V
- Status
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Fine by me. They’re idiots for doing so, but they have every right to their idiocy. Just as sceptics have to their doubt, and new-earth creationists to their unscientific model.
Besides, most people will not recognise it. The RCC certainly will not, and as far as I am concerned, that is all that matters.
V
vsedriver
Guest
and if the state allows gay marriage can the state force a church to support it? How about a Church run school, or hospital? Would they have to fire all their gay employees so as to not be forced to recognize a state marriage and supply those employees with marriage benefits?
V
vsedriver
Guest
I guess we can change those laws as there is no real foundation for them anyway.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
In other words, you don’t have an argument. In fact, early in the year, a Canadian judge had in front of him a landmark challenge to his country’s ban on polygamy as unconstitutional — a case being closely watched in Utah.
We have gay people who want the legal right to marry and it is legal in five states (or six?) here in the U.S. And right behind gays is another group of Muslims and Mormons who would pick up that legal precedent and rightly march into court and demand their place at the marriage altar. You think that’s far fetched? 70% of American Muslims are for sharia law and legalized polygamy.
There are groups in Utah and even in other states like Wisconsin that are actually gearing up for it. As one guy in Wisconsin puts it, gay marriage begets polygamy. So the concern for legalized polygamy is no red herring.
As another poster stated, the foundation of incest laws becomes moot with the foundation you’ve put forth that gays have a legal right to ‘marry’ on the basis of a commitment between consenting adults.
J
John21652
Guest
Oh really. Where does it say that? Are you saying logic isn’t allowed?
You have done an excellent job of not answering my post and an even more excellent job of just repeating what you said in the first place!
If you think Natural Law arguments wont stand up to “….reasonable scrutiny…”, then I’d have to conclude that you’ve never come across reasonable scrutiny. There’s an old saying which goes along the lines of the Natural Law has a habit of burying its undertakers.
Do you accept that the U.S. D.of I. is a Natural Law document? And do you accept that the U.S. Constitution is a Natural Law document? If you do, then please explain why it is that a Natural Law document cannot be used to support Natural Law reasoning and vice-versa?
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Curtailment of freedom to exercise religion is unconstitutional. The state is precluded from establishing and forcing a religion on the people. It is not saying laws are to be drawn free from religious and moral reasoning. The founders of this nation and the laws that the U.S. formulated as a new country were based on moral and religious principles. That the government has now moved way to the left in its misguided belief that expansion of all minority rights should be entertained, considering said expansion as ‘social progress’, is not progress.
A simplified natural law argument: Without relying on a book or any advanced degree, the body of a man or a woman tells you and me, as it has done to all people through the ages, the purpose of the sexual organ basing on its design. Hence gay sex is impossible; it approximates what a sex act is but it is not a sex act, technically speaking. Hence, it does not qualify as a marital act. Marital, you know, as associated with marriage? Hence, gay ‘marriage’ is a faux marriage. Gay couples do not have a claim to the word, to the institution, which preceded the Church, or any formal religion, and any government. Verstehen Sie?
,
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
Certainly people seek a moral backing for their laws. However, codifying a religious argument into law is precisely the establishment of religion that is forbidden.
But it is only your religious definition of marriage which requires marriage to be procreative. As I said before, if the government establishes your definition of marriage as the basis for its laws and excludes religions which wish to marry gays, then it violates the establishment clause.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
Religious reasoning in this case would be arguing from certain theological premises to a social/political/economic conclusion. It doesn’t have to be illogical, but its validity is entirely predicated on your acceptance of the initial theological paradigm.
Heh, so if any natural law argument fails you will just say: “it only failed because you used an unreasonable line of reasoning.” I guess it won’t be worth arguing natural law with you then.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Fail. It is not establishment of religion, it is using wisdom and logic in writing law. Read the post again.
Double fail. Religion did not even get in the argument posed to you. The mention of the Church is to provide you a long view of how and when marriage became a social institution. It preceded formal organized religion and governments. Read the post again!
J
John21652
Guest
Again, you’ve avoided answering the question and simply given a definition.
So what?
And what on earth do you mean by “…It doesn’t have to be illogical…”? Should we be thanking God for that?!!
Mate, I’m really starting to worry about you.
It was you who said, about Natural Law, “.… I have not once seen it stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.” The obvious inference is that you haven’t seen any “reasonable scrutiny” because the Natural Law argument is still standing. It stands in the form of two documents I mentioned. Remember? I asked you a couple of questions about them and you avoided answering. You seem pretty good at avoiding answering questions. Of course, you do need to have answers. And the courage to admit you don’t if you haven’t!
Like I said, moral cowardice seems to be spreading rankly through our societies.
What say you?
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
TC, I had to go back to this post from you directed to another as it contains another poor argument from you.
And again, you use ‘outlawing’ incorrectly. Only a handful of states have legalized SSM. The rest of the country do not, so what are you talking about outlawing gay ‘marriage’ before it is a law? Homosexualists can’t wait for DOMA to be repealed, of course, to blow it wide open. They pressure legislators and yes they get lucky with activist judges like Judge Vaughn Walker. Oh, don’t waste keystrokes to tell us that his being gay had nothing to do with his decision to rule that Prop 8 in California was unconstitutional.
As far as evidence is concerned beyond “God says so,” there have been plenty non-religious reasons provided in this forum in hundreds of threads, but the purposely deaf will not hear and the purposely blind will not see. The good that people practicing and promoting homosexuality see in gay ‘marriage’ is not the common good.
,
You twisted it there. Who is saying that the government has any inclination to institute or that anybody is forcing the one-man-one-woman version of marriage on religions that wish to marry gays or give blessings to their unions? Gay couples can and already do get ‘married’ in ECLA, Episcopalian, Unitarian, “Catholic” congregations, etc., where they can. Is anybody standing at the door to prevent it or would want to? The last one is in quotes because some groups pose as a Catholic congregation that ‘marry’ gays but are not Catholic and will never be.
And again, you use ‘outlawing’ incorrectly. Only a handful of states have legalized SSM. The rest of the country do not, so what are you talking about outlawing gay ‘marriage’ before it is a law? Homosexualists can’t wait for DOMA to be repealed, of course, to blow it wide open. They pressure legislators and yes they get lucky with activist judges like Judge Vaughn Walker. Oh, don’t waste keystrokes to tell us that his being gay had nothing to do with his decision to rule that Prop 8 in California was unconstitutional.
As far as evidence is concerned beyond “God says so,” there have been plenty non-religious reasons provided in this forum in hundreds of threads, but the purposely deaf will not hear and the purposely blind will not see. The good that people practicing and promoting homosexuality see in gay ‘marriage’ is not the common good.
,
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
It is God who determines Truth and not man. Man is to obey God and not the other way around. If we are left to decide truth for ourselves, we will be left with a big problem. dont we?
V
vsedriver
Guest
but it is not a just religious definition of marriage. It is a societal definition of marriage. Religions could still marry gays because there is no government requirement for religions to marry people.
If you change the concept of marriage to allow gays you are effectively ending marriage as a societal convention. Once you allow one change you can’t justify preventing anyone else from making a change, number, relationship all are up for grabs.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
So what you are saying is that you believe theocracy is superior to democracy. That is fine, but it is a separate argument. According to the rules that have governed this country for years now, the government cannot and will not respond to that position.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Now, you know my views already. I personally also find abolishing civil marriage to be the simpler and cleaner solution. But for the sake of argument, let’s examine my friends for secular marriage friends, shall we?
Aside from being religious marriage is other things. For one thing, it’s intended to unite two people together. What is more materially unifying than having a child who is made of the stuff of both of you? A gay couple can never have this happen, as even if one of the fathers or mothers has IVF or art. insem, or one or both gay men impregnate women who wish to donate their bodies (God forbid), something is amiss.
Two sodomites or sapphites may be able to say “They are ours”, but they can never say “We made something wonderful”. That is, the child may contain one parent’s set of genes. But it can never contain both.
So genetically, the child can never genuinely be both of theirs. In a way, it is kind of a tragedy. And gay marriage only adds insult to injury by showing this uniting can never be. Especially when we consider that the gays had to use - not love, use - other human beings to try and achieve their desired effect. It ends up separating, not uniting.
It seems benevolent, but when you think about it, gay marriage lacks one thing which even simple folks can see as necessary: it does not unite two people as they should be united, and (here is the important part) it never can. Gay partners can never have this kind of unity.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
CONTINUED
This is not to say, however, that gays cannot have some kind of loving relationship. We see this in infertile straight relationships all the time. While many infertility problems in modern couples can be treated in various ways - NaPro technology, for instance - sometimes there just is nothing that can be done. What do you do with a woman, for instance, who has no reproductive organs?
IIRC, in the Ancient Church, there were “blood brotherhoods” of sorts that two men or two women could have to bond themselves together, in a way. Many pro-gay marriage activists misinterpret this to mean that the Church allowed gay marriage.
But rather than being a sexual relationship, it was a spiritual one. It showed unity between two men or women in a way that was as deep and intense as many gay relationships today. However, it rightly recognised that this was a spiritual, emotional, and living relationship - but not a sexual one.
I do not know if it was akin to marriage. But if it was, it was a spiritual marriage, much as priests have between themselves and their God (this is DEFINITELY not a sexual relationship).
Why am I talking about this?
I am trying to describe the sort of unity any two people could have that could stand forever. It’s sort of a strong form of friendship, just as marriage is. But it does not agree to believe and profess a lie - that homosexuals can unite with their beloved in the way a man and a woman can (by having children).
Anyone who has this kind of chaste, non-sexual, emotionally and spiritually bonding relationship affirms that even if one can never have children, one can still passionately care for his other. It also affirms that love is about more than sex, which is a position which is woefully neglected these days…
Why this and not gay marriage? It sounds very similar. I think this might be tenable also because while true marriage, between a man and a woman, produces offspring (which are of use to the government and the economy), gay marriage cannot.
True, there are many children needing adopting. And as long as the caregivers teach the truth about unity to their children, I don’t see why a couple shouldn’t. The problem is, however, gay couples affirm a lie, and support fantasies that can never come to pass. Gay couples cannot have children. They can make a bastard child with a third party and claim it is theirs, or they can adopt someone else’s.
But gay “marriage” can never be true marriage in the sense it is for fertile straight couples. An infertile couple that adopts children can exemplify truly unitive marriage, even though they adopted. But homosexual couplings… can’t, quite, because even if two gays are so fertile they could mother or father 100s of children, they can’t mother or father them to their spouses.
Not to mention, it costs gays money to have IVF, art insem, or adoption. It’s far less expensive, invasive, and successful to have fertile couples create their own.
Just a few thoughts from a guy trying to rationally apologise for what he believes based on the authorities of his God, his Holy Book, and his Church.
This is not to say, however, that gays cannot have some kind of loving relationship. We see this in infertile straight relationships all the time. While many infertility problems in modern couples can be treated in various ways - NaPro technology, for instance - sometimes there just is nothing that can be done. What do you do with a woman, for instance, who has no reproductive organs?
IIRC, in the Ancient Church, there were “blood brotherhoods” of sorts that two men or two women could have to bond themselves together, in a way. Many pro-gay marriage activists misinterpret this to mean that the Church allowed gay marriage.
But rather than being a sexual relationship, it was a spiritual one. It showed unity between two men or women in a way that was as deep and intense as many gay relationships today. However, it rightly recognised that this was a spiritual, emotional, and living relationship - but not a sexual one.
I do not know if it was akin to marriage. But if it was, it was a spiritual marriage, much as priests have between themselves and their God (this is DEFINITELY not a sexual relationship).
Why am I talking about this?
I am trying to describe the sort of unity any two people could have that could stand forever. It’s sort of a strong form of friendship, just as marriage is. But it does not agree to believe and profess a lie - that homosexuals can unite with their beloved in the way a man and a woman can (by having children).
Anyone who has this kind of chaste, non-sexual, emotionally and spiritually bonding relationship affirms that even if one can never have children, one can still passionately care for his other. It also affirms that love is about more than sex, which is a position which is woefully neglected these days…
Why this and not gay marriage? It sounds very similar. I think this might be tenable also because while true marriage, between a man and a woman, produces offspring (which are of use to the government and the economy), gay marriage cannot.
True, there are many children needing adopting. And as long as the caregivers teach the truth about unity to their children, I don’t see why a couple shouldn’t. The problem is, however, gay couples affirm a lie, and support fantasies that can never come to pass. Gay couples cannot have children. They can make a bastard child with a third party and claim it is theirs, or they can adopt someone else’s.
But gay “marriage” can never be true marriage in the sense it is for fertile straight couples. An infertile couple that adopts children can exemplify truly unitive marriage, even though they adopted. But homosexual couplings… can’t, quite, because even if two gays are so fertile they could mother or father 100s of children, they can’t mother or father them to their spouses.
Not to mention, it costs gays money to have IVF, art insem, or adoption. It’s far less expensive, invasive, and successful to have fertile couples create their own.
Just a few thoughts from a guy trying to rationally apologise for what he believes based on the authorities of his God, his Holy Book, and his Church.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
But you’ve arbitrarily established some threshold level of unity in order to qualify for marriage. What if I claimed that surviving a life-or-death experience with your partner was required to be sufficiently united? The point is that your threshold of “have your own child” is not currently used as a basis for marriage, nor should it be in the future. If it were, couples wouldn’t be allowed to marry unless they were already pregnant.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Good point.
However, while some straight couples cannot have children, and a few more may not have children by choice, it is undoubtedly true that *all *sodomite and all sapphite couples are incapable of having children. A third party always must be involved if they want a child, and it can never be the flesh of both of them.
I point specifically to children because children are a potential source of income for the government. College grads, and even high-school grads, make a lot in taxes, after all…
Ah, but creating the children: there’s the problem. Even with all the children in foster homes, we’re still just hovering at the replacement rate of 2.1 children per 2 working age people. And the population of the country is only looking to shrink.
One would think the government would try to promote procreative policies to boost the economy. After all, there are many college-level jobs looking to be filled in the future. Promoting education is a good thing, of course. But so is promoting the gestation of children who will be educated. Am I wrong in saying the country needs more educated people within its borders?
As nature would have, though, it seems straight couples have (for the most part) a one-up on gay couples. Most straights can and will produce at least one or two children. Therefore “licenses” which make it easier economically for them, and makes it more likely these children will see a college, and a college-level job.
But gay couples, as I say, cannot produce any children, and therefore cannot contribute anything reproductively speaking. True, they can raise foster children, and they can seek third party help.
But this is always more expensive than the natural way - let a man and a woman hop into the sack, and nine months later, a government investment that in its lifetime will give the government thousands, if not millions, in taxes.
Better, I think, not to squander our resources on gay couples who need money just to get a child when there are so many others who already have children and need assistance in order to churn out piles of college grads.
And if this sounds like bulldung, that’s probably because it probably is. And after staying up all bloody night, what exactly did you expect?
A NOTE: Keep in mind, I am only speaking of secular unions. Religious marriage is something completely else, and never should secular unions ever be equated with religious marriages. Secular unions are and always will be patently inferior to true, God-given religious marriage.
BUT Secular unions can and do have a purpose and a place, and for those who do have children, it is better to have a secular union than no permanent uniting bond at all. (“Love” and “feelings” and “chemistry” DO NOT COUNT.)
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
To the OP:
If homosexuals were living next door to you, I really don’t see how it devalues or in any way effects your Catholic marriage if they secretly go off and get legally married.
It seems that you are defining marriage in such as way to exclude infertile couples, in which case you are redefining marriage.
If homosexuals were living next door to you, I really don’t see how it devalues or in any way effects your Catholic marriage if they secretly go off and get legally married.
- Status