The Divine Institution of Marriage

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

That's all you got from that quoted section? You completely missed the main point.

The main point is what exactly?

That the US is going to conform its domestic family laws using the EU as legal precendent?

That religions will lose their exemptions to worship as they may? And that if any such effort is made to do so, that Jews, Catholics, Christians, and Muslims would not all unite to fight any such government intervention?

That the referencing of CCUSA is totally misleading because CCUSA is a partially publicly funded organization that receives over a million dollars a year from the state of Mass?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Would you care to demonstrate where I stated otherwise before?

That's all you got? You completely missed the main point.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

That's all you got? You completely missed the main point.

OK. You're not interested in a serious discussion. Got it. Carry on.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

OK. You're not interested in a serious discussion. Got it. Carry on.

A serious discussion with you? Do you have a link pointing me to one in which you have engaged?

I am waiting for you to drop another "fag" bomb on the group this morning. I am sure your dad would be proud.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public.

If you make your facilities open to the general public, why would you want to single out gays for discrimination?

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples.

Ha. I have a hard time believing this one.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.

What does this have to do with same-sex marriage? And why would a religious club at a university want to ban gays from membership? This is a mindset that we are supposed to rally around? Argh.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Huh? I just don't get that one.

I don't get it either.

In general, I found the appeals to "history" or "the ages" vague, unconvincing, and probably inaccurate (from a historian's point of view)

E.g.:

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special privileges aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these privileges to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.

I would consider this to be a very presentist definition of marriage. Or, at best, very clumsily worded.

[MikeWaters]

Allowing gay marriage and putting less social stigma on gay hookups in general, ironically, might DECREASE the number of gays in the future.

That is, we might have less gays marrying the opposite sex, either supressing their urge to have sex with the same sex, or getting some on the down-low. Gays marrying the opposite sex have children. And pass on their genes.

So, if you wanted to "eradicate" gays through eugenics, you would support gay marriage. Someone please pass this onto the church. If gays are eradicated through this, then the church won't ever have to explain to Sister Smith why her son Jimmy ended up gay, beyond the sort of statement we frequently hear from Mormons: Sister Smith raised a son who made the choice to be gay.

Boy there are so many ironies in all of this. Is the church going to put out a news release explaining how the practice of polygamy destroys the family?

Don't lose faith, my friends. Inmates do from time to time run the asylum, but there reign isn't permanent.

[Sleeping in EQ]

As much as SU's appeal to Mussolini was over the top, the desire to turn control of one's decisions over to another, "to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us" (Foucault, 1983, p. xiii) is fascist. It is also, I think, Oedipal.

All of a sudden, homosexuality's relationship to the Oedipal makes sense.

[SeattleUte]

Someone needs to tell them that brevity is the soul of wit. I'm always struck by how their public statements are about five times too long.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Don't lose faith, my friends. Inmates do from time to time run the asylum, but there reign isn't permanent.

I wonder who wrote this press release. An Apostle? Some functionary?

It wasn't very well written or reasoned, and it was much too long.

Plus, I agree with Lebowski, the last point on political freedom rang with a loud atonal clang.