S
sedonaman
Guest
So? You have provided no definition.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
rossum
Guest
I have described the current legal state of civil marriage in America. Since we are discussing civil marriage in America it seemed to me to be a good place to start.So? You have provided no definition.
The description is confused because the law is currently confused, with different laws applying in different jurisdictions.
Do you have any problems with the description I provided? I have no interest in providing a theoretical description of some sort of ideal which does not exist in the real world. That is about as useful as discussing the number of angels who can dance on a pinhead.
Would you rather we take the Fundamentalist Mormon definition of marriage as our starting point? That is real and exists in America, though not in American law.
rossum
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
This is a risk of birthing children and, therefore, not specifically related to sexual orientation. Furthermore, one of the primary contexts (if not the primary) of marriage is procreation.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?
Spurious reasoning. I think you can do better than this Rossum.Being born has 100% risk factor for death. What moral implications can we glean from that statistic?
Then why cite your STD statistic more than once? Evidently, you deem it to have value in supporting your argument. Regardless, these statistics can be germane in a playing role in formulating ethical and moral theories.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.
R
rossum
Guest
I cited lesbian STD statistics because other posters were citing STD statistics for promiscuous male homosexuals and trying to generalise arguments from them.Then why cite your STD statistic more than once? Evidently, you deem it to have value in supporting your argument. Regardless, these statistics can be germane in a playing role in formulating ethical and moral theories.
I was making the point that both sides can cite statistics.
rossum
F
FormerWarrior
Guest
What seems to be lost here, is that there is a difference between denying a right, and “granting” it. Human and civil rights are presumed to exist, unless good reason can be shown that they should not. That is what this thread is about, and so far, those who would deny the right in question have been unable to show the harm with any real data. There has been talk or theoretical harm, but there should be enough real data to show real harm by now. I would like to see it, if it exists. Otherwise, this discussion will just continue to go round in circles.The same place gays get the right to tell me what to think.
Gays have been granted that right. Otherwise, why are we having this conversation?
See what I mean?
Then our system of self-government is a joke.
And I’m saying there is a compelling reason.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
It is a matter of discovering Truth. We should always have compassion for others and we should strive to understand Truth and how to apply it in our lives.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.
Catholics are very concerned with eternal life. Spiritual damage can result in a much less than ideal eternal life (being in Purgatory temporarily or in hell permanently). Our hope is that every soul will be taken to heaven immediately.
The Church teaches that homosexual activity is sinful. We don’t want people to engage in sinful behavior - not just because it offends us (although it does), not just because it offends God (although it does), and not just because it causes the world to be more broken (although it does) - but because we want people to go to heaven. Every last person on earth.
One person languishing in Purgatory for one second longer because of this spiritual harm is one person too many. And one person damned to hell for eternity is one person too many.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I’m sorry but I don’t think it covers it at all. All you have done is provide some examples. Examples do not a definition make, nor do they explain any changes that you would wish to be made.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
It still looks naked to me.
V
vsedriver
Guest
the child is willfully deprived of his or her God given right to a father and a mother.Can you point to any actual harm which has been done, by virtue of the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents?
V
vsedriver
Guest
but no one is being denied any rights. Gays have the same rights to get married as heterosexuals. And many gays are married to the opposite sex. No where in the standards for marriage does it say the two people have to be in love or sexually attracted to each other. The requirement for marriage is one man and one woman, of legal age, not already married to someone else and not closely related.I disagree. I think that when you are seeking to deny certain rights or privileges to an entire class of persons based on the allegation that doing so would be harmful, the burden is on those proposing denying those rights and privileges to demonstrate the harm.
If you can change the man and woman standard in marriage then you can change any of the other parts of the standard. You have no grounds to deny plural marriage or incest marriage. Ultimately you will end up without any social form of marriage at all.
V
vsedriver
Guest
The Church has a mandate to minister to the poor and sick. So they operate hospitals, shelters, schools etc. As such they are an employer of people who might not be Catholic but are college professors, doctors etc. The Church provides benefits to their employees including medical benefits for spouses. If SSM becomes law the Church would be forced to include SSM couples benefits and in effect would be supporting and condoning sinful behavior.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?
The state will eventually force the Church out of these ministries, thereby curtailing religious freedom. Then the state will have to pick up the slack that religious charities are forced to abandon. Lots of people will be hurt.
say it won’t happen? It’s already happening with the government dictating to employers what medical treatment they must provide for their employees.
V
vsedriver
Guest
Gay marriage will effect society in three ways:
- It will offer a legal and society approved alternative to the promiscuous lifestyle that many gays currently follow. It is hard to condemn their lifestyle without offering another alternative than complete abstinence.
E
Eugenius
Guest
Would you please provide a source for this information?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
F
FormerWarrior
Guest
Wardog;8417540:
I’m not sure that providing spousal benefits as legally required is the same as recognition of validity. I understand why someone might object to doing that though, if they believed the marriage was invalid. Employers are required to comply with many laws and regulations which they might not agree with.Gay marriage will effect society in three ways:
people do not need society to approve monogamy to become monogamous. Promiscuous behavior, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual is bad for many reasons. If having legal and societal approval for marriage eliminated promiscuity we wouldn’t have so many out of wedlock births and abortions. So claiming gays are promiscuous because they can’t get married is false.
sadly many people do not understand why we have orphanages and foster care. It isn’t because there is a lack of adoptive homes, it is because the state makes it practically impossible to terminate a parent’s rights. My brother and his wife have been foster parents for years. They’ve raised over 20 boys with various behavioral problems. Some so dearly love their foster parents that they have legally changed their last names to my brother’s last name. He and his wife have managed to get most of their kids (yes my brother calls them his kids we don’t call them ‘foster’ kids) through college.
Yet just recently they took in an 11 yr old and wanted to adopt him. Yes, he has issues but they are well trained to manage his problems. But no, the state said they weren’t ‘fit’ to adopt. They are only good enough to ‘foster’. The authorities pull this poor kid out of the house and take him to ‘adoption’ parties. This is an event where prospective parents size up what is available. Boy, that is great for a kid’s self esteem.
The more kids in foster care the more money the state agency gets to work with. These kids end up in foster care because their bio parents aren’t fit to care for them but the state won’t terminate those parental rights when the kids are small and allow them to go to a home before they develop behavioral problems from having horrible parents. Some of the kids are special needs because their mothers were doing drugs and alcohol.
which only makes sense since it takes a man and a woman to produce a child
but it will make it harder for natural families to adopt as they will then have to compete with SSM couples. And it will allow gays to produce children via surrogates who will be denied their natural right to a mother and a father.
If the Church offers spousal benefits to employees the state will require the Church to recognize SSM.
I don’t think that is any evidence that the gender of the parents affects the outcome with the child. It really depends more on the individual parenting and nurturing skills, than on gender. We should be careful about throwing terms around like the “natural right” of a child to a mother and father.
More competition among adoptive parents would be good for the child, as long as the adoption agencies are trying to find the best match for the child.
The legal argument goes like this. 1. there were once legal gender roles in marriage. 2. as a result of expanding women’s rights, those roles are no longer legally recognized. For example, a husband can no longer sue his wife for divorce, if she decides not to move with him to the Antarctic. A woman cannot sue for divorce because a man is not the bread winner. Those roles are no longer legally recognized. 3. Marriage is a civil right. For example with the abolishment of slavery, one of the civil rights gained for black slaves was the right to marry. 4. Since marriage is a civil right, and there are no longer legally recognized gender specific roles in marriage, then gender does not play a role in deciding who is entitled to that civil right.
I just wanted to summarize that, in case some did not understand the essence of the legal argument. So, those who say that this is changing the definition of marriage, the courts are not quite saying that. They are saying that the legal definition of marriage has already changed by virtue of the disappearance of the legal standard of gender roles. Therefore, this is not changing the definition of marriage as much as it is including a suspect class who now has the right, which has not been recognized as the roles in marriage have changed.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Since this thread has become a magnet for trolls, it is now closed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.