- Status
F
fix
Guest
Here you present the other problem in arguing these matters. The only “evidence” that satisfies your group involves direct physcial harm or that is quantified by some researcher in some soft science.
Does the truth of societal harm only count when you decide the parameters?
Is freedom simply allowing anything as long as no one gets blinded or loses an arm or some such thing?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
To turn it around, slightly, riddle us this:
What studies do you have that indicate that gay marriage and the raising of children by ‘mother/mother’ or ‘father/father’ couples will benefit the public good?
You claim that there is no evidence it won’t be ‘good’ and bring up anecdotal evidence of a friend (with less than a ‘generation’ in that friend’s experience of this) as proof of public benefit and good. . .
Yet throughout recorded history (and obviously well before records) the norms for marriage were man/woman and this was considered so much in the interest of the public good that it was legally sanctioned and promoted as being the norm and the best thing for society for men, women, and children?
Now, what has ‘changed’ so much that an institution thousands of years old is to be ‘dumped’ and another ‘group’ touted as equal or superior to ‘normal’ marriage, even though this group of gays not only has no ‘track record’ of being to the public benefit but in fact has been strongly condemned by that same public up until perhaps a few years ago?
What studies do you have that indicate that gay marriage and the raising of children by ‘mother/mother’ or ‘father/father’ couples will benefit the public good?
You claim that there is no evidence it won’t be ‘good’ and bring up anecdotal evidence of a friend (with less than a ‘generation’ in that friend’s experience of this) as proof of public benefit and good. . .
Yet throughout recorded history (and obviously well before records) the norms for marriage were man/woman and this was considered so much in the interest of the public good that it was legally sanctioned and promoted as being the norm and the best thing for society for men, women, and children?
Now, what has ‘changed’ so much that an institution thousands of years old is to be ‘dumped’ and another ‘group’ touted as equal or superior to ‘normal’ marriage, even though this group of gays not only has no ‘track record’ of being to the public benefit but in fact has been strongly condemned by that same public up until perhaps a few years ago?
C
catharina
Guest
Sure. One more time, as I said in Post # 13 — The normative behaviour throughout the ages has been for male-female partners establishing a home, a life, a basis for the nurture and care of children and all family members. People might choose to pretend there’s no difference when the union is male-male or female-female but such denial is a denial of established human history. It’s like saying: "Hey. Let’s try this other way now."WHY?To what end?For what greater good purpose?That’s said without a reference to religious belief/ethics. PS - How about we decide to call Day — Night. Maybe we can agree that all short people should be sterilized? Try new stuff. Yeah. Who cares?
C
catharina
Guest
You said it! So very true.
G
GodLovesTheSpek
Guest
Studies? Polls? Proof? Words from so-called scholars?
Catecism: 2357 and following: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2333
Worldly-centric arguments and impassioned pleas do not change Truth. Follow the immutable Truth and be set free.
Catecism: 2357 and following: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2333
Worldly-centric arguments and impassioned pleas do not change Truth. Follow the immutable Truth and be set free.
S
Squishy
Guest
Fair enough. So your argument is that we should outlaw homosexuality? Homosexuality and homosexual unions are already part of our society. If you want to get rid of them thats a whole different argument. But certainly this point is not an argument against Civil marriage. Its against homosexuality in general.
S
Squishy
Guest
Im not talking about raising children in a gay relationship. In fact i said in an earlier post it was not a reason for or against the gay marriage argument. Its a completly different issue.
Again not part of the argument. Marriage is not a pre-requestit to be allowed to adopt.
Homosexual behaviour in general was comdemmed. Now that it is accepted by society and most people see that it is not detremental to society as a whole. Their is no reason that homosexual relationships cannot use the same civil term of marriage that the rest of us do. As the OP stated. We are not talking about the religious institution of marriage, we has already been dumped with the emergence of the Civil ceremony.
It is not down to me to provide sources that homosexual marriage is good for society. If you are wanting to discriminate against people its down to YOU to back that up with facts and studies. I do not have to proove that all men are equal and deserve the same rights. You definatly have to prove why they do not.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Im not talking about raising children in a gay relationship. In fact i said in an earlier post it was not a reason for or against the gay marriage argument. Its a completly different issue.
You don’t seem to get that socially and legally, marriage and raising children are intimately related.
Again not part of the argument. Marriage is not a pre-requestit to be allowed to adopt.
No, but it makes it much easier to adopt!
Homosexual behaviour in general was comdemmed. Now that it is accepted by society and most people see that it is not detremental to society as a whole. Their is no reason that homosexual relationships cannot use the same civil term of marriage that the rest of us do. As the OP stated. We are not talking about the religious institution of marriage, we has already been dumped with the emergence of the Civil ceremony.
So call it a civil ceremony, not marriage.
It is not down to me to provide sources that homosexual marriage is good for society. If you are wanting to discriminate against people its down to YOU to back that up with facts and studies. I do not have to proove that all men are equal and deserve the same rights. You definatly have to prove why they do not.
Double
The OPs implication that Marriage can be thought of as purely a social issue, not religious, is fallacious. Religious people cannot compartmentalize their lives and their life views.
Seems like there’s not a whole lot more to say about it; religious will have their views and secularists theirs.
S
Squishy
Guest
Its very difficult to quote you!
But i guess on the whole you are right. Because religious institutions did not campaign enough when civil ceromonys where allowed to be called marriages the problem can be traced to there. Civil Ceramonys are called marriages. Their is nothing that the church can do about it now. When the majority of society allows gay people to have this civil ceramony it will inevetably be called a marriage.
But i guess on the whole you are right. Because religious institutions did not campaign enough when civil ceromonys where allowed to be called marriages the problem can be traced to there. Civil Ceramonys are called marriages. Their is nothing that the church can do about it now. When the majority of society allows gay people to have this civil ceramony it will inevetably be called a marriage.
C
catharina
Guest
No. My argument is that society need not allow the -recognition- of gays as MARRIED.
S
Squishy
Guest
But in the second quote none of the things you where complaining against require gay couples to be married. They can do all these things without being ‘married’ So you are complaining against the idea of gay couples creating a life together.
If you all cared so much about the institution of marriage. Why is it the state was allowed to create civil marriage without so much uproar. Where exactly did you think it was going to end when the state was allowed to take on the term marriage. Are you surprised that it no longer only has religious conotations? Religion does not own the rights to ‘Marriage’ any longer. The sooner people realise this the sooner they can let people get on with their own lives.
C
catharina
Guest
Reading your older posts, I see that you are from Scotland and were raised in an atheistic home. Nonetheless, you can understand that the USA was founded on Judeo Christian principles. There is no legitimate call for its citizens to overturn this part of its heritage. Your declaring that religion is passe does not make it so. Historically this nation relies on a set of values and ethics that are more eroded every day. Why add to it?
S
Squishy
Guest
My country was founded on what you could also call Judeo Christian principles. Much more so than the USA is. But what I would prefer to say is that both where founded on generall good principles. Be they Jewish/Christian or Muslum. The way that i see it. Is the values and ethics have already been eroded. If you allow Gay couples to exists legaly. Then you have to give them the same rights as a married couples. ie Civil rights. Currently the government has an institution for this. It is called a civil marriage.
Now, the problem as I see it. Gay couples have become a part of everyday life. Most people will know at leaste one gay person. In not allowing them to have a civil marriage it is discriminating against them. When the real problem is not the marriage. Its the values and ethics that the homosexual life style promotes (at leaste in your eyes)
You have 2 choices. Allow civil gay marriages. Or ourlaw homosexuality again. Their will never be a half way in this.
C
Chiltepin
Guest
I haven’t tried to find these studies, so I could be wrong, but I am fairly confident that we will not find any. I say this not because I agree with you, but because there is a significant stumbling block to doing research of this nature. Gay rights activism is so strong that any such research would be shot down on the grounds of political correctness and go unfunded. It could possibly even be shutdown if it were privately funded.
Just as there will likely never be medical research into adjusting a person’s chemicals if they no longer wanted to suffer from Same Sex Attraction. Before anyone quotes that last sentence and goes crazy on me, there are some people who have those attractions but do not take on gay as their identity. The social climate, being what it is, would tell these people they need to accept who they are and so forth. People are allowed and medically able to re-assign their genitals to “be who they are”, but they are not allowed do research into the chemical adjustment of sexual attraction.
As for gays adopting babies, I certainly would rather these babies were not aborted. If I felt like the majority of gays were pro-life I might be more ok with them adopting. I have not found this to be the case in the United States (there are some though.) Why should people who are pro-abortion be allowed to adopt children? It is reducing children to the status of a pet dog that you either adopt or take to a kill shelter. Children are human pets to a lot of people.
Abortion is an evil I find myself much more consumed in stopping to have much time to think about the gays.
S
Squishy
Guest
Thats mabey a valid point.
I would not have an issue with people chemicaly adjusting who they where sexualy atracted to. Is it even possible? But i do believe that people who are born with same sex attraction. Should never be ashamed of it. They should be as proud of who they are as anyone else. God (no i do not believe in him but i like using this sentance!) made us all the way we are. Each of us is perfect (me slightly more than everyone else)
I am pro-abortion. However adoption is ALWAYS a more preferable option for unwanted pregnancyies. I know that I would be happy for unwanted children to be adopted by the right gay couples. They can give them just as much love and parenting as any hetrosexual couple. And more than a lot of them. But i was trying to keep the argument away from adopting children and gay marriage. As they are not connected in my mind.As for gays adopting babies, I certainly would rather these babies were not aborted. If I felt like the majority of gays were pro-life I might be more ok with them adopting. I have not found this to be the case in the United States (there are some though.) Why should people who are pro-abortion be allowed to adopt children? It is reducing children to the status of a pet dog that you either adopt or take to a kill shelter. Children are human pets to a lot of people.
F
fix
Guest
It is contrary to the nature of man.
It promotes vice.
It teaches people, especially the young, that wrong behavior is acceptable. The codification of such unions legitimizes what is not legitimate. Like it or not the civil law is how many people form their consciences.
It artificially redefines marriage which changes the understanding of marriage. Not unlike calling an elephant and ant and then claiming it does not matter. Words matter because they convey reality.
It destabilizes society. The fundamental cell of society will continue to be eroded. That leads to multiple social ills.
There is more but that is a good place to start. Again, the problem we have involves a proper understanding of freedom, rights, and harm.
C
catharina
Guest
Perhaps you believe that YOU have two choices. That is your OPINION. It is not fact. For a society to approve a new custom without the slightest proof that the custom supports the common good is an exercise in stupidity.
S
Squishy
Guest
I will try to tackle these one at a time. But i doubt we will come to an understanding.
Countrary to the nature of man. This one seems strange to me. These people are born with feeling of same sex attractions. They are able to find love with one another. This is not something that has been forces on them it is the way they are born. You could actually say that it is you who is going against their nature. By trying to make them fit in with your preconceptions of how they should act and feel.
It does not ‘promote’ vice. Its allowing people who are homosexual to be treated with the dignaty and respect they deserve. No one is asking you to condone their life style choices. But as long as homosexuality is legal, those vices will always be present. Crimialise homosexuality if you feel this way. Good luck finding support for that.
It teaches young people to love who they are. And not the labels that you put on them. What right do you have to say that someone who was born having a sexual attraction to the same sex is wrong?
Actually yes. It changes the definition of marriage. From a the legal union of a man and a women, to the legal union of 2 people. Not really a big deal if you ask me.
Explain this further please
I think you are right here.
S
Squishy
Guest
What new custom? Giving same sex couples the same legal rights as married couples? Do you honestly think that will be the end of society as we know it?
- Status