Gay Marriage in America

[FormerWarrior]

And you have zero authority to manufacture rights out of whole cloth.

Not exactly, but nice try.

Also, you have no social authority to use a bullying tone toward LittleSoldier. As a forum user, I do not appreciate your aggressive manner when not necessary. (As in this case.)

Your condescending and dismissive rhetoric speaks for itself. It is neither accurate nor affirmative. Not a nice try at all. Your intention appears to be incendiary. You might examine your motives.

Explain your authority to describe my “social authority”.

In case I was misunderstood, my point was simply that nobody has the right to deny another person’s rights. You seem to be claiming that the right to deny others their rights is an individual right? Naturally, that would be a right which inheres to you personally? Is that correct? You apparently have a good deal of “social authority”.

 

[LittleSoldier]

actually lots of people are denied the “right to marriage”…too young, incapable of consent, too closely related, wrong species. so, in essence, of all the classes of people who are denied the right to marriage, you want to pull out one small segment (only 1-3% of the population is homosexual; i’m sure a small percentage of that wants to get married), and make the rest of society answer to them.

The most compelling legal treatment of this issue would have to fall under the penumbra of the Equal Protection Clause.

the language for the Equal Protection Clause is this: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This language has been stretched by activist judges to include all sorts of things that strict Constitutionalists (and Catholics) would not and do not agree with. Of course, there is a string of cases that fell within the EPC that eventually moved the country from racist policies to Brown v Bd of Ed and beyond which is obviously of greatest good and benefit and morally required.

After proceeding thru an EPC analysis, one then must analyze all of that in relation to the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”)

Now, after all of that, let me ask those of you who believe that us Catholics in compliance with the Magisterium should come to your side why are you so insistent that we give up our rights to contribute to the marketplace of ideas? Why do you wish to infringe on our Freedom of Religion? Would you ask the same of the LGBT folks?

You must surely understand that asking us to “change our minds” or “see your light” on these issues, would be in our worldview akin to denying our Church. We won’t do it. Period. Greater men and women than us have died horrible deaths refusing to deny God, Jesus and the Church.

This is not about sociology, psychology, social sciences, or legal analysis. It’s about a deep and abiding faith in God and the Church.

so now what? how will the world respond to the dissenting voices? already we are ridiculed, mocked (tornadoes in texas anyone?), and called hateful names. how will you best silence our voices?

This is one of the best posts I have ever read. I applaud your strength to stand up for your convictions. And you are correct. We won’t do it. Period.

 

[FormerWarrior]

This is one of the best posts I have ever read. I applaud your strength to stand up for your convictions. And you are correct. We won’t do it. Period.

The notion of what constitutes civil rights and human rights has steadily expanded over the past couple of centuries. It is not just a matter of “activist judges”. It is a matter of expanding human consciousness and compassion.

 

[vsedriver]

To me, Cathlocism is about how to best live this life, not about securing a place in the next.

To me Catholicism is about how best to do God’s will in this life so I can spend the next with Him in heaven. Thankfully Jesus left us a Church to help us know how to do that.

 

[Glennonite]

…But I believe the OP has indicated that he/she wants secular reasons as to why SSM is wrong. Perhaps people have been trying to answer his/her question with that parameter in mind.

Yes, I was looking for the harm done by allowing Gay Marriage. I’m ready to use my vote to protect or defend the weak, innocent, or defenceless. I’m not so interested in curtailing the behaviors of others that are not causing harm to others…simply because those behaviors offend my sensibilities. America, freedom, pursuit of happiness, live and let live.

To put it another way, do I have a Catholic duty to act against any who want to live their lives as they like? Jesus let the Rich Young Man walk away sad; He allowed the individual to reject Him even though it was “the wrong choice”.

Glennonite

 

[FormerWarrior]

Yes, I was looking for the harm done by allowing Gay Marriage. I’m ready to use my vote to protect or defend the weak, innocent, or defenceless. I’m not so interested in curtailing the behaviors of others that are not causing harm to others…simply because those behaviors offend my sensibilities. America, freedom, pursuit of happiness, live and let live.

To put it another way, do I have a Catholic duty to act against any who want to live their lives as they like? Jesus let the Rich Young Man walk away sad; He allowed the individual to reject Him even though it was “the wrong choice”.

Glennonite

So far, nobody has shown any tangible damage. That is the same question I have been asking. The only direct response was an inappropriate and immature personal attack, but I am curious. Theoretical damage is postulated. Gay marriage is now a reality in a number of states and a number of countries. Can anyone point to any tangible damage to society?

 

[RobbyS]

Quite right. Lesbians have a lower rate of STDs than those following the heterosexual lifestyle. The majority of people with AIDS are heterosexual women.

rossum

A lot of women fall into the lesbian life style because of men’s notions of sexuality, Guys sleep with prostitutes and loose women and bring their infection home to their wives and sweethearts. Gay sex is pretty much the same hedonistic life style we associate with sailors, and few of them stick strictly to male partners. Which is why AIDS started in San Francisco. Lesbians get together for emotional reasons. and of course the mechanics are different. In Africa, polygamy is the main reason for the spread of AIDS.

 

[Eugenius]

Your evidence please. The 2006 referendum in Arizona had a majority against banning gay marriage: Proposition 107 - Yes 49%, No 51%

I think you may be indulging in wishful thinking here. The numbers seem to be pretty close, not your “vast”.

rossum

While I also question the word “vast,” keep in mind that the numbers you quote reflect only those who actually voted.

 

[rossum]

While I also question the word “vast,” keep in mind that the numbers you quote reflect only those who actually voted.

And how do you propose to measure the opinion of those not voting?

rossum

 

[Eugenius]

I know you were asking that rhetoircally, sedonaman. Nevertheless, for the lurkers, I will answer factually.
Answer = explained in the subsequent section of the document linked in post 709. This position merely explicates and expands upon the Church’s essential position on marriage as it impacts all of society, not just Catholics.


In short, marriage is not how any individual couple merely chooses to privately define it, “feel it,” “experience it,” etc. The concept of marriage is not up to a popular vote.

So how does this definition of “real marriage” intersect with civil marriage and the civil right that go with it. As I’ve pointed out before some rights afforded to heterosexuals because of their married status can also be obtained by anyone through an attorney (will, POA, etc). If a homosexual couple obtains these papers are they infringing on “marriage”? Where is the dividing line and when do we as Catholics have the right to cross it?

 

[rossum]

A lot of women fall into the lesbian life style because of men’s notions of sexuality, Guys sleep with prostitutes and loose women and bring their infection home to their wives and sweethearts. Gay sex is pretty much the same hedonistic life style we associate with sailors, and few of them stick strictly to male partners. Which is why AIDS started in San Francisco. Lesbians get together for emotional reasons. and of course the mechanics are different. In Africa, polygamy is the main reason for the spread of AIDS.

Incorrect fact: AIDS started in Africa, not San Francisco. Are you really that ignorant, or is it just that you want to manufacture false “facts” to make gays look bad?

Your erroneous diatribe says nothing to refute the face that lesbians have a lower rate of STDs that those women following the “heterosexual lifestyle” <insert diatribe about the worst excesses of the heterosexual lifestyle here, implying that all heterosexuals, both male and female, follow such an extreme lifestyle>

rossum

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Incorrect fact: AIDS started in Africa, not San Francisco. Are you really that ignorant, or is it just that you want to manufacture false “facts” to make gays look bad?

Your erroneous diatribe says nothing to refute the face that lesbians have a lower rate of STDs that those women following the “heterosexual lifestyle” <insert diatribe about the worst excesses of the heterosexual lifestyle here, implying that all heterosexuals, both male and female, follow such an extreme lifestyle>

rossum

Since we are on the topic of lesbian health issues, it would be fair to note that lesbians (as compared to heterosexual women) are at higher risk for…

• Cancers (cervical, breast, lung, colon, uterine, and ovarian)
• Obesity and incumbent risk factors (heart disease, diabetes, etc…)
• Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
• Depression and anxiety disorders

 

[sedonaman]

You would have to ask someone that has proposed using that term. I have not.

Since you want to change the definition of marriage, you must have some concept of what it is now and what you want it changed to.

 

[sedonaman]

… I’m not so interested in curtailing the behaviors of others that are not causing harm to others…simply because those behaviors offend my sensibilities. America, freedom, pursuit of happiness, live and let live.
…

We went through this argument earlier. The problem is in the definition of “harm”.

 

[sedonaman]

, where do you get the right to deny rights to others,…?]

The same place gays get the right to tell me what to think.

and who has the right to deny you your rights?

Gays have been granted that right. Otherwise, why are we having this conversation?

That is the thing about rights. You do not have any authority whatsoever to make such a statement.

See what I mean?

You and I, as individuals, are only qualified and empowered to govern our own behaviors.

Then our system of self-government is a joke.

Our government my only proscribe the rights of the individual if it has a compelling reason to do so. That issue has already been decided, and remains unchallenged.

And I’m saying there is a compelling reason.

 

[rossum]

Since we are on the topic of lesbian health issues, it would be fair to note that lesbians (as compared to heterosexual women) are at higher risk for…

• Cancers (cervical, breast, lung, colon, uterine, and ovarian)
• Obesity and incumbent risk factors (heart disease, diabetes, etc…)
• Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
• Depression and anxiety disorders

Heterosexual women have a higher risk factor for childbirth related deaths. Does that make heterosexuality immoral and should we ban heterosexual marriage because of it?

Being born has 100% risk factor for death. What moral implications can we glean from that statistic?

There are a number of legal activities that will raise or lower risk factors for various conditions. I do not see such figures as particularly useful in the current argument; depending on which figures are used either side can “prove” that it is right.

rossum

 

[sedonaman]

… I don’t know my birth dad… my mom expected to be with him, but it didn’t work out. I have the best dad ever, but I still hurt for my birth dad. I want to know about him and if he wants to know about me. I know I have more family out there, but I don’t know if it’s my right to find out about them. Should I approach this as aggressively as I’d like to?
Lizzy

If being raised by two lesbians is of no consequence over being raised by one’s biological parents, why does this person “hurt” for her biological father, even though she has the “best [foster] dad ever”?

 

[TMC]

Since you want to change the definition of marriage, you must have some concept of what it is now and what you want it changed to.

Your question assumes that there is currently a definition of “real marriage” that limits marriage to opposite sex couples. In other words, you start the discussion by demanding I assume your position is the right one, and demand I show why it should be changed to my definition. As I have said a couple of times now, that is a false starting point. The proper starting point is that in a free society no one class or group of people should be denied rights and privileges denied to others without a proportionate justification. You can’t justify denying an entire class of people rights and privileges based on a “definition” that was cooked up specifically to deny that class of people those rights and privileges.

 

[rossum]

Since you want to change the definition of marriage, you must have some concept of what it is now and what you want it changed to.

The title of this thread is “Gay Marriage in America”. In America, same sex marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont states. It is also allowed in Washington, D.C. and the Coquille and Suquamish Native American nations. There are also some legally recognised same sex marriages in California, though no more such marriages may be conducted. Maryland recognizes same sex marriages conducted elsewhere but does not itself grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Pentagon allows same sex marriages on military property in states where such marriages are legal. Otherwise same sex marriage is not allowed and marriage is restricted to two persons of opposite sexes.

I think that pretty much covers it.

rossum

 

[sedonaman]

… The proper starting point is that in a free society no one class or group of people should be denied rights and privileges denied [sic] to others without a proportionate justification. You can’t justify denying an entire class of people rights and privileges based on a “definition” that was cooked up specifically to deny that class of people those rights and privileges.

Judge Walker, who overturned Proposition 8 in California, did it when he re-defined marriage this way: “Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents.”
If the starting point is not denying rights, what was the reason for his re-definition? He “cooked up” this re-definition specifically so he could reach the decision he wanted. So he did what you said was improper. Heaven forbid that a judge, any judge, would say something like, “The court cannot make a determination in this case because there is no legal definition of marriage, and cannot make such a determination until the people make one.” The corner he painted himself into, of course, was the people did define marriage via Prop 8. It just happened that it wasn’t the definition he preferred. The people preferred one definition, and he preferred another. Why should his preference prevail, since it was not based on any existing law?

Aside from the judge’s exceeding his authority by re-defining marriage, where is the public purpose in this definition? No one has answered this question in this tread because there is none; only personal purposes. If we were to adopt his re-definition, there would be no need for marriage because any number of persons could currently “live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents.” So there is no need for SS"M".

Another point about rights. It is simply not possible to have a minimum government in a society with no social or legal norms about family structure, sexual behavior, and childrearing. SS"M" is a creation of the state, and the state has to prop it up, which will require an expanding government, and when government gains power, individual rights suffer. The first to fall will be free speech. Canada already has a hate speech law along with an enforcement ministry. All this just so a small percent can engage in lust.