Mawwiage

[callmeserenity]

A pastor in California said that marriage is an institution and if we change the definition it won't be an institution anymore.  But the institution of marriage is constantly evolving.  It wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed to vote or own property. They were considered the property of their husbands and had no recourse if they were

Comments

[embers_log]

I do agree that marriage is an institutions whose primary purpose (IMO) is to protect children, so children are raised in a safe and loving family unit. And since Gay couples can and do have children (my cousin and her significant other now have three children) those protections need to be extended to those families.

[callmeserenity]

And the truth is that so few children are actually raised in that "safe and loving family unit." The modern family is a hodgepodge of who is around: step parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, mom's boyfriend of the month. I think it's definitely more important that a child have that safe and loving family rather than they have one mother and one father.

The other thing that annoyed me about what this pastor said was that the bible says that marriage is between one man and one woman. I've read the bible, many times, and it says no such thing. Polygamy was common practice when the bible was written, as was slavery, and nothing in the bible says anything negative about those two practices that we now find abhorrent.

[wildigital]

We've had civil partnerships over here for a decade or so - the sky hasn't fallen, no plagues have struck our soil, dogs and cats aren't living happily together. It'll happen, certain people will be aghast for a year or so and then the world will happily continue to turn and in a few years it will seem like such an obvious thing to be allowed.

For some reason, I'm sure Jesus will be okay with people loving each other, particularly in secure long term relationships.