[Vision2020] Same sex marriage

[Joe Campbell]

Marriage is not a religious institution. I have performed 3 marriages
and specifically because the couples involved wanted nothing to do
with religion. There were marriages before religion, I imagine. So
you're only taking history so far. And if your argument worked, more
than just marriage would be classified as a religious institution. If
we're only allowed to go back to the dawn of Christianity, nearly
every social institution should count as a religious institution. It
is a legal institution and bestows on individuals certain rights. You
can ask "Why can't they gain those rights in other ways" but right now
they can't, they won't. The easiest way for them to do so, is just
allow gays and lesbians to marry. The purpose and reasons for marriage
have changed over time -- many times in fact. Why not again this time?
Keep your religion to yourself and let social, legal institutions
change with the times. And now is the time for marriage to change --
legally and ethically. Joe

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 07/15/2012 06:28 PM, Scott Dredge wrote:
>
> Paul / Gary - can either of you give it a shot at playing devil's advocate?
> And by that, I mean a good shot, not just some half assed, weak, grasping at
> straws attempt.
>
> -Scott
>
>
> I really can't.  If I had to attack gay marriage, I would do it by attacking
> the very concept of marriage as a whole.  It's a religious institution that
> has no place in a presumed secular society.  It's formed straight out of
> tradition, and the world has moved on.  Every secular benefit given to
> married couples should be individually scrutinized in order to determine if
> it could in fact be given out to others as well as married couples.  Why
> shouldn't your best friend be able to make medical decisions on your behalf
> if you are incapacitated, if it's been setup that way before-hand?  Why
> shouldn't any number of people be able to sign up to jointly care for a
> child, receiving tax benefits in exchange?  And so on.
>
> Gay marriages would be just as wrong as... non-gay marriages.
>
> Paul
>
> ________________________________
> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 10:46:06 -0700
> From: kmmos1 at frontier.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Same sex marriage
>
> On 7/15/2012 4:37 AM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
> Sorry, Ken, but that is one of the silliest arguments I have heard. Marriage
> has nothing to do with if people have children or not.
>
>
> Marriage has to do with, among other things, with whether people have social
> permission to procreate. Same-sex marriage implies such permission is not
> granted to individuals within that relationship.
>
> You can be married and have no children and be not married and have 10
> children.
>
>
> Of course. Physical biology is not prevented by marriage or its absence.
>
> Many same sex couples can, do, will, and want to have children, and make
> damn good parents too.
>
>
> Likewise true.
>
> It is actually easier to have more children if you are NOT in a monogamous
> relationship for both genders.
>
>
> If a person lacks a spouse who would disapprove of extramarital sexuality,
> and if that person cares not whether pregnancy results from personal sexual
> activity, then more children may result.
>
> A man is more able to impregnate more women, and a woman would be more
> likely to get pregnant with more men.
>
>
> Marriage may have a counter-intuitive prophylactic effect as a result of
> each partner encouraging more responsibility from the other without regard
> to partner gender.
>
> More irresponsible, less thoughtful, people may cause more pregnancies
> without regard to partner gender if they are not monogamous. If they are
> monogamous fewer pregnancies will result within same-sex couples, whether or
> not they are married.
>
> People should not, or be socially engineered to marry a person of a gender
> they are not attracted to, that is unfair to one or both of them.
>
>
> I am not suggesting unwanted marriage. Remaining single is just as available
> an option.
>
> As well as others that could be deprived of their true affections and love.
>
> Marriage should ALWAYS be about two consenting adults who love each other.
>
>
> How romantic. And in many cases, how unrealistic. Over the centuries
> marriage has more often been an arrangement implementing social
> practicalities rather than love. Given the intractable societal burdens of
> overpopulation, societal concerns may well trump personal preferences for
> multiple reasons -- food sharing, housing sharing, and many facets of more
> efficient societal use of many limited resources.
>
> And nothing else. People deserve nothing less.
>
>
> Whether or not our current mixture of preferences will survive increasing
> population pressures is both uncertain and unlikely.
>
>
> Ken
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================