Changing the definition of marriage devalues my marriage!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheTrueCentrist said:
The problem with a conscience war is that the government can’t take sides based on religious reasoning. The “natural law” arguments are weak at best; you really do need to accept some religious premises before you can make a convincing case against the legalization of gay marriage. The other way to make a case against gay marriage is to provide actual evidence that gay marriage will harm society in a tangible way, something opponents of gay marriage have so far been unable to do. Just because you feel it is sinful does not mean it should be outlawed.
Click to expand...
And just because a segment of the population who feel their brand of sexuality is right, their unions should have legal status and benefits? By the way, in the states where SSM is not yet law, how can it be outlawed? If you were referring to homosexuality, nobody is proposing to criminalize it again.

Incidentally, your faith (with an id 'Yours), if you have any, is far from mine, and the views that you propagate are not the views of those you oppose in this forum. How about ‘Gadfly’ 😉
 
InSearchofGrace said:
And just because a segment of the population who feel their brand of sexuality is right, their unions should have legal status and benefits?
Click to expand...
Gay people are not trying to make gay sex legal. We are not talking about a “brand of sexuality” we are talking about a legally recognized commitment between consenting adults. So long as peoples’ arrangements are not demonstrably harmful, their commitments should be legally recognized as well.

This is not a slippery slope to marriage to inanimate objects or children or animals for the same reason they can not make contracts: they can not give consent nor be expected to honor commitments.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Gay people are not trying to make gay sex legal. We are not talking about a “brand of sexuality” we are talking about a legally recognized commitment between consenting adults. So long as peoples’ arrangements are not demonstrably harmful, their commitments should be legally recognized as well.
…
Click to expand...
You are being redundant. Read what I wrote: nobody is saying gay sex should be illegal again. It is no longer punishable by law!

For society to recognize a legal commitment between consenting adults, it has to answer other sectors who can and do have a case of ‘needs’ and ‘wants,’ e.g., brothers committed to looking after each other and live together, an aunt and niece, a mother and daughter? Why should a sexual relationship be the qualifier and limit the law to unrelated individuals of the same gender who simply wish to announce their commitment to the world for special treatment? Further, the polyamory and polygamy groups are seriously organizing in the wings to also fight for true love and commitment in sexual relationships. Why leave them out?

The fact that same sex pairing / configuration has led to an explosion of social and legal mess, i.e., creative ‘parenting’ and adoption by same sex couples, leading to a new class of cases in court, forcing Catholic adoption agencies to place children with same sex couples or close (as if such agencies merely want tax benefits and are not providing a service to the community), blurring of genders to confusion that bubble up in cases like the Ventura County case involving youths Larry King and Brandon McInerney, and so on and so forth.

Convince us all these have not been harmful to society.

Not to mention the undeniable harm to free speech already. So as not to veer away from the OT too much, I will be brief.

Mere tolerance is not enough. One must approve of homosexual acts, if one voices any disapproval of homosexual acts or of homosexuality being a disordered form of sexuality, one can be punished with the weight of the law. Of course, gay activists choose worthwhile targets, not just any member of the community.

Read about this legal case in the country to the north of us, which is ahead with the legalization of SSM in 2005: Pastor Stephen Boisson. In Sweden, registered domestic partnerships for same sex couples had been legalized in 1995 and ‘upgraded’ the law to SSM in 2009. Pastor Ake Green was convicted of a hate crime and sentenced by a district court to one month in prison in June 2004 for preaching a 2003 sermon in which he allegedly disrespected homosexuals, when he spoke of them being slaves to sexual immorality in need of abundant grace. You can follow the development of that legal case here.

I hardly think this is the kind of freedom or lack of that Americans would want.
,
 
I’m sure there are lots of divorced Catholics out there and lots of Catholics who have gone to a gay wedding anyways despite what the Church teaches…
 
InSearchofGrace said:
You are being redundant. Read what I wrote: nobody is saying gay sex should be illegal again. It is no longer punishable by law!

For society to recognize a legal commitment between consenting adults, it has to answer other sectors who can and do have a case of ‘needs’ and ‘wants,’ e.g., brothers committed to looking after each other and live together, an aunt and niece, a mother and daughter? Why should a sexual relationship be the qualifier and limit the law to unrelated individuals of the same gender who simply wish to announce their commitment to the world for special treatment? Further, the polyamory and polygamy groups are seriously organizing in the wings to also fight for true love and commitment in sexual relationships. Why leave them out?
Click to expand...
We have other ways of recognizing commitments legally; in most of your examples, one party could claim the other as a dependent on their taxes. Marriage protections are designed for two adults who are committed to looking after each other long term:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
People would not take on the above responsibilities unless they seriously trusted the other person, so random people (e.g. roommates) do not and will not seek these just for some special treatment.

Certainly polygamy would have to be considered, but that is a separate argument. This appears to be a fairly thorough discussion of legal issues surrounding polygamy (albeit from a Canadian perspective):
jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/canadian-decision.pdf
 
InSearchofGrace said:
Read about this legal case in the country to the north of us, which is ahead with the legalization of SSM in 2005: Pastor Stephen Boisson. In Sweden, registered domestic partnerships for same sex couples had been legalized in 1995 and ‘upgraded’ the law to SSM in 2009. Pastor Ake Green was convicted of a hate crime and sentenced by a district court to one month in prison in June 2004 for preaching a 2003 sermon in which he allegedly disrespected homosexuals, when he spoke of them being slaves to sexual immorality in need of abundant grace. You can follow the development of that legal case here.

I hardly think this is the kind of freedom or lack of that Americans would want.
,
Click to expand...
The pastor was acquitted:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ke_Green

The Swedish law would be transparently unconstitutional here in the US, it will not happen.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
…
People would not take on the above responsibilities unless they seriously trusted the other person, so random people (e.g. roommates) do not and will not seek these just for some special treatment.
Click to expand...
Did you misunderstand the examples I provided? They are not random people. A mother is not a random person to her daughter. A brother is not a random person to his sibling. Why couldn’t they have the same legal benefits if they find themselves unmarried or widowed later in life and decide to live together? Of course, trust is a component before a commitment to look after the other is worked out. If a family member is proven to be trustworthy through the years of familial relationship, there should be no problem.
,
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
The pastor was acquitted:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ke_Green

The Swedish law would be transparently unconstitutional here in the US, it will not happen.
Click to expand...
I know. But he went through a long trial where he was found guilty and was acquitted on appeal. A shame what he went through.

Priests in the U.S. will not be hounded by gay activists for preaching the wrongs of homosexuality and SSM? Don’t be too sure. There are already incidents, like this one in an Indianapolis Catholic school at that!
Priest accused of ‘anti-gay indoctrination’ for teaching Catholic view of homosexuality in class

Legalized SSM has already made an opening towards potential curtailment of free speech. But I will cut this side debate here in yielding to the narrower subject of the OP on its harm by devaluing traditional marriage.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
The problem with a conscience war is that the government can’t take sides based on religious reasoning. The “natural law” arguments are weak at best; you really do need to accept some religious premises before you can make a convincing case against the legalization of gay marriage. The other way to make a case against gay marriage is to provide actual evidence that gay marriage will harm society in a tangible way, something opponents of gay marriage have so far been unable to do. Just because you feel it is sinful does not mean it should be outlawed.
Click to expand...
We dont need any reason other than it is sinful. God is and He is the judge. I dont go by society standard and what dictates. If God says it is sinful and destructive, that is all I need. It is our God who determines what is good for us and what it is not. Man laying down with another man is an abomination to our Lord. This is a result of our sins. This is our punishment for being in disobedience to our God.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
The problem with a conscience war is that the government can’t take sides based on religious reasoning. The “natural law” arguments are weak at best; you really do need to accept some religious premises before you can make a convincing case against the legalization of gay marriage. The other way to make a case against gay marriage is to provide actual evidence that gay marriage will harm society in a tangible way, something opponents of gay marriage have so far been unable to do. Just because you feel it is sinful does not mean it should be outlawed.
Click to expand...
The problem with a conscience war is that politicians are too scared of being chastised if they stick up for principles which might have a religious basis. Those in government should be charged with sticking to their principles and not abandoning them because the secularists might give them curry. For you to state that the Natural Law arguments are weak at best is to show you do not know, or understand, what Natural Law is. At the moment, Natural Law arguments are the only arguments which soundly trounce arguments in favour of homosexual ‘marriages’, not to mention homosexuality itself. What you are demonstrating here is that governments and representatives are not allowed to use Natural Law arguments because they are too frightened to be seen espousing a philosophical and moral argument that might have a religious base. And so what if they do anyway? It was Christianity, with its adoption of Natural Law, that built the very society that is now too scared to use its foundational morality that it sits on to even justify itself. That reeks to high heaven of nothing more than moral cowardice. In fact, the stench is becoming overppowering.
 
John21652 said:
The problem with a conscience war is that politicians are too scared of being chastised if they stick up for principles which might have a religious basis. Those in government should be charged with sticking to their principles and not abandoning them because the secularists might give them curry. For you to state that the Natural Law arguments are weak at best is to show you do not know, or understand, what Natural Law is. At the moment, Natural Law arguments are the only arguments which soundly trounce arguments in favour of homosexual ‘marriages’, not to mention homosexuality itself. What you are demonstrating here is that governments and representatives are not allowed to use Natural Law arguments because they are too frightened to be seen espousing a philosophical and moral argument that might have a religious base. And so what if they do anyway? It was Christianity, with its adoption of Natural Law, that built the very society that is now too scared to use its foundational morality that it sits on to even justify itself. That reeks to high heaven of nothing more than moral cowardice. In fact, the stench is becoming overppowering.
Click to expand...
No. Politicians can’t make laws based on religious reasoning because that would be unconstitutional.

The natural law arguments are very weak, I have not once seen it stand up to any reasonable scrutiny. If they were convincing, there would likely be much more anti-gay legislation which used that reasoning.
 
wisdomseeker said:
We dont need any reason other than it is sinful. God is and He is the judge. I dont go by society standard and what dictates. If God says it is sinful and destructive, that is all I need. It is our God who determines what is good for us and what it is not. Man laying down with another man is an abomination to our Lord. This is a result of our sins. This is our punishment for being in disobedience to our God.
Click to expand...
Sure, you are perfectly welcome to not get a gay marriage, not recognize gay marriage in your church, and tell people you think their gay marriage is sinful. However, according to the rules of our democracy, the government cannot institute your version of marriage and in so doing impinge upon the free exercise of religions that wish to marry gays.

You may still oppose gay marriage, but you must recognize that outlawing it would require evidence beyond “God says so.”
 
InSearchofGrace said:
Did you misunderstand the examples I provided? They are not random people. A mother is not a random person to her daughter. A brother is not a random person to his sibling. Why couldn’t they have the same legal benefits if they find themselves unmarried or widowed later in life and decide to live together? Of course, trust is a component before a commitment to look after the other is worked out. If a family member is proven to be trustworthy through the years of familial relationship, there should be no problem.
,
Click to expand...
What stops those people from abusing marriage protections under the current definition? Incest laws are separate from marriage laws.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Sure, you are perfectly welcome to not get a gay marriage, not recognize gay marriage in your church, and tell people you think their gay marriage is sinful. However, according to the rules of our democracy, the government cannot institute your version of marriage and in so doing impinge upon the free exercise of religions that wish to marry gays.

You may still oppose gay marriage, but you must recognize that outlawing it would require evidence beyond “God says so.”
Click to expand...
Civil marriage, despite all its potential benefits, is of itself a violation of the first amendment. Marriage began as a religious institution, not a civil one, and chiefly is a religious institution, not a civil one. as I see it, civil “marriages” are an establishment of a religious ceremony, and thus a religion, of the state. This violates the separation of church and state.

To correct this violation, I propose that all civil marriage ought to be abolished; only churches and religions that have marriage ceremonies/abilities ought to be able to dole out marriages.

What, then, about the legal and economic benefits of civil marriage? One of two things: 1) all couples will have to organise this stuff through their lawyers, whether black or white; sodomite, sapphist, or straight; Jew or Christian; etc. OR 2) Grant anyone who wants these rights “civil unions”, which are like current “civil marriages”, but which remove any indication it is like the religious ceremony of marriage, and which are restricted and filtered to prevent legal abuses.

The “anyone in love” system is bound to be fraught with abuses. After all, in many ways it is cheaper to be a part of a legally recognised couple than to be single, right? But why? the government gives up some of its abilities to tax you and charge you in hopes that you, as a married person, will produce and raise fine, upstanding, PRODUCTIVE, TAX-PAYING citizens (which bring them even more money). Civil “marriage” and its benefits were developed not only to make legal stuff easier for two people who love each other, but also to make it easier to earn money. And that’s quite fine and all… except the “marriage” part.

In short: either we ought to rename and restrict civil marriage to civil unions - for ALL couples who have them - or we ought to abolish civil marriage entirely. This is because it violates the separation of church and state in which the state is not allowed to create its own religion, which it does with the ceremony of marriage.

That is my opinion.

BTW, who is that in your icon, TTC?
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Sure, you are perfectly welcome to not get a gay marriage, not recognize gay marriage in your church, and tell people you think their gay marriage is sinful. However, according to the rules of our democracy, the government cannot institute your version of marriage and in so doing impinge upon the free exercise of religions that wish to marry gays.

You may still oppose gay marriage, but you must recognize that outlawing it would require evidence beyond “God says so.”
Click to expand...
the only thing required is obedience to the sovereign of God. the government has no right to create different new breed of people or touch the Sanctity of marriage which has always been known to be between a man and a woman.
 
TarkanAttila said:
To correct this violation, I propose that all civil marriage ought to be abolished; only churches and religions that have marriage ceremonies/abilities ought to be able to dole out marriages.

What, then, about the legal and economic benefits of civil marriage? One of two things: 1) all couples will have to organise this stuff through their lawyers, whether black or white; sodomite, sapphist, or straight; Jew or Christian; etc. OR 2) Grant anyone who wants these rights “civil unions”, which are like current “civil marriages”, but which remove any indication it is like the religious ceremony of marriage, and which are restricted and filtered to prevent legal abuses.
Click to expand...
That is fine, it is a perfectly reasonable position. Notice that gays would still get married through sympathetic churches though.
 
Conor7 said:
If you deny homosexuals the right to marry based on your religious beliefs you make yourself very vulnerable. You’re inviting the state into your churches - your forcing the state’s hand to dictate what one can and cannot do in the name of religious freedom. Should we amend the constituion to allow women priests? It won’t stop there. It’s frightening to me.
Click to expand...
First you have to prove that homosexuals are being denied the right to marry. As I’ve said before there is no box on the marriage license to declare your sexual orientation. Since homosexuals can legally get married in every state of the union this is a non-concern for people with religious beliefs.
 
Conor7 said:
I think the hardest part about these debates is that they are based on feelings peppered with a little religion and perhaps a longing for a simpler time.
Click to expand...
You might as well have said that none of us employed reason to come to our conclusions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top