Gay marriage : who cares?

[ERose]

Look guys this thread is going everywhere except for discussing its original subject and that is gay marriage. Can we get back on subject please. Also I haven’t seen your response yet Seeker concerning the reading to the ruling “Loving vs Virginia” yet. I really do think that it is important to this thread since it will most probably be the most quoted when this gets to the Supreme Court, which I think that it will. Predicting a 5-4 against Judge Walker’s decision.

 

[ERose]

I didn’t respond because I don’t necessarily disagree with you on this point. To the extent that modifiable behaviors can lower risk factors they should be, and I would preach to the homosexual community and drug users to always use condoms and clean needles. In the lifestyle, condom use is nearly ubiquitous, which may explain why people who, on paper anyway, should be at a higher risk for spreading diseases, in the real world don’t seem to be doing so.

Got you confused with the original poster. My bad. Hey you still have answered my question concerning whether or not you parent(s) or hers know about your lifestyle choice. You don’t have to answer if you do not want to but just let me know.

 

[Seeker2010]

Your copy of the Constitution also doesn’t enumerate pedophilia as a crime. So does that mean we should have the freedom to molest children?

What a ridiculous argument. First, for this point to be meaningful in any way whatsoever, the Constitution would have to prohibit a law criminalizing pedophilia. It does not, nor would I live in a country that did were I to have any choice in the matter.

 

[ERose]

I have never seen you personally say so, but you Church and other religious organizations have advocated discrimination against homosexuals, the criminalization of certain sexual practices, advocated censorship, protested the existence of strip bars and swing clubs, going so far as to document and publicize the identity of people patronizing them, and in some cases, have been successful in shutting them down.

In other words, they’re attempting to hoist their lifestyle choices upon other people without their consent.

Anarchists? Gimme a break.

I can’t speak for other religious groups but I can say that you are completely wrong on the discrimination bit. Research this instead of assuming. That is what I keep trying to point you guys to. Instead spewing smoke and mirrors, why don’t you first find out if what you are saying has any truth in it before typing it. It would save threads and me having to read useless ones.

Where has the Catholic church discriminated against gays?

 

[Seeker2010]

Look guys this thread is going everywhere except for discussing its original subject and that is gay marriage. Can we get back on subject please.

Threads have a tendency to wander, and some of this nominally off topic discussion is actually relevant to the question at hand. For example, whether or not consensual homosexual acts are a protected civil rights is very much germane. For if a State is within it’s rights to criminalize gay man love, the question of gay man marriage becomes almost moot.

On the other hand, if it is a protected civil right, and the courts have ruled that it is, does it then follow if they have a right to sex, they have a right to marriage.

Re: Loving v. Virginia, I must have missed a post or two somewhere along the line, as I’m not sure what you are asking, and re: parents, both of our fathers have been given hints big enough to drive a mack truck through, but not our mothers. They are both deeply, devoutly religious and it would hurt them.

I like to joke that ‘If my mom found out, she’d have a stroke and die’, but the truth is I’m not so certain how much of a joke that is, versus being literally a true statement. Though my mother is aware that we have a much more active social life and wider circle of friends than most people at our stage of life.

I’m not convinced my mother even really believes that people do things like that in the real world, so I very much doubt she’d ever put two and two together. If she did ever ask, I’d actually tell the truth, but in a sarcastic sort of way that implies that I’m not.

“Did you go to an orgy last weekend?”

Rolls Eyes… “Yeah, mom, because we go to orgies every weekend. Sheesh.”

But our friends know, our neighbors (the ones we’re friendly with anyway) know, and some people at work do, though we really like to keep those two worlds separate. All of our siblings know, and my brothers wife-to-be does as well.

One of the reasons we’re so open about it is because we have no desire to associate with people who are judgmental enough that it would become a problem if they found out. Ironically, and perhaps surprisingly, we have never once had a negative reaction from anyone.

I, too, think it will be a 5-4 vote, with Kennedy the swing vote, but I tend to think (or perhaps it’s wishful thinking) that he’ll uphold the lower courts decision, especially in light of the ‘Findings of Fact’ that the court enumerated. I’m no lawyer, but my understanding is that though they can choose to ignore those, or even find them to be in error, appellate courts and SCOTUS tend to try to be deferential on fact finding points. Whether or not they will in this case remains to be seen.

There’s a part of me that wonders if they’ll try to get a 9-0 majority to send the message ‘We really mean this!’

 

[Seeker2010]

Where has the Catholic church discriminated against gays?

I don’t know if this group is Catholic or not, but they are (ostensibly) Christian. The first time I went to the website, it took me some time to figure out if they were serious or if it were some kind of spoof.

Unfortunately, it’s real.

godhatesfags.com

 

[RBK]

I don’t know if this group is Catholic or not, but they are (ostensibly) Christian. The first time I went to the website, it took me some time to figure out if they were serious or if it were some kind of spoof.

Unfortunately, it’s real.

godhatesfags.com

Sigh…that would be the Westboro Baptist Church. You know, the one that protests military funerals. Google them, they don’t represent any Christian I’ve ever known.

 

[ERose]

I don’t know if this group is Catholic or not, but they are (ostensibly) Christian. The first time I went to the website, it took me some time to figure out if they were serious or if it were some kind of spoof.

Unfortunately, it’s real.

godhatesfags.com

Nope not Catholic affiliated. What I am getting at is that the Catholic Church has held religiously (no pun attended) to the view: Love the sinner but hate the sin. The Church preaches against the lifestyle and the acts, which it must for to us it is a sin as you well know. But in the eyes of the Church all sex, including hetero, outside the sanctity of marriage is a mortal sin. But on the flip side, various Catholic charities run hospices all over the world where AIDs is a major problem, which takes in all AIDs victims indescrimately no matter if they are gay or straight. It has spoken out against violence against gays and has created support groups for those who wish to get out or stay out of the gay lifestyle. So our Church spends millions supporting and taking care of the men and women who have came out on the wrong side of this lifestyle. But that is what she does throughout the world.

The facts of the matter are that the Church must teach the truth. That is it primary function on Earth given to it by God. There are going to be times and in fact most of the time that this truth comes into conflict with the world view. But to bow down to this world view would be giving up all that makes the Church what it is. The pillar and foundation of Truth. Grant you don’t believe that the Church is what I claim it is. But if you are going to debate on this board you should have an understanding of who you are debating against.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

I* don’t know if this group is Catholic or not, but they are (ostensibly) Christian. The first time I went to the website, it took me some time to figure out if they were serious or if it were some kind of spoof.*

That’s exactly how we think about gay marriage. A spoof on real marriage.

 

[ERose]

Seeker here is my previous post:

*Seeker,

You should have read the decision instead of just depending upon Wiki. For you have opened a big can of worms. There are two arguments that are used by the Supreme Court to support the decision in favor of Loving:

1. Marriage is a fundamental civic right (not a constitutional right).
2. The intent of the 14th amendment is to protect citizens from racial and ethnic discrimination.

Let us start with the first shall we. The Supreme Court made the following argument concerning the right to marriage:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Justice Warren makes a very interesting claim here (see bold). That marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival. What does this mean to the debate on this thread? He is referring to the natural right of men and women to marry to continue on the human race. Thus he is asserting that it is well known that marriage’s function is procreation and raising of children in a stable environment. This obviously supports the arguments I have been using in the thread that you guys keep rejecting.

The second point is:

The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.

Justice Warren has highlighted the true intent of the 14th Amendment is to protect people from RACIAL discrimination. No where does it say that the 14th Amendment protects lifestyle choices that was never its intent and one must redefine the 14th Amendment to get to lifestyle choices.

What this shows me is the Judge Walker the judge that struck down Prop 8 in CA, must not have read the fully this ruling. If he did he would have had to side with the Prop 8. Instead I think that he only read the Wikepedia entry since that passage is the only one he quoted. But that is a different thread.

Anyway Seeker good try but you are going to have to go a different route. This ruling supports our side of the argument not yours. *

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

Well, it looks at though you and kenofkin are the only ones left standing. Since I am by nature opposed to massacres, I’m out of here at last.

Adios!

 

[Seeker2010]

Since I am by nature opposed to massacres, I’m out of here at last.

Well, until we meet again, sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. But I’ll bet a $100 donation to your favorite charity by me, or to mine by you, that within 10 years at least half of the country has gay marriage, and within 20, they all do.

I would bet on SCOTUS, but I just don’t know what Kennedy is gonna do, and he won’t return any of my phone calls.

 

[Seeker2010]

Seeker here is my previous post:

Before I get in depth, a question. Are you seriously saying that you think SCOTUS did NOT rule marriage a fundamental, constitutional, civic right in the language you posted?

 

[kenofken]

Well, until we meet again, sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. But I’ll bet a $100 donation to your favorite charity by me, or to mine by you, that within 10 years at least half of the country has gay marriage, and within 20, they all do.

I would bet on SCOTUS, but I just don’t know what Kennedy is gonna do, and he won’t return any of my phone calls.

I wouldn’t bet against those numbers. It might vary by 5 years in either direction, probably the later direction because of other priorities, temporary conservative backlashes, but it’s all a demographic waiting game from here out. Virtually all hardcore opponents of gay marriage are over 50. They’re operating now at the edge of a minimum majority they need to be effective, and quite simply, they’re not going to be replaced by younger activists at anywhere near a 1:1 ratio they need. The slow death of things like DADT and DOMA will make it much harder to demonstrate to judges that there is some legitimate compelling interest in banning gay marriage.

Homosexuality is just a zero issue with the under 30 crowd, and even the Christian conservatives within that group mostly don’t have the obsession with the issue that their elders do. History shows that we’re usually among the last in the western world to actually uphold the lofty human rights ideals which we patented, but we get there…

 

[Abu]

Facing Reality

Tuesday September 28, 2010
Ann Coulter Rocks HomoCon, Blasts Same-Sex “Marriage”
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10092807.html
Coulter explained to the crowd that she supports marriage as the union of a man and a woman, because the institution is fundamentally about the procreation of children.
Coulter then stated frankly that keeping marriage defined and restricted to heterosexual couples does not violate homosexuals’ civil rights.

She also said that same-sex “marriage” was “foisted on Americans by the courts."
Marriage, she said, “is not a civil right — you’re not black.”

 

[colmcille1]

Virtually all hardcore opponents of gay marriage are over 50. They’re operating now at the edge of a minimum majority they need to be effective, and quite simply, they’re not going to be replaced by younger activists at anywhere near a 1:1 ratio they need. Homosexuality is just a zero issue with the under 30 crowd, and even the Christian conservatives within that group mostly don’t have the obsession with the issue that their elders do.

Hi kenofken,
So, not only are your posts anti-Catholic, they are decidedly ageist too!

‘And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of** wisdom**, and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge, and of godliness.
And he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears.’
Isaiah 11:2-3

Wisdom comes with age.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Abu]

A puerile travesty of history has been foisted on this thread, to divert attention from the farce of homosexual “marriage”. CentralFLJames had answered the nonsense purporting to show popes supporting slavery, in January, 2010.
Here is the gist:
It was a time of war and at this time the Church had a definite voice of influence in government secular affairs and had to assert itself to defend innocent lives being slaughtered by the Muslim hordes. The pope uses the language and emotion of the day. Christians were terrorized by what looked like Satan himself waging war against Christendom. So the pope authorized the taking of prisoners of war and their enslavement/incarceration as a life sentence for crimes against Christendom. This is a mercy since the war convention at the time was to kill enemies due to the high cost of maintaining them and guarding or else holding the noble ones (knights/lords) as hostage for payment from their Christian families

This bull was not a general edict to enslave people willy-nilly. It was no different than giving a life sentence to criminals with hard labor to pay back society, today, in the USA and elsewhere.

Dum Diversas was a real papal bull but it in no way is a general endorsement of slavery. It is simply an authorization to the Spanish monarchy to engage the aggressor enemy of Christians in a “just war” and to take any survivors as prisoners and incarcerate them for life for their crimes against Christianity.

 

[ERose]

Before I get in depth, a question. Are you seriously saying that you think SCOTUS did NOT rule marriage a fundamental, constitutional, civic right in the language you posted?

Not what i am saying. I am outlining why it is considered a fundamental, civic right (not a constitutional right) or as the term we have been using primarily on this thread, natural right.

Reread that part my friend.

 

[ERose]

Good news concerning this debate on the national level. As of today (as far as i can tell) 13 states have joined in on the list for “standing” concerning the prop8 repeal repeal. So it looks like the prop8 ruling is going forward to the 9th district.

There was initially concern that the individuals defending prop8 in CA did not have true standing and it was hoped by the pro-SSM croud that prop8 being overturned would remain that way since the government of CA refused to defend prop8. I do not think anybody thought that other states would get involved and they have.

Interesting evaluation on this issue. You guys remember all the press the overturning of prop8 got in the press? Well has anyone heard in the press the last few days anything about this? Most probably not. I haven’t heard a peep. You have search hard to find anything on this on the web.

Hopefully sanity finally sets in and prop8 is maintained.

 

[kenofken]

A puerile travesty of history has been foisted on this thread, to divert attention from the farce of homosexual “marriage”. CentralFLJames had answered the nonsense purporting to show popes supporting slavery, in January, 2010.
Here is the gist:
It was a time of war and at this time the Church had a definite voice of influence in government secular affairs and had to assert itself to defend innocent lives being slaughtered by the Muslim hordes. The pope uses the language and emotion of the day. Christians were terrorized by what looked like Satan himself waging war against Christendom. So the pope authorized the taking of prisoners of war and their enslavement/incarceration as a life sentence for crimes against Christendom. This is a mercy since the war convention at the time was to kill enemies due to the high cost of maintaining them and guarding or else holding the noble ones (knights/lords) as hostage for payment from their Christian families

This bull was not a general edict to enslave people willy-nilly. It was no different than giving a life sentence to criminals with hard labor to pay back society, today, in the USA and elsewhere.

Dum Diversas was a real papal bull but it in no way is a general endorsement of slavery. It is simply an authorization to the Spanish monarchy to engage the aggressor enemy of Christians in a “just war” and to take any survivors as prisoners and incarcerate them for life for their crimes against Christianity.

That theory works if you count Indians defending their land as “aggressors.” Sort of like a burglar claiming self defense because he killed the homeowner who came at him with a bat. Some other rulings by Paul III authorized slave trading within Rome and ended an ancient privelege whereby slaves could claim their freedom at a certain monument or holy site within Rome.