Changing the definition of marriage devalues my marriage!

[Seatuck]

The above is not true. Many a Catholic couple married outside of the Church have been dutifully informed that there marriage is not considered valid unless performed by the Church. **In fact, my dear friend is currently battling with his parish priest over baptizing his daughter citing the fact that his marriage was performed outside of the Church and therefore not recgnized. The child is a bastard in the Church’s eyes, and although both parents are Catholic, they are presumed to be unmarried and cohabitating. **

You’ve negated your own point per your comment on Ephesians: “It would value marriage between only those whom love each other. But love as emotion can be fickle what happens when emotionally you feel that the love is no longer there? Society would tell you to leave.”

I’m curious why you ignored the points I made regarding the prevalence of divorce and the correlation between legalizing same-sex marriage and rates of self-identifying Christians.

You do not understand the church teaching in this area. This couple is considered unmarried but the child is not considered a bastard. The church requests that there be evidence of hope that a child will be raised Catholic before baptizing a child. The evidence produced by a cohabitating couple is that there won’t be much teaching of church moral values when the parents will not follow those teachings. If the couple is going go have the marriage convalidated then this is just a postponment of the baptism.

 

[Nate13]

I understand your points, Odel. For a moment, try to put yourself in the position of a same-sex couple.

Reason off the top of my head why marriage equality would protect these families:

Health benefits. One partner could place the other on his/her insurance. Marriage is about assuming the responsibility for the care of another human being. I find this completely consistent whether an opposite-sex couple, or a same-sex couple. In fact, let’s just lump all insurance and social services into this category, like accidental death and dismemberment, pension benefits, social security benefits. Marriage would ensure that these people are cared for in the event of their partner’s death. How well would survive if you (God forbid) lost your spouse?

You could also lump inheritance rights into the above.

Don’t you think your spouse should have the legal right to make important decisions on your behalf should you not be able to make them for yourself? Same-sex couples want the same benefit. If you were in a coma, would you want your sibling to decide whether to pull the plug? No, your spouse knows you better than anyone else and you would trust him/her to know and comply with your wishes. What about consenting to a life-saving operation if you were in a bad accident? Wouldn’t you want your spouse to make that decision on your behalf if you couldn’t? What about visitation rights in the hospital? Same-sex couples don’t have that right. Can you imagine the one person who loves you and knows you better than anyone being banned from your bedside? How can you legally sanction that?

What about the tax breaks you receive from being married? What about the lowered cost in insurance you receive from being married? Religion aside, should we constitutionally bar people from these benefits because we find love between two consenting adults somehow abhorrent? Do we have the right to make that choice?

Like it or not, gay couples adopt babies. Babies, I might add who are in much need of loving homes- homes where they’ll find love and be provided for. Something these children would not receive otherwise. Allowing same-sex marriage would only further ensure the protection of these children and these families for the same reasons cited above.

The list goes on…

Conor most of those benefits are available to homosexual couples today just by getting a good lawyer and setting it all up. As for the ones that aren’t I would ask you why you think those benefits are relayed to married couples in the first place? Do you really think we give those benefits to people just because they love each other? I only ask because I wonder how you can claim someone deserves a benefit if you don’t know why the benefit was given in the first place. For one thing our government does not recognize feelings, because they are arbitrary and there is little way to know for sure whether they actually exist between two people. No benefits are given based on the feelings people have.

I believe the adoption issue really just lies in whether you believe its enough that the couple raising the child loves each other. Do you think there is more to raising a child than that? Its also a matter of how big a difference homosexual couples really make in adopting children. The highest percentage I have seen out there for how many homosexual couples having children is 19%? Somewhere around 25% of these are actually adoptions. This does not speak well for homosexual couples actually making a difference in the grand scheme of things. There are around 1.5 million adopted children in the United States right now and the number of them currently in homosexual households is around 4%. I’m sorry but the idea that not allowing homosexual marriage would hurt children who need to be adopted is false. Not only have homosexual couples not shown the will to actually do it, but the amount of children they actually account for is incredibly low.

Also in terms of your friends who got married outside of the Church. If one of them was a baptized Catholic when they got the civil marriage then it would not be seen as valid. If neither was baptized when they got the civil marriage then it could possibly be valid assuming neither had been married before, it was between one man and one woman, and some other things. This is not new Church policy. Even if their marriage could be seen as valid they would have to go through the process to get it recognized by the Church.

 

[Conor7]

Conor most of those benefits are available to homosexual couples today just by getting a good lawyer and setting it all up. As for the ones that aren’t I would ask you why you think those benefits are relayed to married couples in the first place? Do you really think we give those benefits to people just because they love each other? I only ask because I wonder how you can claim someone deserves a benefit if you don’t know why the benefit was given in the first place. For one thing our government does not recognize feelings, because they are arbitrary and there is little way to know for sure whether they actually exist between two people. No benefits are given based on the feelings people have.

I believe the adoption issue really just lies in whether you believe its enough that the couple raising the child loves each other. Do you think there is more to raising a child than that? Its also a matter of how big a difference homosexual couples really make in adopting children. The highest percentage I have seen out there for how many homosexual couples having children is 19%? Somewhere around 25% of these are actually adoptions. This does not speak well for homosexual couples actually making a difference in the grand scheme of things. There are around 1.5 million adopted children in the United States right now and the number of them currently in homosexual households is around 4%. I’m sorry but the idea that not allowing homosexual marriage would hurt children who need to be adopted is false. Not only have homosexual couples not shown the will to actually do it, but the amount of children they actually account for is incredibly low.

Also in terms of your friends who got married outside of the Church. If one of them was a baptized Catholic when they got the civil marriage then it would not be seen as valid. If neither was baptized when they got the civil marriage then it could possibly be valid assuming neither had been married before, it was between one man and one woman, and some other things. This is not new Church policy. Even if their marriage could be seen as valid they would have to go through the process to get it recognized by the Church.

Nate, should a same-sex couple have to get a good lawyer to enjoy these benefits? Why should they have to get a lwayer at all? Why should they go through all the trouble when they can just to the court house and get a marriage license and be done with it? What would you say if I said I think black people should get a good lawyer to get these benefits?

As far as about 4% of adoptions taking place in homosexual households, I would argue that that’s an oustanding number. When you consider that between 5-10% of our population identify as homosexual, and adoption is quite the beuracratic process as compared to just having baby the organic way - that’s a statistically high figure regarding the number of children placed on homosexual homes.

To your point regarding my friends, you verified my point no matter how you spin it. Their civil marriage is not viewed as valid by the church. Therefore, civil marriage and marriage performed in a Catholic Church are not the same.

 

[Alindawyl]

Sure, it tells the husband to love his wife as himself, but the wife is supposed to submit to the husband. Ephesians goes on to give similar advice to masters and slaves:

Ephesians 6:5-9

The wife is supposed to submit to her husband, but the husband is also supposed to be willing to suffer and die for the sake of his wife. I am willing to suffer and die for my wife because she is my help mate, and she is willing to submit to me because I am her protector. It’s not a one way arrangement but a mutual submission done out of love.

That’s not slavery, no matter how much you may wish to imply it by selectively skipping from 5:24 straight to 6:5 and ignoring what lies between.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Nate, should a same-sex couple have to get a good lawyer to enjoy these benefits? Why should they have to get a lwayer at all? Why should they go through all the trouble when they can just to the court house and get a marriage license and be done with it? .

Not Nate, but the answer to question #1 is Yes. Because there is nothing in a same-sex coupling that benefits society objectively. The fact that same-sex couples maintain that their coupling benefits society because of their supposed “stability” is neither here nor there. Objectively speaking, and over time, it is traditional marriage, and the possibility (likelihood) of offspring in a complementary and balanced arrangement, for the full development of the child(ren), is what benefits society.

All other arrangements can go through lawyers: same-sex non-sexual relationships, relationships between relatives who want to draw up contracts, etc. And it’s absurd to marginalize non-sexual pairs (or trios or any other arrangements) by eliminating them from legitimate benefits by telling them they have to “marry” first. It’s a form of discrimination against non-sexual pairs, because the “marriage” of a homosexual couple is arbitary to begin with. So others have been arbitrarily excluded.

Marriage is far more than an economic contract or a utilitarian arrangement. That’s a pretty cynical use of the term.

Go through lawyers. Lawyers can do it all, and heaven knows how many unemployed and underemployed lawyers there are out there.

 

[vsedriver]

Nate, should a same-sex couple have to get a good lawyer to enjoy these benefits? Why should they have to get a lwayer at all? Why should they go through all the trouble when they can just to the court house and get a marriage license and be done with it?

 

[vsedriver]

and at a few months shy of my 30th birthday I’m starting to remind myself how no event in my life would compare to that of the love I would have for my children;

would you love your children enough to provide a loving mother for them? Would you love their mother like your own flesh so they can see the depths of your love for them mirrored in your love for their mother? Is it loving to deliberately deprive a child of experiencing the love of a mother and a father?

It is wonderful that you feel a need to share love and it is natural to want to share that love with children. But real love is putting the child’s needs before our wants.

 

[Conor7]

then you have no objection to me marrying my mother or brother right? I live with my 80 yr old mother. We love each other very, very much. Things would be so much easier if we were married. I could make medical decisions for when she gets older, not have to go through probate court to inherit the house. I could add her to my medical insurance plan and save her lots of money. I’m sure you wouldn’t object to this marriage, right?

Were you to expect me to take your point seriously, I would be forced to suggest then that we abolish marriage entirely and make everyone use lawyers.

what has race got to do with it? Actually, few are excluded from getting a marriage license. The question to be asked is, to whom can you get married? Homosexuals can legally get married in every state of the union as long as they marry under the same rules as heterosexuals. In fact, no where on any marriage license do you have to list your sexual orientation.

The general expection is that one marries someone with whom they love. Though your point is fair. Yet, we would not encourage loveless marriages, would we?

I think you are confusing how those statistics read. So how many of those homosexual adoptions were granted in spite of there being mom and dad homes waiting for a child. In other words would you give preference to a heterosexual home over a homosexual home? Do you believe a child has a God-given or natural law right to have the experience of both a mother and a father? How can any homosexual who says they love children willing deprive a child of the love of a mommy and daddy?

Also you can’t ignore the real reason there are so many kids in the foster system and not in adoptive homes. And that is because the state makes it next to impossible for a child to be pulled from a bad home at a young age. The state gives the biological parent literally years to get their act together and usually only pulls the kid when the parents can no longer care for the kid. I know plenty about the foster system. I have at least 15 foster nephews. Most of those kids should have been pulled from the parents at birth.

I want to be clear: Are you suggesting that the number of couples wanting to adopt far exceeds the number of children available for adoption?

If two people are Catholic they should get married in the Catholic Church. The Church does recognize civil marriage for non-Catholics. But for two Catholics to be Catholic they need a Catholic marriage. How can they embrace the civil ceremony and not their own religion’s ceremony? The difference is not between civil marriage and Catholic marriage, the difference is between Catholics and non-Catholics.

I don’t know - they didn’t have a Catholic service for whatever reason. Still I fail to see your point. Are you suggesting that same-sex marriage should only be prohibited for Catholic homosexuals? In which case, I have no problem with your solution. It seems fair to me.

 

[Alindawyl]

I fail to see your point, sadly. The OPs original point was that same-sex marriage would devalue his/her marriage.

It devalues the entire institution of marriage. Just as rampant cohabitation does. Just as no fault divorce does.

You write: “Homosexual acts (NOT homosexual urges; only acts) are intrinsically evil. We cannot do evil with the excuse that good will come from it. If we can, then anything from the tiniest lie to mass murder is justified if we claim good intentions.”

If you lie, it doesn’t devalue my thruthfulness.

The more people lie, the more they cheapen the truth. It causes scandal, leading others into error by giving the impression that the truth is not important.

Furthermore, our country does not live in a theocracy. You cannot legally discriminate in this country. To my original point, the question should then be, does same-sex marriage devalue my Catholic marriage? No. It doesn’t. At least no more than a secular marriage between an opposite-sex couple who uses birth control. Therefore, my question to you is: Why would you choose a battle that innately hurts others, and not go after liers or any number of other sinners. It seems you have something specifically against homosexuals, which seems extraordinarily anti-Christian to me.

And therein lies the core of the argument in favor of homosexual marriage. Being against homosexual marriage is seen as discrimination because marriage has already been redefined as a public profession of some nebulous feeling (not a free act of the will, but a mere feeling) we call love. If love is only a feeling, and that feeling is the only criteria necessary for marriage, then marriage should be open to anyone who claims to have this feeling.

And of course if they no longer have the feeling, it naturally follows that divorce should be just as available. So why support marriage on the basis of this feeling but not divorce on the basis of a lack of this feeling?

Or is it possible that marriage is more than just a feeling?

Why is your righteous indignation specifically target toward a small segment of the population unless you specifically want to damage people?

Do I specifically seek to damage people if I support keeping theft illegal? Or do I possibly have a different motivation? Say, one grounded in moral principles rather than this feeling of righteous indignation you posit here?

 

[Conor7]

It devalues the entire institution of marriage. Just as rampant cohabitation does. Just as no fault divorce does.

The more people lie, the more they cheapen the truth. It causes scandal, leading others into error by giving the impression that the truth is not important.

And therein lies the core of the argument in favor of homosexual marriage. Being against homosexual marriage is seen as discrimination because marriage has already been redefined as a public profession of some nebulous feeling (not a free act of the will, but a mere feeling) we call love. If love is only a feeling, and that feeling is the only criteria necessary for marriage, then marriage should be open to anyone who claims to have this feeling.

And of course if they no longer have the feeling, it naturally follows that divorce should be just as available. So why support marriage on the basis of this feeling but not divorce on the basis of a lack of this feeling?

Or is it possible that marriage is more than just a feeling?

Do I specifically seek to damage people if I support keeping theft illegal? Or do I possibly have a different motivation? Say, one grounded in moral principles rather than this feeling of righteous indignation you posit here?

I see and understand your points. I’m not dense, I get it.

Let me try a different tactic. Do you fear that when you deny someone a right based on your religious beliefs you open yourself up to that same criticism? I get that you are morally against it based on your religious beliefs, but where do we draw the line?

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.

 

[Nate13]

Nate, should a same-sex couple have to get a good lawyer to enjoy these benefits? Why should they have to get a lwayer at all? Why should they go through all the trouble when they can just to the court house and get a marriage license and be done with it? What would you say if I said I think black people should get a good lawyer to get these benefits?

As far as about 4% of adoptions taking place in homosexual households, I would argue that that’s an oustanding number. When you consider that between 5-10% of our population identify as homosexual, and adoption is quite the beuracratic process as compared to just having baby the organic way - that’s a statistically high figure regarding the number of children placed on homosexual homes.

To your point regarding my friends, you verified my point no matter how you spin it. Their civil marriage is not viewed as valid by the church. Therefore, civil marriage and marriage performed in a Catholic Church are not the same.

Actually civil union laws have tried to be put forward that group many of these benefits together for any couple that would want them whether their relationships is platonic or sexual. This would basically just be a way of grouping these benefits together for any two people that wished to make the agreement whether it was two men, two women, or a man and a woman. Unfortunately the homosexual agenda didn’t approve of these laws because they wouldn’t allow for the political win that they wanted in getting the government in states to specifically pass laws that gave the ok to specifically homosexual relationships.

It’s not an outstanding number because that shows that only 5% of all homosexual couples are interested in adopting. A majority of the children homosexual couples have are obtained by traveling to sperm banks or from a heterosexual relationship before where they had kids. In mind this shows that homosexual couples are more interested in separating children from one or their biological parents on purpose rather than taking care of children that have been separated from their biological parents through accidents or tragic circumstances. When a lesbian decides to go into a sperm bank and purchase sperm so she can have a baby she is purposefully making a choice to separate that child from her biological father when it could have been easily prevented. In my mind this is unacceptable.

Yes, but the Church does still view civil marriage as marriage. The question is just whether its a valid marriage or not. I’m not sure what point that proves for you.

Also could you please explain why we give out all the benefits for marriage that we do? You decided to skip that point from my last post, and I really don’t see the reason to continue this conversation if you can’t even explain the purpose of these benefits you believe homosexual relationships should have claim to.

 

[Conor7]

Actually civil union laws have tried to be put forward that group many of these benefits together for any couple that would want them whether their relationships is platonic or sexual. This would basically just be a way of grouping these benefits together for any two people that wished to make the agreement whether it was two men, two women, or a man and a woman. Unfortunately the homosexual agenda didn’t approve of these laws because they wouldn’t allow for the political win that they wanted in getting the government in states to specifically pass laws that gave the ok to specifically homosexual relationships.

It’s not an outstanding number because that shows that only 5% of all homosexual couples are interested in adopting. A majority of the children homosexual couples have are obtained by traveling to sperm banks or from a heterosexual relationship before where they had kids. In mind this shows that homosexual couples are more interested in separating children from one or their biological parents on purpose rather than taking care of children that have been separated from their biological parents through accidents or tragic circumstances. When a lesbian decides to go into a sperm bank and purchase sperm so she can have a baby she is purposefully making a choice to separate that child from her biological father when it could have been easily prevented. In my mind this is unacceptable.

Yes, but the Church does still view civil marriage as marriage. The question is just whether its a valid marriage or not. I’m not sure what point that proves for you.

Also could you please explain why we give out all the benefits for marriage that we do? You decided to skip that point from my last post, and I really don’t see the reason to continue this conversation if you can’t even explain the purpose of these benefits you believe homosexual relationships should have claim to.

I think I misiterpreted your original statistic regarding homosexual adoptions. I thought you were saying of 100% of adoptions, 4% of them were to homosexuals, which is why I thought that number was high since homosexuals make up 5-10% of the population. Does that make sense?

I don’t understand how homosexuals are taking children away from heterosexual couples. Perhaps I need clarification, but it appears as though these children are unwanted. I don’t see what’s wrong with adopting unwanted children.

As for sperm banks, I know little about this. I can only say that we both can empathize with the reasons why someone would want to have a biological child.

I didn’t skip your question regarding benefits. I thought I answered it before you even asked in a previous post. We give out these benefits to protect couples and families, unless you know something I don’t. We should reward people who want to provide stable households and be productive members of society.

Honestly, Nate, I have nothing against your opinions and see your points. I fear though we will continue to go around in circles with no outcome.

So let me ask you this to get at the true heart of the debate: Aside from religious reasons, which I think we can agree we should seperate from politics, what is your core reason against same-sex marriage? What do you think will happen?

 

[Alindawyl]

I see and understand your points. I’m not dense, I get it.

Let me try a different tactic. Do you fear that when you deny someone a right based on your religious beliefs you open yourself up to that same criticism? I get that you are morally against it based on your religious beliefs, but where do we draw the line?

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.

Your “different tactic” is the same tactic wearing a different dress. It’s still a claim of discrimination, that a right is being unjustly denied to someone.

Do rights come from the state, or do they come from God?

The Church teaches that they come from God.

The founders of our country, regardless of the religion to which they belonged (whether Christian or Deist or something they made up on their own a la Thomas Jefferson), agreed that rights come from God:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If the state wishes to pass an unjust law, how is that any different from any other time in history? The Church did not change moral teachings in the first three centuries to avoid persecution from the Roman authorities and make those teachings more palatable to the pagan culture of the time. Nor should she change moral teachings today to avoid potential persecution from current civil authorities and make those teachings more palatable to the systematic atheist culture of our present.

 

[Conor7]

Your “different tactic” is the same tactic wearing a different dress. It’s still a claim of discrimination, that a right is being unjustly denied to someone.

Do rights come from the state, or do they come from God?

The Church teaches that they come from God.

The founders of our country, regardless of the religion to which they belonged (whether Christian or Deist or something they made up on their own a la Thomas Jefferson), agreed that rights come from God:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If the state wishes to pass an unjust law, how is that any different from any other time in history? The Church did not change moral teachings in the first three centuries to avoid persecution from the Roman authorities and make those teachings more palatable to the pagan culture of the time. Nor should she change moral teachings today to avoid potential persecution from current civil authorities and make those teachings more palatable to the systematic atheist culture of our present.

Rights come from the state in this country. The state has successfully abolished your right to own slaves, which according the Bible, God has granted you.

And furthermore, with my right to practice freedom of religion granted to me by the state, I have the religious freedom to ask my Episcopalian Parish to grant me a same-sex marriage, which they fully support, and for the state to deny me would to deny my right to freedom of religion. So, if the state recognizes your Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony, they would therefore be obligated to recognize my Episcopal Sacrament of Matrimony.

I while the Church has or has not changed its teachings to be more palatable to the pagan culture of the time is up for debate, we can agree that the church has enacted certain customs and rituals to make itself more palatable to the pagan culture of the time. Enjoy Christmas and Easter.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If you deny homosexuals the right to marry based on your religious beliefs…

The “right” is a fiction. The “right” is not based in secular law, apart from religious belief.

 

[Nate13]

I didn’t skip your question regarding benefits. I thought I answered it before you even asked in a previous post. We give out these benefits to protect couples and families, unless you know something I don’t. We should reward people who want to provide stable households and be productive members of society.

Honestly, Nate, I have nothing against your opinions and see your points. I fear though we will continue to go around in circles with no outcome.

So let me ask you this to get at the true heart of the debate: Aside from religious reasons, which I think we can agree we should seperate from politics, what is your core reason against same-sex marriage? What do you think will happen?

The number 1 reason we protect and support marriage is to provide the best system in which new children can enter the world. The government has no way to prevent children from being born into bad marriages. Thus the only reasonable response is to do everything within reason to make sure there are as few bad marriages as possible that children are coming into. Children born into troubled marriages are more likely to end up being troubled children that end up being a burden on the state. Inspiring good marriages is a way to fight this problem at the source.

This line of reasoning in no way applies to homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships themselves do not bring new life into the world and thus there is no reason for us to worry whether they have good relationships or not in this respect. In terms of adoption the government has control to make sure children end up in strong loving families and there is no need to worry about whether some child will be born into a family with an abusive drunk father and a negligent mother. If a homosexual relationship is not strong and loving then there is no reason to let them adopt.

However, I don’t believe homosexual relationships are healthy. I don’t think the government is doing society a service by promoting homosexual relationships. I have no reason to worry about children being born into a family with parents who are in a homosexual relationship though. Children can easily be protected just by preventing adoptions, should a majority of people eventually end up agreeing with me that homosexual relationships are not healthy relationships, and children would be better served by not being brought up in such relationships.

In summary I don’t believe the government is doing children or homosexual’s a good service by allowing gay marriages.

1. The children argument just doesn’t apply. If a homosexual couple wants to adopt children they will make sure they have a strong loving relationships that can provide for such kids. If they don’t then I don’t want them to have a child, and I don’t have to worry about them getting one before they are able to satisfy the requirement. Arguing in favor of homosexual marriages in order to provide families for children without homes is nonsensical since by that reasoning we should only allow homosexual’s to marry if they are going to adopt children assuming we continue to have children that need to be adopted. Homosexual relationships would then depend on bad heterosexual relationships for existence. It would appear then that problem is the amount of bad heterosexual relationships, not the fact that we don’t allow homosexual relationships.
2. I don’t believe homosexual relationships are healthy for those involved in them. Thus I would never want the government to promote such a relationship in and of itself. They are of course free to participate in such relationships if they so choose though. I am for allowing them many of the legalities normally associated with marriage, just as I am for any two people who wish to make such agreements. If it is shown that getting these legalities puts undue hardship on these couples to do so, then I would be for making the path to set up these agreements much simpler for homosexual couples or any two people who found it in their favor to do so.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The above is not true. Many a Catholic couple married outside of the Church have been dutifully informed that there marriage is not considered valid unless performed by the Church. In fact, my dear friend is currently battling with his parish priest over baptizing his daughter citing the fact that his marriage was performed outside of the Church and therefore not recgnized. The child is a bastard in the Church’s eyes, and although both parents are Catholic, they are presumed to be unmarried and cohabitating.

You’ve negated your own point per your comment on Ephesians: “It would value marriage between only those whom love each other. But love as emotion can be fickle what happens when emotionally you feel that the love is no longer there? Society would tell you to leave.”

I’m curious why you ignored the points I made regarding the prevalence of divorce and the correlation between legalizing same-sex marriage and rates of self-identifying Christians.

The Church must uphold her teachings, dont you think? A Catholic must be married in teh Church to have their children baptized. This is the teaching of the Church. This is not called to question. This is for Catholics only.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Rights come from the state in this country. The state has successfully abolished your right to own slaves, which according the Bible, God has granted you.

And furthermore, with my right to practice freedom of religion granted to me by the state, I have the religious freedom to ask my Episcopalian Parish to grant me a same-sex marriage, which they fully support, and for the state to deny me would to deny my right to freedom of religion. So, if the state recognizes your Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony, they would therefore be obligated to recognize my Episcopal Sacrament of Matrimony.

I while the Church has or has not changed its teachings to be more palatable to the pagan culture of the time is up for debate, we can agree that the church has enacted certain customs and rituals to make itself more palatable to the pagan culture of the time. Enjoy Christmas and Easter.

The reason slaves was abolished was due to the owners mistreating them. God talks about slaves and gave permision to own slaves but He also says that the owners are not to mistreat them. If in this country slaves were mistreated was man doing and not God’s.

If you think that the state has more authority than God, then by all means go to the state because you know that with God we have no rights. We come to God to obey and not to claim rights.

 

[Conor7]

The number 1 reason we protect and support marriage is to provide the best system in which new children can enter the world. The government has no way to prevent children from being born into bad marriages. Thus the only reasonable response is to do everything within reason to make sure there are as few bad marriages as possible that children are coming into. Children born into troubled marriages are more likely to end up being troubled children that end up being a burden on the state. Inspiring good marriages is a way to fight this problem at the source.

This line of reasoning in no way applies to homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships themselves do not bring new life into the world and thus there is no reason for us to worry whether they have good relationships or not in this respect. In terms of adoption the government has control to make sure children end up in strong loving families and there is no need to worry about whether some child will be born into a family with an abusive drunk father and a negligent mother. If a homosexual relationship is not strong and loving then there is no reason to let them adopt.

However, I don’t believe homosexual relationships are healthy. I don’t think the government is doing society a service by promoting homosexual relationships. I have no reason to worry about children being born into a family with parents who are in a homosexual relationship though. Children can easily be protected just by preventing adoptions, should a majority of people eventually end up agreeing with me that homosexual relationships are not healthy relationships, and children would be better served by not being brought up in such relationships.

In summary I don’t believe the government is doing children or homosexual’s a good service by allowing gay marriages.

1. The children argument just doesn’t apply. If a homosexual couple wants to adopt children they will make sure they have a strong loving relationships that can provide for such kids. If they don’t then I don’t want them to have a child, and I don’t have to worry about them getting one before they are able to satisfy the requirement. Arguing in favor of homosexual marriages in order to provide families for children without homes is nonsensical since by that reasoning we should only allow homosexual’s to marry if they are going to adopt children assuming we continue to have children that need to be adopted. Homosexual relationships would then depend on bad heterosexual relationships for existence. It would appear then that problem is the amount of bad heterosexual relationships, not the fact that we don’t allow homosexual relationships.
2. I don’t believe homosexual relationships are healthy for those involved in them. Thus I would never want the government to promote such a relationship in and of itself. They are of course free to participate in such relationships if they so choose though. I am for allowing them many of the legalities normally associated with marriage, just as I am for any two people who wish to make such agreements. If it is shown that getting these legalities puts undue hardship on these couples to do so, then I would be for making the path to set up these agreements much simpler for homosexual couples or any two people who found it in their favor to do so.

Fair enough, Nate. I’m exhausted so I’m quiting for now, but I’ve honestly enjoyed the debate. I’ve got like 7 of you on one me at this point. Perhaps I’ll assemble a posse and come back.

Know that at the core of your arguments, I don’t really disagree with you, but rather was trying to challenge you to consider things differently. And look, I respect your feelings on the matter.

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.

At any rate, all the debate in the world is probably futile. It seems the state of affairs is heading in one direction.

God bless.

 

[Alindawyl]

Rights come from the state in this country.

An error in the beginning is an error indeed - St. Thomas Aquinas.