Tigg, this is just irrational. Gay marriage will NOT alter the “growth rate” of any country, ever. There is no argument or evidence that can show that that claim is true. Gay marriage just gives them a certain legal status, and only some of the gays who actually pursue it. It affects reproduction of a population NOT AT ALL.
When marriage falls under attack, and when marriage is seen as not being important anymore, than fewer couples will marry and fewer couples will have children, thus leading to a smaller growth rate. Marriage is under attack in many ways, the push for sex marriage is simply just another attack on the family and upon the faith.
Huh? Gays WANT marriage, not erase it. You have it all wrong.
No, it’s not. It’s an attempt to join in the status.
No. Tell heteros the same thing, and see if they will take a separate status. Unless, of course, you mean that churches will get entirely out of the legal part of marrying people. Would you agree to that? That ALL couples would receive from the state ONLY a certificate of “civil union” Even-steven?
They are winning because the old taboos and prejudices against gays are eroding as more gays come out and more heteros realize, as they live and grow with them, that they are not demons and do not affect culture in any negative way.
Marriage is not meaningless. Many many heteros want it very badly. And a small percentage of gays would like it too. That marriage may not carry the same sacred weight that it used to is the result of other gradual cultural processes, NOT the result of gay marriage activism. If anyone decides NOT to marry or to leave their spouse BECAUSE gays marry too, then that person has real problems that I can’t begin to explain!
==> Wrong. The more marriage is attacked (from many different ways) the less meaningful it is in general. People do not think of marriage today as they used to just 20 years ago…that is my point. Every attack weakens if further, and yes those attacks largely come from heteros, not gays. Yet the push for gay marriage is also a damaging attack on marriage and upon the nation and upon the entire western world. One day you will see that, but it will too late to do anything about it by then.Huh? Gays WANT marriage, not erase it. You have it all wrong.
**
==> Nope, have it exactly right. Gays have wanted marriage for a long time, so what? **
No, it’s not. It’s an attempt to join in the status.
**
==> That absolutely what is going on.**
No. Tell heteros the same thing, and see if they will take a separate status. Unless, of course, you mean that churches will get entirely out of the legal part of marrying people. Would you agree to that? That ALL couples would receive from the state ONLY a certificate of “civil union” Even-steven?
==> My point exactly. Gays want 100% sameness if their unions as do heteros. Which proves gays do not want equal legal rights, they want to be considered (on all levels) to be exactly the same as hetero marriage and they won’t stop until they get it…perhaps now, if you think, you will begin to see why I make my predictions (I knew I have you come to my side sooner or later).
They are winning because the old taboos and prejudices against gays are eroding as more gays come out and more heteros realize, as they live and grow with them, that they are not demons and do not affect culture in any negative way.
==> No. They are winning because we are living in a morality nuetral post-Christian era that sees people claiming to be Christian do all manners of things that THYE KNOW are against the faith. The judges are part of the group, so they rule for the sinners.
Marriage is not meaningless. Many many heteros want it very badly. And a small percentage of gays would like it too. That marriage may not carry the same sacred weight that it used to is the result of other gradual cultural processes, NOT the result of gay marriage activism. If anyone decides NOT to marry or to leave their spouse BECAUSE gays marry too, then that person has real problems that I can’t begin to explain!
On the contrary - I think it quite rational to state that when combined with the incessant world-wide push for abortion and contraception the goal will be the reduction of human birth. You cannot dispute that homosexual unions = zero children born in the very image of God (which image) makes life sacred. And we already have laws in place that protect same sex partners. What gay marriage would do is mock the underlying God-given right to be born through the biological union of one man and one woman. A defiant mockery of a Supreme Being WHO is the very Author of Life.
Whether a gay couple down the street marries or not has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the birth rate in your town. You are saying nothing in this post except that you are offended by homosexuality and that homosexual sex does not result in birth. Fine, on both counts.
But it isn’t “destroyed.” It is merely expanded to include a small percentage of the already small percentage of gays in the country (well, just a few states, at this point).
No, the court ruled that the Constitution’s equal protection clause prevents the government from defining marriage as a man and a woman. Why does equal protection apply only to gender but not number or religion?
It might. But that is not what the plaintiffs were suing for. The judge does not have to rule on all cases, just the one before him.
The logic of a court ruling is applied to future cases that come before the court. Courts usually are, or at least should be, warry of what pandora’s boxes they open…
You’re conflating the issues. I’m addressing the courts logic that the state has no interest in defining marriage by gender. Incest is problematic on a gentic level so I think it’ll be a long time in coming before the courts decide the state has no interest in preventing that. I’m not arguing that this will lead to incest or pedophilia. Those are cases of obvious, demonstrable, and immediate physical or psychological harm.
Well, why didn’t you just say so? In other words, you don’t mind if gays can marry, just not in a church. Church already has the full right to deny marriage ceremonies to whomever they choose. I was denied the sacraments at my Catholic “wedding” It was not a crime, and I knew it ahead of time (I was Protestant and did not convert).
But I have a “marriage” certificate from the state of New York. My father, a Protestant minister, refused to marry some couples. He sent them away cuz he said that they weren’t ready. That was not a crime either, and no one was forcing him to marry anyone.Normally, I would agree with that statement; however, the pro-gay-“marriage” mob is arguing that marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Since genetics only come into play when procreating, the state can no longer claim to have an interest if procreation is out of the equation. Also, there is no genetic issue in brother-brother or sister-sister relations. If two brothers argued their case, the courts would be hard-pressed to bring up procreative issues. Once those brothers win their case, then a brother and sister could argue their case based on equal protection. Preposterous? I’m not so sure anymore.
Exactly.
No problem, even though our Bishops have made it clear that civil unions are also unacceptable? On what basis do you consider that “no problem” for a Catholic voter?
As of now the State regulates marriage. If the State wants to get out of regulating marriages, at this point, I’d be fine with that. But if the State is going to get out, then it needs to get out all the way. There’s no reason to say that gender doesn’t matter but number does.
Incest in and of itself is illegal due to not only genetics but also psychological harm. You can not have sexual relations between closely related individuals. Marriage/Civil Unions presupoose sexual activity.
As previously stated, according to basic psychological standards incest causes great psychological harm. Thus the state will consider itself has having a role in regulating it.Also, there is no genetic issue in brother-brother or sister-sister relations. If two brothers argued their case, the courts would be hard-pressed to bring up procreative issues. Once those brothers win their case, then a brother and sister could argue their case based on equal protection. Preposterous? I’m not so sure anymore.
Simple, under my proposal the State would essentially be getting out of the marriage business altogether. Civil unions and marriages would indeed be two seperate things. For example, if an elderly couple sought marriage in a Church but not a civil union they would keep their social security benefits from their 1st marriage/civil union. Civil Unions, under my proposal, would merely be a combination of legal protections and obligations for any person or group that chooses to merge their lives/assets.
Fair enough. I’m glad someone finally answered that question without hysterics. What you say makes sense.
How is that any different than the civil unions that the Bishops clearly oppose?
No. IF you mean me, I wrote that incest (the sex act between consenting related adults, NOT “marriage”) has been decriminalized in many states.
I couldn’t remember who posted it. If it was you, thank you for clarifying. If incest is decriminalized, then that would be the first step toward allowing incestual marriage.
