Agreed. It was that way when I was married in Turkey, also (yes, to another American). Is what you're suggesting that ministers no longer perform marriage ceremonies for the State (either by choice or by law)?
Heterosexual marriage serves a secular, social purpose. It's great that religions sanctify the institution, but it is not only a religious institution.
Agreed. And as long as it appears that we can preserve marriage to be between one man and one woman, this is the only arrangement that should be sanctioned by the State. Having said that, unless you see some major cultural jolt moving our society, and particularly the youth of our society back to a worldview that you and I would agree is a "moral" one, I cannot see any circumstance where the current trend will be reversed. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see how.
That's why the libertine proposal to "get government out of the marriage business" is so absurd.
OK, but I think we somehow have a disconnect between ideals and reality. As I said in my earlier post, marriage is hardly the sanctified institution it once was, irregardless of homosexual "marriage" (or unions or whatever you want to call it).
I don't see much holy about the State institution of marriage (if it was truly holy, there wouldn't be that 50% divorce rate). I am concerned about the religious sacrament, as, at least in some places, there is an attempt to keep it as a sanctified arrangement that it should be.
I was just making a point that marriage serves a secular purpose in addition to its religious purpose.
I don't have a problem with the state using ministers as deputies in order to validate civil as well as religious marital unions. On the other hand, I don't mind having the civil and religious ceremonies separated, either. I don't think it matters much either way.
Agreed. And as long as it appears that we can preserve marriage to be between one man and one woman, this is the only arrangement that should be sanctioned by the State.
I would take it further. The state saction of this arrangment is essential to the health of our society.
Having said that, unless you see some major cultural jolt moving our society, and particularly the youth of our society back to a worldview that you and I would agree is a "moral" one, I cannot see any circumstance where the current trend will be reversed. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see how.
The destruction of marriage altogether has always been the main goal of gay marriage advocates. The proposal in the article gives them exactly what they want.
On the other hand, I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you. I think there will be a backlash in time. When we see more and more families disintegrating before our eyes, the value of traditional marriage will become apparent. Give it time.
In the mean time, my wife and I will show the world the virtues of traditional marriage by our example.