It appears that gay marriage won't destroy marriage

Nov 10, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Daily Camera

Over the last two decades , fear of gays was a highly successful wedge issue used to drum up election turnout among religious conservatives.

Comments
1 - 20 of 22 Comments Last updated Dec 17, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It won't ?!

DOH !

And I voted FOR "destroying marriage" this past Election Day ! And it didn't pass ?!

i HATE when that happens !

:(

<s>

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 10, 2012
 

Judged:

4

3

3

As far as I know, not a single straight marriage has disintegrated yet due to gay folks being able to legally marry.

But, I guess, only time will tell.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Gay marriage has existed here for 10 years or so, and I don't see any evidence of marriage in general becoming extinct.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

JohnInToronto wrote:
Gay marriage has existed here for 10 years or so, and I don't see any evidence of marriage in general becoming extinct.
Yeah, but you're in The People's Demokratik Socialist Republik Of Kanada, and WE'RE AMERICANS !

<s>

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but you're in The People's Demokratik Socialist Republik Of Kanada, and WE'RE AMERICANS !
<s>
Are you suggesting that Americans CAN succeed in destroying marriage where Canadians have failed miserably?

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that Americans CAN succeed in destroying marriage where Canadians have failed miserably?
If I were spiritually inclined I'd invent a religion where marriage was neither a sacrament nor a rite of passage. It seems to me that the religious nature of this somewhat ill-defined institution was co-opted from its social nature and not the other way around. Over the years and in different cultures, it has been terminable by mutual agreement; terminable by one party; interminable; allowed for different sex couples or same sex couples; permissive of multiple spouses or one spouse; allowed to occur by force; romantic or arranged; and any vow of faithfulness has been interpreted quite differently depending on the time and place. There are and were places where there were even two or more levels of marriage, either de facto or de jure.

I cannot understand, for example, how the Catholics can consider it a sacrament and yet not let their own priests partake of it. As an institution it constantly changes to meet the needs of the society around it.

Some people say the state should ONLY create civil unions and leave marriage as a religious rite. But it seems to have relatively little to do with traditional religious definitions in practice over the centuries and the opposition to same sex marriage is rather comical as it is one of the lesser deviations from the traditional definition. That is why perhaps it should be the other way around.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

JohnInToronto wrote:
<quoted text>...
I cannot understand, for example, how the Catholics can consider it a sacrament and yet not let their own priests partake of it....
Clerical marriage was not unheard of in the early church, and some of the apostles were almost certainly married. Bishops and later priests were expected to give up sexual relations with their wives when they took their orders in the first centuries, but in 530 Emperor Justinian officially ended the practice, probably out of a concern that the wives and children of priests could lay claim to inherit church property. That didn't stop the unofficial practice of taking wives and having children, as many priests, bishops and even popes did. The last pope known to have a child was Pope Gregory XIII, who was pope until 1585. Several popes had sexual relations with men.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

JohnInToronto wrote:
Gay marriage has existed here for 10 years or so, and I don't see any evidence of marriage in general becoming extinct.
The thing is whether is was "legally recognized" or not, "Same Sex Marriage" is a lot older than just a few decades. I remember first hearing about "married" gay couples when I first came out over 35 years ago. A few Churches even began offering "Holy Union" ceremonies to gay and lesbian couples.

So SSM has mainly only impacted gays and lesbians and our own families (spouses, siblings, parents, etc).

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Clerical marriage was not unheard of in the early church, and some of the apostles were almost certainly married. Bishops and later priests were expected to give up sexual relations with their wives when they took their orders in the first centuries, but in 530 Emperor Justinian officially ended the practice, probably out of a concern that the wives and children of priests could lay claim to inherit church property. That didn't stop the unofficial practice of taking wives and having children, as many priests, bishops and even popes did. The last pope known to have a child was Pope Gregory XIII, who was pope until 1585. Several popes had sexual relations with men.
We should also remember the R.C.C actually does allow married priests. It's a very weird system.

A converted Catholic can be a priest and married if they were a minister and married in another faith. Certain "sects" which are essentially Eastern Rite, are loyal to the Pope in Rome yet can have married priests; Maronites for example.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>We should also remember the R.C.C actually does allow married priests. It's a very weird system.
A converted Catholic can be a priest and married if they were a minister and married in another faith. Certain "sects" which are essentially Eastern Rite, are loyal to the Pope in Rome yet can have married priests; Maronites for example.
Good point... I was aware of that but neglected to include it. These silly churches have more loopholes and hypocrites to fill them than anyone can possibly list!

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Clerical marriage was not unheard of in the early church, and some of the apostles were almost certainly married. Bishops and later priests were expected to give up sexual relations with their wives when they took their orders in the first centuries, but in 530 Emperor Justinian officially ended the practice, probably out of a concern that the wives and children of priests could lay claim to inherit church property. That didn't stop the unofficial practice of taking wives and having children, as many priests, bishops and even popes did. The last pope known to have a child was Pope Gregory XIII, who was pope until 1585. Several popes had sexual relations with men.
I am aware of that, though the Eastern Churches only seem to have followed Justinian's decree when it concerned bishops. In any case, this whole history of the church further points out the uncertain definition and regard for the institution of marriage.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>We should also remember the R.C.C actually does allow married priests. It's a very weird system.
A converted Catholic can be a priest and married if they were a minister and married in another faith. Certain "sects" which are essentially Eastern Rite, are loyal to the Pope in Rome yet can have married priests; Maronites for example.
From what I understand, other vows don't apply as well. I heard - not sure if correct - that Ukrainian Eastern Rite priests don't take a vow of poverty.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>The thing is whether is was "legally recognized" or not, "Same Sex Marriage" is a lot older than just a few decades. I remember first hearing about "married" gay couples when I first came out over 35 years ago. A few Churches even began offering "Holy Union" ceremonies to gay and lesbian couples.
So SSM has mainly only impacted gays and lesbians and our own families (spouses, siblings, parents, etc).
What is funny is the lack of ability of the Fundies to explain exactly HOW SSM will destroy marriage as an institution when Kim Kardashian (or whomever) does not.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

JohnInToronto wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I understand, other vows don't apply as well. I heard - not sure if correct - that Ukrainian Eastern Rite priests don't take a vow of poverty.
That's a monastic vow.

The priests would reply (and have), "In the monasteries they take the vow of poverty. We keep it."

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

JohnInToronto wrote:
<quoted text>
What is funny is the lack of ability of the Fundies to explain exactly HOW SSM will destroy marriage as an institution when Kim Kardashian (or whomever) does not.
Logic is not their stroung suit.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

JohnInToronto wrote:
Gay marriage has existed here for 10 years or so, and I don't see any evidence of marriage in general becoming extinct.
Shyte takes time. And since the duration of gay sex is on the order or seconds, it is no surprise that the gay concept of time is distorted.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
Shyte takes time. And since the duration of gay sex is on the order or seconds, it is no surprise that the gay concept of time is distorted.
...and you know this from experience?

You're an idiot.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>...and you know this from experience?
You're an idiot.
Gay definition of "commitment"-
A BJ that lasts longer than 60 seconds.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay definition of "commitment"-
A BJ that lasts longer than 60 seconds.
Jr. high
harry

Brooksville, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

Marriage as western civilization has known it for 1000 yrs began to fade after WW2, Women gained voting rights in 1920 and the Flappers roared until the Depression put them back in the kitchen.

WW2 put them in the factories and taught them that a husband was not the only road to prosperity. For many women a licensed father was the only option for motherhood. That thinking is growing dim with the passing years.

I'll leave it to your imagination to list the alternative paths to motherhood that were not viable 100 yrs ago.

I expect the idea of marriage will fade from human experience in the coming centuries. I expect that the male gender will evolve out of existence. It has been a troublesome part of the mating game for a long time and today it is not required.

Most of the conflicts in the world can be traced back to a struggle for breeding rights. If the human species can propagate itself with only one gender, the male gender will become obsolete and the world can live in peace?

A brave new world ? maybe a squaw new world?

Life on Earth started with only one sex...or no sex. It divided into two without the exchange of genetic variations. It never died of old age. Is that the future of man?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent California Discussions

Search the California Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
PA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Pennsylva... (Oct '10) 7 hr Big Daddy 3,812
PA Who do you support for Governor in Pennsylvania... (Oct '10) Wed More Settled Science 51,184
School circa 1957 (Aug '10) Jul 6 Jill Marie Lutz 12
Who do you support for State House in Pennsylva... (Oct '10) Jun '14 CaCat 9
5-Town Recreational Park future in serious doubt (Jul '09) May '14 Brad Martin 6
Faded memories #3 May '14 John Musisko 1
Review: Fay-West Medical - Nick Dileo MD (Aug '10) May '14 Hey 10
•••
•••
•••
•••

California Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

California People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

California News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in California
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••