Why do people find my beliefs so offensive?

[Gutshot John]

You are missing the point. Marriage's purpose is for the creation and protection of children. That is a historical and societal fact.

Nope, you view that as tautologic argument that isn't borne out. In the Talmud, there was no blood price for children under the age of 12. Since most children didn't survive until adulthood.

There was a blood price even for slaves and cattle but none for children.

Even still in the modern context, you don't marry someone to breed with, you marry someone for love.

Concepts of marriage vary broadly across culures.

Even still you're making the presumption that gays have no wish to protect their children and are incapable of doing so.

[Gutshot John]

Are you asking this seriously? You are smarter than that GSJ.

Adopted children also need nurturing and love and protecting and the marriage provides for that. Nature does not allow them to conceive for whatever reason but they still go ahead and fulfill parental duties within a loving (hopefully) home.

This whole counter-argument that relies on examination of individual marriages when we are talking about the INSTITUTION of marriage, not individual marriages, makes no sense.

Fair enough and I appreciate the compliment, however if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion that's where you end.

Like I said, if your church has no wish and serious moral objections to sanctioning gay marriage, I have no wish to see those beliefs overruled by government or my church.

I only wish to see my church afforded the same courtesy.

Outside of church, marriage is a civil contract, and two adults of legal age and sound mind are constitutionally able to enter into whatever contract they want.

[chadbag]

Nope, you view that as tautologic argument that isn't borne out. In the Talmud, there was no blood price for children under the age of 12. Since most children didn't survive until adulthood.

it is borne out. If you look at marriage throughout the history of mankind its primary purpose was to provide safety/protection and food for women and children for the furtherance of the society.

There was a blood price even for slaves and cattle but none for children.

Even still in the modern context, you don't marry someone to breed with, you marry someone for love.

That is pretty presumptuous statement. I think you would find a LOT of people want to marry because they want a family. Obviously they want to marry someone they love, etc. It makes the whole thing work better. But there are tons of studies thats how that women, for example, approach a marriage partner by looking at their ability to provide and protect and be fathers to their children. Whether consciously or unconsciously.

Lots of people have relationships but don't get married until they want to have a family (ie "breed" as you call it).

Marrying for love and marrying to reproduce are not opposed to one another.

Concepts of marriage vary broadly across cultures.

But they all lead back to the notion that it was beneficial to society to recognize partnerships that brought children and protected them as a furtherance to the well being of the society.

Even still you're making the presumption that gays have no wish to protect their children and are incapable of doing so.

I make no such presumption. That conclusion makes no sense. I have said that marriage by definition (based on its evolution throughout history and why it existed in the first place) precludes so-called "gay" marriage. That is all I said.

People can enter into marriage for any number of reasons, but marriage by definition precludes so-called "gay marriage". Those may be other sorts of relationships but they are not "marriage." And I never said I opposed social contracts for gays or whatever. While I personally find the gay lifestyle and behavior repulsive, as long as you (meaning the general you, not specifically you GSJ) keep it out of my sight and in your own private quarters, that is fine by me.

[chadbag]

Outside of church, marriage is a civil contract, and two adults of legal age and sound mind are constitutionally able to enter into whatever contract they want.

But is not. It may include that but that is not what it is.

Marriage has a long history before the notion of "social contract" of the legal type became a notion in someone's head.

"Marriage" exists in isolated "stone age" communities cut off from the modern world.

[Gutshot John]

THE social contract (obedience to law in exchange for security) is different than a contract under civil law. Neither of which was broadly accepted before the 17th century.

Our government is premised on a constitution which guarantees the right to contract with whomever we choose, see the First Amendment. Marriage is very much a civil contract.

Whatever marriage may or may not have been thousands of years ago, the protection of children wasn't really the key point.

Just because marriage exists in isolated stone age communities cut off from civilization, doesn't mean that their definition of marriage is the only acceptable one. Stone age communities also accepted slavery, cannibalism and other notions that we have since rejected.

Like I said, if your church has no wish to accept gay marriage as a sacrament, I'd even defend their right to reject it. Civil marriage is something else entirely.

Other than that I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

[chadbag]

THE social contract (obedience to law in exchange for security) is different than a contract under civil law. Neither of which was broadly accepted before the 17th century.

I never mentioned "THE social contract". I said "social contract" meaning what you called "civil contract"

Our government is premised on a constitution which guarantees the right to contract with whomever we choose, see the First Amendment. Marriage is very much a civil contract.

It (The Constitution) does no such thing. I cannot marry my cousin, for example. There are probably lots of other examples of contracts that are forbidden and which you cannot claim some constitutional challenge to. Marriage includes a civil contract but it is not solely a civil contract. If it was, we would not be having this discussion and the question would not be a pressing one on society.

Whatever marriage may or may not have been thousands of years ago, the protection of children wasn't really the key point.

Actually, it was (and is). Throughout history marriage was principally supported by society as a way to better guarantee a new generation to further the society.

Just because marriage exists in isolated stone age communities cut off from civilization, doesn't mean that their definition of marriage is the only acceptable one. Stone age communities also accepted slavery, cannibalism and other notions that we have since rejected.

That is a red herring. The example of stone age societies and marriage throughout history is to show that marriage has meaning more than a civil contract. It has actual societal meaning and purpose in its definition that came about through thousands of years of societal experience.

Marriage for love is mostly a modern thing in practical terms.

Like I said, if your church has no wish to accept gay marriage as a sacrament, I'd even defend their right to reject it. Civil marriage is something else entirely.

Other than that I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't know why you keep bringing up my church. My position has nothing to do with my church and my church's position, while the end result happens to be the same, is not my position and in fact I was in disagreement with their position up until I did a bunch of research on exactly what marriage is and where it came from as an institution. The why and how we have a marriage institution in society.

[chadbag]

THE social contract (obedience to law in exchange for security) is different than a contract under civil law. Neither of which was broadly accepted before the 17th century.

Our government is premised on a constitution which guarantees the right to contract with whomever we choose, see the First Amendment. Marriage is very much a civil contract.

And just for the record. I am in no way against gay couples making civil contracts with one another. It is just not marriage. You cannot make something what it is not because you want to redefine it. MArriage is more than just a civil contract.

[ChicagoTex]

Etymologically speaking, all that "marriage" actually means is "to add a man to". If we want to be hyper-technical about what the definition of marriage is, homosexual male marriage would be perfectly acceptable, where homosexual female marriage would not.

That said, the real reason there's an issue of calling it "marriage" vs "civil union" is because using seperate words to describe such extremely similar circumstances serves only one purpose: to foster elitism and divide people. As the actual modern purpose and circumstances for heterosexual and homosexual marriage are fundamentally identical, it is only appropriate that they be called the same thing.
If the same rules and laws apply to both types of unions, both unions are the same.
If you like, we could remove "marriage" from the lexicon and just call all such contracts civil unions (hetero and homosexual alike), as well. Doesn't matter what you call it, but it must be called the same thing because it is the same thing, and no amount of standing on your or anyone else's intepretation of what "tradition" is changes that.

[chadbag]

Etymologically speaking, all that "marriage" actually means is "to add a man to". If we want to be hyper-technical about what the definition of marriage is, homosexual male marriage would be perfectly acceptable, where homosexual female marriage would not.

That said, the real reason there's an issue of calling it "marriage" vs "civil union" is because using seperate words to describe such extremely similar circumstances serves only one purpose: to foster elitism and divide people. As the actual modern purpose and circumstances for heterosexual and homosexual marriage are fundamentally identical, it is only appropriate that they be called the same thing.
If the same rules and laws apply to both types of unions, both unions are the same.

But they are not. You can yell and scream all you want but they are not. Legally they may carry the same rights and benefits, but thousands of years of societal "history" is ingrained in the concept of marriage as traditionally understood. That societal "history" comes with it whether you like it or not.

This has nothing to do with elitism. It has to do with hijacking an institution for political correctness and making that institution into something it is not.

If anyone is into elitism it is the gay marriage proponents who want to take away and diminish that institution by removing the meaning behind it for their own political ends.

If you like, we could remove "marriage" from the lexicon and just call all such contracts civil unions (hetero and homosexual alike), as well. Doesn't matter what you call it, but it must be called the same thing because it is the same thing, and no amount of standing on your or anyone else's intepretation of what "tradition" is changes that.

[ChicagoTex]

But they are not. You can yell and scream all you want but they are not. Legally they may carry the same rights and benefits, but thousands of years of societal "history" is ingrained in the concept of marriage as traditionally understood. That societal "history" comes with it whether you like it or not.

You're honestly trying to project "thousands of years of history" onto a word that, itself is no more than 500 years old?

This has nothing to do with elitism. It has to do with hijacking an institution for political correctness and making that institution into something it is not.

If anyone is into elitism it is the gay marriage proponents who want to take away and diminish that institution by removing the meaning behind it for their own political ends.

The very fact that you see two people comitting to one another and calling it marriage (which is actually what heterosexual marriages do, no more, no less) a devaluation of "your" institution positively reeks of elitism.

I would submit to you, sir, that by pretending heterosexual marriage carries greater status, you diminish the meaning of it to simple social grandstanding and an utter betrayal of the process's intentions.

That said, we are obviously at an impasse and I see no way we can pursue further discourse without devolving into decidedly uncivil conversation. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.