As time moves forward, Im always amazed when someone puts forth an argument that is so irrational it utterly destroys their credibility. Case in point - the recent decision of Connecticut to allow same-sex marriages. Please let me state that I fully support this decision and what I find laughable is posted in an article printed in the New York Times surrounding some of the testimony opposing such unions.
Patricia and Wesley Galloway testified before the court that while they were religious, they opposed the establishment of same-sex marriages because of the following, “It takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family.”
The article went on to discuss how this couple was trying to use biology to deter the court from lifting the ban on same-sex marriage. From the start their argument was flawed on two counts. Please let me explain.
First, the Galloways claim that it takes a man and a woman to create children. This is true (although with since an actual physical union is no longer needed). The statement also continues to infer that children are the root of marriage and family. Thus, by their reasoning, the chain of events is this: Man meets women, they decide get married and have children.
Now there is countless data to support both sides of arguments on the psychological health of single-parent raised children, heterosexually-parented raised children, and homosexually-parented children. That information isnt needed. What I find flawed is that this 60-year-old, childless couple, is advocating the reason to marry is to have and raise children.
This is something I do agree with. Ive stated before that the term marriage is a religious one used to define a union between a man and a woman with the intent to raise a family. The Galloways got that part right; however, the idea does not translate into secular circles because of its implications. Using this narrow definition of religious marriage, same-sex and hetero-sexual couples that do not intend to have children would both be excluded from marriage. Since the Galloways have no children, they do not meet the standards of a religious marriage.
This heightens the second flaw in their argument. The secularity of marriage today. Beginning in the 1500s, governments have intruded where Clergy once governed in the pursuit of money. The reason today governments have requirements on who can and cannot marry is simply to collect, taxes, establish rights of property transfer, and accountability of debt. Governments profess to be concerned about the family, but their actions show something entirely else.
Given this, governments need to come clean and act above board and eliminate the term marriage from their statutes. The term Civil Union best suits the joining of two adults for the purpose of tax collection, property disbursement, and debt allocation. Let marriage return to the domain of the clergy.
The Galloways failed to recognize this relationship, thus eliminating their argument on a second front.
Music: Kevin MacLeod.
Duration : 0:5:21
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Very clarifying but …
Very clarifying but come and tell that to the portuguese government, last week they just voted against gay marriage, i hope in the near future they open their eyes!
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
and my original …
and my original statement was true all along. QI gets all the girls, he has to beat them away with sticks!
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Holy . Look at …
Holy . Look at those people QI!
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Hi Steve,Your …
Hi Steve,Your video’s are always very interesting. You often come up with stories that we have not heard about over here. Thanks for sharing them with us(and telling them so well).We agree with Chrissy in that we get lost in your voice!! XXX
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
It’s really an …
It’s really an interesting history.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Thanks.
Thanks.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
i didn’ tknow about …
i didn’ tknow about the reasons for government involvement. marriage the institution is overated imho, but if someone wants to be married (it’s their dream) then they should be allowed to no matter what sexual orientation.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Your clarity on …
Your clarity on this matter is uncanny.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Can anyone give me …
Can anyone give me a non-religious reason for gays not to get married?
NOPE!
Gay rights FTW.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
That it is… one …
That it is… one of my many roles in the world.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Thanks.
Thanks.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Werd
Werd
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Thanks!
Thanks!
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
No worries mate. …
No worries mate. You’re welcome.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Governments really …
Governments really need to look at what they wre designed to do and abide by those standards.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for watching.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Governments need to …
Governments need to abide by their founding Constitutions.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for watching.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
That’s not the …
That’s not the Galloway’s ertion. I simply stated that from a religious point of view (and my own), I can’t find any Biblical evidence to support a religious union if there’s no intent to raise a family. That doesn’t mean if the couple isn’t able to rear kids they shouldn’t be married, but rather if there is no chance that they ever want children… what’s the point of getting married?
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I think you hit the …
I think you hit the nail on the head. Governments need to support all unions not just ones sanctioned by religion. Governments should be for the rights of all groups as long as they don’t comtribute to society in a negative way. Marriage should be open to all legal citizens of a country no matter what their sexuality unless again it is detrimental to society as a whole. Same sex marriages are not.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
i completly agree
i completly agree
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Great video! I …
Great video! I don’t feel that government should bend to the whims of religion, there are so many faiths and lack of, it should just be from a legal and Constitutional standpoint.
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Equal protection …
Equal protection under the law means equal, no exceptions, no excuses. Thanks for your support Steve.