Being against same-sex marriage, assumed to be hateful

[Roscoe_Turner]

No, no, you are not understanding my question. I am not asking if.the.practice should work as alcohol.industry or being (the purpose of the tax in case of tobacco and alcohol.is like a penalty to make.it more expensive so people have difficulty buying it, and the intent behind.it is to discourage the behavior or to make it like, you want it then you pay extra for it). My question is if a law should be passed giving cocaine dealers benefits for entering into the cocaine trafficking business as a way to.encourage the cocaine sale and it’s consumption i.e. if you open a crack cocaine store you get a huge tax break.

No, I don’t think there needs to be incentives.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Legal definition of.bribery: offering, giving, soliciting or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. Bribery constitutes a core and both the offer or and the recipient can be criminally charged.

There are only two parties in bribery, offer or and recipient. Offer or is the person that gives, solicits and offer. The recipient receives. From.a.Legal point of view there is no other party to the action.

Legal definition of.party: persons involved either in a transaction or proceeding.

Given that in the transaction of.Bribery there is only one offering party and one receiving party, no there are no more than two parties and both parties have the same intent to the.transaction. If you still insist that I am wrong then go and read United States v. Sun Diamond Growers, 526 US 398, 119 S.Ct. 1402 (1999) and 18 USC section 201

I think we’ll have agree to disagree but I’ll check out the case.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Perhaps the thinking is: “The horse is dead, so what’s the harm?”

This is the problem with holding a “Don’t harm” or negative view of ethics being proposed by people like Roscoe Turner. There is no positive vision concerning where we ought to go, what we ought to do or what the good actually is. They see it as merely, “Avoid doing damage.”

I am not clear that any civilization or functional society can come about or be advanced by a population of individuals whose sole vision of the good is merely a non-negative one.

Don’t do harm can never logically equal Do good, precisely because it neither proposes nor espouses ANY vision of the GOOD.

It is like proposing the paradigm of good health to be: “Don’t get sick.” Throw in the libertarian form and you get, “You are free to do whatever you want but don’t get sick!”

It is, at bottom, an admission that, “We don’t know what the good is, we just know that it shouldn’t hurt.”

You begin to wonder why so many are taken in by such a robust ethical theory.

Very helpful

I see my position as a civic one rather than a proposal of a moral code.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I see my position as a civic one rather than a proposal of a moral code.

I understand that, but any “civic” position must be grounded in a moral one to have any meaning.

Why should a collective of individuals that an individual happens to have been born into have any authority over its members? There has to be a moral basis for legal authority or there is none. Politics is grounded in ethics.

You cannot say the law has the ultimate say without explaining why it should be taken as such. Otherwise, any law is de facto right merely because it is the law. Do you want to take that view? Obviously, slavery wasn’t “good” and right until it became illegal, was it?

The law can err and overstep its authority precisely because it is humans who make the law. To claim the law is ultimate is to concede that morality is, at ground, man made, optional and not transcendently binding on all moral beings, in short, that it is not obligatory but rather contractual or pragmatic. Is that your position?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I understand that, but any “civic” position must be grounded in a moral one to have any meaning.

Why should a collective of individuals that an individual happens to have been born into have any authority over its members? There has to be a moral basis for legal authority or there is none. Politics is grounded in ethics.

You cannot say the law has the ultimate say without explaining why it should be taken as such. Otherwise, any law is de facto right merely because it is the law. Do you want to take that view? Obviously, slavery wasn’t “good” and right until it became illegal, was it?

The law can err and overstep its authority precisely because it is humans who make the law. To claim the law is ultimate is to concede that morality is, at ground, man made, optional and not transcendently binding on all moral beings, in short, that it is not obligatory but rather contractual or pragmatic. Is that your position?

You find the “golden rule” disagreeable?

 

[vsedriver]

Every other form of marriage you list has one distinctive trait - the possibility of creating new life, whether that life be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Moslem or “civil.” We are not talking about being more inclusive to a workable definition of marriage, we are speaking of redefining to the point of making it unrecognizable.

 

[atheistgirl]

Very diplomatic, but profoundly naive.

Maybe.

But I rejoice in my naivety every time yet another Country or State recognizes the equality under the law of marriages of people of the same sex.

It gives me great hope for the future of mankind and the world my grandchildren will be born into.

Sarah x

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Maybe.

But I rejoice in my naivety every time yet another Country or State recognizes the equality under the law of marriages of people of the same sex.

It gives me great hope for the future of mankind and the world my grandchildren will be born into.

Sarah x

Me too!!!

 

[atheistgirl]

I would also like to add, when it comes to homosexual couples having their own children whether it be IVF or surrogacy, do you think it is right, to intentional bring a child into this world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their biological mother or father when it is not done to benefit the child?

Thank you for reading
Josh

Hi Josh

I’ll come back to your very long but enjoyable previous post when I get time later today perhaps.

However as this is a shorter one I can quickly reply - I have no issues with IVF.

This advancement in science has brought great joy to both heterosexual and homosexual couples who otherwise may not be able to have children.

ASRM studied this issue in depth and found ‘‘that ethical arguments supporting denial of access to fertility services on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation cannot be justified’’

Your statement in your post also makes all sorts of baseless assumptions about the motivations of a same sex couple to want and have a child.

Sorry I need to leave now but will end by saying there is no convincing evidence that a child brought up by a same sex couple are in any way disadvantaged.

Sarah x

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Hi Josh

I’ll come back to your very long but enjoyable previous post when I get time later today perhaps.

However as this is a shorter one I can quickly reply - I have no issues with IVF.

This advancement in science has brought great joy to both heterosexual and homosexual couples who otherwise may not be able to have children.

ASRM studied this issue in depth and found ‘‘that ethical arguments supporting denial of access to fertility services on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation cannot be justified’’

Your statement in your post also makes all sorts of baseless assumptions about the motivations of a same sex couple to want and have a child.

Sorry I need to leave now but will end by saying there is no convincing evidence that a child brought up by a same sex couple are in any way disadvantaged.

Sarah x

For the sake of being fair it should be noted that those baseless assumptions about the motivations of same-sex couples are also made about hetero couples that choose IVF. People who have anguished with infertility are often called awful things on this site, but I think my favorite is “People see children as a right and that they have a right to have a child, regardless of what that means for the child that is created”.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Given that in the transaction of.Bribery there is only one offering party and one receiving party, no there are no more than two parties and both parties have the same intent to the.transaction. If you still insist that I am wrong then go and read United States v. Sun Diamond Growers, 526 US 398, 119 S.Ct. 1402 (1999) and 18 USC section 201

I found this bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/526/526.US.398.98-131.html

I don’t see it making your point. Much is differentiating between a bribe and an illegal gratuity and what constitutes illegal gratuity.

It functions that illegal gratuity is a public harm because of undue influence relieved from the illegal gratuity. Which is what I was saying. The victims of illegal gratuity is the public. It’s not a victimless crime. Just because there are two perpetrators, the giver and the reciever doesn’t mean there is no victim.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

A few things. If this is a legal contract then please define for me “family bond.” Are there penalties for breaking the “family bond?” “Usually stemming from a romantic coupling.” Using the term “usually” means that a romantic coupling is not necessary prior to or during the civil marriage. While I’m okay with prior to, as my wife and I waited, the problem is that it opens more doors. Now you have people who care for each other, but not romantically, who are to marry. So by your definition, two close friends can marry just for the sake of getting financial benefits (unless you can explain how a close relationship disqualifies from being a family bond). This has reduced the meaning of marriage considerably. Completely altered it, in fact.

Divorce is a dissolving of the contract. In the particulars of dissolving of the contract, the arrangements of property may be construed as penalty.

I think many “senior” marriages are marriages of friendship and connivence. I don’t see the problem.

Civil marriage has always been a legal bond that conveys a family (spousal) relationship. I just added “where a family bond didn’t exist prior” - Keeps incest out it, per your request

 

[marymary1975]

I found this bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/526/526.US.398.98-131.html

I don’t see it making your point. Much is differentiating between a bribe and an illegal gratuity and what constitutes illegal gratuity.

It functions that illegal gratuity is a public harm because of undue influence relieved from the illegal gratuity. Which is what I was saying. The victims of illegal gratuity is the public. It’s not a victimless crime. Just because there are two perpetrators, the giver and the reciever doesn’t mean there is no victim.

First, do you realize you the link you gave is to the writ of certiorari? Why are you giving me a certiorari??? I gave you the statute and the citation for the Supreme Court’s decision. What does a certiorari have to do in here?

However, I see that your argument is that one of an.indirect victim. The public is an “indirect” victim. There are only two parties but the actions of those two parties have repercussions on the public and those repercussions are viewed as immoral. It is exactly the same with drug abuse, drug trafficking and yes, it is the same with homosexuality…the public is affected by the legalization of marriage…how? When public schools are having planned parenthood to give speeches to 6,7 years olds without informing their parents about the fact that is perfectly normal for two men to kiss each other, the minute that Rhode island forbids father and daughter dances or mother and sons events because of gay families, the minute schools are forbidden to use the words mother and father in their School forms despite the fact that 90% of the kids have a mother and father, the minute the vocabulary gets changed to promote homosexual conduct, when people are accused of bigotry because they don’t agree with homosexual marriage, when a.business who has a legal right to refuse to enter into a contract is forced to pay money for something that for others is a right. Homosexual.marriage has the same victim as bribary…the public.

 

[Havard]

I’m just confused what the point of marriage is supposed to be, in American jurisprudence. (Please note: I am NOT talking about the Sacrament.)

No fault divorces tells us that it’s not a life-long commitment.
Marriages of convenience tell us that romantic feelings aren’t necessary.
Clearly there doesn’t have to be a procreative potential…
Nor does one need to intend to adopt…
But there can’t be more than two parties (not three, or more)
And those parties can’t be related… even though many marriages are sexless, and marriages of convenience are okay.

And in this strange, amalgamation of rules, this bizarre group of vastly different relationships is held out to have certain privileges, such as the privilege against compelling a spouse to testify (just one example).

I’m sorry, but it’s all laughable… it’s a circus. We’re supposed to believe that this almost completely arbitrary grouping of vastly different relationships deserves special treatment? I know a gay man that married a straight woman in CA so that they could joint file their 1040, and magically that relationship is stronger than the woman I know who takes care of her disabled adult daughter?

Sorry for the random tangent, but it makes me laugh when people say they are for gay marriage, but “blood relatives and polygamy are completely different.” I’m sorry,but if sex, love, and procreation are all completely optional to the civil institution, leaving incest aside, why are YOU against granting extra privileges to people’s relationships if they are blood relatives? Why can’t we all get extra privileges? Even single people!

 

[marymary1975]

Divorce is a dissolving of the contract. In the particulars of dissolving of the contract, the arrangements of property may be construed as penalty.

I think many “senior” marriages are marriages of friendship and connivence. I don’t see the problem.

Civil marriage has always been a legal bond that conveys a family (spousal) relationship. I just added “where a family bond didn’t exist prior” - Keeps incest out it, per your request

And just for both of your edification, marriage is not part of contract law and no divorce doesn’t dissolve any contracts. Marriage had its origin many centuries ago in contract law, and indeed was a contract back in the day but not anymore, it broke apart from the.contract law and became a.completely separate area of the law.called.domestic law, with its own set of rules, doctrines and regulations… Marriages do not meet the requirements to be a contract and shouldn’t be compared with contracts. And by the way there is no such thing as a contract dissolution.

 

[josh987654321]

If none of you are calling for gay marriage not be legalized. I don’t know what we are discussing. If your position it’s immoral but we must live with it civilly, we have reached an amnicable solution.

I believe a homosexual union is immoral, I believe we should live with it civilly, I believe that it’s a consensual act and thus why it should not be criminalise nor would I argue for it to be made illegal, I also believe that same sex marriage doesn’t legalise a homosexual union and I believe the question is whether or not it is a marriage.

Because I believe the whole argument is whether we should allow homosexual couples (the right as they say) to be legally recognised as a marriage? And to answer that wouldn’t we first have to determine what a marriage is? and if marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

like I said before, I believe it comes back to the simple fact that God created a man and a woman (as for evolution I don’t believe we evolved from nothing).

It was set up this way by God, as Jesus so well states when it comes to marriage in the below passage, it is this simple reality that lies at the heart of the definition of marriage.
Gospels:

**Matthew 19:4-6

4 Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? 5 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. 6 Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”

Mark 10:6-9

6 But in the beginning God made a man and a woman. 7 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. 8 He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one. 9 And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”**

To me this makes absolute and perfect sense and I don’t know how marriage could be viewed any other way.

When you remove this key to the definition of marriage, than as I have attempted to show, in other words “anything is up for graps” because I believe all secular arguments defining marriage are full of flaws and destined to fail, thus openeing the doors to many other definitions and like I said, once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

I also believe skigirl1689 asked whether her friends argument that we are “in short” wrong and unjust for supporting traditional marriage was an accurate one.

So this is why I would like to ask, do you believe I would be discriminating (wrong/unjust) against homosexual couples by legally defining marriage as only between a man and a woman?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[atheistgirl]

For the sake of being fair it should be noted that those baseless assumptions about the motivations of same-sex couples are also made about hetero couples that choose IVF. People who have anguished with infertility are often called awful things on this site, but I think my favorite is “People see children as a right and that they have a right to have a child, regardless of what that means for the child that is created”.

I agree with you, completely.

Sarah x

 

[josh987654321]

Maybe.

But I rejoice in my naivety every time yet another Country or State recognizes the equality under the law of marriages of people of the same sex.

It gives me great hope for the future of mankind and the world my grandchildren will be born into.

Sarah x

May I ask, how do you determine “equality under the law of marriages”? what is the law of marriages and why is it defined that way?

Hi Josh

I’ll come back to your very long but enjoyable previous post when I get time later today perhaps.

cool

However as this is a shorter one I can quickly reply - I have no issues with IVF.

Okay.

This advancement in science has brought great joy to both heterosexual and homosexual couples who otherwise may not be able to have children.

Okay. I agree.

ASRM studied this issue in depth and found ‘‘that ethical arguments supporting denial of access to fertility services on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation cannot be justified’’

I think you took out of my argument, that which was not intend, please let me reiterate.

When it comes to homosexual couples having their own children whether it be IVF or surrogacy, do you think it is right, to intentional bring a child into this world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their biological mother or father when it is not done to benefit the child?

I didn’t intend for it to be a discussion about IVF or surrogacy, I intended it to be a discussion about the unique bond shared between a biological mother/father and their child and vice versa, thus whether you believe it is right/moral to sever this when it is not done in any way to benefit the child as in the scenario I have given.

Your statement in your post also makes all sorts of baseless assumptions about the motivations of a same sex couple to want and have a child.

May I ask what the baseless assumptions are?

Sorry I need to leave now but will end by saying there is no convincing evidence that a child brought up by a same sex couple are in any way disadvantaged.

Sarah x

Like I said when it comes to adoption, I try to avoid that area of things because I believe there is not a “one size fits all solution.”

My argument isn’t intended to be about the parenting capabilities of certain couples/groups, it’s about the sever of the biological connection between mother/father and child when it isn’t done in any way with an intent to benefit the child?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Nacho45]

What is the official Catholic Church position on homosexual marriage?

 

[josh987654321]

What is the official Catholic Church position on homosexual marriage?

Catechism of The Catholic Church:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

That’s all I have been able to find officially from the Catholic Church on the matter.

I would also like to add this though -

Leviticus say’s this -
Law of Moses:

**Leviticus 18:22
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.**

(I don’t view it like this, just using Leviticus to show similarities).

This is what Leviticus say’s about Adultery -
Law of Moses:

**Leviticus 18:16
16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

Leviticus 20:10
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. **

Jesus than say’s this in the New Testament -
Gospel of Matthew:

**Matthew 5:17-20

The Law of Moses

17 Don’t suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets.[a] I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning. 18 Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen.

19 If you reject even the least important command in the Law and teach others to do the same, you will be the least important person in the kingdom of heaven. But if you obey and teach others its commands, you will have an important place in the kingdom. 20 You must obey God’s commands better than the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law obey them. If you don’t, I promise you that you will never get into the kingdom of heaven.**

I believe Jesus fulfills the Old Testament here -
Gospel of John:

**John 8:3-11

A Woman Caught in Sin

3 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law of Moses brought in a woman who had been caught in bed with a man who wasn’t her husband. They made her stand in the middle of the crowd. 4 Then they said, “Teacher, this woman was caught sleeping with a man who isn’t her husband. 5 The Law of Moses teaches that a woman like this should be stoned to death! What do you say?”

6 They asked Jesus this question, because they wanted to test him and bring some charge against him. But Jesus simply bent over and started writing on the ground with his finger.

7 They kept on asking Jesus about the woman. Finally, he stood up and said, “If any of you have never sinned, then go ahead and throw the first stone at her!” 8 Once again he bent over and began writing on the ground. 9 The people left one by one, beginning with the oldest. Finally, Jesus and the woman were there alone.

10 Jesus stood up and asked her, “Where is everyone? Isn’t there anyone left to accuse you?”

11 “No sir,” the woman answered.

Then Jesus told her, “I am not going to accuse you either. You may go now, but don’t sin anymore.” **

So thus I believe that the sexual acts of homosexuality should be seen likewise.

I also believe Homosexuals are no different to any one of us, I believe not one person doesn’t have an immoral desire and that our desires are not who we are, because we make that choice.

I also believe that the morality of the act doesn’t change simply because of our desire for it, because I think that would be like wrecklessly giving into our every desire, throwing our hands up in the air and saying “If God didn’t want me to do this, than he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it.”

Telling us to obey instinct is like telling us to obey ‘people.’ People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war… Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of the rest. C.S. Lewis

Please feel free to reply/refute any of this.

Thank you for reading
Josh