Not at all. I feel sorry for many of the kids growing up in council estates back in the UK, it’s a depressing almost inevitable cycle of misery.
The same things that are in place to make sure the child is in a stable and loving environment would still be there. Overall it’s a step in the right direction, 50 years from now people will scratch their heads and wonder why it took us so long.
Doesn’t mean there wont be bad ssm parents, just like there are bad parents generally. I’m sure there will be studies that try to prove ssm adoptions lead to undesirable results, just as there will be studies that show the opposite.
Thailand in general, not a specific village. I’m no expert on the custom, but traditional-style SSM ceremonies have been reported. There were also occasional SSM ceremonies reported in western countries in the 1970’s, but they had no legal recognition and resulted in those who performed them being disciplined.
If you’re a public servant whose job description includes marrying couples, that’s one thing. If you’re your deity’s servant, that’s another thing. Can you show us a case of a church being forced to perform a marriage it considers theologically invalid?
Wow.
That’s some seriously liberal theology you have there, man. We had sex, and we’re straight, so now we’re married.
Too bad those grumpy Vatican people didn’t understand. I bet they’ve never even seen West Side Story…
I read your statement as meaning they consider themselves married.
(And btw if you want to get personal, I’m a bit tired of you bruising so easily, but I don’t think you do it on purpose. )
Families are the building block of society. Changing what marriagefamily is has consequences.
What’s a bigger change: going from a traditional family to a nuclear family or going from a nuclear family to a nuclear SSM family? There was no referendum or constitutional court controversy for the former (except for various non-conformist groups like the Amish who arguably voted with their feet).
And yet we still call it a “family”, even when it bears little resemblance to what it used to be.
I would get married at a beach rather than a nuke plant, but first I’d check for Spanish surfers and angry fisher dudes. Or did you mean taking a microwave to the beach for some kind of super-lazy BBQ? (I genuinely don’t get your metaphor, actually.)
What happens if you have (hetero) sex with more than one person? Do you become “one flesh” with all of them (and they with all of their lovers), or just the first one? Does rape count?
Stop putting words in my mouth and attacking things I have never said. You read too much into things that aren’t there to fit what your want to say. I’m not catholic, I don’t agree with most catholic doctrine, why do you think when for the first time the Bible was printed by the press to more common people in their local languages the Protestant reformation happened.
Again, if you’re going to take my understanding “husband” because the definition of what a husband is understandable in figure of speech. And take that as me saying they are marriade to make your arguement, how can we have a conversation if you keep doing things like that. If my gay friend told me he’s a “pitcher” any reasonable person can deduce what he means from the definition of a pitcher. Even in figure of speech we can only comprehend what that means with a clear definition of the original word. Point being, definition matters.
People have tried to. Many gay couples and sjw do push for this. Not a surprise after the gay wedding cake debacle. You really don’t think there will be people pushing for this?
People can try or push for anything they want. Has it happened? Is it even remotely likely to? Does it have anything to do with the question of civil marriages? What about all the actually happening “religious freedom” legislation which would prevent such events?
The idea that a same sex couple is somehow less able to raise a child properly simply because one or the other sex is not present is homophobic nonsense. I know a lot of excellent parents who have had and/or fostered children, and their ability to parent well is utterly irrelevant to their sex or gender. It has everything to do with what kind of people they are as individuals, and whether they are successful working as a team.
Really, as long as there’s at least one decent person raising a kid, they have a chance. Two decent people, and they have an even better chance, because one person can make up for the other’s shortcomings. Whether the parents are men, women, gay, straight, bi, cis, trans, what the hell ever, it simply does not matter. They just need to have their shit together and know to do right by their kid(s) to the best of their ability.
I never said you were Catholic. You know what incident I was referring to.
How am I putting words in your mouth?
If this
doesn’t mean
then what does it mean? Please spell it out for me.
I’m not saying you’re wrong when you say traditional, mainstream religious views still matter in modern society. Of course Judaism and Christianity have played a major role in shaping western thought. But if those traditional mainstream views are so fundamentally important when it comes to the definition of marriage, I think it’s reasonable to ask whether the traditional mainstream views of closely related issues like premarital sex, divorce etc. are also fundamentally important, and if not, we should ask why not.
Your “one flesh” theology – if I understand you correctly, which apparently I don’t – is unorthodox but not unprecedented. The church(es) took measures centuries ago to ban that sort of thing.
I (probably) don’t know your friends, so I don’t know the context.
If some guy says to me in a casual way with no sarcastic intonation, my husband bla bla bla, I will probably take that at face value as an expression of how he sees his relationship, even if I know it’s not legally correct in the jurisdiction where he lives. (Who knows? Maybe they flew to the US to get married even though they knew it wouldn’t be recognized when they got home. Some people really do that.)
Not without the context we can’t. Is he one of your teammates?
I think there are some basic ones we can all agree to like the right to live.
I think people definitely have the right to be who they want to be with. They can call that union whatever they want to in whatever traditions they have. But I’m not sure being given special status and benefits for a contract called marriage can be defined as a human right a person have. Civil right I would probably be more inclined to agree with.
I definitely believe you have a right to be with whoever you want. I can even consider that a human right, or at least wouldn’t oppose it if someone did. I also believe you have the right to form a beneficial contract between two parties. Just not sure that being given the title of marriage my the government and given the benefits of it is a human right.
But anyways, I’ve think we’ve said enough of what we think and have to just acknowledge we disagree on some things.
)
Take heed: you do not find what you do not seek. — English Proverb
It is decidedly so
