CFA part Deux (Page 11)

I have no problem with Chicken and I don't understand why folks want to discriminate against them.

That's a really good question. I don't know.

I recommend The Clash of Orthodoxies.

They ought to be considered together.
The general belief today that they are not is a testament to the success of the sexual revolution in breaking down the institution of marriage.  The attack started long before the current hot button issue debate.

The model of marriage within Western Civilization has always had the bearing and raising of children at its heart.

What is the something else?

Page 20, I think.

Now, now Don.  Remember the request was for non religious reason.  I'll assume it only sounds theological until proven otherwise.

Why should it though?  There is nothing biologically that shows me that it should be considered so.  Marriage is a man-made construct, not biological.  I see relationships between the two as far as likely hood to procreate and things along those lines, but nothing that says you can't have kids without being married.  And again you are stating what SHOULD be the case, not what is.

Further to my point, for natural law to be true or pertinent it has to be widely practiced and accurate.  I'm not saying outliers don't exist, but it can't JUST be western culture to be natural law.

My contention is that the only thing I see that is consistent across cultures and generations is that it is a mutually beneficial contract between two people.  Very similar to Kant's views and Hegel's views (which have slight differences, but it's a good example).  It's pretty simple and pretty unromantic.  Not that George's is particularly romantic either.  

Well, either you are basing your argument on the production of offspring, or on the activity of sex. If it's the former, then again, childless couples of any gender no longer have valid marriage. (I will let the lid stay on the pot as far as contraception, as this part of the discussion is already only tangentially connected to CFA). And if it's the latter, humans can all different kinds of sexual activity that have no hope of reproduction, even within the context of a male/female pair bonding.

It seems that the case you build for marriage being only within the context of male and female (and hey, what if one of them is transsexual or has ambiguous gender, for my pot stirring?) is based on a tighter connection between reproduction and marriage than is required in all contexts. Within a religious context, that is certainly legitimate. But in a more neutral/civil context, marriage is about a contractual relationship, not a reproductive one. In other words, the "sacrament of marriage" is not necessarily the same as the legal or social values of one.

In answer to both jgaither and gearboy I'll ask,

if marriage is merely a contract, then why is it even necessary? 

It's not necessary it's a contract between two people who want to make a legal commitment to each other. This is why religion plays no part in a state given certificate and why every religious point of view on this subject is moot.

With every generation there are less hard liners on this subject and like it has already been proven the church will change its standing on certain civil rights issues over time. People here may not like it but someday in the US gay marriage will be legal. It may not be in the next 10 years but someday it will be.

This. I think we may be talking about "marriage" in 2 different ways - the religious institution and the civil. A contract is necessary because you are talking about talking two individuals and co-mingling present and future assets. Both in terms of being able to quickly and easily speak for one another (in the legal sense of assigning assets and benefits ) and in the case of the dissolution of the partnership, the distribution of those assets.

The flip side of your question is to ask if a marriage is clearly going to be childless (e.g. infertility due to loss of testes or ovaries from earlier disease or trauma, or in the case of an older woman, menopause), why can two people be allowed to be married if it is a function of the ability to make babies?

The answer to the last question of yours gearboy is covered by the first paragraph of George's argument.  The marriage is consummated by acts that are reproductive in type if not in effect.

To both of you, would you now accept the claim that the sexual revolution set out to dismantle the institution of marriage and has been greatly successful at doing so?

All of the issues that you mention regarding what a contract of marriage covers can be covered with a contract that is non marital.

See after all the religious interjection this is the main point of the gay marriage debate. Now if we say it's ok to grant the legal rights the state will still do it the same way it does now with a judge and vows. In the end the state will call the union the same as it always has because the state should not care about what religious groups interject into a word they already have for a meaning of a union.

The people that are against say the word has a religious meaning. People that are for say the state gives the rights and the definition from the church has no bearing on this subject.

Am I correct on this?

People with faith based opinions have a right to form civil law accordingly.
Just as people of faith did with the slavery/civil rights issue. 

I personally disagree and think the word will be redefined in the future.

Insurance and death rights mostly.  All around spousal rights.  Outside of that, it's not necessary.

Except for a little thing called the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, the court determined that the first amendment applied to the states and that a law enabling reimbursement for busing to all schools (including parochial schools) was constitutional.

Additional letters from Jefferson show intent with "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

(I did the bolding, not Jefferson)  

That is why the supreme court is so important.  The common person does not distinguish between their faith and civil law.

We're not talking here about establishing a religion.

Neither did those who fought for emancipation and civil rights,
even though the majority did so from a faith based foundation. 

So then the claim is correct, yes?
This agenda is about dismantling the institution of marriage. 

______________________

They of course do.  However, you mentioned a few posts back about a decline in society.  Do you also feel they has been a decline church attendance, and that this is possibly related to the societal decline? 

I don't know numbers, but it certainly seems like there has been a decline.  For many people I know, their problem has been with the church's inability to separate their belief of how the church members should live, and how everyone else should live.  I think this is the root of many's frustration with organized religion.

This my way (or God's way) or the highway type attitude applied across a broad spectrum of society runs contrary to both freedom and liberty.

i disagree, i think the agenda is about giving these legal protections to all couples.  the problem is that right now there is no avenue for that, except for the legal contract of marriage.  sure, a power of attorney can cover some of the medical decision stuff, but what about survivor benefits?  health insurance?  many of these policies ONLY allow a spouse.  with legal documentation to prove that person is your spouse. 

add me to the list of people that would gladly surrender my marriage certificate, issued by local gov't, for a civil union certificate that provided the same protections, and worked for any couple.  and i would still be married in the eyes of God, or my religion of choice.

_____________________________________

Woo! That was a great post.

And really does anyone think God will cast judgment on you if others use the word marriage? Again it comes down to does that affect you, your marriage, or your relationship with god?

If anyone replies to my question it will start with a "No, but..."

I think the decline has much to do with the inroads made by human secularism,
which is a religion unto itself.

That's the conflict.
It's a war, really.
 

Unfortunately, for you, the United States Constitution is not on your side.

Since you have not properly defended your stance on procreation being the definition of marriage and have not disagreed with me that it's a mutually beneficial contract between two people, then no, the claim is not correct.  There is no attempt to dismantle the mutually beneficial contract between two people.  The need lies in general spousal rights.

What else should I say about that?

I've pointed out the part of George's argument that addresses this a few times now.
It's in the first paragraph. 

What do you mean?