I think that marriage existed before it was a religious institution and that makes the religious institution argument silly.

Also I think Vernon is a top 5 poster here

If a ceremony can be done for 2 athiests by a judge in ancourtroom id hardly call it strictly a religious institution.

Derpeos @ 11/3/2014 20:26

I think that marriage existed before it was a religious institution and that makes the religious institution argument silly.

I think that according to the Bible it actually didn't.

I also think my opinion means something.

All dogs are male, all cats are female.

I can tell this is shaping up to be a fun thread!

In ever culture throughout history, marriage has been the union of a man and a woman that is inherently fulfilled by, and is intrinsically oriented to, the generation of children. The replication of two people cannot occur between two men or two women.

Chris25 @ 11/3/2014 22:09

In ever culture throughout history, marriage has been the union of a man and a woman that is inherently fulfilled by, and is intrinsically oriented to, the generation of children. The replication of two people cannot occur between two men or two women.

Do you also think two infertile people can't get married because no kids lol.

Like if marriage was just a whatever thing it wouldnt matter but because a lot of laws and rights favour people who are legally wed over those who are just dating or living together. To deny those rights to any pair of consenting adults because of religion is beyond silly. Seperation of church and state brah.

See, I can see worshiping Jesus if he were a girl. Like if God had a daughter. Jane. I'd worship a Jane. But you know, to worship a guy. Like, a little kinda, you know... a little gay isn't it?

Jessica Christ

wait




I thought we worship Santa Claus

The nature of marriage is a result of human nature, as our species has evolved to pair sexually as male and female, and in such a way that will result in the next generation being born and raised. It is, in this sense, a natural institution, and a fundamental part of what the Holy Father has called “human ecology”.

Marriage is also, therefore, a fundamental element of what the Church calls, the “common good”, by which we mean those institutions and conditions that lead to the flourishing of all human beings.

Marriage is not about “fidelity and commitment” alone. Marriage necessarily involves the possibility of the generation and bringing up of children, and by extending civil marriage to same-sex couples the state would be, on a very basic level, re-defining marriage itself.

Dude adoption!
Something also often barred from homosexual couples.

I can tell this is going nowhere though so i'll drop it.

That's a pretty weak argument Mal considering the adopted children are from same-sex couples (:

With that said though I feel like saying marriage is restricted to a man/woman because of childbirth is like sex being restricted to man/woman for the same reasons. Is homosexual sex any less legit? From an evolutionary standpoint maybe, but as a social construct I don't see why it should be, same as marriage

My opinion is as long as someone's personal rights aren't being infringed upon, you should be allowed to do whatever you want.

If we can change marriage in order to include one particular sexual minority, then why not change it to include any other sexual minority? If the male/female complementarity of marriage can be defined away, then why not the limitation to two people forming the marital union?

If the fidelity and commitment of same-sex couples must be formally recognized in the interests of equality, then why not the fidelity and commitment of polygamists, or polyamorists?