I have lived through these transitions. I use to save articles that recorded the arguments and the transition of views as these events occurred. You clearly are ignorant of what occurred during those events.<quoted text>Of which church do you speak? Are you referring to the Catholic Church? Whatever church you're referring to, when was that? <quoted text>I don't think that has changed much. Most married couples still do at least try to work through the ups and downs. Roughly half of them finally throw in nowadays. It was the acknowledgement of "irreconcilable differences" as legitimate grounds for divorce that may have caused the increase in the divorce rate. <quoted text>If they ever did claim that - I'm not saying they never did - they certainly know better now.<quoted text>The government was simply responding to the demands of its constituents.<quoted text> The church had little choice but to adapt its doctrines so it's membership could find ways to adapt to the changes of society.<quoted text>I don't think "intervened" is quite the right word. The government - more specifically the Supreme Court - ruled that the moment a life begins is well after the moment of conception and that any thoughts to the contrary were guided by religious beliefs and therefore not of compelling interest to the state. <quoted text>That is simply not true. No church will ever be required to call, same-sex couples married. Nor will any church ever be required to perform such marriages.<quoted text>That is also untrue. The courts are saying that all people, regardless of their orientation or gender, have the equal right to become each other's legal spouses.<quoted text>To the extent that the rights of people to become each other's legal next of kin would be hindered by religious thought, the government must step in and uphold the Constitutional rights for all of us. How is that a bad thing?<quoted text>The pope hasn't said that. He has said, though, that Catholics ought not judge homosexual people. His stance on same-sex marriage has not yet softened, however, and likely will not anytime soon.<quoted text>What is it you foresee?<quoted text>I'm afraid it's a bit unclear to me and lots of other people just how same-sex marriage affects the institution of marriage, family, or children in any meaningfully negative way. Should our laws be a reflection of church doctrines?
1. Society, not just churches, were adamantly opposed to divorce. The argument was that children would be better off not being in an unhappy marriage. In other words, the impact on children was denied, the same way it is asserted that children are not a consideration of marriage.
Just an additional note; The idea that a woman can work full time outside the home and still be a mother is the very same mind-set.
2. Do you know the divorce rate from the 60's compared to now?
3. Irreconcilable differences WERE always considered.'No fault' was the new view.
4. Kind of late for the children now, don't you think? So you want to experiment on children again by excluding them as a factor in marriage???
5. The Church has a responsibility to hold society to a better standard and protect the weak. It failed.
6. The argument was that limited abortion was a slippery slide that would lead to unlimited abortion. We now have third trimester partial birth abortion. Something that was adamantly denied when abortion was legalized.
It is adamantly denied that Churches will not be silenced or required to perform ss weddings. Something already occurring in Canada.
7. The government IS saying that ss couples are equal to marriage. If it was saying what you claim, it is clear discrimination to limit relatives and the number of partners, not to mention animals.
8. A paper 'next of kin' is a vast difference from biological kin. Not to mention the lack of a parenting role that is the only way to create a genuine next of kin.