Gay marriage : who cares?

[Leela]

Yes I know what the gay people cite. The problem is that they are wrong. Ask yourself why we have the institution of marriage? Why does it even exist?

So that two may become physically, emotionally and spiritually whole in unity as a couple?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Nice dodge on the incestuous marriage question. Apparently you are going to defend only the homosexual cause and judge harshly those poor brothers and sisters who want to get married because they love each other with all their heart and soul! By the way, do you really think brothers and sisters would marry each other because their parents wanted them to get married? Sheesh!

. Are all heterosexual parents better than all homosexual parents?

The question is not whether they are better parents, but whether children are better off with parents of each sex.

Given that there are so many children who lack loving adoptive homes, are you saying that it is better for a child to have no parents at all than for a child to have parents who love others of the same sex?

Yes. How such children turn out in later life is the ultimate question. A heterosexual child adopted by homosexual parents doesn’t stand a chance of a normal upbringing. But I have known heterosexual children raised in orphanages who have made wonderful mates and parents. Their dedication to family values is impressive, not least of all because they do not want their children to be raised without loving parents. Do you really think homosexual “parents” are such great models for the upbringing of heterosexual children? I think you are way off base there.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

The government has no duty to preserve the “natural order” as you or anyone else sees it.

On the contrary. The U.S. Constitution was built on the axiom that every nation has a “natural right” to govern itself. The Constitution protects our natural rights, such as the natural right not to be imprisoned without cause, the natural right of privacy, the natural right to own property, the natural right not to have our property stolen, and a thousand other natural rights.

The government at the time of Jefferson never imagined that lunatics would be demanding as a natural right the right for members of the same sex to marry each other. No, that is not one of the enumerated rights, and never has been anywhere before in the history of the world. It is only in such lunatic and morally bankrupt times as these that such a demand would be cried out from the rooftops.

 

[edwest2]

This conveniently ignores the reality that 99.99% of people who divorce do not remain single or celibate the rest of their lives. Allowing divorce, and most especially remarriage for the divorced, most certainly does change the fundamental nature of marriage from a lifelong comittment to one’s partner (addressed directly by Jesus, BTW), into a lifestyle accessory which may be discarded, at will with the law’s blessing. Many, many tens of millions of people are receiving this “sacrament” via civil law that are not eligible for it. The law we have, that Prop 8 people are turning a blind eye to, institutionalizes and legitimizes behaivor that is inherently sinful in their religion. To pretend that gay marriage is somehow qualitatively different on this basis from what straight people already do en masse is transparently false.

The topic is gay marriage, not divorce.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Leela]

The topic is gay marriage, not divorce.

Wrong. You should read the OP.

 

[edwest2]

What supporters of gay marriage support is the right of adults who have the wherewithal to consent to a marriage to be able to have their marriages recognized by the state (whether or not the churches recognize whatever sorts of relationships is a separate issue.)

The reason that incestuous marriages are forbidden is a matter lack of consent of the participants. Such marriages are too easily forced upon people by their families (or would be if they were legal). It is the same issue with polygamy. Young girls get promised to old men by their families. Anti-polygamy laws prevent that from happening as much as it otherwise would without such laws.

What you don’t seem to understand is that the government does not have the right to enforce laws on the basis of whether or not certain acts seem icky to you. The government has no duty to preserve the “natural order” as you or anyone else sees it. Our government serves the people rather than “nature” (or yours or anyone else’s idiosyncratic view of what is “natural” and “unnatural.”) Perhaps you would prefer a theocracy or a monarchy which has an interest in preserving a so-called “natural” hierarchy of domination of one group (royalty or the priesthood) over another. Unfortunately for you, the US recognizes no such “natural” order of things.

Best,
Leela

Why should gay people have their relationships legitimized by the State? They can do whatever they want without anybody else’s permission right now. Why was it put on the ballot? In California it was voted down twice. But, obviously, that didn’t matter.

You are using the propaganda term “icky” as if to say all who are against gay marriage have this uppermost in their minds. If the only components of gay marriage are love and a desire for togetherness then why shouldn’t adult heterosexual brothers marry or sons and daughters who are heterosexual marry their parents?

In Canada, right now, multiple sex partners are being proposed under the label polyamory.

All sexual deviastions are on the table right now. Just check with the Man Boy Love Association and their demands for rights and recognition.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Leela]

The question is not whether they are better parents, but whether children are better off with parents of each sex.

It seems to me that the issue for you is not statistical at all. Are there any other variables that you think ought to be considered in adoption besides “gender of adoptive parents”? Should we start top study all these other possible correlations? Perhaps people who live in certain parts of the country tend to be better parents. Perhaps people of Mexican decent tend to be better. Perhaps children raised in rural areas tend to do better than children raised in the suburbs or the city. Perhaps people making between $100,000 and $200,000 tend to be better parents. Perhaps Jews tend to be better parents. We could probably find all sorts of interesting statistical tendencies tat matter at least as much as gender of parents. Perhaps children of parents who both work or both do not work tend to do better. Perhaps children of parents who have jobs in the medical field tend to do better. Once we define who precisely is the statistically best type of parent, should we then limit adoption to only this type of parent? Why are you emphasizing “gender of parents” over all other possible variables that we might consider in deciding who makes the best parents?

 

[kenofken]

The topic is gay marriage, not divorce.

God bless,
Ed

The topic is more precisely whether gay marriage must be outlawed by civil authorities because it appears to be a unique moral threat to the purpose of marriage. It is my belief that the move to ban gay marriage is not based on any fundamental deep-seated concern about the sanctity of marriage, but rather personal distaste/homophobia of gays.

When I point out the obvious present threat to marriage (a non-gay one), I’m told that mass-scale divorce and adultery and obvious destructive effects on children are, you know, not that bad. We have government endorsing a lifestyle which is about promiscuity and disposable comittments. It has so damaged and undermined the reputation of the institution, in fact, that growing numbers of young people are simply cohabitating. But that’s not really a threat to marriage or a fundamental change to what it’s about, I’m told, apparently because the participants who are destryoying the institution are all anatomically correct. I used to have to walk all the way over to the liberals camp to find moral reasoning (and moral relativism) like that.

If divorce isn’t part of the topic, it’s because we’ve remade God in our own image, chosen which mortal sins we’re going to acknowledge and given ourselves the authority to wage a righteous war against only those sins (and people), who we really didn’t like much anyway.

 

[ERose]

So that two may become physically, emotionally and spiritually whole in unity as a couple?

Really? Is that the best answer you can come up with? Try again. But concerning your answer. Is marriage necessary for two people to become “physically, emotionally and spiritually whole in unity”?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

Why are you emphasizing “gender of parents” over all other possible variables that we might consider in deciding who makes the best parents?

Why? Common sense. It is better for a child’s future development as a stable heterosexual that he/she be reared by a mother and a father. We don’t have statical evidence to support this view, but I believe the happiness of future generations depends on this single factor. If and when homosexual marriage is approved and the rate of adoption for homosexual parents skyrockets, we will then be able to see how that impacts on the development of heterosexual children. You seem to think everything will be hunky-dory for the kids. I think not. I think future statistics will show further breakdown of the moral fabric of society, not to mention the clamoring of other special interests groups for the official recognition of their own particular brand of insanity. I can see the American Psychological Association declassifying incest and sado-masochistic behavior as mental illnesses. Why not? They’ve already done it for homosexuals.

In the meantime, I’m all for the speedy resolution of this matter (homosexual marriages) at the Supreme Court level. There are presently six Catholic Justices on the Court. I can only hope and pray that at least five of them will have the common sense and the common decency to settle this matter once and for all in favor of the children.

In Roe v Wade a largely Protestant Supreme Court would not step up for the unborn. Perhaps a Catholic court will. Then again, perhaps it won’t.

 

[Leela]

Really? Is that the best answer you can come up with? Try again. But concerning your answer. Is marriage necessary for two people to become “physically, emotionally and spiritually whole in unity”?

I suppose that depends on the couple. Instead of playing “guess again” why you don’t just tell me what you are thinking?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ERose

*Really? Is that the best answer you can come up with? Try again. But concerning your answer. Is marriage necessary for two people to become “physically, emotionally and spiritually whole in unity”? *

Good point. Many single heterosexual men have lived together as friends, companions, and for mutual support. Same for women. They did not need a piece of paper to protect their right to do so. And since they did not have children, they did not need the license for that purpose either. So what Leela is saying, really, is that homosexuals only want the the formal right to justify their sodomy and then adopt heterosexual children … for what purpose exactly?

 

[ERose]

The topic is more precisely whether gay marriage must be outlawed by civil authorities because it appears to be a unique moral threat to the purpose of marriage. It is my belief that the move to ban gay marriage is not based on any fundamental deep-seated concern about the sanctity of marriage, but rather personal distaste/homophobia of gays.

I agree that there are some who are against gay marriage exclusively for this reason. But I also propose that it isn’t always the case. In fact I will say that the majority of those against SSM are on the basis of protecting marriage, which I am a part of this majority. The attempt to call this homophobia is to try to silence the critics and make them look like hate-mongers. This will not happen. Your attempt will not work so don’t try it. If you do not have an argument then you don’t need to post for you are not contributing to the debate. If you have an argument stop the hate-speech **** and argue.

When I point out the obvious present threat to marriage (a non-gay one), I’m told that mass-scale divorce and adultery and obvious destructive effects on children are, you know, not that bad. We have government endorsing a lifestyle which is about promiscuity and disposable comittments. It has so damaged and undermined the reputation of the institution, in fact, that growing numbers of young people are simply cohabitating. But that’s not really a threat to marriage or a fundamental change to what it’s about, I’m told, apparently because the participants who are destryoying the institution are all anatomically correct. I used to have to walk all the way over to the liberals camp to find moral reasoning (and moral relativism) like that.

I agree with you completely on this. Divorce and adultery are extremely destructive to our society on a far greater scale than homosexuality.

I’ go even further and say that divorce should be harder and there should be greater penalties. I also think that adultery should be classified again as a crime and fines and/or jail time should the result of adultery.

But two (or in this case three) wrongs do not make a right. Because society has lost its way on divorce and adultery should not mean that we should loose our way on other attacks against marriage and our society.

If divorce isn’t part of the topic, it’s because we’ve remade God in our own image, chosen which mortal sins we’re going to acknowledge and given ourselves the authority to wage a righteous war against only those sins (and people), who we really didn’t like much anyway.

There are some that this would be correct about no doubt. But again not with everybody in this debate.

 

[ERose]

I suppose that depends on the couple. Instead of playing “guess again” why you don’t just tell me what you are thinking?

The hisorical and traditional purpose of marriage has always been to “create a stable environment for bearing and raising children.” This is the only reason why marriage even exists. Take this out of the picture and marriage becomes obsolete.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ERose

I’ go even further and say that divorce should be harder and there should be greater penalties. I also think that adultery should be classified again as a crime and fines and/or jail time should the result of adultery.

I was just commenting to a friend the other day that I think the popularity of divorce, starting in the 50s, was the single most important factor contributing to the moral bankruptcy of our times. The second most important fact was Roe V Wade. Lack of respect for life has resulted in promoting the lack of respect for everything else that civilization has held to be sacred.
*
The hisorical and traditional purpose of marriage has always been to “create a stable environment for bearing and raising children.” This is the only reason why marriage even exists. Take this out of the picture and marriage becomes obsolete. *

Yes, there’s hardly anything more empty than a childless marriage.

By the way, in the Air force I was stationed at Barksdale AFB. Really enjoyed your Louisiana Hayride in Shreveport.

 

[traillius]

sorry, gay marriage is an oxymoron. No matter what government says, it cannot define or redefine marriage. Calling a fish a mammal doesn’t make it warm blooded. Trying to say that fish are the same as mammals doesn’t make the mammal cold blooded, or give the fish the ability to suckle their young with milk.
Since marriage has always been, and will always be, between exactly two fully aware and consenting adults of the opposite gender, one male and the other female, with sufficient familial separation, anything else is not going to be a marriage. The institution comes from God. Anything outside of that order is simply a misnomer. The reason we oppose calling anything else ‘marriage’ is because we don’t want to encourage sin, or for the government to encourage sin. Also because we don’t want the government to continue to seize control of answering social issues that the founding fathers intended to be directed by the majority of the general population, with only the most basic limits imposed. Homosexual ‘marriage’ goes way beyond those limitis, as does abortion.

 

[Leela]

In the meantime, I’m all for the speedy resolution of this matter (homosexual marriages) at the Supreme Court level.

The supporters of gay marriage are pursuing a gradual state by state strategy. There does seem to be some fear of what will happen when it goes to the Supreme Court.

There are presently six Catholic Justices on the Court. I can only hope and pray that at least five of them will have the common sense and the common decency to settle this matter once and for all in favor of the children.

The decision won’t be a matter of what is or is not consistent with Catholic teaching.

The swing vote hear is supposed to be Kennedy who is the author of the opinion striking down sodomy laws (Lawrence v Texas) on the basis that it is not enough to say that something ought to be illegal because it is considered to be immoral. There must be a compelling reason. The fact finding of the recent Walker decision and Kennedy’s arguments ion Lawrence suggests that if the Supreme Court reviews the decision it will be very difficult to walk a line between upholding the ban on sodomy laws and allowing bans on gay marriage since the testimony of the experts in fact finding demolished all the typical arguments against gay marriage.

See the following for an interesting analysis of what might happen in the Supreme Court:
nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/aug/11/how-will-gay-marriage-fare-supreme-court/

 

[Leela]

The hisorical and traditional purpose of marriage has always been to “create a stable environment for bearing and raising children.” This is the only reason why marriage even exists. Take this out of the picture and marriage becomes obsolete.

Wow. There are a lot of infertile couples and couples who chose not to have kids who would be very interested to know that you think that their marriages are illegitimate.

I hope that you publicize this view for the sake of the cause (not yours).

 

[Leela]

E
Yes, there’s hardly anything more empty than a childless marriage.

Please, please, please keep saying this sort of stuff! Nothing could do more to support the cause of gay marriage. Childless couples should know that you oppose them on the same basis that you oppose gay marriage and that you think their marriages are empty.

 

[ERose]

Wow. There are a lot of infertile couples and couples who chose not to have kids who would be very interested to know that you think that their marriages are illegitimate.

I hope that you publicize this view for the sake of the cause (not yours).

Worldwide society has always determined the purpose of marriage as establishing a stable environment for bearing and raising children. That has always been its primary function. For an institution that spans for the most part every single society in this world and be defined as basically the same is incredible and shows that this definition is supported by natural law.

We all know that it requires a man and and woman to bear a child. We also know that not all women and not all men can have children, but for society to know that a man or a woman cannot bear a child was impossible to determine in premodern times and it would require a violation of privacy in modern times. And as such society has established marriage between a man and a woman, without regard of their fertility, which would be unknown by society. But society does know that a man/man or woman/woman cannot bear a child without the introduction of a third party and as such makes true marriage between SSC impossible.