Before we get too off topic, suffice to say that history has all sorts of evidence that marriage has not stayed exactly the same throughout time. Whenever a change is proposed(interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, limiting the number of wives, making men and women equal, divorce, no-fault divorce, etc) people always toss up the notion that it will destroy marriage. It hasn’t happened, nor have any of the slippery slope arguments such as people marrying dogs, or toasters marrying elephants.
The institution still exists despite these changes. The only thing that really hurts marriage is those who enter into it lightly and treat their spouses badly.

See here

What we won’t tolerate is when someone decides to ignore our Comments
Policy, specifically when that policy has been pointed out to them and they’ve been asked to follow it.

This forum is for civil debate. When someone by their behavior shows that they aren’t interested in civility, they are put on moderation. John Cole is now on moderation. He can continue to post comments, but I will only release those which actually attempt to further the debate as others have on this thread. Oh, and some substantiation would help.

I don’t need you to do my homework, thanks. However, you are required to do your own.

I, however, have evidence that the “entire history of the family” does not support your claim. Here is an article on St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, lovers who were married in the church. There is even a photo of an ancient artifact showing what appears to be Jesus as their best man:
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/02/04/st-serge-and-st-bacchus-when-gay-marriage-was-a-right/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ashe-prem.org%2Ffive%2Fduffy.shtml&frame=true

If you want us to read the pope’s writing, provide links, or publisher/date/etc information on the specific works you are referencing.

“Just read his work” won’t wash here. If you’re going to make a counter argument, make it, and support it, but don’t expect us to do your homework for you.

Because we are talking about him and his writing (that *was* the topic of the original post, was it not?). And because you have made it so very clear that you haven’t any idea at all what he thinks on the matter.

[Editor's Comment: John Cole omits part of the quote to make it seem to say something other than it does. See the full quote above]

There is no evidence of such a phenomenon beyond a few perpetually morally confused actors–and if you look to them to tell you how to organize a society, you are well advised to look for better role models. Fully adult and cvilized human beings don’t live their lives like the people in Hollywood do.

You should also do some more study of the argument you purport to summarize here, because you obviously don’t know it and you haven’t summarized it. You have summarized the argument that homosexuals would very much like their opponents to be making, because it is a foolish argument (what homosexuals don’t realize is that their own argument about their ‘unions’ is founded on the same foolish premises).

The actual argument has not been dealt with in the homosexual world, and I don’t imagine it ever will be, because it is an argument that does not take as its fundamental premise the radical separateness of human beings, nor does it depend on the unrealistic vision of human freedom and autonomy that is at the very core of the modern sexual libertarian perspective. You might read some Catholic social theory if you are actually interested in knowing the case made against you; alternatively, you can continue to imagine you have destroyed your opponents without having the slightest understanding of what they are saying.

Either way, we will still be here.

“Blanket statements without evidence”–you’ve already made it clear that you will define any evidence provided (e.g., the entire history of the family as an institution in the world, which, whatever the homosexual activist who has read an anthropology textbook written by some hack at a third-rate tech school and thus believes himself the holder of the ‘truth’ thinks, is overwhelmingly on the side of the Pope) as ‘non-evidence.’ Just as you will redefine ‘marriage’ to suit your purposes, ignoring the fact that the huge majority of the world for the huge majority of the time humans have been on the planet have defined it in a way you don’t like.

So the Pope would not be permitted to post on your site? By all means, ban me as well–I should like to be in that company.

This argument falls apart, though, when inspected. There is no evidence that heterosexuals do or have considered marriage to have less cachet as a result of gay inclusion. There is no demonstrated causal relationship in the countries in which full marriage exists.

There were some claims that Scandanavian countries showed a devaluing of marriage, but when the statistics were reexamined and trends observed it turned out that gay marriage may more closely correlate with a reversal in an existing trend of devaluing of marriage.

Interestingly, there is not even a single anecdotal instance that can be pointed to in which a heterosexual couple decided to forego marriage because it is also offered to same-sex couples.

However, while there is not a body of statistical evidence that shows that same-sex marriages encourage heterosexual marriage, there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence of heterosexuals who feel guilty of entering into marriage when their gay friends cannot. This is most visible in Hollywood power-couples, but as an article in the Chronical illustrated, this “waiting til my friends can too” decision is also occuring among plain ol’ regular people.

Because these instances seem to be occurring at increasing rate, it might be evidence that there is a growing dissatisfaction with marriage – one might say a devaluing – based on its exclusionary nature among some heterosexuals.

While there is nothing whatsoever to substantiate the notion that same-sex marriage absolutely will devalue marriage for those who see gay persons as lesser, there is some evidence that same-sex marriages may well revalue the institution for those who see gay persons to be equal to themselves.

Please explain how, and why, and the significance of that change. Marriage has been in a state of flux since it’s inception. Culturally, marriages had different definitions, different criteria, different ceremonies, etc. It has only recently come to mean “one man and one woman.” A condition of Utah gaining statehood was the abolition of polygamy, for example.

To be blunt, marriage has been ever changing, please describe exactly how one more change is going to undermine the entire institution, especially since that change is not to the basic structure — “a relationship”, or to it’s other qualifications —(age, non-related, voluntary) or to it’s terms — (till death or divorce). Since same-sex marriage exists in other cultures, please provide evidence of societal collapse — because as far as I know, Canada still stands, as do the other nations that have legalized same-sex marriage.

Saying it will become less valuable is nothing more than an insult. It’s basically saying that the only thing that made marriage special was that gays could not have it. It also suggests that our relationships are less valuable, which is entirely subjective. Considering the size of the gay community, and the number of gays who would actually enter into marriages would hardly make a dent. Please explain how a relatively small group of people are going to wreck a centuries old institution merely by participating in it.

“and radically changing the definition would radically affect them all.”

Please describe in what way. Is it monetary, archetectural? economical? In what way would this radically alter the institution, and again, please explain how this change would be soley, completely negative for all parties.