Originally posted by Charon
I don't think I did. I pointed out that any current erosion of marriage has had nothing to do with gays.
I'm sorry, but this is a play on words and outright fallacy. Are you saying that gay marriage has nothing to do with gays?
Further, I fail to see (and you fail to address) what some general issue like divorce or a gay marriage has to do with any individual couple's marriage vows.
I didn't know I had to establish this. Fundamentally, it's a circular argument and is pointless to pursue. How marriage is defined affects everyone who is married.
My marriage is not erroded by anybody elses behavior. Other people's behavior had no influence on my decision to get married, or how I view my vows.
A play on words, once again. The definition of marriage is eroding. If you are married, the institution is changing around you.
In the same regard, why is it important to be married at all? I mean... what's the big deal? For gays or for hetero couples? I don't have any objection to gays receiving the benifits of medical coverage as well as the curse of dink taxation. I do have an issue with trying to change the definition of marriage to accomodate people who feel left out because they don't fit.
I didn't say that. I said: "If anything, homosexuals demanding the right to marry, and putting so much importance on it, is somewhat quaint and encouraging, IMO. An optimal religious goal for society where heterosexuals are concerned."
That's a very narrow viewpoint to take. I don't believe it's the optimal religious goal of any society to regard a homosexual couple the same way as a hetrosexual couple. As a matter of fact, I believe this cannot occur unless there is some kind of heavy handed restrictions placed on religion entirely.
Is not a monogamous, lifelong committed coupling an optimal goal where marriage is concerned for most religions? Where do I talk about “better” than married folk? All married folk should fall into this category.
Ah... let's focus on the areas we want to highlight and pretend it has nothing to do with a man and a woman. There is a fundamental shift in the institution of marriage that is required to occur to acocmodate this. Surely you agree with this... right?
I'm not going to respond to the rest of it because it boils down to the "if they're really happy together they should be able to get married" defense. This is not what is being discussed. Well being and compatibility have nothing to do with the subject at hand. It has to do with an institution being re-defined. Argue that divorce does that to, or that domestic violence and promiscuity do that. Just realize that gay marriage is being lumped in with those things. That is not good.