E
Eugenius
Guest
Animals and inanimate objects cannot give consent.
- Status
E
Eugenius
Guest
If you look point by point at what “married” means in the legal sense you’ll notice that some of the rights automatically available to married couples are already available to homosexual couples, they just have to hire a lawyer to draw up a will, power of attorney, medical power of attorney, etc. People don’t seem to have a problem with this fuzzy overlap of “rights,” yet they will run out into the street crying that the world is coming to an end if those same couples want to register their relationship with the government (a civil unuion) to obtain those same rights.
I have not heard anyone advocate to disallow homosexuals from obtaining wills, power of attorney, etc., apparently they already consent to at least partial recognition of these types of legal arrangements. Neither have I heard anyone advocate repealing no-fault divorce laws as a way to strengthen marriage. People are not very consistent about what marriage means or how to best go about “protecting” it.
I have not heard anyone advocate to disallow homosexuals from obtaining wills, power of attorney, etc., apparently they already consent to at least partial recognition of these types of legal arrangements. Neither have I heard anyone advocate repealing no-fault divorce laws as a way to strengthen marriage. People are not very consistent about what marriage means or how to best go about “protecting” it.
S
sw85
Guest
The Church has been calling for the abolition of divorce laws in general for like, ever.
What people find objectionable about the redefinition of marriage is that it’s an ontological non sequitur, not that it benefits gays.
S
sw85
Guest
Happy to help!
W
wjp984
Guest
Animals cannot consent. Homosexuals can so I don’t think that is a valid comparrison. Homosexuals are people unlike other animals.
Unlike abortion where the I am pesonally opposed but… rhetoric is absolutely unacceptable and immoral and no Christian with a fully formed conscience can hold this belief, I don’t believe the same is true for gay marriage.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to have a I am personally opposed but… mentality for gay marriage. It’s not an issue of life and therefore although I have continuously tried, I don’t see the legal argument for not allowing gays to have a civil union. I don’t like using the workd marriage because that is a sacrament.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Wrong. It is a life issue.
(and quoting the bishops)
americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac0304.asp
Quoting again the bishops:
Please refer to all the bishops’ statements, as well as the various Vatican documents. Bishops’ statements on promoting family life, of which the above is just one.
For some reason, the URL from the Vatican webpage, when copied precisely, did not link correctly, but the name of the document just cited is:
Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons
J
John21652
Guest
And human beings who don’t have the power of speech can’t give consent either. At least, not verbally, just like my dog.
However, he, just like people who can’t speak, shows his willingness and gives his consent by other means. He is totally loyal and hates being seperated from me and he is just so incredibly affectionate towards me. He also shows his sexual preferences and I must say I have had quite a battle to encourage him to be a little more discreet in public, such is his zeal. I mean, he’d try to hump my leg regardless of what company we were in. So you see, his consent goes beyond the mere tacit acceptance of me as a ‘partner’ for life.
Inanimate objects I never mentioned in my original post and I’d hate to be arrested for supposedly kidnapping a vase. Besides, there are no social benefits whatsoever to be had from people marrying inanimate objects. But then, I might be constrained and biased by my moral upbringing and so have a discriminatory attitude towards vases and those who love them which is unjustified. Dogs, however, provide recognised and well known social benefits. A very well known Professor of Philosophy, Peter Singer, of Princeton University, is on record as saying sex with animals is OK, provided the animals aren’t hurt. So really, I can’t for the love of me understand why it is that those who can give their assent to ‘marriage’ between two men can’t take the next logical step and assent to someone ‘marrying’ their dog. It reeks of unjust discrimination.
S
sw85
Guest
What difference does that make? We don’t get animals’ consent before we shear their wool or slaughter them, nor do we get children’s consent before we subject them to the authority of their parents.
E
Eugenius
Guest
You apparently are not up on current news. Google “Michele Bachmann” and “Eiffel Tower.”
M
Madkat
Guest
Why do you have to be so mean??.. He was asking a legitimate question. And we as Catholics should help him, not criticize him. It is healthy to ask questions and therfore find truth…
It is people like you that keep young Catholics in the closet. But thank you for your wordly open views.
We should make you our spokeman!
It is people like you that keep young Catholics in the closet. But thank you for your wordly open views.
We should make you our spokeman!
J
John21652
Guest
Still, ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘moi’, never mentioned inaminate objects. The problem is, there is only one Eiffel Tower and if too many people want to marry it, we will have to legalise bigamy as well. Or would it be polygamy?! Or maybe polyandry?
E
Eugenius
Guest
There is already some overlap in civil laws that are part of civil marriage and what can be obtained by anyone (homosexual or heterosexual) from an attorney through a will, power of attorney, etc. Are the bishops advocating that these legal documents be ignored? Is respecting someone’s will or power of attorney the same as approving of that legal contract between two people?
E
Eugenius
Guest
It doesn’t matter if ‘you’, ‘tu’, ‘vous’, mentioned inanimate objects. I never said that you did. I included it in my response because it applied to current events and is as nonsensical as your “marry a dog” argument.Still, ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘moi’, never mentioned inaminate objects. The problem is, there is only one Eiffel Tower and if too many people want to marry it, we will have to legalise bigamy as well. Or would it be polygamy?! Or maybe polyandry?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
They are counseling their flock to work toward repeal of such laws and substituting of other kinds of regulation to provide equivalent kinds of mutual access without the title of “marriage” – which is completely unnecessary. I have discussed this on many other threads (i.e., alternate solutions) Further, establishing a specially privileged class like this, outside of traditional marriage (i.e., without a foundation other than mutual romantic “feelings” for each other as qualification for a title), opens the door – legitimately–to other same-sex but non-sexualized, non-“romanticized” couples and groups to demand identical privileges. The State has no interest in equalizing all relationships, but non-marrieds other than homosexuals would have every legal impetus to seek Contract Equality.
The truth is, and homosexuals admit this, it’s not the contracts they’re interested in: It’s a coerced “moral” status. They don’t want Marriage “Equality” for the sake of these legal contracts; they want a title, so that they can force society to recognize, at least on paper (and eventually through politically correct social pressure) equal moral standing. It’s about the end of a heteronormative society. Nothing else.
J
John21652
Guest
The ‘marry my dog’ argument is only nonsensical to those who don’t (or wont) see the logical progression of the moral argument for gay ‘marriage’. Arguments for the latter use the ‘discrimination’ argument and the ‘rights of individuals’ to promote their cause. Logically, if the barriers of discrimination are lowerd to accomodate homosexuality, then there is no basis for the continuing discrimination against those who want to practice bestiality… Nor for continuing the discrimination against those who have a prediliction for children and who bundle their disorder up in terms similar to those who play the antidiscrimination card.
E
Eugenius
Guest
Well then let’s return to a Biblical understanding of marriage and strip out insurance benefits, rights of survivorship and any other number of modern entitlements that did not exist back when God created marriage and have been added on to the the legal definition of marriage (and thereby already redefining marriage).
I was in Chicago this summer and visited an exhibit at the history museum about the LGBT experience in that city. The only thing worth remembering was a placard describing how the rise of capitalism has led to this situation where people accumulate wealth and no longer need their children or extended family to take care of them in old age. Consequently people need legal entitlements so they don’t loose their material belongings and can perpetuate the illusion of independence and self sufficiency. Homosexuals wouldn’t want to get married if modern society hadn’t already created a special, entitled class where children were not needed and part of the definition was about entitlements. So you see, gay marriage is already a progression issue, this even falls in line with what St. Paul tells us about homosexuality (God has “handed” us over to it because of the sinfullness that already exists in the world).but people don’t (or won’t) see that. If you want to stop the progression you need to step back and reflect on how you have participated in bringing it to the point where it is and do something about THAT instead of blithering away about dogs.
E
Eugenius
Guest
Many heterosexuals marry purely for romantic emotions or lust, so this would not be unique to homosexuals.
I think your statement above should read “some homosexuals admit this.” Homosexuals that I have talked to see themselves as individuals who just want to live their lives, want to be there for each other at death, maintain their material positions, etc. The organized “gay agenda” that every homosexual is supposedly goose-stepping to is a laughable myth.
S
sw85
Guest
The Catholic Church has in the past supported the extension of such bundles of rights. They have wound up opposing them only when homosexual activists insist such that bundles be made available only to sexual couples. There is no reason why such bundles of rights should be unavailable to anyone group of people who want them (siblings, close friends, business partners, etc.), so they rightly concluded that “civil unions” in such circumstances are just stealth gay “marriages” to be folded into marriage law by judicial fiat later.
Again, it is not nonsensical. If you separate the procreative imperative from marriage there is no reason to limit it to two people (hence polygamy) or even two humans (hence bestiality) or two living things (hence inanimate object fetishism). The “nonconsent” business is a weak and flimsy rationalization: we don’t ask animals to consent to anything we do to them otherwise, like slaughter them for meat, nor do we ask children their consent before subjecting them to parental authority?
Since when is consent the sole requirement for marriage, by the way? That’s tautologically stupid: the purpose of marriage is to consent to being married?
Here’s the problem: they are NOT entitled to such benefits. Those benefits accrue as a result of the INHERENT FERTILITY of human sexual relations.
Now, to change the subject slightly: you are required to give full assent of faith to all of the Church’s moral teachings. That includes the matter of gay “marriage.” On what grounds do you rationalize setting yourself up against the magisterium of the Church?
E
Eugenius
Guest
Power of attorney, wills, etc., already are available to everyone (same sex couples, different sex couples, and no sex relationships, such as siblings, close friends, business partners, etc.). There is overlap between those benefits and those that are automatically granted to married couples as next of kin. That is my point.
Where did I say that consent was the only requirement for marriage? You are making this up…and calling me stupid?!?
Since you argue so much AGAINST mutual consent, are you saying you are FOR forced marriages, or marrying persons in a coma or with other mental deficiencies? See, not as “weak and flimsy” as you thought.
You imply that civil entitlements for married people, as they are defined today, are an eternal truth. They are not. Don’t forget, it wasn’t that long ago that medical insurance did not exist. How would anyone get spousal access to something that did not exist?
Yes, I am aware of the church’s teachings. The fact is you do not know which side of the issue I am on; the elementary 101 was pompous and unnecessary. Holy Matrimony is between a man and a woman. Are you telling me this is against the magisterium? I see a lot of gray areas in the discussion about civil entitlements; many of them are modern conveniences, not eternal truths, and are a product of a society that really values money and material objects over family, life and salvation.
When you talk to the magisterium, tell them I said hello.
L
Leegal
Guest
The state issues a license after which you have a certain amount of time to use the license to get married. The priest in consecrating the marriage must then sign the license and mail it into the state, along with whatever requirements such as names and signatures of witnesses. Same for the Rabbi or Minister or Justice of the Peace or a judge. That state license must be returned signed by someone with the authority to perform a marriage – whether a religious or not.
In fact, some states require that the religious also apply for this separate state authority.
So, the state recognizes the Catholic marriage because the priest has a state authority to perform a marriage, along with his consecrated authority to perform the Sacrament. You can look up your state.
usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/officiants_requirements/index.shtml
As to homosexual marriages. Marriage is deemed a function of the state by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Some states have legislated to legalize gay marriage; most have not. Each state decides for themselves whether or not to amend their laws on marriage to include same sex marriages.
I’m clarifyng the secular part of your question. I’m not advocating for or against anything.
- Status