Gay marriage has come to be widely accepted because our society stopped thinking of marriage as a conjugal union decades ago.
Between five and six decades ago, to be precise. That's when the birth control pill — first made available to consumers for the treatment of menstrual disorders in 1957 and approved by the FDA for contraceptive use three years later — began to transform sexual relationships, and hence marriage, in the United States. Once pregnancy was decoupled from intercourse, pre-marital sex became far more common, which removed one powerful incentive to marry young (or marry at all). It likewise became far more common for newlyweds to give themselves an extended childless honeymoon (with some couples choosing never to have kids).
In all of these ways, and many more, the widespread availability of contraception transformed marriage from a conjugal union into a relationship based to a considerable degree on the emotional and sexual fulfillment of its members — with childrearing often, though not always, a part of the equation. And it is because same-sex couples are obviously just as capable as heterosexual couples of forming relationships based on emotional and sexual fulfillment that gay marriage has come to be accepted so widely and so quickly in our culture. (If marriage were still considered a conjugal union, the idea of gay marriage could never have gained the support it currently enjoys. On the contrary, it would be considered ridiculous — as it remains today among members of religious groups that continue to affirm more traditional, conjugal views of marriage.)
George and his co-authors may well be right that the widespread adoption of a non-conjugal view of marriage leads to negative social consequences, including explosions in rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births. But that's an argument against contraception, not gay marriage.
America's understanding of marriage changed decades ago, the outcome of that change is our settled custom, and though the demand for gay marriage might have been unthinkable before the change, it is hard to see how giving in to that demand will make much of a difference now. Most Americans intuitively understand this. Which is why even the most strenuous efforts of the most intellectually formidable opponents of gay marriage are bound to fail.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Of course, the simplest solution would be to pass some kind of legislation that would allow two people (lovers, siblings, good friends) to pass their estates/assets to on death without being socked with huge inheritance taxes and to visit each other in the hospital -- that is the issue that supposedly started the whole "gay marriage" debate.
They could have some form of "registered relationship" for estate and health related issues. Then we wouldn't have to try to open the pandora's box of saying that everyone has the right to marry whomever or whatever they choose to marry. Unfortunately, the extreme left is once again pandering for votes and in the process destroying our society and its institutions and opening up the door to a future where people will be claiming that they have a Civil right to demand polygamy, incestuous marriages, marriage to minors, marriage to animals, etc.
Oh -- I have to laugh -- Pelosi claims that conservatives who oppose gay marriage are stale -- why hell -- she looks like she was shot up with a embalming fluid to keep her face from shriveling up like a prune.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
yawn, great to hear people still saying that two people in a loving committed relationship somehow is the equivalent of people f'ng animals. Thanks for the horribly stupid feedback, it really helps your case with the people with 100+ iq's.... Hopefully you and your stupid ilk will die off sooner rather than later as you are holding the world back.
yawn, great to hear people still saying that two people in a loving committed relationship somehow is the equivalent of people f'ng animals. Thanks for the horribly stupid feedback, it really helps your case with the people with 100+ iq's.... Hopefully you and your stupid ilk will die off sooner rather than later as you are holding the world back.
nothing humans do can hold the world back...we are just a speck of dust in the solar system....as for loving relationships and animals....we have a difficult time holding our position at the top of the food chain with all the animal huggers.... when a dog attacks a human it should be put down...NOT REHABBED....
DVOR wants to incorporate the dog park with a 'gays only park'
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
The government issuing licenses for marriage should not be allowed.
Marriage is not a government allowance. Marriages exists without governments.
People are people and all should be treated equally.
The supreme court has no business ruling on marriage.
Laws based on marital status are illegal. Marriage is part of religion.
The government is not allowed to manage or regulate religious practices.
The supreme court needs to rule that the government has no jurisdiction over marriage, and that all laws regulating marriage or treating citizens unequally based on marital status, are unconstitutional.
Justice Anthony Kennedy writes for a 5-4 majority in United States v. Windsor that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection protected by the Fifth Amendment. The federal government may not define “marriage” to exclude same-sex couples for purposes of federal law, including Social Security benefits and income tax filing.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Kennedy was always going to be the swing vote..although I thought Roberts might join with the majority also...he's a conservative for sure, but he also was the deciding vote for ObamaCare.
Just in... Scotus also just dismissed an appeal 5-4 based on CA prop 8.. which basically paves the way for the resumption of gay marriages. They dismissed it out of hand without issuing a ruling...weird after just knocking down the DOMA.. This court loves to bob and weave. Here are judges on the majority for prop 8 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan Antonin Scalia, and John roberts
when is the last time this group agreed on anything?
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Basically, the Supreme Court said that a) Congress can't pass a law to forbid "the benefits of marriage" to a same sex couple if a state recognizes and/or legalizes same sex marriage , and b) we (SCOTUS) won't interfere with the state determining what its definition of marriage is.
The battle goes back to the state level to pass laws defining marriage -- better yet amendments to state constitutions --- and hopefully most states will see fit to retain the traditional definition of marriage.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
The traditional definition of marriage has nothing to do with the government.
No laws shall be enacted infringing on religion.
Marriage falls under religious sacraments.
Government must be hands off.
Laws treating people unequally due to religious sacrament status are unconstitutional.
Maybe 200 years ago, but now, The government licenses marriage... that horse has left the barn...
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Maybe 200 years ago, but now, The government licenses marriage... that horse has left the barn...
Maybe some day the church will have an awakening and take that responsibility back. The fact that the church helps the state with licensing of their flock tells me they are just an arm of the state.
P.S. Billy Graham was the states reverend, as long as he was preaching to white evangelicals that war is a virtue of Christianity and the State of Israel was to be defended with the blood of Gentiles.
Basically, the Supreme Court said that a) Congress can't pass a law to forbid "the benefits of marriage" to a same sex couple if a state recognizes and/or legalizes same sex marriage , and b) we (SCOTUS) won't interfere with the state determining what its definition of marriage is.
The battle goes back to the state level to pass laws defining marriage -- better yet amendments to state constitutions --- and hopefully most states will see fit to retain the traditional definition of marriage.
As a Catholic, I'm surprised you can't see the error of EVER letting the State define marriage. Christians need to start disengaging from the state and begin to govern themselves based on their church doctrine. Catholics(and Christians in general) should stop prostelatizing through legislation - it backfired
As a Catholic, I'm surprised you can't see the error of EVER letting the State define marriage. Christians need to start disengaging from the state and begin to govern themselves based on their church doctrine. Catholics(and Christians in general) should stop prostelatizing through legislation - it backfired
Catholics should be libertarians by nature.
I don't think that it is possible to take the State out of the equation since it has been involved in the definition of and rituals of marriage for thousands of years.
Over the centuries, the Church AND the State have each defined marriage. 2,000 years ago the Roman Empire (STATE) defined marriage and had official marriage rites.. and the few non-state religions, like Judaism and, eventually, Christianity, had their own definitions of marriage and marriage rites. Then through the Middle Ages, when the State had collapsed into thousands of fiefdoms, the Church continued to define marriage and provide a marriage rite/ritual. As the Middle Age gave way and nation-states began to reemerge, it eventually developed into a 2 part scheme --- the Civil Marriage as defined by the State with its own ritual and the Sacramental or Church Marriage as defined by the Church with its own rites. To this day in Europe, a couple goes to the State for the Civil part of the marriage and the Church for the Sacramental part of the marriage.
The ultimate definition of Marriage is set by God and that can clearly be seen not just in the Bible but in Nature -- in the design of the human species.
The State may pass a law redefining marriage in some perverse and unnatural way but THE ultimate lawgiver, God, has established the more important and most important definition of marriage -- between a man and a woman. And all fools like Cuomo, Tonko and Obama can do is build sand castles --- and God's waves will crash over and sweep away the fools and their sand castles.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Logged
