If he claims same-sex marriage will destroy Western Civilization, then why isn’t he as avid about outlawing divorce, which he also seems to believe is destructive, and even more so, since there have been more divorces in American history than same-sex marriages?Yes. But, what is the relevance to the OP?
I think he is referring to the fact that a person who gets divorced can remarry and regain all the benefits that a person who has only been married once gains. There are probably other laws that also could be said to promote a person to seek a divorce. I think the area for discussion comes in when we ask what is considered “promoting”.Yes. But, what is the relevance to the OP?
I’m arguing that the government should never promote evil. Allowing evil to exist and promoting it are two different things. Thus I’m not saying the government should outlaw contraceptives. I am saying that I don’t believe the government should be giving funding to help pay for contraceptives. The people that argue for that say it will benefit society. I disagree.If he claims same-sex marriage will destroy Western Civilization, then why isn’t he as avid about outlawing divorce, which he also seems to believe is destructive, and even more so, since there have been more divorces in American history than same-sex marriages?
Nice, rational explanation. I think many people are unaware of the legal gender-role argument regarding gay marriage and the shift on this issue. One may, of course, disagree on moral, religious, and social grounds, as many do, but your comment I think summarizes much of the legal issue. Insofar as generational division is concerned, the data sound right, and also point to a more tolerant–and, at the same time, less religious–younger generation, for both better and worse. There are some notable exceptions among many of the less religious older people in the Jewish community, who support gay marriage now, whereas they were previously opposed when younger.There is a distinction between legality and religious beliefs. That is the crux of the issue.
Legally, there was once a distinction of gender role in marriage. Today, there is not. At least that is the consistent ruling of the courts. Therefore, gender should not be considered in granting a marriage license. Like it or not, that is the momentum that we are observing as the Prop 8 case makes its way to the US Supreme Court, DADT is struck down, and DOMA is ruled to be unconstitutional.
Given that, then there is no legal grounds for denying same gendered couples the right to marry. Marriage is a legally recognized civil right. For example, when slavery was abolished, Negroes were allowed to marry. Prior to that, they were not allowed because they were property and unable to enter a marriage contract. The same logic applies to gay marriage. When gender roles in marriage were a legal principle, then opposite sexes were required to make a marriage. Since women have received equal rights under the law, those gender roles no longer exist. A woman cannot sue for divorce because her husband refuses to work. A man cannot sue for divorce because a woman will not relocate to Antarctica with him. The law has changed.
The CC teaches that there are specific gender requirements to make a marriage. Simple as that.
As long as the CC keeps its opinion out of the political arena, then it will be acting legally. It is OK for Catholics to make political decisions and statements as private citizens, but it is not OK for the CC to engage directly in political activity. A red flag was raised in the California Prop 8 campaign, where the CC and the LDS joined together to illegally influence the election. If they try it again, then they are likely to face some legal consequences. Imagine what would happen to the CC and LDS, if they lost their tax exempt status in the US for political activity. They have been more cautious in Europe, where they are held to a higher legal standard than in the US.
This interface between society and the CC is a difficult one. There was a time when Popes instructed rulers on what to do. That time is long gone, but there is still a sense in the Church that its opinions should be relevant to legal matters. It is, and it should be, but no more so than those who would like to marry, and their supporters. Both sides should be listened to.
In the end, this is a generational issue. There are good data which indicate that people over 65 oppose gay marriage by a wide margin, while people under 30 support it by a wide margin. People in the middle age range are split fairly evenly, but also depending on geographic location. The leadership of the Church, as with most large organizations, is quite old.
Allowing same-sex is promoting same-sex marriage?I’m arguing that the government should never promote evil. Allowing evil to exist and promoting it are two different things.
That state doesn’t make a couple married. They hand a couple some tax benefits and some other perks because we as a society wish to promote what they represent. If those benefits cease to exist there is no reason the state should care about a person’s marital status.Nice, rational explanation. I think many people are unaware of the legal gender-role argument regarding gay marriage and the shift on this issue. One may, of course, disagree on moral, religious, and social grounds, as many do, but your comment I think summarizes much of the legal issue. Insofar as generational division is concerned, the data sound right, and also point to a more tolerant–and, at the same time, less religious–younger generation, for both better and worse. There are some notable exceptions among many of the less religious older people in the Jewish community, who support gay marriage now, whereas they were previously opposed when younger.
Giving them the same tax benefits as married couples would be in my opinion. What other reason would we give a married couple a tax break just because they are married other than the fact that we wish to promote what they have done. Do you see this tax benefit as coming from some other motivation?Allowing same-sex is promoting same-sex marriage?
So, the government is promoting heterosexual marriage because of the tax benefit? And if same-sex marriages get the same tax benefit, they are being promoted as well?Giving them the same tax benefits as married couples would be in my opinion. What other reason would we give a married couple a tax break just because they are married other than the fact that we wish to promote what they have done. Do you see this tax benefit as coming from some other motivation?
That is at least how I see it. The question should really be why do homosexual couples care so much about being recognized by the state as married? Its because they believe there relationships are just as good for society as a heterosexual one. I disagree with this opinion.So, the government is promoting heterosexual marriage because of the tax benefit? And if same-sex marriages get the same tax benefit, they are being promoted as well?
So far, nobody has offered any evidence that gay marriage has harmed anyone in places where it is legal. On the other hand, people who did not have this human right have been granted it in those places.That is at least how I see it. The question should really be why do homosexual couples care so much about being recognized by the state as married? Its because they believe there relationships are just as good for society as a heterosexual one. I disagree with this opinion.
OK. Explain to me how gay marriage has harmed any society where it is legal, please. It has been legal for some years. I have yet to hear of any problems resulting from two people who love each other supporting each other and living together.You really missed the whole crux of my argument didn’t you. All gay rights proponents will ask you “well how does gay marriage even affect you and why do you care?”. I’m attempting to answer that question. My point is that God does not condemn anything without a reason. As Christians we should know that accepting the legalization of gay marriage is going to hurt society and civilization and its only a matter of whether we really need to wait and let it play out or if we will be smart enough to say no before we have to witness the fruits of allowing this to happen. If gay marriage hurts the society and civilization that I live in, then it affects me. Thus why should I vote to enact something that I believe will have a negative affect on society and civilization? My argument pertains to Christians. I fully realize that anyone who doesn’t believe the Bible is the inspired word of God is not going to care about his argument.
OK. Explain to me how gay marriage has harmed any society where it is legal, please. It has been legal for some years. I have yet to hear of any problems resulting from two people who love each other supporting each other and living together.
I would also like to know from any experts on the bible here, where lesbianism is proscribed in the bible.
Rationalize all you like, but if two 60 year old heterosexuals may marry, then the procreation argument is null.
If you wish to refuse to understand what we mean by the procreation argument that is fine. However I would just point to the 90 year olds in the Bible who had a baby and ask you how sure you are that those 60 year olds’s are in capable of procreation. I also think you are missing the point. For example, please try and tell me that the society uplifting skinny models has no effect on young girls and image they have of themselves. This is just one way in which society affects us whether we like it or not. If the government was working to promote this ideal that these models are what all girls should strive to look like wouldn’t you be a little po’d? I mean its going to happen either way but I don’t want the government supporting this ideal for girls in society.Rationalize all you like, but if two 60 year old heterosexuals may marry, then the procreation argument is null.
Well, actually, two heterosexuals who are no longer capable of coitus, whether they are 30 or 60 or 90, cannot validly marry in the Catholic Church. Many states still hold inability to consummate the marriage as grounds for the annulment of a civil marriage.OK. Explain to me how gay marriage has harmed any society where it is legal, please. It has been legal for some years. I have yet to hear of any problems resulting from two people who love each other supporting each other and living together.
I would also like to know from any experts on the bible here, where lesbianism is proscribed in the bible.
Rationalize all you like, but if two 60 year old heterosexuals may marry, then the procreation argument is null.
Whoa… there. This is a legal and civil rights issue. The burden is not on the oppressed class, it is on those who would deny them their rights.Well, actually, two heterosexuals who are no longer capable of coitus, whether they are 30 or 60 or 90, cannot validly marry in the Catholic Church. Many states still hold inability to consummate the marriage as grounds for the annulment of a civil marriage.
Where is there a lesbian relationship equated with a heterosexual marriage in the Bible? How does a lesbian couple “consummate” their relationship? What does that even mean? So if the Bible doesn’t ever mention a lesbian relationship anywhere, where did the idea come from that this is a human right rooted in Biblical principals?
Are there problems that result when siblings live together and support each other and love each other? So why can’t they marry? Aw, because you don’t like their sex lives? Why do they have to have a sex life? Why is it not marriage when there is no sex? Why be so narrow that love isn’t love unless there is sex involved?
Explain how prostitution has harmed societies where it is legal, please. Make sure that this is harm that doesn’t happen where prostitution is illegal, of course. What evidence would prove that harm, if you don’t want to believe there is any harm? If you do believe there is harm, how do you prove the harm is due to prostitution? After all, what harm does it do, when an act is between two consenting adults?
When I meet someone who would withhold the “human right” of marriage from people who don’t have sex and yet can explain how lesbians “consummate” their sexual relationship, I will be very interested in what they have to say. So far, though, no takers.
They can perform all the “marriages” they want, but I don’t understand on what grounds they are demanding it to be state sponsored besides the tax break. A lawyer on another thread spelled out that any unmarried couple (gay or straight) has the ability to contact a lawyer and file the paperwork necessary to garner all the other privileges that married people have right now.Whoa… there. This is a legal and civil rights issue. The burden is not on the oppressed class, it is on those who would deny them their rights.
I never made the claim that prostitution has harmed society, nor would such a claim be relevant to this discussion.
As with all such issues, it is incumbent on those who would deny the right to prove their point. Even if the bible were relevant to the legal debate, this issue would not be whether lesbianism is equated with more conventional marriage, but rather if it is specifically prohibited.
I was merely curious as to whether it is ever mentioned in the bible. My recollection is that it is not.
Nobody here would argue that the CC opposes gay marriage.
My question still remains unanswered. There have been many thousands of legal gay marriages performed in the US and elsewhere. Can anyone on this forum show evidence that harm has come from that?
I am not asking about what you believe, imagine, suppose, postulate, speculate or hypothecate to be true. I am asking for one instance of harm that has come from any of the many thousands of gay marriages which have been performed.
If you cannot provide a shred of evidence as to the supposed evil and harm to society, then you don’t have much to go on. Surely, by now, the evidence would be as plentiful as the marriages.
A 90 year old in the bible is only a story. The bible is an allegorical story. Or, do you believe that Noah lived to be 700 and that the earth was created in six days?If you wish to refuse to understand what we mean by the procreation argument that is fine. However I would just point to the 90 year olds in the Bible who had a baby and ask you how sure you are that those 60 year olds’s are in capable of procreation. I also think you are missing the point. For example, please try and tell me that the society uplifting skinny models has no effect on young girls and image they have of themselves. This is just one way in which society affects us whether we like it or not. If the government was working to promote this ideal that these models are what all girls should strive to look like wouldn’t you be a little po’d? I mean its going to happen either way but I don’t want the government supporting this ideal for girls in society.
Secondly you missed the other part of my argument where I put forward the idea that I don’t believe God has condemned anything that does not have a negative impact on society when that society promotes it. Examples would include divorce, contraception, abortion, stealing, murder, etc… I have yet to see someone show an example where the government promoting evil has benefited society.
haha how about Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth? I see zero reason to assume he is speaking metaphorically here. Abraham even tells the Lord he and his wife are way past there childbearing years. You have zero ground to take this any other way than that he is as old as it says he is. Also why do you discredit the idea that Noah could have been 700 years old? Have you found his remains?A 90 year old in the bible is only a story. The bible is an allegorical story. Or, do you believe that Noah lived to be 700 and that the earth was created in six days?
Yes, I do think I get your argument. Name one instance of even the slightest harm caused by the many gay marriages which have been performed. You have chosen to speculate as to the mind of God, and whether the translation of the bible which you choose is accurate. I say, show me this harm, since you cannot show me the mind of God. If it is true, then then it will be manifest. If it is false, then there is no evidence. Show me the evidence that your interpretation of the mind of God is correct, please.
Back to the legal argument, there are many more issues than the tax code. The reason that DOMA was struck down by the state supreme court of mass is that it is a state right to confer marriage. Since marriage is no longer gender specific in Massachusetts, then all parties to a marriage have the same rights. DADT prevented gay spouses from being included in health care plans and retirement benefits. Therefore, unequal protection under the law was provided, which violates the US Constitution, and many state constitutions. In addition, Federal employees were denied benefits for their spouses under the provisions of DOMA. Therefore DOMA is unconstitutional.They can perform all the “marriages” they want, but I don’t understand on what grounds they are demanding it to be state sponsored besides the tax break. A lawyer on another thread spelled out that any unmarried couple (gay or straight) has the ability to contact a lawyer and file the paperwork necessary to garner all the other privileges that married people have right now.
No, I have not found Noah’s remains, which precisely makes my point. Neither have you. Nor has anyone. Nor is the story of the Ark true. It is not possible to put all the species of the planet on a boat. They are still being identified. Only a small percentage of them are even known. Noah did not cross oceans to gather species on various continents. The bible when it is false must be seen as an allegorical document. The Pope certainly would not pretend to always take it literally, or am I wrong about that?haha how about Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth? I see zero reason to assume he is speaking metaphorically here. Abraham even tells the Lord he and his wife are way past there childbearing years. You have zero ground to take this any other way than that he is as old as it says he is. Also why do you discredit the idea that Noah could have been 700 years old? Have you found his remains?
You needed to go and meet the guy who was healed by Padre Pio. He could walk but had a knee that should not have physically allowed it. Or the woman who was missing part of her eye and was blind. She was healed and could see but her eye never was physically healed. The medical community still doesn’t know what to make of these cases where someone was “healed” but never actually physically healed.
How I wish someone would wake up and “whoa.” This has been falsely made into a civil rights issue by the false premise that homosexual relations and heterosexual relations do not differ.Whoa… there. This is a legal and civil rights issue. The burden is not on the oppressed class, it is on those who would deny them their rights.
I never made the claim that prostitution has harmed society, nor would such a claim be relevant to this discussion.
As with all such issues, it is incumbent on those who would deny the right to prove their point. Even if the bible were relevant to the legal debate, this issue would not be whether lesbianism is equated with more conventional marriage, but rather if it is specifically prohibited.
I was merely curious as to whether it is ever mentioned in the bible. My recollection is that it is not.
Nobody here would argue that the CC doesn’t oppose gay marriage. Some would say that the opposition is legitimate. Others would say that opposition irresponsible. Yet others would say that it constitutes evil. Certainly, specific examples are numerous as to the harm that prejudice has caused individuals. That is irrefutable. So, let’s suddenly be realistic, and require those who oppose gay marriage to prove that it is harmful. There are enough marriages that the evidence is plentiful, if it exists. Does it?
My question still remains unanswered. There have been many thousands of legal gay marriages performed in the US and elsewhere. Can anyone on this forum show evidence that harm has come from that?
I am not asking about what you believe, imagine, suppose, postulate, speculate or hypothecate to be true. I am asking for one instance of harm that has come from any of the many thousands of gay marriages which have been performed.
If you cannot provide a shred of evidence as to the supposed evil and harm to society, then you don’t have much to go on. Surely, by now, the evidence would be as plentiful as the marriages.