Defending Heterosexual Marriage: Did you hear Melissa Ethridge's comments?

[danih37]

Natural refers to man’s rational nature.

Not quite.

nat⋅u⋅ral
–adjective

1. existing in or formed by nature

 

[Gamera]

I just don’t understand how being with the person you love is perverse.

Being with the person you love isn’t perverse. Performing sexual acts with a person of your own gender, however, is perverse.

But that isn’t the issue. This isn’t about illegalizing homosexual acts. This is about the government claiming it possesses the authority to re-invent marriage. That is a threat to the basic structure of civilization.

 

[danih37]

Being with the person you love isn’t perverse. Performing sexual acts with a person of your own gender, however, is perverse.

But that isn’t the issue. This isn’t about illegalizing homosexual acts. This is about the government claiming it possesses the authority to re-invent marriage. That is a threat to the basic structure of civilization.

How does such a minority pose such a threat to civilization? Animals in nature live just fine with their homosexual couples in the group.
And it’s about illegalizaing security for gay couples.

The government should have no hand in marriage for anyone. The issue is, marriage brings with it rights. If it were strictly a religious issue, it wouldn’t be up for debate as it is now.
The issue with the entire situation is that there is no separation of church and state when it comes to marriage. Marriage should not afford rights if everyone is not eligible for marriage.

 

[phil8888]

Being with the person you love isn’t perverse. Performing sexual acts with a person of your own gender, however, is perverse.

But that isn’t the issue. This isn’t about illegalizing homosexual acts. This is about the government claiming it possesses the authority to re-invent marriage. That is a threat to the basic structure of civilization.

Gay people have all the rights of anyone else when it comes to money and estate and all these things about actual marriage, they just want to change the word. there is no good reason for this. They want to call apples oranges. There are many problems though. Like in Massachusetts, there was a Catholic adoption agency that was helping thousands of families adopt. Then Massachusetts made it illegal for them to refuse to give children to same-sex couples. The archbishop even said he would refer them to other agencies. BUT THAT WASN’T GOOD ENOUGH. Then the whole adoption agency was shut down.

That’s the problem, they have this terrible agenda. Christians are being so respectful to everyone, but some gay and lesbian activists just want to destroy anything and everything that Christianity stands for.

Sorry if this message was uncharitable.

 

[danih37]

Gay people have all the rights of anyone else when it comes to money and estate and all these things about actual marriage, they just want to change the word. there is no good reason for this. They want to call apples oranges. There are many problems though. Like in Massachusetts, there was a Catholic adoption agency that was helping thousands of families adopt. Then Massachusetts made it illegal for them to refuse to give children to same-sex couples. The archbishop even said he would refer them to other agencies. BUT THAT WASN’T GOOD ENOUGH. Then the whole adoption agency was shut down.

That’s the problem, they have this terrible agenda. Christians are being so respectful to everyone, but some gay and lesbian activists just want to destroy anything and everything that Christianity stands for.

Sorry if this message was uncharitable.

But see…gay couples don’t have the same rights that married couples do. And in order to get any of the same rights requires a lawyer and lots of money, which simply isn’t right when heterosexual couples can get the rights with one simple act of marriage.

Well was the adoption agency getting any funding from the government? If it was, then that situation is irrelevant.

And let’s not make generalizations about the “gay agenda.” I’ve yet to figure out what the "gay agenda"even is.

 

[Gamera]

How does such a minority pose such a threat to civilization? Animals in nature live just fine with their homosexual couples in the group.
And it’s about illegalizaing security for gay couples.

The government should have no hand in marriage for anyone. The issue is, marriage brings with it rights. If it were strictly a religious issue, it wouldn’t be up for debate as it is now.
The issue with the entire situation is that there is no separation of church and state when it comes to marriage. Marriage should not afford rights if everyone is not eligible for marriage.

I never said that “the minority” poses any threat to civilization. I said the government’s power-grab poses a threat to civilization. If the government has the power to re-invent the most basic unit of society – the family – then the government has no limits whatsoever. The threat is not homosexuality. The threat is authoritarianism.

 

[Gamera]

But see…gay couples don’t have the same rights that married couples do.

Sure they do! Every gay person has a right to marry, just like straight people do. They just cannot marry a person of their own sex, because that isn’t a marriage.

 

[danih37]

I never said that “the minority” poses any threat to civilization. I said the government’s power-grab poses a threat to civilization. If the government has the power to re-invent the most basic unit of society – the family – then the government has no limits whatsoever. The threat is not homosexuality. The threat is authoritarianism.

Well if the government is the problem, why is this one minority suffering for the governments screw ups?
And you do realize that before interracial marriage was legal, people were making the same arguments about it destroying the family.

 

[phil8888]

But see…gay couples don’t have the same rights that married couples do. And in order to get any of the same rights requires a lawyer and lots of money, which simply isn’t right when heterosexual couples can get the rights with one simple act of marriage.

Well was the adoption agency getting any funding from the government? If it was, then that situation is irrelevant.

And let’s not make generalizations about the “gay agenda.” I’ve yet to figure out what the "gay agenda"even is.

in massachusetts they do. civil unions and stuff allows them to have the same rights. and how is that irrelevant if the government is involved? governments give tax-free status to churches even if they have a pro-life policy which may be against government policy. also, they fund catholic schools, etc. because they recognize that these schools provide services. same with hospitals.

do you not see any problem at all with the government shutting down an adoption agency because they wont adopt children to homosexual couples? I think we ought to see the craziness in that. It’s one thing to make possible gay adoption, it’s another thing to force it on people. That’s not the role of a democratic government.

 

[danih37]

Sure they do! Every gay person has a right to marry, just like straight people do. They just cannot marry a person of their own sex, because that isn’t a marriage.

So they have the right to be miserable because their country or state doesn’t recognize their love?

 

[phil8888]

So they have the right to be miserable because their country or state doesn’t recognize their love?

why would they be miserable? I guess the inability to do illegal activities could make lots of people “miserable” if you use that logic. maybe a gang family would be miserable if they weren’t allowed to hire hitmen to kill their enemies. a 30 year old man and a 15 year old girl might both be miserable because they cannot have a sexual relationship. but does that mean it shouldn’t be illegal? maybe they love each other also. A society does not exist to make sure every single person gets exactly what they want. it exists to make sure the good of the people is protected in general. children are best protected in a family with a mother and a father, so we do whatever possible to ensure this. sometimes that’s not possible, but you don’t purposely set up a system that would make that impossible.

 

[danih37]

in massachusetts they do. civil unions and stuff allows them to have the same rights. and how is that irrelevant if the government is involved? governments give tax-free status to churches even if they have a pro-life policy which may be against government policy. also, they fund catholic schools, etc. because they recognize that these schools provide services. same with hospitals.

do you not see any problem at all with the government shutting down an adoption agency because they wont adopt children to homosexual couples? I think we ought to see the craziness in that. It’s one thing to make possible gay adoption, it’s another thing to force it on people. That’s not the role of a democratic government.

So that is one state out of 50. And they still don’t get all of the rights, especially federal ones. In the governments eyes they are second class citizens. They still pay taxes, but they can’t be with someone they love and have the government recognize it.

If the government gives funds then they have some jurisdiction. It’s the same with schools who receive government funding. Say for instance, a high school student wants to start a Gay-Straight Alliance, the school with government funding must allow them to do so or they must shut down all clubs. So if the government provides them funding, they can’t refuse to adopt to people based on their sexual orientation.

 

[phil8888]

So that is one state out of 50. And they still don’t get all of the rights, especially federal ones. In the governments eyes they are second class citizens. They still pay taxes, but they can’t be with someone they love and have the government recognize it.

If the government gives funds then they have some jurisdiction. It’s the same with schools who receive government funding. Say for instance, a high school student wants to start a Gay-Straight Alliance, the school with government funding must allow them to do so or they must shut down all clubs. So if the government provides them funding, they can’t refuse to adopt to people based on their sexual orientation.

I think that’s terrible and immoral. you think it’s ok for the government to force a group of people to either violate their morals or go out of business? the catholic church in massachusetts built so many school, hospitals, etc, etc, etc, and practically built the whole state, and now the government is forcing their agencies out of business. this is scandalous.

 

[danih37]

why would they be miserable? I guess the inability to do illegal activities could make lots of people “miserable” if you use that logic. maybe a gang family would be miserable if they weren’t allowed to hire hitmen to kill their enemies. a 30 year old man and a 15 year old girl might both be miserable because they cannot have a sexual relationship. but does that mean it shouldn’t be illegal? maybe they love each other also. A society does not exist to make sure every single person gets exactly what they want. it exists to make sure the good of the people is protected in general. children are best protected in a family with a mother and a father, so we do whatever possible to ensure this. sometimes that’s not possible, but you don’t purposely set up a system that would make that impossible.

I’m not talking about committing crimes. And I’m talking about two consenting adults.
How would gay marriage make heterosexual marriage and the protective family impossible?
And who says a child is best in a family with a mother and father. Isn’t two loving mother’s or two loving father’s just as protective if it is a loving family? And why is it all about procreation? Does that mean that a married heterosexual couple who chooses to not have kids shouldn’t be allowed the same rights?

 

[danih37]

I think that’s terrible and immoral. you think it’s ok for the government to force a group of people to either violate their morals or go out of business? the catholic church in massachusetts built so many school, hospitals, etc, etc, etc, and practically built the whole state, and now the government is forcing their agencies out of business. this is scandalous.

But would you be fine with a company who specialized in gay adoptions being forced to adopt to straight couples was forced out of business by the government?

But this debate isn’t about adoption anyways. It’s about the rights afforded to married couples that same sex couples aren’t allowed to have.

 

[phil8888]

I’m not talking about committing crimes. And I’m talking about two consenting adults.

Crimes come and go. Just because a state decides something is a crime has nothing to do with whether or not it’s good. Porn and abortion are legal, but they are immoral, and should not be allowed. So the legality of something has little do to with its morality.

How would gay marriage make heterosexual marriage and the protective family impossible?

Gay “marriage” is trying to usurp a valid word and take it to mean something it doesn’t. Every society on Earth established marriage as a man and a woman to create a strong bond that enables the nurturing and growth of children. It’s a natural institution, not one people just made up. Find one ancient culture (over 500 years ago) that institutionalized gay marriage. They don’t exist. Nowhere. And there’s a reason.

And who says a child is best in a family with a mother and father. Isn’t two loving mother’s or two loving father’s just as protective if it is a loving family?

There is a lot of psychological evidence for this and it has been well documented. Alec Baldwin even said it the other night and was all for it until Joy Behar said, you dont mean gay marriage is bad do you, and of course he said no. But before he had a chance to say that, he already said that a girl with no father is more likely to be involved with risky sex, drugs, and other abuse and do poorly in school.

And why is it all about procreation? Does that mean that a married heterosexual couple who chooses to not have kids shouldn’t be allowed the same rights?

The state is unable to really determine a couple’s state of mind and their intentions. However, couples who are not open to children cannot be married in the Catholic Church. This is because we do not believe that marriage is simply a recognition of a sexual relationship, but rather a loving unit where children are a natural possibility.

 

[phil8888]

But would you be fine with a company who specialized in gay adoptions being forced to adopt to straight couples was forced out of business by the government?

But this debate isn’t about adoption anyways. It’s about the rights afforded to married couples that same sex couples aren’t allowed to have.

I’m not fine with gay adoptions at all, in any case, and especially not an organization that “specializes” in that. I would bet though that if a company did start doing that, the government wouldn’t dare interfere. That’s the irony.

Marriage isn’t a right, it’s a privilege and it’s not nilly-willy. There are conditions that must be met for a marriage to take place. Marriage was established in every society because it is beneficial to society, but gay marriage is not.

 

[fix]

Not quite.

nat⋅u⋅ral
–adjective

1. existing in or formed by nature

Sorry, but that is one use of the word. We are talking about man’s nature. Not simply what occurs in nature. All types of pathology occur in nature but that is no proof that is what was intended from the start.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi danih37

But how is a same sex union not a natural right? The definition of natural is occurring in nature…and there are many species of animals that exhibit homosexual relationships. Penguins, sheep, flamingos, apes, I can go on. So how can you say that it’s not a natural right, but the union of one man and one woman is?

The references are to Natural Moral Law not laws of nature. It is important to understand many animals simply relieve themselves which is not equal to the human condition. Under Natural [Moral] Law there are no courts to test “rights”. Within Natural [Moral] Law men will seek woman, and vice-versa they will bond, mate, produce children. Gay actions simply do not produce children and it is very questionable if it produces bonding. This difference is the heart of the issue.

Animals in nature also exhibit the same types of surrogate mothering, before gay male couples raise the child together, so how is this not natural?

I just don’t understand how being with the person you love is perverse.

“gay male couples” do not produce children to raise, they may of course contribute to society by assisting children, however that is far from denying children the designed male/female parenting pair.

Not quite.

nat⋅u⋅ral
–adjective

1. existing in or formed by nature

How does such a minority pose such a threat to civilization? Animals in nature live just fine with their homosexual couples in the group.
And it’s about illegalizing security for gay couples.

The government should have no hand in marriage for anyone.

The problem governments have is people will conform to Natural [Moral] Law thus they will marry and refuse to treat the married people as singles. They will also refuse to treat the children as “legal people” instead treating the children as dependents upon the natural male/female parents. The government cannot change this.

The issue is, marriage brings with it rights.

Marriage brings minimal “rights” marriage brings in tons of responsibility

If it were strictly a religious issue, it wouldn’t be up for debate as it is now.
The issue with the entire situation is that there is no separation of church and state when it comes to marriage. Marriage should not afford rights if everyone is not eligible for marriage.

Everyone is eligible many chose not to participate.

But see…gay couples don’t have the same rights that married couples do.

I think this is where we lose you, gay couples get to sleep, are not financially drained, the woman does not have to damage her body, etc., etc. it is about responsibility not some small privileges

And in order to get any of the same rights requires a lawyer and lots of money, which simply isn’t right when heterosexual couples can get the rights with one simple act of marriage.

The gay couple never have the responsibilities

Well was the adoption agency getting any funding from the government? If it was, then that situation is irrelevant.

No the issue is whether placing children with a male/female pair as nature used to produce children is discrimination

And let’s not make generalizations about the “gay agenda.” I’ve yet to figure out what the "gay agenda "even is.

A few gay people want to share property as a married couple, and have automatic legal power of an incapacitated partner. These are legal issues and not related to marriage. The SSA group are wrong to assume marriage is the method to achieve those legal issues.

hope that helps

 

[danih37]

Crimes come and go. Just because a state decides something is a crime has nothing to do with whether or not it’s good. Porn and abortion are legal, but they are immoral, and should not be allowed. So the legality of something has little do to with its morality.

Well then why allow so many immoral things, but not this one thing you claim to be immoral? And why is it immoral anyways?

Gay “marriage” is trying to usurp a valid word and take it to mean something it doesn’t. Every society on Earth established marriage as a man and a woman to create a strong bond that enables the nurturing and growth of children. It’s a natural institution, not one people just made up. Find one ancient culture (over 500 years ago) that institutionalized gay marriage. They don’t exist. Nowhere. And there’s a reason.

But some societies adopted polygamy as their main form of marriage…and some of these marriages were homosexual ones. So polygamy must be fine in your eyes if you’re looking at the logic of history.

There is a lot of psychological evidence for this and it has been well documented. Alec Baldwin even said it the other night and was all for it until Joy Behar said, you dont mean gay marriage is bad do you, and of course he said no. But before he had a chance to say that, he already said that a girl with no father is more likely to be involved with risky sex, drugs, and other abuse and do poorly in school.

These studies look at single parents more so than gay ones. And just because a child has two moms or two dads doesn’t mean that the other gender isn’t significantly involved in their life.

The state is unable to really determine a couple’s state of mind and their intentions. However, couples who are not open to children cannot be married in the Catholic Church. This is because we do not believe that marriage is simply a recognition of a sexual relationship, but rather a loving unit where children are a natural possibility.

I never said marriage was a sexual relationship. I said it was a loving one. And in leviticus, a man lying with a man is an abomination, but you must look at the historical context of this. At the time, one of the main goals of society was population growth. At this point, we don’t need the population to grow exponentially. And regardless of whether or not gay couples are married, they will still have the same loving and important relationships as straight couples, but will get none of the rights or legal benefits that the straight people are somehow entitled.