Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[Ronald_E]

Nice dodge. Ignore gay marriage and save dying people. Which sin did God condone?

Peace,
Ed

Sad. Goodbye

 

[ladybri77]

Spectrm, did you get a chance to read post #210?

 

[edwest2]

As practicing Christians, we have a moral obligation to not let immorality dominate the society in which we live. We don’t want our kids exposed to this immorality especially if we don’t want them to believe it’s a natural function and that it’s “okay”. In the same way there are decency laws as to what goes on television, we would speak up and are speaking up for things which cross the moral line there and which would influence the morals of of what we teach our children, we must stop immorality from spreading anymore in society at large.

They are already trying to make incest legal in Europe. Should we just idly stand by and do nothing? No, we have a moral obligation. Someone once said that a society given over to immorality, will eventually destroy itself. I believe this holds true historically.

Even civily speaking, should we let an institution that has always been defined as a man and a woman all of a sudden become corrupted by an immoral and indecent act and become something other than it was intended to be by our founding fathers and from the beginning of time?? And people don’t understand why we are challenging this??!!

And they are using science to help justify their immorality.

Stand up, my brothers and sisters in Christ. The pedophiles are lining up for their “rights” as well, and the polygamists.

V.I. Lenin: Destroy the family and you destroy society.

Peace,
Ed

 

[spectrm]

As practicing Christians, we have a moral obligation to not let immorality dominate the society in which we live. We don’t want our kids exposed to this immorality especially if we don’t want them to believe it’s a natural function and that it’s “okay”. In the same way there are decency laws as to what goes on television, we would speak up and are speaking up for things which cross the moral line there and which would influence the morals of of what we teach our children, we must stop immorality from spreading anymore in society at large.

And as practicing *, all of us have the right to fight for what we perceive as a moral society, whether it’s in opposition to you or not. The FSM points out this ridiculous social fallacy. Religion, or doctrinally specific positions still need utilitarian support to convince the congress and impose law on the rest of the population. Marriage was made a legal institution and, insomuch, it must provide and be provided uniformly to every individual based on the promises made in the Constitution.

They are already trying to make incest legal in Europe.

And if the law is written such that it could be, somebody fsck’d up.

Should we just idly stand by and do nothing?

I would never impose an obligation or lack thereof upon you. It’s your life, kiddo.

No, we have a moral obligation.

How so? There are clear health problems involved with incestuous relationships and the offspring they produce. Gay marriage doesn’t promise to produce offspring at all, and so poses no real risk. If you’re only objection is a religious one, then vote as you will and practice as you do. But let the democratic process work on the legal end.

Someone once said that a society given over to immorality, will eventually destroy itself. I believe this holds true historically.

An you are right. But it becomes a matter of who’s morality and to what extent. According to NAZI ethics, what they did was moral, so they let society be dictated by it, and they ended up with tyranny. The same happens under Shi’a law in the Middle East. I would prefer to NOT see one religious or political institution (because they both presume to play the same role) take over the entire operation. THAT has been shown to be historically disastrous, as well.

Even civily speaking, should we let an institution that has always been defined as a man and a woman

Matrimony is a bond between an man and a woman. Marriage is a legal contract to pool assets and efforts with an individual. It’s only real purpose, in the legal realm, is to pass on bereavements (executor of will), make decisions when the one partner is otherwise incapacitated (living executor), and legal recognition of the right to share information on personal accounts (private executor). There is no legal promise of children, no guarantee of timespan, and no other provisions pertaining to the individuals rights. Many states don’t even define ‘man and woman’. While this is originally a provisioning error (they left it out as they felt it unnecessary to specify), it’s wording is more applicable to the modern environment and should become defined by the courts as such.

all of a sudden become corrupted by an immoral and indecent act

immoral by who’s standards? This isn’t just YOUR country. It’s mine to.

and become something other than it was intended to be by our founding fathers and from the beginning of time??

Our founding fathers weren’t around at the beginning of time, nor did they have any legal intentions for marriage. There is no federal statute on marriage (yet). This is a right left up to the states, where it should be. The founding fathers had no collective opinion on marriage and it’s handling…hell…several of them had boyfriends on the side. They were much to concerned with matters of economy and international affairs - you know…‘the big stuff’ - to concern themselves with people’s private conduct in their own bedrooms.

And people don’t understand why we are challenging this??!!

Nope - I really don’t. You haven’t done anywhere near a job of convincing.

 

[ladybri77]

Matrimony is a bond between an man and a woman. Marriage is a legal contract to pool assets and efforts with an individual. It’s only real purpose, in the legal realm, is to pass on bereavements (executor of will), make decisions when the one partner is otherwise incapacitated (living executor), and legal recognition of the right to share information on personal accounts (private executor). There is no legal promise of children, no guarantee of timespan, and no other provisions pertaining to the individuals rights. Many states don’t even define ‘man and woman’. While this is originally a provisioning error (they left it out as they felt it unnecessary to specify), it’s wording is more applicable to the modern environment and should become defined by the courts as such.

Our founding fathers weren’t around at the beginning of time, nor did they have any legal intentions for marriage. There is no federal statute on marriage (yet). This is a right left up to the states, where it should be. The founding fathers had no collective opinion on marriage and it’s handling…hell…several of them had boyfriends on the side. They were much to concerned with matters of economy and international affairs - you know…‘the big stuff’ - to concern themselves with people’s private conduct in their own bedrooms.

Nope - I really don’t. You haven’t done anywhere near a job of convincing.

I shouldn’t really comment on this, but I will. Don’t tell me that even though marriage is a legal contract to pool assets, that you are unaware that it was always understood as being between a man and a woman, even according to Webster. And that our founding fathers were Christian and would probably turn over in their graves if they heard of such a thing as same sex marriage.

There are no health concerns with same sex unions, really? Since when is anal sex healthy? Since when doesn’t it increase the probability of spreading AIDS as it breaks the tiny blood vessels in the rectum and increases the spread of all kinds of diseases?

I figure that what I’ve said probably won’t change your mind since you have hardened your heart to the truth. I will pray for you.

 

[spectrm]

I shouldn’t really comment on this,

Please do, I’m a big boy, I can take it.

but I will. Don’t tell me that even though marriage is a legal contract to pool assets, that you are unaware that it was always understood as being between a man and a woman, even according to Webster.

Sure. I already conceded that.

And that our founding fathers were Christian

GOTCHA!!! Only SOME were christian. Less than 60% last I read.

and would probably turn over in their graves if they heard of such a thing as same sex marriage.

Perhaps they would have…some wouldn’t have (as mentioned…some had gay relations).

There are no health concerns with same sex unions, really?

Not in the least

Since when is anal sex healthy?

anal sex != same-sex unions, Mrs. I-Can-Read-Webster’s-Dictionary…

Since when doesn’t it increase the probability of spreading AIDS

AIDS doesn’t spread, HIV does, causing AIDS, and in a monogamous relationship where neither partner has HIV, no one will get AIDS…didn’t pay much attention in BIO class, did you? Also, HIV isn’t “the gay disease”…80% of HIV sufferers are heterosexual and live in Africa or Southeast Asia.

as it breaks the tiny blood vessels in the rectum and increases the spread of all kinds of diseases?

tiny blood vessels break in the vagina during heterosexual discourse, also…is it just as prone to disease? Or is there some other reason you seem to think gay sex any riskier than straight sex? Or do you doubt a homosexual’s monogamy? What exactly is it, because your justifications don’t make any sense.

And, btw, you left out lesbians. They don’t have anal sex and don’t have a high succeptibility to HIV. Should their marriages be okay, then?

I figure that what I’ve said probably won’t change your mind since you have hardened your heart to the truth. I will pray for you.

No…I’ve apparently found the truth, as you can’t make heads or tails out of your own ideas. You SHOULD be praying for yourself.

 

[Elizabeth502]

^^In fact, I’ll go further: While I certainly don’t have statistics or surveys to back this up, my understanding is that the gay marriage movement is a pretty modern effort, contradicting as it does the previous disinterest of gays in institutionalizing their unions, including those of lifelong length. Living without a piece of paper did two things: kept their union unofficial (thus less susceptible to harassment) and reinforced their preference to live unconventionally and without encumbrances.

Further, the widespread contemporary assumption that gay is “an identity” rather than a lifestyle preference was not a premise shared by people living in the 18th century. It is a construct of modern psychological & sociological theory – not to mention political rhetoric. Even if spectrm can prove that “lots” of our founding fathers “had boyfriends on the side,” those FF’s did not consider themselves to partake of a “gay identity,” but rather a freed, American identity. Yes, marriage was/is the prerogative of individual States to administer, but if the FF’s had determined that marriage fell under federal jurisdiction instead, there would have been no language to imply anything other than heterosexual formal unions.

 

[ladybri77]

Spectrm: So what you’re saying is that marriage is only a legal binding contract that is no respecter of persons according to the state. So anyone could get married then, mothers and daughters, sons, fathers, cousins, etc?

It seems to me that there must have been good reason that marriage was only allowed between a man and a woman for hundreds of years. I envision the U.S. becoming a very cold, hardened nation if it allowed this sort of thing; an anything goes type mentality with civilized people becoming a thing of the past.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It seems to me that there must have been good reason that marriage was only allowed between a man and a woman for hundreds of years. I envision the U.S. becoming a very cold, hardened nation if it allowed this sort of thing; an anything goes type mentality with civilized people becoming a thing of the past.

I think this is not an extreme vision at all, but logically follows as a consequence of an assault on biology (which benadam argues as a central thesis). It is not wise to mock Mother Nature. One needn’t be religious at all to understand this. Plenty of atheistic scientists have a great respect for nature and the predominant patterns/behaviors therein, by which each species protects its succession & ensures its survival as that distinct, intact species: heterosexual pairing, heterosexual physical acts, biological maternal bonds, biological paternal bonds, heterosexual family units.

 

[ladybri77]

“Marriage was made a legal institution and, insomuch, it must provide and be provided uniformly to every individual based on the promises made in the Constitution.” Spectrm

Where was there a mention that same sex partners have marital provisions in the Constitution? Or between a brother & sister, cousins, mother & father, etc? Where does it say that?

Yes, I was referring to the HIV virus. When the virus was introduced in this country, it was first spread through male homosexual contact. Then when bisexual men had sex with women, it was spread to heterosexuals.

Ya! Let’s make it just okay for lesbians to marry then!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

And as practicing *, all of us have the right to fight for what we perceive as a moral society, whether it’s in opposition to you or not. The FSM points out this ridiculous social fallacy. Religion, or doctrinally specific positions still need utilitarian support to convince the congress and impose law on the rest of the population. Marriage was made a legal institution and, insomuch, it must provide and be provided uniformly to every individual based on the promises made in the Constitution.

Who or what is FSM? Marriage long predates the constitution and does not violate the constitution. All just law is based from Natural [Moral] Law. Such is taught earily in every law school

And if the law is written such that it could be, somebody fsck’d up.

All just law is based from Natural [Moral] Law.

I would never impose an obligation or lack thereof upon you. It’s your life, kiddo.

How so? There are clear health problems involved with incestuous relationships and the offspring they produce. Gay marriage doesn’t promise to produce offspring at all, and so poses no real risk. If you’re only objection is a religious one, then vote as you will and practice as you do. But let the democratic process work on the legal end.

I am glad you wrote this, it is the core of marriage and is exactly half the issue. The other half has to do with how woman is made to match man

An you are right. But it becomes a matter of who’s morality and to what extent. According to NAZI ethics, what they did was moral, so they let society be dictated by it, and they ended up with tyranny. The same happens under Shi’a law in the Middle East. I would prefer to NOT see one religious or political institution (because they both presume to play the same role) take over the entire operation. THAT has been shown to be historically disastrous, as well.

All just law is based from Natural [Moral] Law, so your issue is who is interpreting Natural [Moral] Law. Any body of power can make a law whether just or not

Matrimony is a bond between an man and a woman. Marriage is a legal contract to pool assets and efforts with an individual. It’s only real purpose, in the legal realm, is to pass on bereavements (executor of will), make decisions when the one partner is otherwise incapacitated (living executor), and legal recognition of the right to share information on personal accounts (private executor). There is no legal promise of children, no guarantee of time span, and no other provisions pertaining to the individuals rights. Many states don’t even define ‘man and woman’. While this is originally a provisioning error (they left it out as they felt it unnecessary to specify), it’s wording is more applicable to the modern environment and should become defined by the courts as such.

Now your getting there -Marriage exists in nature and is recognized as you state TO ALLOW Woman to raise children thus forgoing income opportunity

immoral by who’s standards? This isn’t just YOUR country. It’s mine to.

Our founding fathers weren’t around at the beginning of time, nor did they have any legal intentions for marriage. There is no federal statute on marriage (yet). This is a right left up to the states, where it should be. The founding fathers had no collective opinion on marriage and it’s handling…hell…several of them had boyfriends on the side. They were much to concerned with matters of economy and international affairs - you know…‘the big stuff’ - to concern themselves with people’s private conduct in their own bedrooms.

Nope - I really don’t. You haven’t done anywhere near a job of convincing.

Our founding fathers could not image nor for see the current condition, remember woman could not vote, usually could not own land, and were not considered for high levels of employment

Please do, I’m a big boy, I can take it.

Sure. I already conceded that.

GOTCHA!!! Only SOME were Christian. Less than 60% last I read.

That does not appear accurate, their refusal to recognize the King of England or Pope as Church heads is not the same as non Christians

Perhaps they would have…some wouldn’t have (as mentioned…some had gay relations).

I have never seen such, please elaborate though it is an issue outside this thread

Not in the least

anal sex != same-sex unions, Mrs. I-Can-Read-Webster’s-Dictionary…

AIDS doesn’t spread, HIV does, causing AIDS, and in a monogamous relationship where neither partner has HIV, no one will get AIDS…didn’t pay much attention in BIO class, did you? Also, HIV isn’t “the gay disease”…80% of HIV sufferers are heterosexual and live in Africa or Southeast Asia.

tiny blood vessels break in the vagina during heterosexual discourse, also…is it just as prone to disease? Or is there some other reason you seem to think gay sex any riskier than straight sex? Or do you doubt a homosexual’s monogamy? What exactly is it, because your justifications don’t make any sense.

And, btw, you left out lesbians. They don’t have anal sex and don’t have a high susceptibility to HIV. Should their marriages be okay, then?

it is not a health based issue

Hope that helps

 

[Jermosh]

Where was there a mention that same sex partners have marital provisions in the Constitution? Or between a brother & sister, cousins, mother & father, etc? Where does it say that?

Actually the spirit of the Constitution does allow for SSM, its a natural right for anyone to choice another concenting adult to be their partner. While Locke would have thought it was wrong to have SSM, he would have agreed it was their right since it is socially acceptable and legal to be Gay.

Yes, I was referring to the HIV virus. When the virus was introduced in this country, it was first spread through male homosexual contact. Then when bisexual men had sex with women, it was spread to heterosexuals.

HIV is not only a US issue, while it is prodominent with Gay men in the US, they are not the majority of victims worldwide. But SSM would infact remove this stigma.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Actually the spirit of the Constitution does allow for SSM, its a natural right for anyone to choice another concenting adult to be their partner. While Locke would have thought it was wrong to have SSM, he would have agreed it was their right since it is socially acceptable and legal to be Gay.

Totally off.

Such a particular “right” – extending as it does to the actual institution and name, “marriage,” cannot be inferred from Locke. Yes, one could infer freedom to associate between or among consenting adults: that is a separate issue. (So, for example, several heterosexual couples can have a group orgy, with other couples, legally, and that is implied by the Constitution. But that same Constitution does not take it a step further and grant the several couples combined marriage rights, as that would be polygamy.) Same for associations among homosexuals.

Similarly, the right of adults to view pornography on paper or online is also implied by the Constitution. I regret that there used to be what are called “community standards” by which individual regions/cities could nevertheless exclude pornography within its geography. That became gutted by ridiculous lawsuits; but note that places which minors frequent can nevertheless continue to restrict (such as public libraries), since no freedom in the Constitution is an absolute freedom. We live by relative freedoms. That is exactly part of the point of marriage as an institution: it involves children, by extension. Children have not the freedom to pick their parents, so they should have the right to be raised in a traditional two-gender household where the relationship follows the dominant biological pattern, as benadam has stated eloquently several times.

 

[Holly3278]

I am a Catholic. And I believe that Gay Marriage, as a civil institution, should be legal in the United States of America.

It is abundantly clear that secular society has a view of marriage that is vastly different than the Church. God is not brought into many marriages. People marry and divorce at will. People carry infidelity in their minds and bodies.

Marriage, as a civil institution, is a contract. It is no different than a contract between a labor union and employer. In other words, it often holds absolutely no spiritual value. God is rarely present. God is not required to be present.

In this context, it is discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to take part in this institution.

I support the Churches teaching on homosexuality. Even more so, I support the Churches teaching on marriage.

However, if same sex couples want to have a civil marriage that is their right. The Church should not concern itself.

If you truly supported the Church’s teaching on marriage, you wouldn’t support gay marriage.

 

[spectrm]

Actually the spirit of the Constitution does allow for SSM, its a natural right for anyone to choice another concenting adult to be their partner. While Locke would have thought it was wrong to have SSM, he would have agreed it was their right since it is socially acceptable and legal to be Gay.

HIV is not only a US issue, while it is prodominent with Gay men in the US, they are not the majority of victims worldwide. But SSM would infact remove this stigma.

Finally someone else with some sense.

People, understand…nothing about gay marriage will allow people to marry animals because animals can’t consent to anything in a legal sense…they’re not ‘people’ according to the law…and there are biological reasons to prevent people of the same family to marry.

There are no biological risks and no lack of consent in same-sex marriage. Nearly all STD transmission is through promiscuous sex…not inherently gay sex.

The stigma that all gay sex is promiscuous is ridiculous and only serves to show your ignorance of the subject. The same as the belief that HIV came over via gay males. This is not proven and even if it were could just have easily been brought over by a straight man…or straight woman.

The belief only serves to ostracize a population, most of which has always practiced sex in a safe and monogamous fashion. In either case, it’s a problem to be dealt with in all communities, now. But that’s WAY off topic.

If you believe that gay marriage should be legal, then you shouldn’t be arguing for ‘separate but equal’ with civil unions and marriage…we should remove marriage from the legal codes and leave it up to the churches. If marriage is truly your domain, as christians, then take it back by removing it from the perview of government.

 

[Jermosh]

If you truly supported the Church’s teaching on marriage, you wouldn’t support gay marriage.

You would also not support 70% of civil marriages.

 

[Jermosh]

Such a particular “right” – extending as it does to the actual institution and name, “marriage,” cannot be inferred from Locke. Yes, one could infer freedom to associate between or among consenting adults: that is a separate issue. (So, for example, several heterosexual couples can have a group orgy, with other couples, legally, and that is implied by the Constitution. But that same Constitution does not take it a step further and grant the several couples combined marriage rights, as that would be polygamy.) Same for associations among homosexuals.

Civil marriage is not an institution, it is a covenant that allows certain rights and privileges to another partner. Marriage is also a right, there are plenty of court cases showcasing this in the case of prison authorities attempting to bar a marriage to a prisoner.

Similarly, the right of adults to view pornography on paper or online is also implied by the Constitution. I regret that there used to be what are called “community standards” by which individual regions/cities could nevertheless exclude pornography within its geography.

This is only protecting the right of the person who does not want to look at the pornography, that is a universal right as well. Having a SSM is no more of a infraction against your rights then is a 2nd or 3rd marriage is.

That is exactly part of the point of marriage as an institution: it involves children, by extension. Children have not the freedom to pick their parents, so they should have the right to be raised in a traditional two-gender household where the relationship follows the dominant biological pattern, as benadam has stated eloquently several times.

The rights contained in a civil marriage covenant have nothing to do with procreation. All the tax credits, SS benefits, etc, etc are purely based on a child, no matter if that child is in a married family or a single household. In fact it would be a better tax advantage to have a child in a single tax filing.

 

[fix]

There are at least 5 million children who die before the age of 5 each year and to spend millions of dollars fighting laws to prevent gay marriage is an atrocity. Our Lord said if we are truly His disciples we will care for the widows and the orphans. Stop deceiving yourselves into thinking you can talk someone into believing you have the truth when you have hostility in your heart.
Go save some women and children.

The truth is we have an obligation to defend marriage.

See this:

“Abysmal” Catholic apathy must be overcome to oppose those who are “fiercely determined” to impose homosexual “marriage,” Bishop of Providence, Rhode Island Thomas J. Tobin has warned. Reasserting Catholic teaching on sexual morality, he also said that same-sex “marriage” will endanger religious freedom…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…

The rights contained in a civil marriage covenant have nothing to do with procreation. All the tax credits, SS benefits, etc, etc are purely based on a child, no matter if that child is in a married family or a single household. In fact it would be a better tax advantage to have a child in a single tax filing.

*If you are the unmarried child under 18 (up to age 19 if attending elementary or secondary school full time) of a worker who dies, you also can be eligible to receive Social Security survivor benefits.

And you can get benefits at any age if you were disabled before age 22 and remain disabled. Click here for an explanation of disability qualifications for children.

(Besides the worker’s natural children, his or her stepchildren, grandchildren or adopted children may receive benefits under certain circumstances.) * ssa.gov/survivorplan/ifyou4.htm

Of course some will have to misrepresent the record which is in and of itself a good reason to dismiss their arguements.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Finally someone else with some sense.

People, understand…nothing about gay marriage will allow people to marry animals because animals can’t consent to anything in a legal sense…they’re not ‘people’ according to the law…

agreed

.and there are biological reasons to prevent people of the same family to marry.

? ? no, it is a moral base

… The stigma that all gay sex is promiscuous is ridiculous and only serves to show your ignorance of the subject. …The belief only serves to ostracize a population, most of which has always practiced sex in a safe and monogamous fashion…

This again points to an error, all studies show " gay sex is promiscuous" and that is one example of the reason to believe it is outside Natural [Moral] Law

…If you believe that gay marriage should be legal, then you shouldn’t be arguing for ‘separate but equal’ with civil unions and marriage…we should remove marriage from the legal codes and leave it up to the churches. If marriage is truly your domain, as Christians, then take it back by removing it from the preview of government.

BINGO, The church did not install legal marriage!!! Marriage predated civil law, religion, and the USA, it is the civil government recognizing marriage, not the other way around. If the civil government calls SSA relationships marriages they are simply mislabeling, same sex marriage does not exist the makeup of the partners is incongruent in roles and congruent in biology, while marriage partners are congruent in roles and incongruent in biology.