Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you ban all marriage not recognised by the Church?

[Publisher]

Publisher,

Please read the statement I made carefully. Did you see the part “as though”? At any rate, I have read a good number of your posts in this forum across many threads on the subject. I will not dredge up right now from your record of posts where you specifically or by context or by inference that you were targeting the Catholic position on same sex ‘marriage’ when Catholics really should be paying attention to the divorce-remarry-practice of its members rather than devoting efforts to battle SS’M’ legislation. This is the criticism from you that I am talking about.

I am sure you have engaged in such a line of criticism before where I was also a participant in the thread. If I happen to come across the exchange or exchanges on review, or when I have time to devote to do the specific search on said postings, I have a mental note now to bring them up to your attention – most likely in a private message, unless it is appropriate to insert it in a current thread, in which case you can extend me your heartfelt apology. Fair enough?

As I said, the Society of Friends are doing the same thing, the divorce-remarry-practice, but it so happens that it changed its prior disapproval of same sex ‘marriage’ to now blessing such unions. Your posts defend and endorse SS’M’ every chance you get in this forum.

I now yield to the main discussion of the thread.
,

Friend, I welcome any comments you have…I really don’t need them to be private from you…if I made public offense…I should make public apology and I’m sure others would enjoy reading them as well. I am more than willing to offer a public apology for any mis-statement or uncharitable remark. We seek to rely on one another as brothers and sister in Christ Jesus…none of us can discard the other…we are bound in Christ by the Holy Spirit…even in our disagreements, it is He and His Spirt that indwells each of us and makes us One in Him. We are Family after all…and family disagrees on many topics.

Yes, many Monthy and Yearly Meetings changed it’s view on same sex realtionships…we were among some of the first religous groups to do so, as early as the 1950’s in some Meetings, as we believe that of God indwells each of us…and each of us has something to share concerning our experience with God and how He moves in our lives…it took us a while to finally embrace the worth of our gay and lesbian Friends and include them into the full life of the Meeting.

What occurs on this board is very similar to some of our Meetings for Worship for Business…we get lively discussions and seek to reach understandings…sometimes we never reach consensus…but we continue to seek and hopefully find common ground and understanding just the same.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Friend, I welcome any comments you have…I really don’t need them to be private from you…if I made public offense…I should make public apology and I’m sure others would enjoy reading them as well. I am more than willing to offer a public apology for any mis-statement or uncharitable remark. We seek to rely on one another as brothers and sister in Christ Jesus…none of us can discard the other…we are bound in Christ by the Holy Spirit…even in our disagreements, it is He and His Spirt that indwells each of us and makes us One in Him. We are Family after all…and family disagrees on many topics.

Yes, many Monthy and Yearly Meetings changed it’s view on same sex realtionships…we were among some of the first religous groups to do so, as early as the 1950’s in some Meetings, as we believe that of God indwells each of us…and each of us has something to share concerning our experience with God and how He moves in our lives…it took us a while to finally embrace the worth of our gay and lesbian Friends and include them into the full life of the Meeting.

What occurs on this board is very similar to some of our Meetings for Worship for Business…we get lively discussions and seek to reach understandings…sometimes we never reach consensus…but we continue to find common ground and understanding just the same.

Respectfully, I think you need to bring back to your Meetings that your effort in this forum is noted and understood. But it will not bring about a change in doctrine of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and its faithful. True, your banding with like minded posters across different religious persuasions and atheists in this forum might give you encouragement that your arguments are convincing. Only to those who are already convinced to begin with, but not to the faithful Catholic membership here.
,

 

[Publisher]

Respectfully, I think you need to bring back to your Meetings that your effort in this forum is noted and understood. But it will not bring about a change in doctrine of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and its faithful. True, your banding with like minded posters across different religious persuasions and atheists in this forum might give you encouragement that your arguments are convincing. Only to those who are already convinced to begin with, but not to the faithful Catholic membership here.
,

Friend, I am not expecting to bring about a change to the Catholic church…I am a bit humbled that you would think I have that kind of far reaching influence on this obscure forum.

As we are Family, I think it good to keep the line of communication open and endeavor to understand one another…that seems to be one of the most difficult tasks Family has these days…understanding one another.

A heart felt peace to you friend.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Friend, I am not expecting to bring about a change to the Catholic church…I am a bit humbled that you would think I have that kind of far reaching influence on this obscure forum.

As we are Family, I think it good to keep the line of communication open and endeavor to understand one another…that seems to be one of the most difficult tasks Family has these days…understanding one another.

A heart felt peace to you friend.

That was tongue in cheek, of course.

However, homosexual Catholics and non-Catholics and their sympathizers who have been convinced that Church teaching is wrong hope to change the doctrine. If not practicable, by osmosis or affinity, the common hope or goal is to persuade more to add to the steam of the gay movement to have SS’M’ legal in every state, is it not? Big applause to the next state which will legislate SS’M’, correct?

The faithful membership is not naive.

Peace to you, as well.

 

[Publisher]

That was tongue in cheek, of course.

However, homosexual Catholics and non-Catholics and their sympathizers who have been convinced that Church teaching is wrong hope to change the doctrine. If not practicable, by osmosis or affinity, the common hope or goal is to persuade more to add to the steam of the gay movement to have SS’M’ legal in every state, is it not? Big applause to the next state which will legislate SS’M’, correct?

The faithful membership is not naive.

Peace to you, as well.

Friend…of course the goal of marriage equality for all 50 states is the desire of the marriage equality lobby…if it wasn’t…there is a lot of hub-bub about nothing.

However as I have stated in other posts…I do not believe that religious groups should be forced to conduct same sex marriages if their religious beliefs oppose it…the goas of the marriage equality lobby is a secular one…not necessarily a religious one…those beliefs you embrace concerning same sex marriage must also be allowed to find expression in your religous community.

The goal of marriage equality is secular…nor religous.

I have no desire to force a doctrinal change on your church body…any change will occur from within…I just do not wish your church doctrinal policy to be forced upon the secular nation I live within…I am not Catholic.

I realize your comment was “tongue in cheek”…as was mine.

If motives are to be ascribed to me…consider this…my only “goal” is to put a very human “face” on the “opposition” of this controversy…those of us who seek to be faithful the our understanding of our experience with God are “demons” in disguise…neither do we live in an antinomian malise of blindness…it is my goal to remain charitable and embody the Fruit of the Spirit in each discussion I take part…we are not enemies unless we choose to be…and I don’t choose to be any man’s enemy.

 

[Contarini]

Actually, there was a time when it would have been a new idea. Therefore “traditional marriage” is not so traditional, as marriage has changed numerous times throughout history.

When?

Ancient society had divorce.

Christians have always rejected divorce, but human beings as a whole have not.

The idea of a “ban” on gay marriage is itself a political-linguistic power play. It’s not a question of “banning” it but of radically redefining marriage in order to make the idea even comprehensible.

It’s quite easy to give gay couples all the practical benefits they need without calling their unions marriage and thus creating hopeless confusion.

The traditional Catholic position, by the way, would be that yes, these other marriages (such as remarriage after divorce) shouldn’t be allowed either. I’m just making the case that the cases aren’t the same. The view that a person can’t be married to more than one living person (I word it that way to exclude both divorce and polygamy) has always been a rather countercultural Christian teaching. The idea that marriage simply includes two people who love each other is a modern innovation. However, the breakdown of traditional Christian prohibitions on divorce is directly linked to this innovative idea, so I can see why people would see gay marriage as just the logical “next step.” Protestants who have acquiesced to the legitimation of divorce and remarriage have a lot to answer for. This is a far more serious threat to the Christian understanding of marriage, per se, than gay “marriage” is. But calling gay unions “marriage” is uniquely confusing, making it hard for Christians even to articulate how their understanding of marriage makes it different from that of secular culture.

Edwin

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Friend…of course the goal of marriage equality for all 50 states is the desire of the marriage equality lobby…if it wasn’t…there is a lot of hub-bub about nothing.

However as I have stated in other posts…I do not believe that religious groups should be forced to conduct same sex marriages if their religious beliefs oppose it…the goas of the marriage equality lobby is a secular one…not necessarily a religious one…those beliefs you embrace concerning same sex marriage must also be allowed to find expression in your religous community.

The goal of marriage equality is secular…nor religous.

I have no desire to force a doctrinal change on your church body…any change will occur from within…I just do not wish your church doctrinal policy to be forced upon the secular nation I live within…I am not Catholic.

I realize your comment was “tongue in cheek”…as was mine.

Noooo, I thought you were Catholic …

Just pointing out ‘marriage equality’ is an advocacy phrase, incongruous as gay ‘marriage’ or same sex ‘parents.’

That should tell you how big our divide is. It is a cultural battle indeed that covers a terminology warfare as well.

I would like to part with this, regardless of our divergent views, I love my homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ.
,

 

[Hokomai]

I haven’t read this whole thread, because its quite long, but I’ll give my answer to the OP.

I would not try to make such marriages illegal, the reason being that they still seem geared towards the states interest. If there are going to be any state laws with respect to who can and cannot be married legally, they need to be based off of an understanding of the purpose of having legal marriages in the first place as opposed to just private marriages. Why is marriage recognized by the state and why are people given special privileges for entering into this state? The only answer I can see is that it is beneficial for the state to encourage both procreation and the creation of a stable environment for the growth of children. This is necessary for the maintenance of the state by the , production, if you will, of more stable, healthy citizens who can maintain it. Because of this, any laws pertaining to who can and cannot marry legally must be aimed towards encouragin procreation, and creating a stable environment for the children once they are conceived. Same-sex couples can’t procreate, their relationship with each other is necessarily a sterile relationship, therefore I see no reason for the state to expand marriage privileges to such couples. Heterosexual couples who have been divorced can still form a fertile union and a stable environment for their children, so I see no reason for a legal ban on such people becoming legally married.

Thank you: a logical reason for the difference in approach. Let me though question your premise: that the state regulates marriage only, or mainly, or principally, because children are the result. If this premise is false, the rest of your reason for accepting heterosexual invalid (in Catholic eyes) marriages while rejecting legalization of homosexual marriages fails. It seems to me that a simple thought experiment wil demonstrate the truth or falsity of this premise. Let’s imagine that through some misfortune A significant percentage of the population is born with a condition which is visually apparent (let’s say blue skin, like in Avatar) and that this condition is associated, 100 per cent, with complete and permanent inability to procreate. This condition is not genetic, but caused, say, by particular action of the sun, which can be confidently predicted to continue for at least 10 million years. Do these people also find themselves excluded from marriage? I know you will say no, because the blue folks do not ‘intend’ to exclude marriage. But neither, in the same way, do many homosexual married couples. They would love to be co-parents, biologically, of children. Many seek assistance to achieve something like this. Also, Adoption is possible. Finally, even if you do not like my admittedly somewhat bizarre thought experiment, I think your premise if also wrong on historical grounds. In marriage law, more than anywhere else, the old adage about possession being nine-tenths of the law applies. That is why the state regulates. Even if no one has children, for or remaining time asa species the state would still regulate marriage and similar relationships. Interested in your thoughts!

 

[thewanderer]

Thank you: a logical reason for the difference in approach. Let me though question your premise: that the state regulates marriage only, or mainly, or principally, because children are the result. If this premise is false, the rest of your reason for accepting heterosexual invalid (in Catholic eyes) marriages while rejecting legalization of homosexual marriages fails. It seems to me that a simple thought experiment wil demonstrate the truth or falsity of this premise. Let’s imagine that through some misfortune A significant percentage of the population is born with a condition which is visually apparent (let’s say blue skin, like in Avatar) and that this condition is associated, 100 per cent, with complete and permanent inability to procreate. This condition is not genetic, but caused, say, by particular action of the sun, which can be confidently predicted to continue for at least 10 million years. Do these people also find themselves excluded from marriage? I know you will say no, because the blue folks do not ‘intend’ to exclude marriage. But neither, in the same way, do many homosexual married couples. They would love to be co-parents, biologically, of children. Many seek assistance to achieve something like this. Also, Adoption is possible. Finally, even if you do not like my admittedly somewhat bizarre thought experiment, I think your premise if also wrong on historical grounds. In marriage law, more than anywhere else, the old adage about possession being nine-tenths of the law applies. That is why the state regulates. Even if no one has children, for or remaining time asa species the state would still regulate marriage and similar relationships. Interested in your thoughts!

Actually, to be honest, I would have no problem with excluding them from legal marriage. There are further arguments the Church has which would make a distinction with respect to why they would be allowed a religious ceremony while homosexuals would not, but for the purposes of the state? I have 0 problem with the state excluding such problem from legal marriage. They can still make a loving comitment to each other if they want to, the state can’t interfere with that, they can even make such a comitment in the setting of a special celebration, including whatever elements they wish, but why would the state give them special benefits (at the expense of other citizens) if there is no way for their relationship to result in great benefit to the state, such as more, healthy, well-balanced citizens to maintain the state? I see no reason for it so I see no problem with the state making a law that excludes them from legal marriage.

 

[Jane_of_Arc]

Allegra;959062**5:

I disagree. It is obvious that marriage has been an institution of the state since one has to get a license in order to get married.

The question is, what benefit to the state is there if the state recognizes marriage? Society does see a benefit if people commit to a legal bond and agree to raise households with children. That was the original reason married persons were given a special concession on their income tax. I think there is a strong arguement that it is beneficial to the state for then to give couples an incentive to be married. However, if the counterpoint to that is that people must be forced to recognize unions that clearly aren’t marriages as marriages, then this option would be worse than the benefits to society from encouraging traditional marriage.

Actually, the nation is built on the backs of families consisting of man, woman, children. They are the people who want homes with yards/schools that provide good educations/police visibly present around those schools/libraries/public swimming pools/tennis courts,etc.

Therefore,jobs are created. Jobs in Construction, education, law enforcement, teachers, recreation,etc.

Classically, natural law refers to the use of **reason to analyze human nature – both social and personal – and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. We can know, without being taught, that “the pieces don’t fit” (with those practicing sodomy)& we can know that, by observation alone.We can know, through our own God given ability to THINK that sodomy does not produce children or propagate the human race. Natural law is contrasted with the positive law (meaning “man-made law”, not “good law”; of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus serves as a standard by which to critique said positive law.[2] According to natural law theory, which holds that morality is a function of human nature and reason can discover valid moral principles by looking at the nature of humanity in society, **]the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself.

 

[thewanderer]

(Snip)
Finally, even if you do not like my admittedly somewhat bizarre thought experiment, I think your premise if also wrong on historical grounds. In marriage law, more than anywhere else, the old adage about possession being nine-tenths of the law applies. That is why the state regulates. Even if no one has children, for or remaining time asa species the state would still regulate marriage and similar relationships. Interested in your thoughts!

Sorry, I just realized that I did not address this part of your post.

The fact that the state steps in to regulate property in these instances is an important thing to consider. I guess the way I see it is the necessity for the state to be able to settle property disputes is important, but it is a seperate issue from that of the importance of ensuring that good citizens are present to take over the care of the state and ensure the continuation of the states existence. Because of this I see no problem with a state having some sort of civil union which can be used to help settle property disputes among those who have been living together but who then seperate, and then having a seperate title, marriage, which is reserved for the sake of encouraging people to produce healthy, well-adjusted citizens for the sake of the continuation of the state.

To be honest, the idea that the state would take no interest in ensuring that it always has plenty of healthy, well-adjusted citizens to maintain and care for the state is just a little bizarre. Surely it is a matter of extreme importance to the state that it ensure that all things necessary for its continued well being are present. Because of this it just makes sense that a state would have special legislation specifically for the sake of encouraging people to procreate and raise their offspring in a stable environment, its kind of a really, really important element for the continued well-being of the state. So go ahead and have civil unions for all couples who are known to be completely sterile for the sake of settling property disputes, but make sure to have seperate legislation for the promotion of the begetting and raising of good citizens.

 

[mbrislawn]

The government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage in the fist place. The US Constiuion requires equal protection under he law for all persons. If you want to uphold the US Constitution, then either gay marriage must be recognized, or get the government out of marriage altogether. But to permit straight marriage without allowing same sex marriage is,as anybody who understands Constitutional law knows, discriminatory and a violation of the fourteenth amendment.

I think that the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business too. It’s funny, back in the '60’s and '70’s it became unfashionable to be married. Just live together. Like the song says. “why be bound by ink that has dried upon some line?” So marriage is somewhat unnecessary from that point of view, if you think that is it is not immoral to shack up.

As far as the Constition and equal protection, there is no discrimination, because there is no law prohibiting gays from marrying. Both the Church and law have long recognized various impediments to marriage–wrong age, too closely related, mental deficiency, etc. Being homosexual is not one of those legal impediments.

 

[Slavonic]

To be honest, the idea that the state would take no interest in ensuring that it always has plenty of healthy, well-adjusted citizens to maintain and care for the state is just a little bizarre. Surely it is a matter of extreme importance to the state that it ensure that all things necessary for its continued well being are present. Because of this it just makes sense that a state would have special legislation specifically for the sake of encouraging people to procreate and raise their offspring in a stable environment, its kind of a really, really important element for the continued well-being of the state.

The state already supports a stable environment for children and does so without regard to marriage. The state respects and supports parental rights and permits them to make medical, financial and legal decisions for their children. It also steps in when a healthy, stable environment is not being maintained for the child and can be appealed to in cases where one parent is not taking appropriate responsibility for the care of his or her child.

I’m not saying that child-rearing need be separated from marriage. But from the state’s point of view, child-rearing and marriage are separate things. I think this is made very clear by the fact that there is a separate tax treatment of single and joint-filers, and an additional deduction for dependent care. A married couple receives the join-filers benefit whether or not they have children or intend to have children. Those raising a child receive the dependent care deduction if he, she, or they are raising a child whether or not he, she or they are married.

The legal marriage contract is made for the two adults who wish to form a household. If this married couple choose to raise a child together the law has separate structures to ensure that they as parents can raise their child appropriately and provides other special benefits that they do not receive as a childless married couple. Taking this account, I see no reason why a same-sex couple cannot enter into a legal marriage contract and form a household.

 

[fix]

I have a question for Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you given the political practicality of such a move, also ban other marriages deemed not to be marriages by the Church - such as the ‘marriages’ of divorced people, or the ‘marriages’ of baptized Catholics outside the Church? if so, I assume for the same reason you oppose gays being able to marry each other. If not, why not, and why are you not campaigning for a ban?

The Church is interested in all of society. The Church recognizes many valid marriages outside the Church including natural marriages. So, your question is not meaningful.

 

[thewanderer]

The state already supports a stable environment for children and does so without regard to marriage. The state respects and supports parental rights and permits them to make medical, financial and legal decisions for their children. It also steps in when a healthy, stable environment is not being maintained for the child and can be appealed to in cases where one parent is not taking appropriate responsibility for the care of his or her child.

I’m not saying that child-rearing need be separated from marriage. But from the state’s point of view, child-rearing and marriage are separate things. I think this is made very clear by the fact that there is a separate tax treatment of single and joint-filers, and an additional deduction for dependent care. A married couple receives the join-filers benefit whether or not they have children or intend to have children. Those raising a child receive the dependent care deduction if he, she, or they are raising a child whether or not he, she or they are married.

The legal marriage contract is made for the two adults who wish to form a household. If this married couple choose to raise a child together the law has separate structures to ensure that they as parents can raise their child appropriately and provides other special benefits that they do not receive as a childless married couple. Taking this account, I see no reason why a same-sex couple cannot enter into a legal marriage contract and form a household.

If you will note, I was simply talking about what appears obvious to me as the ideal for a society, not what happens to be in place in our society currently. I can’t see how anyone could possibly claim that it is not important for a state to help ensure that it has good, healthy, well-adjusted citizens to keep maintaining the state. There are a couple of steps to gaining such citizens. First, they must be both conceived and born. Next they must be raised well. Now, the first part of all this can be simple and fairly cost-effective if done naturally, ie man and woman have sex, conceive, and give birth to a child they intend to raise, or it can become very complicated, messy and expensive. Now to me it makes sense for a state to encourage the simpler and less expensive method. They don’t have to ban any other method of having kids, but it certainly makes a heck of a lot of sense to have a special encouragement towards the simplest and easiest. The next step is raising the children well. Important things for raising a child well? A loving stable home where both parents remain comitted to each other and to their family. What is the best way for the state to encourage a couple to stay together? Through some sort of legal contract which brings special benefits to the couple. Providing counselling and therapy for those couples who need it could also help. Also extremely important is fostering a culture wherein such lifelong comitments are considered noble and to be striven for, so that people are encouraged to try to make it work rather than to just break up because they ‘lost the magic’. Encourage a culture where people are more careful in going into such a comitment in the first place. All of these things seem like important ways to help make sure that future generations of citizens are able to grow and mature into healthy, productive citizens. You could also still have another kind of legal comitment for those who simply wish to be in a relationship but who have no intention, desire, or ability to have children themselves. For these people it doesn’t matter whether or not they are encouraged to live out a lifelong comitment, so the state has less of a reason to encourage such comitments as being life-long. They also just in general have much less benefit to the state, so the state really shouldn’t care all that much about them. I am all for less involvement from the government, but even I see it as pretty obvious that a government should work towards ensuring the procreation and rearing of the future generations as they are absolutely necessary for the state’s continued existence. As for the way things are today, I think it is quite ignorant to say that marriage has nothing to do with raising children. It has been found that children raised in healthy marriages are much better off and more productive than children raised otherwise. Whether it is the intention of the current government that marriages have an effect on child-rearing or not, the fact of the matter is that it does. So, since it is the buisness of the state to encourage people to raise their kids well in a healthy environment and seeing as legal marriage as it currently exists is beneficial for children, it makes sense that the state consider marraige as the legal contract aimed primarily at ensuring its future citizens are raised in a stable environment. Raising future citizens well gives much more benefit to the state than legally recognizing the romantic love that exists between its current citizens. So if both of these are results of marriage, doesn’t it make sense for the state to pay attention to and protect that which is of most benefit? Yes, it absolutely does. Which is why I think it is in the states best interest to recognize marriage as aimed at the procreation and rearing of children, and then go and have some other legal recognition, such as a civil union, for those couples who have either no desire or ability to raise children.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I am absolutely against same sex marriage.

I am not against the legalization of it. I think that the government’s role should not be to enforce morality in cases where nobody else is directly harmed, especially in the case of two consenting adults. I do not want them to ban premarital sex, masturbation, adultery, or any other like sin where nobody else is placed in danger or harmed.

Are you really suggesting that no one is harmed or placed in danger when someone commits adultery? The spouse who was cheated on was harmed and if then divorced is placed in danger of poverty–as are any children of the couple. It is hard to believe we now live in a time when people no longer can see the harm and danger in something like adultery. Adultery harms the spouse who was cheated on, the children of the couple and society as a whole, and possibly the person with whom the adulterer had the affair–depending on what they knew. I am astounded at what we accept as harmless…ah yes good old adultery–the victimless crime.

The governments role should be to promote and encourage what is best for society as a whole–not what consenting adults want to do–though I fear that the idea of a more perfect union has given way a union in support of license.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Bill_Martin]

Are you really suggesting that no one is harmed or placed in danger when someone commits adultery? The spouse who was cheated on was harmed and if then divorced is placed in danger of poverty–as are any children of the couple. It is hard to believe we now live in a time when people no longer can see the harm and danger in something like adultery. Adultery harms the spouse who was cheated on, the children of the couple and society as a whole, and possibly the person with whom the adulterer had the affair–depending on what they knew. I am astounded at what we accept as harmless…ah yes good old adultery–the victimless crime.

The governments role should be to promote and encourage what is best for society as a whole–not what consenting adults want to do–though I fear that the idea of a more perfect union has given way a union in support of license.

Peace,
Mark

Physical harm is different from emotional harm. It is impossible to provide evidence for or against emotional harm in court, so I don’t want the government prohibiting things based on it.

 

[MarkInOregon]

There is no need to debate with someone who beats hatred and intolerance toward homosexuals. Christ commanded us to show compassion for others. Bigotry toward homosexuals flies in the face of Christ’s teachings.

You are the one who may be exhibiting hatred and bigotry and a lack of tolerance toward those who don’t agree with you. I haven’t seen anyone on this thread arguing that homosexuals should be denies food, water, housing, jobs, etc. I have’nt seen anyone propose that they be rounded up and put in camps. There has been a discussion of what it means to be married–of what marriage is–and if two people of the same sex actually fit that definition–or if it turns that definition on its head. This disagreement is not about hating someone or about being a bigot–and it is wrong of you to imply it does. You obviously have a different definition of marriage than many on this thread–what gives your definition greater authority–and give you the right to accuse others, with a different definition, of hate and bigotry.

I find your suggestion offensive to say the least. I have several relative who are lesbians and I love them dearly–doesn’t mean I think they should be able to marry their partners. For you to suggest that I don’t love them and that I hate them because of this is simply wrong and shows a lack of understanding what it means to hate. It is often a tactic that people resort to when they feel they are losing an argumetn or don’t have a counter–they scream hate and bigot. I know that you are better than that.

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Physical harm is different from emotional harm. It is impossible to provide evidence for or against emotional harm in court, so I don’t want the government prohibiting things based on it.

These things have definite economic costs which are studied – these children have a greater chance of growing up in poverty ,etc—I was not considering the emotional harm.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Bill_Martin]

These things have definite economic costs which are studied – these children have a greater chance of growing up in poverty ,etc—I was not considering the emotional harm.

Peace,
Mark

So do lots of things. Doesn’t mean they should be illegal.