Evangelical extremist?

[torridon]

Marriage is the unique contract between a man and woman by which they form a lifelong family unit, whether they breed like rabbits or not at all. And because it is unique, it has its own name.

Historically that has been true, but nothing stays the same.  Historically, slavery was acceptable, now it is not. Things change and that includes our cultural concepts like marriage, now broadened to more truly reflect the diversity inherent in our population.

[floo]

Within certain boundaries, yes.Not if they are outside the boundaries. It's nothing to do with prejudice, at least in my post there was no prejudice that I am aware of. It is a matter of how the boundaries for entitlement are drawn. They have been widened to include divorcees, and this at first seems to justify including people of the same sex. If however we look at this in terms of the family unit: with divorcees at least there is a family unit, albeit leaving behind a broken one. But a married man and woman form a family unit, whether or not they have children. Two men or two women do not form this unit. Those who do not marry an opposite sex partner remain in their parents' family unit.I said nothing about devaluing marriage - how can something that is not marriage devalue it? Marriage is the unique contract between a man and woman by which they form a lifelong family unit, whether they breed like rabbits or not at all. And because it is unique, it has its own name.

We live in the 21st century not the dark ages, thank goodness, marriage is a contract between two people of the opposite sex,  or the same sex, GET OVER IT! Anyone wanting to stop same sex couples from marrying is an extremist!

[Walter]

We live in the 21st century not the dark ages, thank goodness, marriage is a contract between two people of the opposite sex,  or the same sex, GET OVER IT! Anyone wanting to stop same sex couples from marrying is an extremist!

well said Floo, trouble is they don't even realise it.

[Aruntraveller]

There is a current quip from Whoopi Goldberg doing the rounds:

If you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married.

Simples. <squeak>

[Spud]

Whose boundaries are these, and to what extent are these authoritative and binding on society at large?

Same question: whose boundaries?

Whose definition of 'family unit' are you subscribing to?

Generally, a family unit is a man and a woman and any children they have. This can be broadened to include adopted children or a step-parent, but the boundary clearly excludes a man and a dog, for example.

Says who?

You seem to be saying that the marriages of those who don't adhere to your definition 'is not marriage': therefore you are devaluing these marriages by seeking to, in effect, deny these marriages are valid - it seems that the legislature don't agree with you, and it is they that set the boundaries that matter.

Ok, lets look at it from the perspective of a group of people in a workplace. If they get on so well that they say, 'we are one big family' do they mean they are literally one family, in that they all have the same parents? No, such a 'family' is a copy of the actual family, which means a man and a woman and any biological children they have. So two gay people can not be a literal family.  There is a distinction between a biological family and a non-biological one.

Fine, so why not include gay couples in the broad definition of family? Because they do not have the potential to ever be a biological family, just like a man and a dog. This is how the boundary is set. That's why it would be absurd to allow humans to marry animals, or adults to marry children.

[Aruntraveller]

Generally, a family unit is a man and a woman and any children they have. This can be broadened to include adopted children or a step-parent, but the boundary clearly excludes a man and a dog, for example.

Why can it not be broadened to include a same sex couple - they can and do adopt children. So what is to stop you broadening the definition.

(PS I note the implied comparison with bestiality. What a nice mind you have.)

Presumably under your ludicrously prescriptive set up couples who are unable to procreate would also be excluded. Before you start arguing the point I refer you to your following statement:

Because they do not have the potential to ever be a biological family, just like a man and a dog. This is how the boundary is set.

[floo]

Generally, a family unit is a man and a woman and any children they have. This can be broadened to include adopted children or a step-parent, but the boundary clearly excludes a man and a dog, for example.

Ok, lets look at it from the perspective of a group of people in a workplace. If they get on so well that they say, 'we are one big family' do they mean they are literally one family, in that they all have the same parents? No, such a 'family' is a copy of the actual family, which means a man and a woman and any biological children they have. So two gay people can not be a literal family.  There is a distinction between a biological family and a non-biological one.

Fine, so why not include gay couples in the broad definition of family? Because they do not have the potential to ever be a biological family, just like a man and a dog. This is how the boundary is set. That's why it would be absurd to allow humans to marry animals, or adults to marry children.

A lot of hetero couples don't want, or can't have, kids, so aren't they biological families? Trying to make homosexuality out to be unnatural is extremist behaviour!

[Nearly Sane]

Generally, a family unit is a man and a woman and any children they have. This can be broadened to include adopted children or a step-parent, but the boundary clearly excludes a man and a dog, for example.

Ok, lets look at it from the perspective of a group of people in a workplace. If they get on so well that they say, 'we are one big family' do they mean they are literally one family, in that they all have the same parents? No, such a 'family' is a copy of the actual family, which means a man and a woman and any biological children they have. So two gay people can not be a literal family.  There is a distinction between a biological family and a non-biological one.

Fine, so why not include gay couples in the broad definition of family? Because they do not have the potential to ever be a biological family, just like a man and a dog. This is how the boundary is set. That's why it would be absurd to allow humans to marry animals, or adults to marry children.

Leaving aside yet another comparison of my gay friends to beastialists and paedophiles, are you saying that if someone is past puberty they can marry, even if they were say 10 years old?

[Gordon]

Generally, a family unit is a man and a woman and any children they have. This can be broadened to include adopted children or a step-parent, but the boundary clearly excludes a man and a dog, for example.

Again: whose boundaries are these and in what ways are they binding? 

Ok, lets look at it from the perspective of a group of people in a workplace.

Why should we? The situations are wholly different in terms of the nature of the relationships involved.

If they get on so well that they say, 'we are one big family' do they mean they are literally one family, in that they all have the same parents? No, such a 'family' is a copy of the actual family, which means a man and a woman and any biological children they have.

No it doesn't: all you are doing here is highlighting that colloquial English allows words to have different contexts - 'family' is but one example, and the obvious other one in this context is 'gay'.

So two gay people can not be a literal family.

Says who?

There is a distinction between a biological family and a non-biological one.

There may be a distinction but in terms of the immediate ancestry of those involved but then spouses are rarely closely related in biological terms. So, for example, are you saying that when Mrs G and I got together and married we weren't a 'family' for the 5 years before our first child arrived?

Fine, so why not include gay couples in the broad definition of family?

Why not indeed: I'm happy to do so.

Because they do not have the potential to ever be a biological family, just like a man and a dog.

Yikes - this reads like you are equating same sex or mixed sex relationships where children aren't an option with 'one man and his dog'. I'm sure this isn't your intention but it does suggest your thinking on this issue is all at sea. In addition, on whose authority is it that marriage should involve the potential to be a 'biological family' predicated?

This is how the boundary is set.

Again, by whom?

That's why it would be absurd to allow humans to marry animals, or adults to marry children.

We don't allow either (assuming by 'children' you mean those under 16 years of age) - but that is a different matter to allowing adults who are free to marry to do so without interference.

[Aruntraveller]

Furthermore Spud how do you define people who aren't married but have children.

You do seem to be confusing and conflating a social construct with a biological imperative.

[floo]

Furthermore Spud how do you define people who aren't married but have children.

You do seem to be confusing and conflating a social construct with a biological imperative.

It does seem that way.

[Spud]

In addition, on whose authority is it that marriage should involve the potential to be a 'biological family' predicated?

A biological family has one parent of each sex, and this is the model on which marriage is based. One man plus another man doesn't mirror this model. A remarried widower does mirror it.

[Nearly Sane]

A biological family has one parent of each sex, and this is the model on which marriage is based. One man plus another man doesn't mirror this model. A remarried widower does mirror it.

That was a complete non sequitur to the question asked.

Here it is again, reread and try and answer the question

'In addition, on whose authority is it that marriage should involve the potential to be a 'biological family'

[floo]

A biological family has one parent of each sex, and this is the model on which marriage is based. One man plus another man doesn't mirror this model. A remarried widower does mirror it.

In your opinion!

[Gordon]

A biological family has one parent of each sex, and this is the model on which marriage is based. One man plus another man doesn't mirror this model. A remarried widower does mirror it.

You forgot to cite your authority for your opinions and explain how this authority, and your opinions, are binding on me or anyone else.

[Anchorman]

A biological family has one parent of each sex, and this is the model on which marriage is based. One man plus another man doesn't mirror this model. A remarried widower does mirror it.

Wherase I completely agree with you. Spud, that this is indeed the model for Christian marriage, can I point out that marriage was never confined to Christianity - or Judaism, for that matter?
Should we as Christians, impose our concept of marriage, grounded in Scripture as it certainly is, on those who do not accept either Scripture or, indeed, Christ?

[Spud]

Wherase I completely agree with you. Spud, that this is indeed the model for Christian marriage, can I point out that marriage was never confined to Christianity - or Judaism, for that matter?
Should we as Christians, impose our concept of marriage, grounded in Scripture as it certainly is, on those who do not accept either Scripture or, indeed, Christ?

Not impose, Jim, but yes we should state what we believe and warn that God deals with sin, we know this through the example of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[floo]

Not impose, Jim, but yes we should state what we believe and warn that God deals with sin, we know this through the example of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Homosexuality isn't WRONG!

[Spud]

You forgot to cite your authority for your opinions and explain how this authority, and your opinions, are binding on me or anyone else.

Aside from it being common sense (as shown by the very sensible Anchorman agreeing with the Christian view), God's word is the authority, and he vindicates it by bringing down leaders who mock it.

[floo]

Aside from it being common sense (as shown by the very sensible Anchorman agreeing with the Christian view), God's word is the authority, and he vindicates it by bringing down leaders who mock it.

What evidence is there the documents making up the Bible have anything to do with any god? The god featured there seems like a very human production, with all the worst human characteristics!

[Nearly Sane]

Not impose, Jim, but yes we should state what we believe and warn that God deals with sin, we know this through the example of Sodom and Gomorrah.

At yes, your god and his penchant for killing children.

[Gordon]

Aside from it being common sense (as shown by the very sensible Anchorman agreeing with the Christian view)

Jim does indeed point out that your position fits with Christian thinking, although your adding the epithet 'common sense' is another matter entirely since I don't think that it is 'common sense' to discriminate. Jim also pointed out that marriage isn't an exclusively Christian institution and said:

Should we as Christians, impose our concept of marriage, grounded in Scripture as it certainly is, on those who do not accept either Scripture or, indeed, Christ?

 
You then say;

God's word is the authority, and he vindicates it by bringing down leaders who mock it.

Leaving aside the bizarre notion of divine retribution, I think you need to consider the points Jim made: that marriage isn't the exclusive province of Christianity and that 'God's word', and however this is understood and taken seriously by Christians on a personal basis, isn't authoritative in a secular society.

[Hope]

The god featured there seems like a very human production, with all the worst human characteristics!

I've lost count of the number of times you've made this comment - in various guises, Floo.  Could you fulfil something that you have never managed to do, before?  In other words, could you provide even one piece of evidence in support of your comment.

[Anchorman]

Not impose, Jim, but yes we should state what we believe and warn that God deals with sin, we know this through the example of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Warn?
Fine; I can live with that.
If, however those who hear the warning choose to ignore it, and that is, of course, their right to do so, we should not seek to try and impede the legal marriage of one person with another, even when we may not agree with it.
Only when those who profess to be Christian try to marry outside the NT definition of marriafge , and try to do so in a Christian setting, should we - rightly - protest.

[Hope]

...  marriage isn't the exclusive province of Christianity and that 'God's word', and however this is understood and taken seriously by Christians on a personal basis, isn't authoritative in a secular society.

However, the fact that marriage has - throughout history and across cultures - been between a man and a woman would, in my view, have a strong influence on how we ought to regard it.  I accept that there has been recognition of homosexual relationships over history and culture, but never in any formal manner such as marriage until the last 20 or so years.