Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[Benadam]

Just read it! Thanks for the reference.

I agree with RyanL. To believe the government is here to protect equality is a bit naive.

And although I see truths in the statement about baby making, I’m still not 100% sold. If that’s the case, why not make the actual live baby, the marker of a marriage? Forget a marriage license, make a baby!

And once you have a baby (with the accepted paternity + maternity DNA testing of the baby… cuz we don’t want to create a baby market out there), then as the parents, you can legally get married.

And if you don’t have a baby for proof of your baby making prowess, then you shouldn’t be allowed to get married. And if you can make babies but choose not to, oh well, no marriage for you either!

I don’t mean to divert this thread so I’ll stop.

Good stuff!

The state needs a commitment to that baby so it doesn’t become an orphanage.

 

[elts1956]

When the concept of a democracy sprung up, don’t you think there were defenders who felt the need to protect the concept of government (referring to monarchy)? Democracy is unarguably different then monarchy, but that doesn’t mean it is not ok. Society is still strong in the nations that allow gay marriage, so I’m not sure how allowing it puts society in danger.

I remember sitting in mass the Sunday before the election listening to a letter from the bishop saying that Catholics were morally obliged to vote against certain issues (listening in between the lines, it said we had to vote republican). I’m not saying it’s wrong for them to do that.

Wow, i never suggested that they did. There are better ways to protect then discrimination (which can occasionally be hateful, not saying that when the church does it it is). Once again, society has not crumbled where gay marriage is legal. What exactly does society need protection from?

But couldn’t it just necessarily take an insider to see the good in it? I’m not condone promiscuity; in fact I despise it, so no, it doesn’t take an “outsider” to see the dangers in that. Marriage is not about promiscuity though, is it?

I really don’t think it’s fair to say gays mainly define themselves by their sexuality. Take a look at this, there is a lot of truth in it.

If you break up the quoteed text its a lot easier to respond to. Oh, and I though the debate was over?

First my apologies for not reading all of the posts, so what I am going to say may already have been said.

Every culture I have read about has been built and sustained because of the Traditional family unit. Perhaps we should study past republics to see how they rose and how they fell. For instance, Rome, for all its mistakes and eventual evils, rose because of the respect of the Traditional family unit. It was when Rome’s moral laws began to be ignored by her citizens that her strength was weakened. When the indiviudals in their society began believing in relativism, not absolutism, when individuals a varying groups of citizens begane to make their own laws to fit their morals, the structure of her civilization was doomed. How long did Rome survive as a Nation? 10BC to 5AD and at the rate this country is disintigrating, we will never be held as a nation who came close to it.

 

[Benadam]

First my apologies for not reading all of the posts, so what I am going to say may already have been said.

Every culture I have read about has been built and sustained because of the Traditional

 

[RyanL]

If that’s the case, why not make the actual live baby, the marker of a marriage? Forget a marriage license, make a baby!

Well…that approach would at least help folks remember that the intended function of their reproductive systems is not simply pleasure…

But I don’t agree with your proposed approach. I’ll get back to that.

And once you have a baby (with the accepted paternity + maternity DNA testing of the baby… cuz we don’t want to create a baby market out there), then as the parents, you can legally get married.

Haven’t you heard? With surrogate moms and artificial dads, biology has been…ahem…divorced…from the concept of family. In the name of tolerance, no less. You must not have had two daddies.

And if you don’t have a baby for proof of your baby making prowess, then you shouldn’t be allowed to get married. And if you can make babies but choose not to, oh well, no marriage for you either!

Ok. So back to the less snarky part. ;0)

In case you haven’t noticed, I have a tendency to oversimplify and exaggerate. And brow-beat. It’s a known fault, but I’m working on it.

In any case…

The more complex reply to your question is twofold. First, as Benadam implied, folks who are already married have a level of commitment not matched by the unwed or cohabiting (cohabiting couples, btw, have been linked to a rather high subsequent divorce rate – so yours is a doubly bad idea, actually). Makes sense, though. The framework is already in place before the newborn gets swabbed (in your model), so the committed relationship is more likely to stay in place. Try and force it once the baby is there and I’m betting it’s a bit more difficult, if not typically unsuccessful.

The second, more hard to grasp part is as follows. The government’s interest also lays in what used to be called sex, but since that term has been ruined I’ll have to call it “baby making activity” or “BMA” for short. BMA would happen whether the government recognized marriage or not, and babies would result in any event. However, there are responsible ways to make babies and irresponsible ways to make babies, one making good citizens and the other making, more often than not, delinquents. So what’s a government to do? Well, if I were a government I’d incentivize the responsible way through tax incentives, ready-made contracts, etc., and perhaps even recognized legal privileges that foster spousal communications and imtimacy.

…but that’s just me.

In any case, BMA simply can’t happen in same-sex relationships. It’s just…impossible. No other word for it. Interestingly, however, BMA can occur with infertile couples (whether by birth or age) – even though a baby doesn’t result, it’s still the same activity that makes babies. Put them out on the market doing BMA with everyone else, and perhaps the irresponsible BMA will result in a baby. After all, infertility is not terribly common so it’s usually one spouse with the problem…even with old people.

So yeah. I just don’t see the government interest which would justify my tax dollars supporting two same sex folks caring about each other. Call me crazy.

Oh, and note that I never once mentioned God or the Bible in any of the above.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[JuneBug72]

First my apologies for not reading all of the posts, so what I am going to say may already have been said.

Every culture I have read about has been built and sustained because of the Traditional family unit. Perhaps we should study past republics to see how they rose and how they fell. For instance, Rome, for all its mistakes and eventual evils, rose because of the respect of the Traditional family unit. It was when Rome’s moral laws began to be ignored by her citizens that her strength was weakened. When the indiviudals in their society began believing in relativism, not absolutism, when individuals a varying groups of citizens begane to make their own laws to fit their morals, the structure of her civilization was doomed. How long did Rome survive as a Nation? 10BC to 5AD and at the rate this country is disintigrating, we will never be held as a nation who came close to it.

Christianity was declared the official state religion by the emperor Theodosius in 380. Christianity was the state religion before and during the fall of Rome. One might as easily conclude that Christianity contributed to the fall of Rome.

 

[goofyjim]

Well…that approach would at least help folks remember that the intended function of their reproductive systems is not simply pleasure…

But I don’t agree with your proposed approach. I’ll get back to that.

Haven’t you heard? With surrogate moms and artificial dads, biology has been…ahem…divorced…from the concept of family. In the name of tolerance, no less. You must not have had two daddies.

Ok. So back to the less snarky part. ;0)

In case you haven’t noticed, I have a tendency to oversimplify and exaggerate. And brow-beat. It’s a known fault, but I’m working on it.

In any case…

The more complex reply to your question is twofold. First, as Benadam implied, folks who are already married have a level of commitment not matched by the unwed or cohabiting (cohabiting couples, btw, have been linked to a rather high subsequent divorce rate – so yours is a doubly bad idea, actually). Makes sense, though. The framework is already in place before the newborn gets swabbed (in your model), so the committed relationship is more likely to stay in place. Try and force it once the baby is there and I’m betting it’s a bit more difficult, if not typically unsuccessful.

The second, more hard to grasp part is as follows. The government’s interest also lays in what used to be called sex, but since that term has been ruined I’ll have to call it “baby making activity” or “BMA” for short. BMA would happen whether the government recognized marriage or not, and babies would result in any event. However, there are responsible ways to make babies and irresponsible ways to make babies, one making good citizens and the other making, more often than not, delinquents. So what’s a government to do? Well, if I were a government I’d incentivize the responsible way through tax incentives, ready-made contracts, etc., and perhaps even recognized legal privileges that foster spousal communications and imtimacy.

…but that’s just me.

In any case, BMA simply can’t happen in same-sex relationships. It’s just…impossible. No other word for it. Interestingly, however, BMA can occur with infertile couples (whether by birth or age) – even though a baby doesn’t result, it’s still the same activity that makes babies. Put them out on the market doing BMA with everyone else, and perhaps the irresponsible BMA will result in a baby. After all, infertility is not terribly common so it’s usually one spouse with the problem…even with old people.

So yeah. I just don’t see the government interest which would justify my tax dollars supporting two same sex folks caring about each other. Call me crazy.

Oh, and note that I never once mentioned God or the Bible in any of the above.

God Bless,
RyanL

The government should take a hands off approach and not promote one or the other. And outside of sex what is wrong with same sex couples caring for each other? Are you saying that if I never got married I deserve to die alone rather than have a same gender person to care for me if need be?

 

[goofyjim]

It is mercy I desire not sacrifice.

 

[RyanL]

The government should take a hands off approach and not promote one or the other. And outside of sex what is wrong with same sex couples caring for each other? Are you saying that if I never got married I deserve to die alone rather than have a same gender person to care for me if need be?

Come on, Jim. I didn’t say anything like that. Don’t be melodramatic.

You want to live a life of chaste affection with a member of the same sex, aside from some warnings about deliberately placing yourself in the near occasion of sin you’re not going to hear a peep out of me.

Like I said, the government should make sure BMA happens in a responsible way. After all, that’s how good citizens are made. So the government should promote one over the other. But as for who you choose to associate with…the government should allow you to assemble as you please. Even if that’s with a member of the same sex about whom you care deeply.

…or at least, that’s what I think.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[goofyjim]

Come on, Jim. I didn’t say anything like that. Don’t be melodramatic.

You want to live a life of chaste affection with a member of the same sex, aside from some warnings about deliberately placing yourself in the near occasion of sin you’re not going to hear a peep out of me.

Like I said, the government should make sure BMA happens in a responsible way. After all, that’s how good citizens are made. So the government should promote one over the other. But as for who you choose to associate with…the government should allow you to assemble as you please. Even if that’s with a member of the same sex about whom you care deeply.

…or at least, that’s what I think.

God Bless,
RyanL

Like I said the government should not be in the business of encouragin or discouraging BMA. While I am not saying promote birth control, I do not believe in single people footing the burden of BMA on the part of couples who can’t afford it economically. No couple should be restricted from having the babies they can afford to have buth they certainly shouldn’t be encouraged to just produce them at taxpayer’s expense. Everyboy should plan life accordingly. Save your own finances first then proceed to marriage and BMA, but when you can afford it. Not put a burden on the government to subsidize it.

 

[RyanL]

Like I said the government should not be in the business of encouragin or discouraging BMA. While I am not saying promote birth control, I do not believe in single people footing the burden of BMA on the part of couples who can’t afford it economically. No couple should be restricted from having the babies they can afford to have buth they certainly shouldn’t be encouraged to just produce them at taxpayer’s expense. Everyboy should plan life accordingly. Save your own finances first then proceed to marriage and BMA, but when you can afford it. Not put a burden on the government to subsidize it.

Whoh. I think our lines are crossed. I didn’t say the government needs to get people making babies in an irresponsible way (e.g., when they can’t afford them or they’re not otherwise “ready” for children). In fact, I said quite the opposite.

Rather, what I said is that for as long as you want to keep having future taxpayers (and not inmates/deadbeats from broken homes), as a government you’d better start encouraging BMA occurring in a responsible way (i.e., within marriage) rather than in an irresponsible way (i.e., with complete ambivalence toward marriage). Again, if there’s no BMA going on it’s not the government’s business.

I didn’t say anything about making welfare babies, Jim. Please stay on topic.

Oh, and I’d be more than happy to tell the government what they can do with all the contraception they cram down our kids’ throats.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[JuneBug72]

Whoh. I think our lines are crossed. I didn’t say the government needs to get people making babies in an irresponsible way (e.g., when they can’t afford them or they’re not otherwise “ready” for children). In fact, I said quite the opposite.

Rather, what I said is that for as long as you want to keep having future taxpayers (and not inmates/deadbeats from broken homes), as a government you’d better start encouraging BMA occurring in a responsible way (i.e., within marriage) rather than in an irresponsible way (i.e., with complete ambivalence toward marriage). Again, if there’s no BMA going on it’s not the government’s business.

I didn’t say anything about making welfare babies, Jim. Please stay on topic.

Oh, and I’d be more than happy to tell the government what they can do with all the contraception they cram down our kids’ throats.

God Bless,
RyanL

Do you think allowing people of the same gender to marry will kill off the human race? Bankrupt the USA?

 

[RyanL]

Do you think allowing people of the same gender to marry will kill off the human race?

That’s not up to me, but it seems artificial contraception and abortion are doing a fine job by themselves.

Bankrupt the USA?

Morally? It’s certainly not going to help.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[JuneBug72]

That’s not up to me, but it seems artificial contraception and abortion are doing a fine job by themselves.

Morally? It’s certainly not going to help.

God Bless,
RyanL

You are off topic. We aren’t discussing the implications of birth control or abortion.

 

[RyanL]

You are off topic. We aren’t discussing the implications of birth control or abortion.

Hey - you asked me what I thought would end the human race. I just answered your question.

But if you want to get back to logical reasons why the government has no discernible interest in promoting same sex relationships, that’s fine with me.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[JuneBug72]

Hey - you asked me what I thought would end the human race. I just answered your question.

But if you want to get back to logical reasons why the government has no discernible interest in promoting same sex relationships, that’s fine with me.

God Bless,
RyanL

No. I asked you if you think allowing people of the same sex to marry would kill off the human race.

 

[Benadam]

Christianity was declared the official state religion by the emperor Theodosius in 380. Christianity was the state religion before and during the fall of Rome. One might as easily conclude that Christianity contributed to the fall of Rome.

It implies a possibility but not a conclusion. That requires actual evidence.

 

[JuneBug72]

It implies a possibility but not a conclusion. That requires actual evidence.

Yes. I should have worded that statement better. I was saying that said conclusion like the post I referenced is oversimplified.

 

[RyanL]

No. I asked you if you think allowing people of the same sex to marry would kill off the human race.

I guess you’re right – I must have the wrong apocalyptic scenario on the brain. My bad.

With regards to your question – what’s stopping them now?

Wait…you mean do I think allowing people of the same sex to marry each other and have the government funnel my tax dollars to support it would kill of the human race.

My answer? No, I don’t think that will kill off the human race. I’m sure there are other communities in the world where they won’t swallow that pill (heh heh…so to speak), and I’m sure they’ll survive.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[elts1956]

For those who say marriage is a religious institution and cannot be changed by the goverment, I pose this question. It cannot be denied that marraige indeed has its roots (that is to say it began) in religion. In the modern day, however, religious marraige and governmentl marraige are two divverent processes. One can hapen without the other. In fact, when the state began to allow divorce, the church later adapted to allow them as well (which was unheard of before the state allowed).
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v41/ai_7600933 “the history of divorce is essentially the story of the progressive rejection of Catholic marriage doctrine. Since there wasn’t any divorce before the sixteenth century and there wasn’t much until very recently, this history in practice covers a rather short span”

And yet now the church says it is allowed under necessary circumstances. Interesting…

It is easy to say that the church MUST be right because it is immutable. One should consider what kinds of people have handled and twisted this infallible truth. If one was a corrupt individual who wanted people to align with their views, wouldn’t it be easy in infiltrate a group of people who blindly follow teaching without question to their legitimacy as infallible?

Using religious quotes and citing religious writings can only work so far, as they have been handled by humans since their inspiration.

So the fact that at one point it taught the only way to have your sins forgiven was to buy an indulgence was not a mistake?

I’m not sure how verses about adultery and prostration say that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed. Sure some homosexuals are very promiscuous, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t honest couples. And most of them just put down sexual immorality, not specifically homosexuality, and it’s possible that today’s term or homosexuality is not even the same one that is referred to in the Bible.

Well, I found one law by none other than St. Paul that says:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." I Corinthians 6:9-10

Also, I believe one of the Church’s doctrines states in one form or another that marriage is for procreation. That any unnatural prevention of this aim is sin. Now homosexuals cannot procreate, so therefore they would not be fulfilling the laws of the Church.

 

[elts1956]

Actually, I do expect society will eventually recognize it. But that’s not my point.

My point is that it is puzzling how we can live in the greatest country in the world, founded on the premise of Freedom Religion and pursuit of happiness, disallow gay marriages?

Homosexual unions are not in accord with Natural Law.