- October 28, 2007 at 5:53 am #1755
Please offer an opinion about this.
Marriage has been redefined in some states from a man and woman to 2 consenting adults (more or less). But if we can redefine marriage in this way what’s stopping politicians from allowing polygamy? If marriage is being thrown wide open why not allow anyone to “marry” anything?
Personally, I don’t think the state should be granting marriages to anyone, heterosexual or homosexual. I think a state sponsored union should be called a civil union and the lawmakers can define what the requirements are for that state-sponsored union. In this scenario basically anyone can get a civil union with anyone…and that’s fine because it only claims benefits of the state.
Although I don’t really understand why the state sponsors a secular version of functions that are historically part of religious tradition. Is the state creating a religion of its own? You decide.October 29, 2007 at 11:10 pm #8668
Civil unions is all the homosexual community really wants. Most of them don’t give a flying monkey what you call it as long as they can visit there dieing partner in the hospital or can get the same benefits as you and I, they claim to be happy. True to some extent but the gay agenda comes off strong as well.
I don’t know if I agree with you regarding the more Libertarian approach of just letting the state define it. I know many catholics that feel this way and the way I see is that it’s inevitable for the government to adopt some sort of moral ground that leans either this way or that way. The Libertarian essentially wants to let things like the local people and the market dictate such things but that only gets you so far.
If it’s going to be pushed anyways, I want to make sure it favors us.
That make sense?November 10, 2007 at 3:47 am #8712
Are you saying then to allow the civil unions and all the “benefits” that come with that, just leave the terms “marriage”, “husband”, “wife”, out of the equation?
I agree that the sanctity of the original definitions need to be protected, to keep them meaning a special communion between us and God.
But what then of parents? Won’t the role of parents also be modified if the union is just a state sanctioned action, won’t the state then have the right to dictate who and how parenting should be accomplished if the couples want the state benefits?
Not being argumentative, just taking the discussion to the next logical (in my head) step.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.