B
Biggie
Guest
Forgive me but I ask again, could consent as a quality of marriage be held as irrelevant by a civil authority?
- Status
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a goat. Not a man and a man. Not a woman and a woman. Not a woman and a cat. Marrying whomever or whatever you want is absolutely not a civil right. Homosexuals don’t want long term monogamy anyhow - their lifestyle is built on perverse lust - so promiscuity and having lots of partners is a big part of that. Monogamy is for stable families raising children - when I took biology, I seem to recall that procreation required one male and one female - no homosexuals need apply.
As far as homosexual marriage being a civil right - NO.
As far as homosexual marriage being a civil right - NO.
R
rossum
Guest
Since we are discussing civil marriage then in theory they could. I think that it would be highly unlikely in any modern democracy, though I am sure it has been done in the past by despots. If someone like Caligula decided he wanted to marry you, who was going to tell him no?
rossum
H
Havard
Guest
If a man takes a woman to wife, but has no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.
If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children.
If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father’s house, and let her go.
From the earliest recorded laws: The Code of Hammurabi, 1790 BC.
Procreation has been an important element of marriage laws for all of recorded history.
B
Biggie
Guest
Would not Caligula then be universally understood to have behaved in an unjust manner? Does the existence of civil process then change the meaning of slavery (involuntary servitude) or rape (involuntary coitus)?
C
Cominghome89
Guest
Legally, this just does not hold up. Equal protection of the law maintains the same civil rights for all people, without discrimination. Why was this crucial in the civil rights cases? Black men could not vote without being threatened, cheated and denied. White people coule vote quite easily. Black people could not ride where they wanted in buses, be in certain areas, etc., all basic things that white people enjoyed and took for granted. The same simply does not apply with same-sex marriage. Homosexuals are not being denied any right that heterosexual men and women enjoy. Every man, every woman, regardless of their creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, is entitled to marriage with a member of the opposite sex, entitled to a natural family.
Natural law, ethics, the breakdown of the family in the last century and the current sex-obsessed, no responsibility culture all aside, legally the burden is on same-sex marriage advocates to prove that marriage is NOT between a man in a woman. There is simply no discriminatory denial of a particular right to certain people.
Just as a side note, there is a difference between homosexual attraction that one has tried to overcome, and indulging in a homosexual lifestyle. My spiritual director had two phenomenally interesting examples. He knows two men who can not find themselves attracted to women. They very much enjoy each other’s company, they live together in seperate bedrooms, they pray together, participate in the Sacraments, and remain completely celibate. Is it strange? To me, yes. But it’s a wonderful example that one need not indulge in extremely difficult temptation. And they are both extremely happy with their alives. Amazing.
The other case involved a celibate homosexual man and a celibate homosexual woman who are both good friends with my spiritual director. Both wanted children, but did not seem interested in the opposite sex, no attraction. Well, this priest that I love and admire so much, introduced them to each other. They instantly felt a connection, now have several kids and are still happily married.
Just throwing it out there, homosexuality, whether from childhood experiences, lack of desire for the opposite sex, whatever it may be, has always and will always existed. Does it follow that unnatural marriage should be allowed, so these people can more publicly and easily indulge in these pleasures? I believe there are other, better options. More fulfilling for the individuals, not mere bigotry.
In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank
T
tjm190
Guest
And I’m asking you to make a case by which (6) seems discriminatory, while the others are seen as fine. If it can not be done, then by what logic do we disregard (6) and no others? (E.g. stops gays from marrying is not sufficient- because every restriction stops marriages)
D
Dale_M
Guest
Okay, but did the Supreme Court say this when it declared marriage to be a civil right?
Well, I don’t know. Back in the 1970s (and presumably the decades before that) I remember that girls could get married as young as 13 years old in some states, with parental permission. And marrying at age 15 without consent was also possible Being an adult wasn’t required to get married until the 1980s. Yet in the 1980s we changed the conditions of marriage without much concern.
I have not claimed that marriage was a civil right. It was a contention of the OP and I was simply following his lead. However, I would point out that civil marriage in the US carries many legal and financial privileges which are denied to couples who are not married (gay or straight). Is unequal distribution of privileges just, if the law forbids the couple from marrying and partaking of the privileges enjoyed by other couples?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
An unequal distribution of privileges is inevitable in anything but an explicitly egalitarian society, which we are not. (Contrary to popular opinion. 
) People become entitled to certain privileges by their status/occupation/title, by age, by need for protection, and because of purchasable items (property, parking spaces, etc.).
And again, if everyone – or a large majority – has privileges, the concept of privilege is all but nullified. The reason for the privileges of marriage is for the continuation of traditional marriage as the recognized cornerstone for the raising of (mostly naturally born) children. It preserves the social order. Privileges usually have purposes and should not been confused with more universal rights or entitlements.
) People become entitled to certain privileges by their status/occupation/title, by age, by need for protection, and because of purchasable items (property, parking spaces, etc.).And again, if everyone – or a large majority – has privileges, the concept of privilege is all but nullified. The reason for the privileges of marriage is for the continuation of traditional marriage as the recognized cornerstone for the raising of (mostly naturally born) children. It preserves the social order. Privileges usually have purposes and should not been confused with more universal rights or entitlements.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Many, if not most of these issues can be solved by an attorney: the drafting up of various legal rights, especially matters of estate planning, wills, etc. I think marriage simply makes many of these matters easier, as in, it makes them automatic. For example, I don’t have to designate the benefactor of my life insurance policy in the state I live in. It automatically goes to my spouse, unless I specify otherwise. But, that’s just the point. I can specify otherwise. I’m not an attorney, but I’m relatively certain that most of these issues can be ironed out legally without a need for marriage.
So, I think the question still remains. Why gay marriage as a civil right?
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Let me know what you mean by civil contract. Are you talking about something socially, though not legally, binding, as in Rousseau?
M
Magnanimity
Guest
As I’m sure you well know the praxis of the general right to marry was vis-a-vis interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia. But, this is just an illustration of my prior claim. Having a general right does not necessarily answer the further questions regarding the application of that right to this or that specific instance.
In section II of Chief Justice Warren’s opinion in Loving v. Virginia, he writes,
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
I’m curious to know how we read these lines from this opinion as doing something other than affirming a general civil right to marry.
R
rossum
Guest
The extended list reads: (1) Two (2) consenting (3) unmarried (4) human (5) adults (6) of the opposite gender (7) who are not close relatives (8) of the same race.
I see (6) as discriminatory for the same reason (8) was seen as discriminatory, it is an unnecessary restriction on people’s freedom to form civil marriages.
As I have said, (1) can also be seen as discriminatory against Muslims. (2), (3) and (4) are universally accepted. (5) varies between US states and between countries so is not fixed. (7) is there for good genetic reasons.
rossum
A
Ashley42
Guest
A marriage is how you define it. Different people have different definitions for the word. In your little corner, your definition does not include same sex couples. That’s fine, nobody is arguing with you over YOUR definition. You have that, and keep it to yourself.
What is at stake is the legal definition. The government should treat all people equally under law. That means re-defining marriage to include same sex couples. Your definition does not have to change. If a same sex couple has a union and calls it “marriage”, then it is a marriage, by their definition. Maybe not by yours, but your definition is not absolute!
Try this:
Heterosexual people have the right to marry the person they love
Homosexual people do not have the right to marry the person they love.
Therefore, the rights are not equal.
Care to explain HOW the children will suffer? Many have tried, ALL have failed. Hey, check out the Prop 8 trial, you’ll see the best experts in this field trying to answer that very question - then having to admit under cross examination that they do not know the answer, or that homosexual marriages actually HELP children of same-sex couples.
How can you say this with absolutely NO evidence to back it up?! I have not heard anything so absurd spouted for a very long time. I thought people were a little more educated these days! Do you know any homosexuals? Do you know any of the hundreds of thousands of monogomous homosexuals with stable, loving relationships? Open your eyes. Until then, you are blind to the world.
Yes they are - to marry THE PERSON THEY LOVE. And all the few hundred rights that come along with marriage.
But we know that it is not - procreation is not, and never has been, a precondition of marriage. Infertile couples, the elderly, incarcerated prisoners, etc. are all allowed to marry. Many times in Law marriage has been declared a fundemental right. Never has procreation been a key condition.
S
surritter
Guest
Ashley – this is pure nonsense. Suppose I define marriage as a man and a donkey. You’d better well give me that right!!
What is the purpose of marriage? Don’t give me what you think marriage is or ought to be – tell me what the purpose is.
What is the purpose of marriage? Don’t give me what you think marriage is or ought to be – tell me what the purpose is.
A
Ashley42
Guest
You’re a bit confused - let me explain.
Say you define marriage as between a man and a donkey. Fine. That’s your definition. As far as you are concerned, that’s a marriage.
My definition is a unioin between two consenting adults. To me, the union between you and your donkey is not a marriage.
What matters here is SCOPE. Because my definition does not include donkeys, it does not mean that your marriage is not and never will be under any circumstances, a marriage - it is, but only by YOUR definition.
Saying that homosexual unions “can never be marriage” simply because it does not fit with your definition is disregarding the scope of the definition.
Most homosexuals do not care about your scope, or the Catholic or religious scopes. They care about the legal one. And if the legal definition of marriage is redefined to include homosexuals, then, in the LEGAL SCOPE, that IS a marriage.
There are many purposes. Again, scope is relevant here - it depends on who you ask. To Joe Catholic, that purpose might be procreation. To me, I want to marry my partner for the purpose of having our relationship recognised as a strong one, and for the purpose of having the same legal benefits that legal marriage provides.
L
lutherlic
Guest
I really doubt the founding fathers contemplated homosexual unions.
If this is just another way of saying people may do whatever they wish and their choice to do so is protected as a civil right, then that must extend to polygamy and bestiality would it not? If the state’s involvement is to protect the basic building block of society - the family - then only heterosexual unions would apply as only they can produce offspring.
S
surritter
Guest
So the purpose depends on who is defining it, correct? Or in your terminology, the “scope.” Therefore, you are saying that the scope or definition is fluid, depending on the times, the culture, and the legal system.
So by your definition, my supposed demand to be wed to a donkey should not be denied by you. You wrote that this is fine if it is my definition. But all we’ve done is create a label, and the relationship to my donkey has no intrinsic meaning unless we continue to examine what the purpose of marriage is.
Now, you stated that you wish to be granted “marriage” in order to have your “relationship recognised as a strong one.” What is that relationship? What does it consist of? What is it capable of?
If you merely seek legal rights, those can be established through other methods. What is it about your relationship that needs “certifying” that it is a strong one?
(Hint: read post #8.)
F
free2pray
Guest
So all of society should bow to your definition of marriage? I guess we’ll all just go back to the days were each one did what was right in his own eyes Jdg 17:6
Please understand that it is God’s original purpose and definition that matters. You can say this or that is sin or not sin but it will be God’s definition that we will be held to.
Respectfully Yours
T
tjm190
Guest
Universal acceptance does not mean non discriminatory. Was a gay marriage ban okay when it was universally accepted? Furthermore, if we were to allow gay marriage we would have to do away with (7) if we don’t wish to have any unnecessary restrictions and want to provide true “marriage equality” (Certainly there is no reason two gay cousins can’t get married- there are no possible negative results! And unless we want to discriminate against straight couples, then we must allow straight of close familial relationship to get married)
- Status