edwardmurphy wrote: ↑
Fri May 25, 2018 10:10 am
Kurieuo wrote: ↑
Thu May 24, 2018 4:34 pm
That fact you see it as "marriage equality" shows you don't see what the root issue is about for Christians and many who believe in God. That
, is, disingenuous. Beat your wife much Ed? (also disingenuous)
Your understanding of marriage is completely different as to not be the same as ours.
Q: What's the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" Ed?
I'm not being disingenuous at all. "Defense of marriage" and "marriage equality" are commonly used terms in the debate.
"Marriage equality" is a term/slogan invented by one side, which is loaded and has unproved accusation embedded within it. That is, who'd seriously oppose "equality" for all? Such a noble thing. Right? Yes, it must be that anyone who'd vote against the government endorsement of same-sex couples being listed as "married", are against equality.
I strongly disagree. I'm for equality but against the government re-construction of marriage to encompass same-sex couples. If you don't agree with me, then do you beat your wife much Ed? I'm against marriage beating, how could you not be against such?
Ok, so you may not be being purposefully disingenuous, but that the debate is couched in such terms from one side like "marriage equality" is something that is disingenuous to the opposing side. It blows smoke over the real arguments and issues, and such a term is hard to just say "no" to, after all who doesn't want equality? It's quite a stroke of rhetorical genius in fact, whoever framed the issue as being one of "marriage equality".
Ed wrote:I know the difference between a civil union and a church marriage, but "marriage" is generally used interchangeably in that discussion as well.
So... what is the difference between "civil union" and "marriage"? There doesn't seem to be any, if both are social constructions. And if that is all marriage is -- a social construction -- then you'd right to declare there is no difference. And, then, well, marriage is what society makes it.
Yet the whole point advanced by the other side, the side you see as merely being a "religious" point (yet, there are many who would not advocate gay "marriage" who are also irreligious), is that marriage represents something more fundamental to the family unit, it is something that supervenes upon the natural biological order for humanity, expresses something real about REALITY rather than a mere CONSTRUCTION. Evidently, you disagree, it might seem like many Materialists must. And yet, even Materialists can see the natural order of things is this way rather than that, so I'm not sure how much it matters. We both can see a certain design to nature, whether you think such is "as nature intended" or God.
Do you know the etymological roots of the term "marriage"? What it fundamentally represents? It comes from "matriomony" -"mater" = "mother"; and the rest signified an action, state or condition. To enter into matrimony, is therefore very much a signification that you're entering into a relationship for family, not love per se
. This is the design, or premise if you prefer, of marriage.
Naturally, that is biologically, the foundations for offspring (motherhood, and similarly fatherhood), are laid between male and female. New life is conceived via the two having natural intercourse, the sperm fertlising the ovum and wella, right? It's that simple. So, despite all the psychoanalysing babble of our day, marriage -- in the most natural sense (not just a divine or religious sense) -- is satisfied via male and female coming together.
That is again that new life is the telos
of our biology between the two sexes, and as such the telos
of marriage/matrimony which is enters into motherhood.
Being the most natural, I'd argue children receive the best structure in a family that is most natural. Is tihs not why gay couples raising children often feel a strong need to involve someone of their opposite sex, because they're trying to make up for the otherwise natural deficiency in their child's upbringing (having both sexes involved is seen as a positive need and important to a child's development). Yet, all things being equal (i.e., in a non-abusive parental environment), nothing is better for a child developmentally than being raised by their natural mother and father. Indeed our the personalities of a man and woman are distinct, yet complementary to a child's development. The woman if often the more nurturing, compassionate and caring verses the man who is generally stronger and thus more naturally inclined to a protector role.
Perhaps you'd also like to break down such biological distinctions as well, remove any real role to either sex in a natural family structure? That is, the role of sexes are merely social constructions? Yet, biology tells us otherwise on that too, right?
Ed wrote:The conservatives looking to defend "marriage" weren't trying to prevent the clergy from marrying gay couples - that's unconstitutional. Marriage, meaning marriage the way you define it, is a religious matter. The State has no right to rule on who can and can't enter into holy matrimony in the eyes of God. Instead, those conservatives were trying to deny gay couples the legal right to be "married" in the eyes of the State, which is to say the right to enter into a civil union or to have a civil union from one state legally recognized in another.
It's a messy discussion, and the terms aren't precise.
Convervatives, shmonervatives. Leftist, shpleftists. Interesting you take exception to some labelling people "left", yet feel free to employ labels yourself.
There is a practicality to such labels though, right? Sorry, just something I noticed in passing - I don't see anything necessarily wrong with such.
Here's how I SEE marriage. It is something that can only be logically
had between a man and woman. Such to me isn't necessarily a religious matter, but just the nature of things. Animals don't marry fullstop, they just have sex. They don't have the consciousness to think about marrying. Indeed, the human family is quite unique and distinct, advanced, based upon human consciousness which is leaps and bounds ahead of any other creature. Marriage therefore has a natural foundation. And, is also very anthropomorphic.
Yet, you're also right in identifying "marriage" as also a religious institution. In particular, one born out of Judaistic roots, from which Christianity has its roots, and much of the Western world has been saturated. Thus, "marriage" is considered by many only within a framework of "holy matrimony". This is what I suppose is often termed a "traditional" view of marriage. Perhaps even, and I do think, marriage is a purely religious or I'd say "spiritual" concept.
In this respect then, no goverment has the right to dictate what sacraments a church or religion should honour. and in what way they should be structured (you know except for say child sacrifices). And, where they "steal" this concept and attempt to redefine/re-package it for the society over which they govern, then is that right?
Consider if the government saw benefit to the often Christian practice of child baptisms. That such, in some way, has some benefit to society. So wanting to encourage such further, they decide to incentify child baptisms and so maintain a registry of child baptisms for such purposes. Now fast-forward a couple millenia later and such is still carried out. Does the government of the day have the right to dictate the exact way in which child baptism should be performed in order to be "child baptism"? Perhaps it does, for its own reasons. But, the fact that such was born from theological roots found within Christianity, the government is just "stealing" the idea and re-constructing such according to its own purpose and the society it seeks to govern. And this, is by a large, what a lot of people -- Christians, Jews, Muslims -- are repulsed by. And indeed, feel affronted by, if you can put yourself in the shoes of such for a moment. It's even what Hitler attempted to do in nazifying Christianity and the Bible with something that better supported their purposes.
Some on my side of the debate may not be able to articulate to such lengths, so you might think not all believe this who reject gay "marriage". You are likely right, but surely you still nonetheless see how a great many people (particularly religious people) feel their faith is being threatened by such. Even if you think it odd and stupid.
Ever thought about why? Why they feel that way? Why for example, being forced to make a cake endorsing marriage as what the world (i.e. government) has re-constructed versus what they believe "God" says -- is a threat upon ones freedom of belief rather than a matter of equality? Just try place yourself in the shoes of such. I know it might be hard, but try for a moment to understand through the eyes of say a Christian cakemaker what is being asked of them.