To be more specific, it especially controlled the sexuality of women. Over the past two decades, there has been a dramatic increase in public acceptance of homosexuality, as well as same-sex marriage. At the heart of the current controversy is whether such a view should prevail in future.
Among both blacks and whites, the gender gap roughly mirrors that of the public overall. But at this stage of human history, it is often wiser, and more to the point, to accentuate the similarities between us.
But our predominant understanding of marriage is now one from which gay men and lesbians cannot reasonably be excluded.
Some congregation members will always be upset with the societal change of accepting gay marriages, because it is the polar opposite of their beliefs. I can understand this concern up to a point, but the horse has bolted. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts.
We might wonder why the law should override individual choices unless some kind of significant harm to society can be demonstrated. If we are capable - as we obviously are - of setting up the institution of marriage in a way that caters to personal choice more flexibly, why not?
State of Residence: Wyoming.
Hopefully, this fundamental right will be protected in every state soon. Eric Barlow R-Gillette and Rep. Degree of recognition unknown. It therefore seems anomalous to cite "tradition" as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.
We have, moreover, abandoned the concept of marriage as a kind of licence for sexual experience, which was otherwise forbidden by morality, if not by law; and we increasingly understand marriage as not necessarily including children.
It is already possible, furthermore, to have children outside of marriage without the traditional stigma of illegitimacy. If not, what exactly is so bad about triumphs of human will? In the end, I doubt that it really matters. What is Quantum Technology?