Marriage IS as fundamental and basic to humans as biological sex. It fundamentally is about biological sex, in fact, because if is fundamental to the rearing of children. The genuine 'vow', the commitment, is the glue that holds the family together, which holds our entire society together. Our Lineage, heritage, our future our past is co…
Marriage IS as fundamental and basic to humans as biological sex. It fundamentally is about biological sex, in fact, because if is fundamental to the rearing of children. The genuine 'vow', the commitment, is the glue that holds the family together, which holds our entire society together. Our Lineage, heritage, our future our past is connected to the spiritual union given in marriage by our divine creator who blesses us for his glory. It's kind of a big deal.
Sure, there might be a a contractual component to it, same as when someone writes a will, but that is because we are in this world and from time to time we use laws when conflicts come up.
If you think of it as an important 'civil law' matter, helpful to you when experiencing life's ups and downs, then why do LGBTQ plus people so soundly reject civil unions? I mean, like, ferociously! I think that you would argue that a lesbian relationship is very different from a gay male relationship...wouldn't you? They are different relationships, right? and that lesbian relationships are different from marriages, right? . Why can't they be called something other than marriage, being that hey are different relationships?
When married people can't have children, and they want them, it because they are too old, or they have some sort of disorder or aliment. It happens. The world is fallen. We die. disease happens. This doesn't mean we change the definition of marriage. It just mean that the people in the marriage are unable to have children.
Some couples choose not to have children but want the 'bundle of rights' that come w/ marriage just as same-sex couples did and why some rejected civil unions as being a 'half-measure.' Some did have civil unions but it did not have the rights conferred by civil marriage. Some people rear children together w/o getting married and I can't judge in every case what is best for that couple.
But I have seen some marriages full of misery and it was toxic for all involved and better when dissolved. I know you believe your marriage is divinely blessed all I am saying is that in a court of law--and I have been in court many times as a practicing attorney--that does not matter when that marriage dissolves--it is a civil law matter only. You are quite zealous in your religious beliefs--fair enough--but we do not live in a theocracy and must consider the rights of those who don't share our beliefs. LGB people are not responsible for other people's marriages or for floods or swarms of locusts--we are not that powerful. Vaya con Dios.
I don't understand how LGBTQ rights has anything to do with changing the definition of marriage. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. This isn't just among zealots, but is a universal. Chine is secular, for example. Is it about taxes? Hospital visits? Those things could have been afford by civil unions or something with another name.
It's like a trans identifying women saying, "Trans women are women. This in no way takes from the femineity of cis women. A individual's womanhood is her responsibility."
Marriage IS as fundamental and basic to humans as biological sex. It fundamentally is about biological sex, in fact, because if is fundamental to the rearing of children. The genuine 'vow', the commitment, is the glue that holds the family together, which holds our entire society together. Our Lineage, heritage, our future our past is connected to the spiritual union given in marriage by our divine creator who blesses us for his glory. It's kind of a big deal.
Sure, there might be a a contractual component to it, same as when someone writes a will, but that is because we are in this world and from time to time we use laws when conflicts come up.
If you think of it as an important 'civil law' matter, helpful to you when experiencing life's ups and downs, then why do LGBTQ plus people so soundly reject civil unions? I mean, like, ferociously! I think that you would argue that a lesbian relationship is very different from a gay male relationship...wouldn't you? They are different relationships, right? and that lesbian relationships are different from marriages, right? . Why can't they be called something other than marriage, being that hey are different relationships?
When married people can't have children, and they want them, it because they are too old, or they have some sort of disorder or aliment. It happens. The world is fallen. We die. disease happens. This doesn't mean we change the definition of marriage. It just mean that the people in the marriage are unable to have children.
Some couples choose not to have children but want the 'bundle of rights' that come w/ marriage just as same-sex couples did and why some rejected civil unions as being a 'half-measure.' Some did have civil unions but it did not have the rights conferred by civil marriage. Some people rear children together w/o getting married and I can't judge in every case what is best for that couple.
But I have seen some marriages full of misery and it was toxic for all involved and better when dissolved. I know you believe your marriage is divinely blessed all I am saying is that in a court of law--and I have been in court many times as a practicing attorney--that does not matter when that marriage dissolves--it is a civil law matter only. You are quite zealous in your religious beliefs--fair enough--but we do not live in a theocracy and must consider the rights of those who don't share our beliefs. LGB people are not responsible for other people's marriages or for floods or swarms of locusts--we are not that powerful. Vaya con Dios.
I don't understand how LGBTQ rights has anything to do with changing the definition of marriage. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. This isn't just among zealots, but is a universal. Chine is secular, for example. Is it about taxes? Hospital visits? Those things could have been afford by civil unions or something with another name.
It's like a trans identifying women saying, "Trans women are women. This in no way takes from the femineity of cis women. A individual's womanhood is her responsibility."
Do you see the connection?