the secular laws should be, I have an issue.

oneeye13 · #53 07-10-2006, 09:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All societies have a stake in the future generations.

[/ QUOTE ] aren't you republican?

revots33 · #54 07-10-2006, 10:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am very happy that a secular marriage be, or not, recognized by the catholic or other churches. That is NOT the issue. However when the catholic or whatever, or whenever, church or religion starts to interfere and dictates what the secular laws should be, I have an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said and ITA. Marriage in the civil context is a legal contract, not a religious sacrament.

And I think anyone who claims this isn't a religious issue is fooling themselves (although I'm sure there are a few athiests who don't like it as well, for nonreligious reasons).

As for the comparisons to bestiality and sex with children, they don't hold water because we are no longer talking about 2 consenting adults. They are more similar to rape, since one party does not have the ability to give consent. Comparisons to polygamy or prostitution are better, since those involve consenting adults.

And the idea that teachers are going to somehow corrupt your children's minds if gay marriage was legal is silly. Your children will likely at some point in their education have a gay teacher, a gay classmate, or a gay friend. They may even be gay themselves. Outlawing legal rights for gay couples does nothing to eliminate this exposure to homosexuality that you seem so fearful of.

Darryl_P · #55 07-10-2006, 10:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And the idea that teachers are going to somehow corrupt your children's minds if gay marriage was legal is silly. Your children will likely at some point in their education have a gay teacher, a gay classmate, or a gay friend. They may even be gay themselves. Outlawing legal rights for gay couples does nothing to eliminate this exposure to homosexuality that you seem so fearful of.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume this part is directed at me and not MidGe. Being exposed to homosexuals and homosexuality is one thing, but having it legitimized and declared officially equivalent to heterosexuality is another.

revots33 · #56 07-10-2006, 10:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I assume this part is directed at me and not MidGe. Being exposed to homosexuals and homosexuality is one thing, but having it legitimized and declared officially equivalent to heterosexuality is another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point, but can I ask you how you would feel if one of your own children happens to be gay? Would you still not want your child to be equal or legitimate in the eyes of the law?

FlFishOn · #57 07-10-2006, 12:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Although no one is likely to listen to me, I think marriage should be a purely religious sacrament, as it was originally. No government "stamp of approval" is needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea why marriage was established, taking in the big societal/species picture?

Perhaps before you scrap what might be the single most important piece of society ever developed you should be able to answer that above question. My guess is that you can not.

I'll help you out a little later, it's not that hard.

vhawk01 · #58 07-10-2006, 01:18 PM

Single most important piece of society? Wow, thats a bold assertion that cannot possibly be backed up.

All the same, I'll put my money on fire.

revots33 · #59 07-10-2006, 01:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any idea why marriage was established, taking in the big societal/species picture?

Perhaps before you scrap what might be the single most important piece of society ever developed you should be able to answer that above question. My guess is that you can not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the idea that allowing monogamous homosexual couples the same legal protections as heterosexuals, would somehow "scrap" the institution of marriage is false. Not to mention paranoid.

As for the "big species" picture, I assume you are talking about procreation. I am sure, according to your definition of marriage, my wife and I's union should be outlawed as well, since we have no children and do not plan to have any.

I think all of this gay marriage debate boils down to the fact that a lot of people want to return to some sort of imaginary Norman Rockwelian version of our country's past, where all women stayed home and had babies and all homosexuals were in the closet.

Case Closed · #60 07-10-2006, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although no one is likely to listen to me, I think marriage should be a purely religious sacrament, as it was originally. No government "stamp of approval" is needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea why marriage was established, taking in the big societal/species picture?

Perhaps before you scrap what might be the single most important piece of society ever developed you should be able to answer that above question. My guess is that you can not.

I'll help you out a little later, it's not that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is a little out of line. Is there a reason you continue to try and make points by having people look up the facts for you? I think it would be a lot better if you explained to us why you hold the opinions and provided some evidence for them. Instead of ordering people with differing opinions to do it for you.