Gay Marriage - What's the big deal?

[brianwalden]

I do not say it’s necessarily beneficial, only that it’s not intrinsically harmful. The burden of proof lies with you.

Umm… The current law says homosexual marriage is not beneficial enough for society to give it special priviledges. I’m sorry, but the burden of proof lies with you. Actually, I don’t even think you need to prove anything. You just need to convince enough people to agree with you to change the law. Go for it, you’re already well on the way to succeeding.

 

[emily47017]

Others believe the law should only enforce some bare minimum requirements that let everyone do whatever they want unless they directly harm someone.

AKA libertarians.

i’ve noticed that there’s an enormous chasm between social libertarians and economic libertarians. i’m no exception: i love capitalism right up to the point where it slides into feudalism and a rationalization for letting whole swaths of the country starve and sleep in the rain. then i become a strident government interventionist, shouting “power to the people!” to any question i’m asked. but at the same time, i want government out of our private lives. pretty typical democrat, eh? a typical neo-con republican is my mirror image, my dark twin.

hmm… what does it all mean?

 

[Mirdath]

The government doesn’t define what marriage is. Neither does any person. No good Christian will say otherwise.

Then why do you care so much what the government says about it?

Umm… The current law says homosexual marriage is not beneficial enough for society to give it special priviledges.

So back it up. Is there actual reasoning behind this law that says it’s not good enough? If so, show it! If not, why should it remain on the books?

 

[emily47017]

Umm… The current law says homosexual marriage is not beneficial enough for society to give it special priviledges.

no, the current laws say that homosexual marriage is harmful enough that society must not give it the same privileges.

 

[brianwalden]

Back to ‘natural law*’ again, are we? You know, it wasn’t very long ago that a lot of people made very similar noises regarding interracial marriage. And there are a sadly large number that still do.

‘It’s not natural!’ ‘It’s against God’s will!’ ‘It will harm society!’ ‘Ew!’

And so on. And I just bet plenty of studies could be produced supporting the terrible social effects of mixed-race marriages, on the couple, on children, and so forth. Should we make interracial marriage illegal? It isn’t as if those miscegenators can’t live together if they insist upon it, but why should society and the government legitimize their disordered urges?

Just in case you didn’t know how you sound.

*which is neither natural nor law in any sense

Yeah and the KKK uses the Bible to justify racism. I guess we can finally put the nail in the coffin for that whole sacred scripture thing. Whew! I can’t believe someone didn’t someone notice this sooner.

Just in case you didn’t know how you sound.

 

[adam_in_ohio]

of my friends who are pro-gay-marriage, most of them are also polyamorous.

I know no polyamorous individuals who don’t see gay marriage as a good thing.

The studies I’ve read show that homosexual parents’ children tend to have higher rates of depression, violence, addiction and homosexuality. The latter is effectively immaterial, but the former three are societally significant.

These same three factors are increased in by divorce according to other studies.

QUOTE]

I wonder if it has anything to do with “shame” they have to deal with by those who don’t approve of their Moms or dads.
The Lord gave us all free will. I think every one should have to use their free will how they see fit. Should gay couples be able to have one inshurance provider? Maby. But what ever the government does, it shoud not be called a marriage. Due to the fact it’s not a marriage.

 

[brianwalden]

Then why do you care so much what the government says about it?

The part of my post you didn’t quote says why: “Many people believe that the law should reflect the truth of what marriage is. The current law follows this idea - while it’s not a perfect representation of any single person’s belief in the truth it’s a composite of all our beliefs. Others believe the law should only enforce some bare minimum requirements that let everyone do whatever they want unless they directly harm someone. Many people who promote homosexual marriage follow this idea when it comes to lawmaking.”

I care so much because I fall into the first group of people. You fall into the second. If I moved to the second group I might very well advocate allowing homosexual marriage despite my beliefs that homosexual acts are sinful.
Mirdath;2535246:

So back it up. Is there actual reasoning behind this law that says it’s not good enough? If so, show it! If not, why should it remain on the books?

I’ve given you my reasoning. You disagree with me. It’s ok, I understand; I never started posting on this thread to prove myself right but merely to explain why Catholics make such a big deal about homosexual marriage. But you certainly have a lot of hubris to claim that the law has stood for hundreds of years (thousands if you want to go back further than American society) without anyone putting any thought behind it.

 

[brianwalden]

no, the current laws say that homosexual marriage is harmful enough that society must not give it the same privileges.

I apologize for not being clear. What I meant was the current law says homosexual marriage is not beneficial enough for society to give it special privileges over non-married relationships and single people.

If I were using your phrasing I would say: the current laws say that homosexual marriage is not beneficial enough that society must not give it the same privileges as heterosexual marriage.

 

[Mirdath]

The part of my post you didn’t quote says why: “Many people believe that the law should reflect the truth of what marriage is. The current law follows this idea - while it’s not a perfect representation of any single person’s belief in the truth it’s a composite of all our beliefs. Others believe the law should only enforce some bare minimum requirements that let everyone do whatever they want unless they directly harm someone. Many people who promote homosexual marriage follow this idea when it comes to lawmaking.”

I care so much because I fall into the first group of people. You fall into the second. If I moved to the second group I might very well advocate allowing homosexual marriage despite my beliefs that homosexual acts are sinful.

But if the government has no power to define marriage no matter where you stand on its powers of legislation, why is it worth caring about what it tries to define? You believe it can’t anyway – so why make a fuss?

But you certainly have a lot of hubris to claim that the law has stood for hundreds of years (thousands if you want to go back further than American society) without anyone putting any thought behind it.

It originated with ‘God said don’t do this’. Has there been much more thought than that put into it? If so, I haven’t seen it.

 

[brianwalden]

In my opinion homosexual marriage denies the complementarity of the sexes and the completion of each sex in union with the other. It denies the natural order of marriage in exchange for man-made concepts.

That is a religious issue…not a civil one.

What religion are those ideas exclusive to? I seem to recall reading “Thou shall not murder” in the Bible, should we throw out that old religious law too.

It also denies the natural truth of our sexuality. It turns marriage from a responsibility to procreate and raise children which couples choose to undertake to a relationship people enter into merely to make themselves happy.

Yet couples who cannot procreate can be married…again…based on religious beliefs, not on civil law…still it does not demonstrate “harm” to society…if barren couples do not “harm” society…neither do same sex couples.

Are you saying that the ideas that sexuality is meant to be expressed between a man and a woman and that one of the main purpose of marriages is to raise children are strictly religious ones? You’ve got to be kidding me. Either you’re gravely mistaken or you’re purposely using religion as a stick to beat me with.

Anyway we’ve gone over barren couples long ago. What’s that have to do with anything? BTW - last I checked homosexuals aren’t barren, at least not any more so than the general population.

And what’s the hangup with harm. If we were throwing homosexual couples in jail then the law would have to show how they are directly harming others. That’s not what the law does. Instead the law chooses not to give them special privileges because it doesn’t feel they provide enough of a benefit to society to merit them. If you want to make the argument that everyone has a God-given right to a tax break for living with someone else go right ahead.

This type of attitude, which is present in many marriages today, is currently very detrimental the well-being of both the spouses and children in marriages.

Are barren couples causing “detriment” to their spouses?

No. Has anyone on this thread proposed such a thing? However people, whether barren or fertile, who think that marriage and procreation and raising children are three distinct things are a detriment to their spouse and children.

Homosexual marriage, even more so than our current contraceptive culture, does not encourage its participants to procreate and keep society growing.

But there are couples who can procreate…and do…this arguement makes it sound like if gay marriages are allowe it will stop ALL procreation…no more so than barren couples.

That sentence was in reference to the attitude I described in the previous point. I should have done a better job of showing that by contraceptive culture I specifically meant the mentality of that culture. I apologize. More barren couples; they’re no danger to marriage, but contraceptive couples certainly are.

I know you don’t agree with me. I don’t expect you to. That’s how society works: lots of people debate their opinions and some of them win out over others. I think we both agree with this. The difference is that I believe the law should attempt to reflect truth even though it may never be possible to fully achieve that goal. You believe the law shouldn’t attempt to reflect truth, but instead place bare limits so that individuals can determine their own truth. We have different fundamental concepts of the nature of law. I think we’re going around in circles on this issue more than anything else.

You define “truth” through your beliefs…not equality under the law.

Exactly. Each individual determines what they believe to be truth to the best of their ability. The law is like a mosaic of these beliefs. It doesn’t define the truth it just reflects the result when we all put our beliefs in the picture. If this system is a violation of equality under the law then many of our laws violate equality.

I agree that homosexuals [are] as capable as anyone else at being productive members of society. I also don’t deny that homosexuals are capable of acting as a family unit.

You deny it…even though they do act as family units?

All kinds of people can act as a family unit. It doesn’t mean the government must promote all types of family units.

I said I don’t deny it. I also believe that four (or pick any number that suits you) homeless people who take in a young runaway so that she won’t fall into drugs and prostitution can act as a family unit. But I don’t believe that means the government must promote such a situation.

 

[Publisher]

The issue is equality under the law, it has nothing to do with religious beliefs…but rule of law. You speak of “thou shalt not commit murder” as a religious law, but this quite demonstably is a detriment to society…harming another human…but two people of the same sex that love each other and chose to live in committed relationship as “marriage” in no way effects society in a negative way. In fact it strengthens society by strengthenin the bond between two people…insuring their civil rights…CIVIL RIGHTS are protected under rule of law. Equal rights under law is not the same as special rights.

 

[brianwalden]

But if the government has no power to define marriage no matter where you stand on its powers of legislation, why is it worth caring about what it tries to define? You believe it can’t anyway – so why make a fuss?

“* believe that the law should reflect the truth…”

This is why. I know you disagree with it, but its not exactly a new or uncommon idea. If the law isn’t attempting to do this, it’s not in serving its purpose in my opinion.

It originated with ‘God said don’t do this’. Has there been much more thought than that put into it? If so, I haven’t seen it.

Much of what many people believe starts with ‘God said this.’ There’s been tons of thought put into it. If you want thought, Catholicism is the place to go - after all we’re the ones who Hellenized Christianity. If you want to better understand Catholic thought on the subject (you know, so you’ll be able to refute it better) you may want to try Christopher West’s - Theology of the Body for Beginners. I know you’re pretty well read, don’t take the ‘for beginners’ part as an insult. I just don’t know if you’ve been exposed to Catholic teaching about sexuality before.*

 

[Mirdath]

The law is like a mosaic of these beliefs. It doesn’t define the truth it just reflects the result when we all put our beliefs in the picture. If this system is a violation of equality under the law then many of our laws violate equality.

In other words, you believe some people should not be truly equal under the law?

I just don’t know if you’ve been exposed to Catholic teaching about sexuality before.

I was raised Catholic. I have a good understanding of the subject, I simply believe that it often comes into conflict with other Catholic teachings – especially when Catholics assume that everyone else should follow them.

 

[brianwalden]

The issue is equality under the law, it has nothing to do with religious beliefs…but rule of law. You speak of “thou shalt not commit murder” as a religious law, but this quite demonstably is a detriment to society…harming another human…but two people of the same sex that love each other and chose to live in committed relationship as “marriage” in no way effects society in a negative way. In fact it strengthens society by strengthenin the bond between two people…insuring their civil rights…CIVIL RIGHTS are protected under rule of law. Equal rights under law is not the same as special rights.

You call all my beliefs religious ideas, but just because they are found in my religion does not make them religious. I used the Commandment against murder as an example of this. Your agreement proves my point. I think you also confuse beliefs people have concerning truth with religion. Everyone believes certain things to be true, sometimes for religious reasons. As you’ve shown the with the belief most people hold against murder, that does not make them religious beliefs. You may disagree with all the reasons I gave against homosexual marriage, but I challenge you to prove that they’re exclusively religious.

Additionally, for religious people faith and reason are inseparable (in fact I’d be worried about the ones who separate the two). If you want to hear what I truly think about something there’s no way to not mix in faith.

Neighbors may love each other and choose to live in a committed relationship. This certainly strengthens the bonds within communities. Must the government strengthen this bond among neighbors by recognizing it as a special type of marriage in order to insure their civil rights? Is not doing so a violation of their civil rights?

Concerning: “Equal rights under law is not the same as special rights.” I assume you said this because you feel that current laws don’t provide equal rights:

A heterosexual man:
Has the right to marry a woman
Does not have the right to marry a man
Does not have the right to marry two people at the same time
Has the right to refrain from marriage
Has the right to live with anyone he wants
Has the right to have sex with anyone he wants
Has the right to have a relationship with anyone he wants

A homosexual man:
Has the right to marry a woman
Does not have the right to marry a man
Does not have the right to marry two people at the same time
Has the right to refrain from marriage
Has the right to live with anyone he wants
Has the right to have sex with anyone he wants
Has the right to have a relationship with anyone he wants

Where’s the inequality? I’m willing to listen to your case for homosexual marriage but I’m not buying the claim that the current laws are a violation of civil rights.

 

[emily47017]

A heterosexual man:

has the right to marry the one he loves above all others.

A homosexual man:

does not have the right to marry the one he loves above all others.

 

[Publisher]

If the issue is the word “marriage” then “civil unions” work just as well.

A gay man or lesbian woman does not have the same rights under the law…yes they can marry someone of the opposite sex…but then the whole “sacredness of marriage” is out the window…there is no “bond of love”, in fact I dare say for a gay person to marry a straight person would not even fulfill the “sacramental” aspect of marriage Catholics hold?

 

[brianwalden]

In other words, you believe some people should not be truly equal under the law?

Which part is unequal under the law? I’m missing something. Everyone gets their voice in making the law. No one is discriminated against.

I was raised Catholic. I have a good understanding of the subject, I simply believe that it often comes into conflict with other Catholic teachings – especially when Catholics assume that everyone else should follow them.

I was also raised Catholic and stopped practicing in high school. The Church’s sexual teachings actually played a large role in bringing me back. I kinda had the opposite experience that you did. I started seeing how everything the Church said about sexuality and marriage tied into all of its teachings. For me it was like “Holy Cow! All those ridiculous things the Catholic Church says that no one in their right mind believes anymore really do make sense!”

We all have to come to our own conclusions - and I respect the serious effort you’ve put into yours - but if you have a good understanding Catholic teachings on the subject, even though you disagree with them, can you really say that no one has put a great deal of thought into it?

 

[emily47017]

If the issue is the word “marriage” then “civil unions” work just as well.

ITA! i would like to see all marriages called “civil unions” under the law, and “marriage” only under religious institutions. after all, government doesn’t define marriage, it merely recognizes marriages.

 

[Publisher]

ITA! i would like to see all marriages called “civil unions” under the law, and “marriage” only under religious institutions. after all, government doesn’t define marriage, it merely recognizes marriages.

I agree…it use to be that different races could not marry…it was against the law…that changed. In some states all one had to do is register in a motel as husband and wife to be “legally married”.

Some states had common law marriages…the government recognizes unions or marriages…religious institutions define marriage for itself…not society…even within the Catholic church some “marriages” recognized as legal by the state are not considered “marriage” by the church.

The Society of Friends recognize the union of two people who make a lifelong commitment…it is God in the presence of Friends who join two people together…not the church…it took 15 long years for North Pacific Yearly Meeting to accept same sex unions…it will happen in the greater part of society one day…it’s happening all over the world…many nations and a few states in the US recongnize same sex unions…even here in Oregon civil unions are recognized…Oregon was the first state to allow same sex unions after passing a marriage ammendment.

It will change…civil unions will soon become law…religious marriages will stay under the care of the church…unions under the state.

 

[brianwalden]

If the issue is the word “marriage” then “civil unions” work just as well.

A gay man or lesbian woman does not have the same rights under the law…yes they can marry someone of the opposite sex…but then the whole “sacredness of marriage” is out the window…there is no “bond of love”, in fact I dare say for a gay person to marry a straight person would not even fulfill the “sacramental” aspect of marriage Catholics hold?

Well objecting to civil unions can’t be a violation of anyone’s civil rights - they’re a man-made type of relationship. I would not support such a law - I see no need to give people a tax break for living together. That’s my opinion, disagree with me all you want.

Isn’t the “sacredness of marriage” a religious idea? Since you’ve said religious ideas have no place in civil matters, I’m not really sure what you mean by that.

I’m also not quite sure what you mean by “bond of love” but I’ll give it a shot. If a man with a same-sex attraction promised to uphold all his marital vows to the woman he married, I don’t see why there would be no “bond of love”. In fact, such a determination to live up to his covenant despite his SSA would truly exemplify the self-sacrificing love espoused in marriage. That describes a natural marriage. A sacramental marriage is a marriage in Christ; that’s the only difference. So I again see no problem. It’s not what you feel like - it’s what you do. Such a person’s situation is no different from someone who has strong desires to engage in adultery yet remains faithful to his wife.