Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-sex “Marriage”

[Sailor_Kenshin]

In some US stares and some nations, same sex marriage is a legal right. In others it is not. Legal rights are determined by legislatures.

I don’t give a fat rat’s you-know-what about what ‘stares’ have embraced homosexual ''marriage."

They can embrace marrying your laptop too. Homosexual “marriage”, and abortion on demand, remains and always will be, mortally sinful.

I suspect you know that.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I don’t give a fat rat’s you-know-what about what ‘stares’ have embraced homosexual ''marriage."

They can embrace marrying your laptop too. Homosexual “marriage”, and abortion on demand, remains and always will be, mortally sinful.

I suspect you know that.

So following that logic, no matter what the government does-you will still know that homosexual marriage is sinful. Given that, what difference does it make if the government makes it legal? Nobody will be holding a gun to your head to make you marry someone of your own gender or attend a same sex wedding. Unlike abortion, there is no innocent victim-the two people involved are consenting adults.

 

[buffalo]

So following that logic, no matter what the government does-you will still know that homosexual marriage is sinful. Given that, what difference does it make if the government makes it legal? Nobody will be holding a gun to your head to make you marry someone of your own gender or attend a same sex wedding. Unlike abortion, there is no innocent victim-the two people involved are consenting adults.

I have to jump in here - this goes way beyond two consenting adults. First, the health risks. Second the destruction of the family. Third - the common good. They try to sell it that it is private between two consenting adults but that is false.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I have to jump in here - this goes way beyond two consenting adults. First, the health risks. Second the destruction of the family. Third - the common good. They try to sell it that it is private between two consenting adults but that is false.

How is your family or anyone else’s hurt by the gay couple in San Francisco getting married? How would there be health risks to anyone other than the couple involved? Unless there’s some fooling around going on, heterosexuals are under no threat. Also, how exactly is the “common good” damaged by less than 10% of the population doing something? Actually, it’s probably even less than that because the 10% is a generous figure for numbers of gay people, and not all of them will choose to marry. After all, those unmarried gay folks are already out there doing what they do-and what is the direct link to their behavior to the “common good”?

There are a lot of problems in today’s society, but I find it hard to believe that they are ALL the fault of such a small minority.

 

[buffalo]

How is your family or anyone else’s hurt by the gay couple in San Francisco getting married? How would there be health risks to anyone other than the couple involved? Unless there’s some fooling around going on, heterosexuals are under no threat. Also, how exactly is the “common good” damaged by less than 10% of the population doing something? Actually, it’s probably even less than that because the 10% is a generous figure for numbers of gay people, and not all of them will choose to marry. After all, those unmarried gay folks are already out there doing what they do-and what is the direct link to their behavior to the “common good”?

There are a lot of problems in today’s society, but I find it hard to believe that they are ALL the fault of such a small minority.

Have you read the linked article? It’s all in there.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Have you read the linked article? It’s all in there.

I’ve read it, and others just like it and I’m still left with the same questions.

I am unconvinced that a change in the civil law regarding marriage will have ANY effect on the Catholic teaching about marriage, on existing Catholic marriages or on future Catholic marriages. I am unconvinced that it will have any effect on Catholic teaching on homosexuality either.

 

[buffalo]

I’ve read it, and others just like it and I’m still left with the same questions.

I am unconvinced that a change in the civil law regarding marriage will have ANY effect on the Catholic teaching about marriage, on existing Catholic marriages or on future Catholic marriages. I am unconvinced that it will have any effect on Catholic teaching on homosexuality either.

The only suggestion I have is read it in a more meaningful way and let it settle in. I am not sure why some folks do not get it.

Marriage by definition is between one man and one woman. It cannot be changed. Oh maybe the dictionary will change it as it has changed the definition of truth, but natural law will always prevail as well as Divine Law.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

The only suggestion I have is read it in a more meaningful way and let it settle in. I am not sure why some folks do not get it.

Marriage by definition is between one man and one woman. It cannot be changed. Oh maybe the dictionary will change it as it has changed the definition of truth, but natural law will always prevail as well as Divine Law.

So how is civil law changing going to change the Divine Law definition?

Gay people have always existed and always will. Whether civil law recognizes their unions as marriage or not, that isn’t going to change. I find it difficult to understand why all these predicted disasters haven’t already occurred.

 

[buffalo]

So how is civil law changing going to change the Divine Law definition?

Gay people have always existed and always will. Whether civil law recognizes their unions as marriage or not, that isn’t going to change. I find it difficult to understand why all these predicted disasters haven’t already occurred.

Were Adam and Eve homosexuals? So no they didn’t always exist.

We need to differentiate between SSA and the homosexual act. Persons with this affliction are called to chastity.

If there were a pill that homosexuals could take what do you think would happen?

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Were Adam and Eve homosexuals? So no they didn’t always exist.

We need to differentiate between SSA and the homosexual act. Persons with this affliction are called to chastity.

If there were a pill that homosexuals could take what do you think would happen?

um…were Adam and Eve real people or is the Creation story the way the ancients explained how they got here? I’m not a literal believer and I was taught not to be one by the Benedictines and Sisters of Charity.

Gay Catholics are called to chastity. Gay Americans are not.

A pill to do what?

 

[WillieWonka]

Buffalo seems to understand the law and the concepts of civil rights more clearly than you do. Even a law by itself is not a civil right. Laws which have not been declared inherent human rights (but societal privileges) can indeed be changed. There is no absolute value to a civil law in itself, depending on the nature of that law.

I am not the one needing to review the several previous long threads about gay marriage. You are the one, as you’re bringing up aspects already discussed as if these are new arguments (on your part). They are not. Nor do I need to review them, as I was a prominent contributor to some of them. I know how critical primary parents of complementary genders are to the formation of a complete human person, so I will continue to contribute to these threads.

Declaring a law to be a “right” does not make it so. And laws can be changed, and frequently are so. You seem to have some notion of the permanence of every new law, when in fact most laws are subject to modification, from a little to a lot. They are subject also of course to interpretation and reversal by courts.

Law works both on text and on assumptions arising from practice of the concept being legalized or interpreted. Law is interpreted based on common understandings of those practices & concepts. Law is always about context.

The purpose of civil marriage is not to affirm & codify romantic personal relationships – whether heterosexual or homoexual. Again, as two consenting adults you have the right to associate without restriction; you do not have the right to marry by virtue of that association. The purpose of civil marriage is to establish a unit for the procreation and raising of children in a stable structure.for the orderly continuation of society.

1. I agree every law is not a civil right. I agree there is no inherent value to legal rights. I agree any law can be changed. I agree any constitution can be chamged. I agree Buffalo has more incisive understanding than I do.
2. I acknowledge your valuable contributions to past threads. What is the most valuable lesson one can learn from those past threads?
3. Again, I agree all laws are subject to change. While they are in effect, they create legal rights and obligations. When they are no longer in effect, the legal rights and obligations they created are no longer in effect.
4. I agree laws are not permanent.
5. Law does not work on text and assumptions. It works on text and precedent.
6. Civil law does not mention children as its purpose, nor has any court ever demanded it. So, there is no text, and no precedent.
7. Where civil law allows same sex marriage, gays have a legal right to marry each other. We see these laws and the legal rights they create being exercised in various nations and US states.

 

[buffalo]

um…were Adam and Eve real people or is the Creation story the way the ancients explained how they got here? I’m not a literal believer and I was taught not to be one by the Benedictines and Sisters of Charity.

Gay Catholics are called to chastity. Gay Americans are not.

A pill to do what?

Adam and Eve were real people -

CCC

[390](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/390.htm’) The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

Natural law calls homosexuals to chastity too. That is why the homosexual act is intrinsically evil. Other acts are not.

Until recently the homosexual act was against the civil law. This reversal was done by the Supreme Court making law.

 

[WillieWonka]

In the absence of a psychological pathology that would indicate otherwise, such as same-sex attraction, we may only say that such a desire has the potential to be depraved.

So, if a gay desires a 24" lawnmower, it is a depraved desire.

But if a Catholic husband and father desires a 24" lawnmower, it is not a depraved desire?

 

[WillieWonka]

I don’t give a fat rat’s you-know-what about what ‘stares’ have embraced homosexual ''marriage."

They can embrace marrying your laptop too. Homosexual “marriage”, and abortion on demand, remains and always will be, mortally sinful.

I suspect you know that.

I acknowledge you don’t care what states have made same sex marriage legal, and I acknowledge you consider same sex marriage to be sinful.

However, that doesn’t change the fact that in some US stares and some nations, same sex marriage is a legal right. In others it is not.

 

[WillieWonka]

I have to jump in here - this goes way beyond two consenting adults. First, the health risks. Second the destruction of the family. Third - the common good. They try to sell it that it is private between two consenting adults but that is false.

Can you tell us exactly how the family is destroyed? What families have been destroyed in Massachusetts?

What is the health risk in lesbianism? How does it compare to heterosexuality?

 

[Elizabeth502]

A gay couple is not a family unit. The purpose of civil marriage is to provide a civil institution for the environment of children in a way that accords with the biological social unit. That biological social unit is also paralleled in similar social structures of other animal species.

A gay couple is not having any “rights” abridged by not being married. They are not deprived of loving unions, not deprived of personal happiness, not deprived of sexual activity, not deprived of civil rights (and civil rights do not include, for gays or straights, the right to marry), nor even deprived of joining religions which approve of their activity.

 

[WillieWonka]

I’ve read it, and others just like it and I’m still left with the same questions.

I am unconvinced that a change in the civil law regarding marriage will have ANY effect on the Catholic teaching about marriage, on existing Catholic marriages or on future Catholic marriages. I am unconvinced that it will have any effect on Catholic teaching on homosexuality either.

This is a big problem for opponents of same sex marriage. As various states allow SSM, it hasn’t effected anyone else. Nobody really notices.

 

[WillieWonka]

The only suggestion I have is read it in a more meaningful way and let it settle in. I am not sure why some folks do not get it.

Marriage by definition is between one man and one woman. It cannot be changed. Oh maybe the dictionary will change it as it has changed the definition of truth, but natural law will always prevail as well as Divine Law.

Many states have laws defining marriage to be between a man and a woman. Such laws can be changed by the governor and the legislature. If they are changed, then they can define civil marriage as between any two consneting adults.

 

[buffalo]

Can you tell us exactly how the family is destroyed? What families have been destroyed in Massachusetts?

What is the health risk in lesbianism? How does it compare to heterosexuality?

Let us start here:

Divorce Rate in Same-Sex Partnerships In Sweden

A new study published by the Institute For Marriage And Public Policy (IMAPP) in May, 2004, sheds light on the high incidence of legal “divorce” among gays who entered into a registered same-sex partnership in Sweden. The IMAPP report surveys the results of a study published by Gunnar Andersson, earlier this year entitled “Divorce-Risk Patterns In Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ In Norway And Sweden.”
The IMAPP report notes that in Sweden, between 1995 and 2002, there were 1,526 gay partnerships contracted, compared to 280,000 for heterosexual couples. Five out of 1,000 new couples in Sweden are same-sex. Sixty-two percent of those are male same-sex unions.
The survey revealed a high rate of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.
According to IMAPP: “Even among childless households, same-sex male partnerships experienced almost a 50% higher likelihood (1.49 times as likely) of divorce during the study period, while childless lesbian couples were three times as likely (200% higher likelihood) to break up as a married couple without children.”

 

[buffalo]

The we can move on to this:

The Health Risks of Gay Sex