Gay Civil Marriage, whats the conservative side of things?

[TOB_questions]

You might say that this does not effect a marriage made in the traditional way, but you would be wrong. The purpose of marriage, the very reason for its being, for enduring the sacrifices of marriage and committing to it have been swept from under the feet. Marriage will have lost its value because it no longer has a meaning. And society will suffer as a result.

I still just don’t understand how this works. To me, the sacrament of marriage is wholly separate than the legal format of marriage. I believe even in France that there are two separate words for matrimony and civil marriage…simply because it is separate. In my mind, states don’t have the right to issue or verify marriage liscences anyway simply because they can’t issue sacraments.

So, theoretically, civil marriage can be between two gay men, two gay women, or a straight couple…how does society fall apart? Now, people that were banned from joining assets can do so…would it not organize society even more? Less 1040’s that’s for sure!

 

[edwest2]

I suggest you read the following document from the Vatican

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[peduzzi89]

Marriage preexists the law. It is based on a natural condition of complimentary sexes and a natural need arising from that for an orderly society, to procreate and to care for offspring. A law that pretends to change that assumes powers it does not have and divorces itself from the natural. The law itself works against the natural.

You’re saying that gays shouldn’t be married because homosexuals are against the natural order…whether or not you agree with that, that argument really isn’t relevant because whether or not gays can marry doesn’t change how many of them are together a.k.a. going against the “natural order.” So whether or not they are granted certain civil rights isn’t really affecting the natural order because they’re still being “unnatural” either way.

Also, civil marriage no longer is based on the intrinsic need to procreate and care for offspring, whether for gay people or otherwise. People can already get married for whatever reason they want to whether or not they plan to have children or contribute to society in any way. There are plenty of married couples who most certainly a negative influence on society, on children, and on the institution itself. I’m not saying that that is ok, I’m just saying that plenty of other people who go against the “natural order” are already allowed to get married…so using that reason for being against homosexuals getting married civilly simply falls apart.

 

[Biggie]

You’re saying that gays shouldn’t be married because homosexuals are against the natural order…whether or not you agree with that, that argument really isn’t relevant because whether or not gays can marry doesn’t change how many of them are together a.k.a. going against the “natural order.” So whether or not they are granted certain civil rights isn’t really affecting the natural order because they’re still being “unnatural” either way.

No, I am saying that the law cannot redefine marriage because marriage was not originally defined by the law but by nature. The necessity for laws relating to marriage derives from the need to create a stable society in which the young can be reared.

To see it, I would counter that while probate and domestic laws can be changed, how do you propose to change the meaning of husband and wife? Father and mother? Are you contending that these roles do not matter? So yes, it is relevant if you are reorganizing society, which is what is being proposed.

Also, civil marriage no longer is based on the intrinsic need to procreate and care for offspring, whether for gay people or otherwise. People can already get married for whatever reason they want to whether or not they plan to have children or contribute to society in any way. There are plenty of married couples who most certainly a negative influence on society, on children, and on the institution itself. I’m not saying that that is ok, I’m just saying that plenty of other people who go against the “natural order” are already allowed to get married…so using that reason for being against homosexuals getting married civilly simply falls apart.

First, are you contending that the situation you outline here is proper, correct and to the benefit of society? I would say the societal situation as to divorce, marriage and child rearing is disordered as it presently exists, that society is suffering already as a result, that it needs to be reformed and that the human toll within society as to crime, suicide, and poverty generally bear that out.

Second, so if the current situation is disordered, in what way does it justify a further disordering of the foundations upon which society itself is built.

And so, finally, you cannot argue that the deviation proves the rule. That fact that society behaves in thus and so way does not demonstrate, as you contend, that civil marriage is “no longer is based on the intrinsic need to procreate and care for offspring”. It obviously is intrinsically based on that, and acting as if it isn’t has wreaked havoc on society.

 

[Biggie]

I still just don’t understand how this works. To me, the sacrament of marriage is wholly separate than the legal format of marriage. I believe even in France that there are two separate words for matrimony and civil marriage…simply because it is separate. In my mind, states don’t have the right to issue or verify marriage liscences anyway simply because they can’t issue sacraments.

So, theoretically, civil marriage can be between two gay men, two gay women, or a straight couple…how does society fall apart? Now, people that were banned from joining assets can do so…would it not organize society even more? Less 1040’s that’s for sure!

Have I discussed marriage as a sacrament? My comments were directed at marriage as an institution, regardless how it is instituted.

You apparently see no difference between a civil union and a marriage. But if there were no difference, homosexuals would currently be lobbying for civil union, or civil protections. Instead, what is being demanded is marriage, so apparently they recognize there is a difference that you don’t get.

So let’s analyze how you would define “mother” and “father” in the new vision of society. Are you contending that those roles are now irrelevant? What made them relevant before that has now changed? Was it possibly nature, and the intrinsic qualities of a “mother” and a “father” relating to the characteristics of the respective genders that made these roles relevant to childrearing in the first place? And have those qualities of nature changed?

 

[peduzzi89]

No, I am saying that the law cannot redefine marriage because marriage was not originally defined by the law but by nature. The necessity for laws relating to marriage derives from the need to create a stable society in which the young can be reared.

To see it, I would counter that while probate and domestic laws can be changed, how do you propose to change the meaning of husband and wife? Father and mother? Are you contending that these roles do not matter? So yes, it is relevant if you are reorganizing society, which is what is being proposed.

Marriage was defined by nature…1000’s of years ago. I’m saying (repeating) that the marriage laws we already have are not based on creating an environment for children. If that were the case, why would we need more than Holy Matrimony like it was before there were marriage laws? You should only need God’s blessing to create a nurturing environment for children. Why then would you get married by law? Because of the rights therein. I am not proposing that the meaning of those words be redefined…because there are already plenty of other situations of people raising children and there is no need to have those people be called a father and a mother per se.

First, are you contending that the situation you outline here is proper, correct and to the benefit of society? I would say the societal situation as to divorce, marriage and child rearing is disordered as it presently exists, that society is suffering already as a result, that it needs to be reformed and that the human toll within society as to crime, suicide, and poverty generally bear that out.

Second, so if the current situation is disordered, in what way does it justify a further disordering of the foundations upon which society itself is built.

And so, finally, you cannot argue that the deviation proves the rule. That fact that society behaves in thus and so way does not demonstrate, as you contend, that civil marriage is “no longer is based on the intrinsic need to procreate and care for offspring”. It obviously is intrinsically based on that, and acting as if it isn’t has wreaked havoc on society.

Of course I’m not saying that…I already said so in my first response (here I am repeating myself again). I’m not saying that allowing gays to marry would be contributing to the disorder of society…I’m only saying that the argument based on people thinking they’re immoral or not providing of a good environment doesn’t hold any water - not that I agree with those statements.

 

[peduzzi89]

I incorrectly formatted the quoting of my above post…this is the correct version:

No, I am saying that the law cannot redefine marriage because marriage was not originally defined by the law but by nature. The necessity for laws relating to marriage derives from the need to create a stable society in which the young can be reared.

To see it, I would counter that while probate and domestic laws can be changed, how do you propose to change the meaning of husband and wife? Father and mother? Are you contending that these roles do not matter? So yes, it is relevant if you are reorganizing society, which is what is being proposed.

Marriage was defined by nature…1000’s of years ago. I’m saying (repeating) that the marriage laws we already have are not based on creating an environment for children. If that were the case, why would we need more than Holy Matrimony like it was before there were marriage laws? You should only need God’s blessing to create a nurturing environment for children. Why then would you get married by law? Because of the rights therein. I am not proposing that the meaning of those words be redefined…because there are already plenty of other situations of people raising children and there is no need to have those people be called a father and a mother per se.

First, are you contending that the situation you outline here is proper, correct and to the benefit of society? I would say the societal situation as to divorce, marriage and child rearing is disordered as it presently exists, that society is suffering already as a result, that it needs to be reformed and that the human toll within society as to crime, suicide, and poverty generally bear that out.

Second, so if the current situation is disordered, in what way does it justify a further disordering of the foundations upon which society itself is built.

And so, finally, you cannot argue that the deviation proves the rule. That fact that society behaves in thus and so way does not demonstrate, as you contend, that civil marriage is “no longer is based on the intrinsic need to procreate and care for offspring”. It obviously is intrinsically based on that, and acting as if it isn’t has wreaked havoc on society.

Of course I’m not saying that…I already said so in my first response (here I am repeating myself again). I’m not saying that allowing gays to marry would be contributing to the disorder of society…I’m only saying that the argument based on people thinking they’re immoral or not providing of a good environment doesn’t hold any water - not that I agree with those statements.

 

[peduzzi89]

Have I discussed marriage as a sacrament? My comments were directed at marriage as an institution, regardless how it is instituted.

You apparently see no difference between a civil union and a marriage. But if there were no difference, homosexuals would currently be lobbying for civil union, or civil protections. Instead, what is being demanded is marriage, so apparently they recognize there is a difference that you don’t get.

The reason there is lobbying for “marriage” is because that is what the government also calls it…that still doesn’t mean they’re arguing for the sacrament of marriage. It is simply because they want (read: deserve) the same rights, not a new different set of rights called by a different name. Besides it would be a waste of time to make new specific laws anyway rather than just changing the names on forms to party 1 and 2.

So let’s analyze how you would define “mother” and “father” in the new vision of society. Are you contending that those roles are now irrelevant? What made them relevant before that has now changed? Was it possibly nature, and the intrinsic qualities of a “mother” and a “father” relating to the characteristics of the respective genders that made these roles relevant to childrearing in the first place? And have those qualities of nature changed?

There is no “new vision” of society. Allowing gay marriage won’t change the types of households that already exist…there are already gay households adopting children. It’s only changing the rights that the receive in order to make raising that household less stressful. Nobody’s asking to redefine mother and father. If 2 sisters were raising a child because one was a widow, there would be no need to try and define one as the mother and one as the father. You’re acting like if gay households get rights that all of a sudden there’s going to be a huge change…it’s only going to mean that already existing families get more visitation rights, inheritance rights, things like that.

 

[Biggie]

The reason there is lobbying for “marriage” is because that is what the government also calls it…that still doesn’t mean they’re arguing for the sacrament of marriage. It is simply because they want (read: deserve) the same rights, not a new different set of rights called by a different name. Besides it would be a waste of time to make new specific laws anyway rather than just changing the names on forms to party 1 and 2.

There is no “new vision” of society. Allowing gay marriage won’t change the types of households that already exist…there are already gay households adopting children. It’s only changing the rights that the receive in order to make raising that household less stressful. Nobody’s asking to redefine mother and father. If 2 sisters were raising a child because one was a widow, there would be no need to try and define one as the mother and one as the father. You’re acting like if gay households get rights that all of a sudden there’s going to be a huge change…it’s only going to mean that already existing families get more visitation rights, inheritance rights, things like that.

(1) Then define for me the difference between civil union and marriage? You are understating the demand. Homosexuals want the status and nuance of marriage as well as the civil protections. Their precise aim is to end the institution of marriage, which is the union of a male and female, and make it something entirely different.

(2) Then define for me the role of “Mother” and “Father”. I have asked this several times variously in the thread and haven’t had any takers. If nature selected these roles, as common sense and history bear out, then why? Are you contending that the roles are irrelevant? Are you contending that they are not gender based? Are you contending that the roles are defined only by law?

And you believe two sisters raising a sibling is the equivalent ideal to a mother and a father? I have never heard that put forth as an ideal when, for example, a mother and father are a viable alternative, and have often heard such children identified as disadvantaged when the condition is forced on them by the death of parents, etc… And if a gay household is in fact a disadvantage for a child and it can be avoided by simply prohibiting it, why on earth wouldn’t we prohibit it?

Yes, it is a “huge” change. All of our society recognizes this. Essentially, wherever people have been allowed to express themselves on the matter it is rejected.

 

[Biggie]

I incorrectly formatted the quoting of my above post…this is the correct version:

Marriage was defined by nature…1000’s of years ago. I’m saying (repeating) that the marriage laws we already have are not based on creating an environment for children. If that were the case, why would we need more than Holy Matrimony like it was before there were marriage laws? You should only need God’s blessing to create a nurturing environment for children. Why then would you get married by law? Because of the rights therein.

So the existence of civil law proves marriage is not based on creating an environment for children? Doesn’t follow.

Again, I have not addressed marriage as a sacrament, but to respond to this, the fact that the Church considers it a sacrament (ordained not only by civil law but by God himself) does not prove that it has no concern for the civil legitimacy of marriage. Allow me to give you an exercise. Find in the New Testament the number of times Our Lord refers to marriage and the sanctity of it. You might be surprised. Do you think he was thinking in flexible terms as to marriage?

I am not proposing that the meaning of those words be redefined…because there are already plenty of other situations of people raising children and there is no need to have those people be called a father and a mother per se.

See my response above, but in a nutshell, do you believe that these alternate means of upbringing are ideal or not? Defend that please. So again you would have it that a deviation become the norm and a deviation that all recognize as disadvantaged when it occurs naturally or due to the failings of the adults involved. And, therefore, mother and father mean nothing to you and to them.

So do you think that to tell mothers and fathers that their vocation suddenly means nothing is harmful to them? Removes the basis on which to sacrifice for the rearing of children? Hurts society? I certainly do.

Of course I’m not saying that…I already said so in my first response (here I am repeating myself again). I’m not saying that allowing gays to marry would be contributing to the disorder of society…I’m only saying that the argument based on people thinking they’re immoral or not providing of a good environment doesn’t hold any water - not that I agree with those statements.

Well I am saying that allowing gays to marry would be contributing to the disorder of society. In itself it is disordered. It changes the terms of marriage for the vast majority of people who entered into the marital commitment under the only definition marriage bears throughout time and eternity. It devalues the roles of individuals within marriage. It changes the whole terms of child rearing and the commitment of individuals to both marriage and children. And in harming marriage it harms society.

The immorality doesn’t stem from marriage, but from the sexual activity of the homosexual itself, which is gravely disordered.

You have no basis on which to contend that children raised in a homosexual environment are being raised in an environment that does not harm them because there is no empirical and spare anecdotal evidence because it has not been enforced society wide for significantly long periods of time to even analyze it.

It is a social experiment conducted live on children and on society. And the experiment is: does 24/7, lifetime exposure of a child to a disordered and immoral lifestyle on the part of adults significant to him or her do the child harm? And we already know the answer.

 

[Newbie2]

Ok, so of what I understand the whole fight about gay marriage is about gay civil marriage. Meaning, they are fighting about their *legal *right to become married and have that union recognized by the state/federal government. With this recognition there will be an easier transfer of money if one passes, visitation rights in hospitals, easier power of attorney, and numerous other benefits. I’m not married yet, so I can only imagine what all these benefits are.

For me, giving them legal rights is perfectly fine by me. They are a minority and, in my mind, this seems pretty similar to the whole equal rights for African Americans. Frankly, I’m sure there are some religous sects out there that are still upset about that…

Ultimately, I’m trying to understand the psychology of why Christians are so upset about giving gays equal legal rights. Thanks!

I don’t think many Christians would have problems with this concept either…except it isn’t just about legal rights. A homosexual couple can legally set up such an arrangement for banking, visitation, etc. The push is for society to accept and recognize gay “marriage”.

When Ellen Degeneres had John McCain on her show, he spoke of contracts. She insisted on marriage. This isn’t about Catholics being upset. What two people do in the privacy of wherever they live is not the issue. **They want the State and Society to put gay marriage on the exact same level as heterosexual marriage. **They incorrectly use black civil rights terminology for their cause. Civil unions are not enough. They claim it would be “separate but equal.” They want what they call “marriage equality.”

Peace,
Ed

Exactly.

That’s the thing that gets me so annoyed! Straight marriage has fallen apart and** the gays are being blamed for the problem even though they had NOTHING to do with it. **

Who? Where? Examples, please.

Frankly, society has no reason for gay marriage. Gay people seem to have a need, but there is no societal need.
Heterosexual marriage is so important that, in the past, if you lived with someone of the opposite sex for a certain amount of time, you had a common law marriage, because you were, indeed, living as husband and wife. Why care? Offspring. Kids.

Societies have encouraged marriage, forced marriage in the common law case, to provide a stable platform for the raising of the next generation. People have known for generations that it is best for the children for their parents to be married and to be legally responsible for them (the children).

Since gay couples can, in no circumstances, have natural offspring, there is no need for society to create the construct of gay marriage. Society has no reason. However gay people want marriage because it’s another pathetic attempt to convince themselves that they are normal in their same sex attraction.

Excellent point.

A civil marriage between two people is not a sacrament, nor is it under Church jurisdiction. Civil marriage is completley different than the sacrament of marriage…that’s why I included the word in the title.

Now I ask, how is it bad for society to have gay men or women who love each other, have an easier transfer of material wealth (as well as other numerous benefits) recognized by the government?

Right, and that can be done without calling it “marriage”.

Another question, why is altering the meaning of civil marriage that bad? I hear that argument all the time, but can’t fathom the underlying reasons. Its not as if straight people are giong to get married to the same gender simply because its legal.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!

Look at it this way. If a person is a Christian and acts like a Christian, and is considered by society to be a Christian…and if another person comes along and claims to be a Christian and speaks, believes and acts in ways that are decisively not Christian, is it good for society to consider anyone a Christian? And what about if someone comes along and is unequivically Anti-Christian i.e. openly worships Satan and calles themself a Christian. In such a case, is it good then for society to consider anyone a Christian?

I still just don’t understand how this works. To me, the sacrament of marriage is wholly separate than the legal format of marriage. I believe even in France that there are two separate words for matrimony and civil marriage…simply because it is separate. In my mind, states don’t have the right to issue or verify marriage liscences anyway simply because they can’t issue sacraments.

So, theoretically, civil marriage can be between two gay men, two gay women, or a straight couple…how does society fall apart? Now, people that were banned from joining assets can do so…would it not organize society even more? Less 1040’s that’s for sure!

When were unrelated people banned from having joint savings?

What you just wrote doesn’t make any sense. You see civil and sacramental marriage as two different things. Fine. But then you say that States don’t have, in your mind, the right to issue a marriage license since they can’t issue Sacraments. ??? States don’t do so nor do they claim to do so.

The entire “SS Parter rights” argument is a red herring for those wanting to force us to accept the concept of SS Marriage as equivalent to Marriage as society has defined it since the beginning of time.

 

[edwest2]

The reason there is lobbying for “marriage” is because that is what the government also calls it…that still doesn’t mean they’re arguing for the sacrament of marriage. It is simply because they want (read: deserve) the same rights, not a new different set of rights called by a different name. Besides it would be a waste of time to make new specific laws anyway rather than just changing the names on forms to party 1 and 2.

There is no “new vision” of society. Allowing gay marriage won’t change the types of households that already exist…there are already gay households adopting children. It’s only changing the rights that the receive in order to make raising that household less stressful. Nobody’s asking to redefine mother and father. If 2 sisters were raising a child because one was a widow, there would be no need to try and define one as the mother and one as the father. You’re acting like if gay households get rights that all of a sudden there’s going to be a huge change…it’s only going to mean that already existing families get more visitation rights, inheritance rights, things like that.

There are already plans in place for what happens Beyond Gay Marriage. This is only the first step:

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri

God bless,
Ed