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

[Texas_Roofer]

This is already the law. I don’t understand your point. If you’re speaking of two high schoolers having sex, than technically this is illegal but as they are both at fault no one is punished. But certainly if a 25 yr old and a high schooler have a relationship, it is illegal. Actually, I believe the age of consent is 16 but only with other 16 and 17 year olds. Over 18 year olds can only have sex with other people over 18. Under sixteen year olds aren’t supposed to be having sex at all, but unfortunately it happens. I’m arguing for keeping the law as it is, not rewriting it. One can support gay marriage without having to change this law. I only believe consenting adults should have sex

It would seem you have mixed things. The law for sexual consent is state law which varies from state to state usually 13-15 is the age used. However the other poster made the comments that under 18 no consent over 18 any consent. That is not the law and leaves another problem as mentioned. The point was to show again a difference in actual civil law verses perception. One may perceive anything as polygamy being ok, gay recruiting, or gay hate etc, but those are not laws. Similarly the perception that married people are advantaged are perceptions not reality. The perception is based on ignoring many issues and focusing on a single issue as a specific tax law.

hope that helps

 

[pete_29]

It’s not having the mind of another sex. That would be transgendered.
And it’s not something that will just go away if you don’t believe in it. I can’t say that I don’t believe in oranges and they stop existing.

It’s still saying that God made a mistake when this individual was created. This I cannot accept.

 

[tallbeard]

I believe marriage is a sacrament instituted and defined by Christ through His Church. I was really offended at having to get a license from the state in order to recieve it. What it calls marriage can be entered into by persons still married, can be ended by divorce etc. It’s not what I recieved from God, no matter what you call it. I think marriage would be best served if the state did not define or regulate it. Homosexuals have been getting “married” in their churches for a long time. I’d rather give up whatever tax benefits there are to preserve true marriage. Having it defined, redefined and distorted by the state is a great affront to me even if it doesn’t recognize “gay marriage”.

 

[siamesecat]

But gay marriage doesn’t exist. It is a logical impossibility.

Why not? If we’re going by natural law for this argument, then why would you commit to one person for life? Naturally men are able to reproduce long after their wives (unless they marry someone much younger)…wouldn’t this suggest that forcing a man to commit to one woman for life is unnatural and not intended? It seems that men are intended to go and breed for the duration of their lives, just as it seems men and women are also supposed to be together instead of in homosexual partnerships. Also, humans reach sexual maturity as young teens…so doesn’t that mean they should be having sex as intended at this age? We don’t follow natural law because we don’t support old men and young teens going around having sex and bearing children. So natural law is not a good concept to use, and using it to relegating humans to animals who can only act as there bodies are designed. It removes human choice and emotion from us.

 

[maggiemay2u]

Historically girls almost always got married as young-mid teens.
And women by age 35 were generally dead. Teenagers were virtually middle aged.
Intterracial/religious marriage was completely unacceptable in most societies for most of history. Things change depending on the needs of society.
The one thing that hasn’t changed is that marriage was and is between men and women. Girls used to have to get married young because people were poor with lots of kids and needed to get girls (who werent as useful as boys) out of the house and make them somebody else’s business.
They had lots of kids because the mortality rate was so high, as it still is in under developed nations, that a large family was needed to ensure the family would go on and the elderly would be cared for.They were considered mature enough to handle the responsibilties of marriage and kids. Now that teenage girls are treated more as children, adn assumed emotionally unready for such responsibility, this is considered very wrong. It’s the culture we brought them up in - they are not ready or able to make these decisions, and they have other options, lke schooling. Families don’t need to get rid of them. The age of children being children lengthened in relation to the longevity of the population.

I know that’s moral relativism, btu that’s tthe point - going by what most societies did for most of history is not a good argument. When I point out that most societies had slavery and denigrated women, I am told here that that was wrong, and to say it was justfiied by being so widespread is relativistic. Same argument applies here.

No, it’s apples and oranges, and convenient logic, IMHO. Marriage has always been the union of men and women, not men and cattle, women and frogs, fathers and sons, mothers and aunts.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Why not? If we’re going by natural law for this argument, then why would you commit to one person for life?

Natural Moral Law is referred to as Natural Law in Church writings. Laws of Nature is a different issue

Naturally men are able to reproduce long after their wives (unless they marry someone much younger)…wouldn’t this suggest that forcing a man to commit to one woman for life is unnatural and not intended?

Natural [Moral] Law does not say ability equals right. Just as the strong can victumize the poor (law of nature) The strong should respect the poor, that is Natural Moral Law

It seems that men are intended to go and breed for the duration of their lives, just as it seems men and women are also supposed to be together instead of in homosexual partnerships. Also, humans reach sexual maturity as young teens…so doesn’t that mean they should be having sex as intended at this age?

Natural [Moral] Law indicates controlling sexual responses is a requirement

We don’t follow natural law because we don’t support old men and young teens going around having sex and bearing children. So natural law is not a good concept to use, and using it to relegating humans to animals who can only act as there bodies are designed. It removes human choice and emotion from us.

Natural [Moral] Law requires control of sexual ergies sex is restricted to a single partner. That partner is married for life. That partner must be free to marry.

hope that helps

 

[maggiemay2u]

As I said before, two consenting adults.

Two sisters, two brothers, father and daughter? Where, if any, do you draw the line?

 

[siamesecat]

Maggiemay2u, are you saying morality changed in accordance with the needs of a society? I totally agree with you. But I thought the Church’s position was morality does not change based on needs. We no longer need marriage to be between a man and a woman because there are other ways of producing children, and at much older ages. I’m not saying it’s right, but hey, society doesn’t have the same procreational needs, rght? So why not make another change? Either thirteen year olds marrying and having kids is wrong or it isn’t. Either teenage girls are capable of such emotional and physical stresses or they’re not. So either marriage was very wrong all this time and we just figured out this was wrong, or morality changes based on society and its needs and beliefs. In which case, gay marriage could be allowed.

 

[Gamera]

Why not? If we’re going by natural law for this argument, then why would you commit to one person for life? Naturally men are able to reproduce long after their wives (unless they marry someone much younger)…wouldn’t this suggest that forcing a man to commit to one woman for life is unnatural and not intended? It seems that men are intended to go and breed for the duration of their lives, just as it seems men and women are also supposed to be together instead of in homosexual partnerships. Also, humans reach sexual maturity as young teens…so doesn’t that mean they should be having sex as intended at this age? We don’t follow natural law because we don’t support old men and young teens going around having sex and bearing children. So natural law is not a good concept to use, and using it to relegating humans to animals who can only act as there bodies are designed. It removes human choice and emotion from us.

(blinking).

Do you know what the Catholic Church means by the term “natural law?” It doesn’t mean the “laws of nature” or the “law of the jungle” or anything of the kind. “Nature” isn’t the same thing as “natural law.”

 

[Lee_M]

What’s next? If an individual male wants to be declared as a female, should the government have to declare him as a female? Since all males have to register through the Selective Service system when they turn eighteen, should a male be allowed to declare himself a female? Isn’t it his right?

Marriage is between a man and woman. Why should the government be made to declare a marriage between a man and a man when it does not exist.

 

[cristininha]

I’m beginning to wonder if we, as Christians, are being too nice. We can beat them at their own game. But we don’t.

Too nice??? Do you mean they should start once again being burned at the stake? Maybe after that start saying all is done out of love. Since homosexuals will end up in hell… they better get used to it… That’s real love.

 

[cristininha]

(blinking).

Do you know what the Catholic Church means by the term “natural law?” It doesn’t mean the “laws of nature” or the “law of the jungle” or anything of the kind. “Nature” isn’t the same thing as “natural law.”

First it wants to monopolize the meaning of the word marriage, then it distorts the real meaning of the word nature… what’s next?

 

[Lee_M]

First it wants to monopolize the meaning of the word marriage, then it distorts the real meaning of the word nature… what’s next?

No, its been miquoted. The Catholic Church did not say anything about the Laws of Nature. It is Natural Moral Law. There is a huge difference. The Natural Moral Law is what humans have to know that things like murder, stealing, adultry, and other things are wrong. Nobody has to tell us that hurting another human being is wrong. We know it.

 

[Lee_M]

Too nice??? Do you mean they should start once again being burned at the stake? Maybe after that start saying all is done out of love. Since homosexuals will end up in hell… they better get used to it… That’s real love.

Did anyone suggest being burned at the stake? Adding words to people’s mouths doesn’t help your argument.

 

[pete_29]

Too nice??? Do you mean they should start once again being burned at the stake? Maybe after that start saying all is done out of love. Since homosexuals will end up in hell… they better get used to it… That’s real love.

Ahh! That’s refreshing. Anyone who disagrees with me has no love. Typical

 

[Gamera]

First it wants to monopolize the meaning of the word marriage, then it distorts the real meaning of the word nature… what’s next?

I don’t understand. When did Catholicism ever try to “monopolize the meaning of the word marriage?”

And the phrase “natural law” is not the same thing as the word “nature.” Do you think the phrase “natural high” means the same thing as the word “nature?” As Mark Twain said, the difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between a lighning bolt and a lightning bug.

 

[maggiemay2u]

And how many species of animals eat their young?
Practically all species of animals exhibit homosexual relationships.

Gee, and all this time I thought we had an intellect, free will and a sense of humor that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

[maggiemay2u]

Ahh! That’s refreshing. Anyone who disagrees with me has no love. Typical

There is nothing more intolerant on this planet , than a liberal who doesn’t get his way…

 

[Gamera]

Did anyone suggest being burned at the stake? Adding words to people’s mouths doesn’t help your argument.

Typical gay rights extremist tactic – anytime anybody disagrees, brand them as a persecutor who hates gays. It helps compensiate for their lack of any coherent argument in favor of redfining marriage.

 

[Gamera]

There is nothing more intolerant on this planet , than a liberal who doesn’t get his way…

Yup. I recently read a gay rights activist’s quote that Obama’s inclusion of Rev. Rick Warren at his inauguration will make gays feel like “we have no place at your table.” So, you don’t want conservative Christians to have a place at that same table? So much for “inclusion.”