Gay marriage : who cares?

[Leela]

Wrong on one point. Marriage has always been between man and woman. It may have been one man and more than one woman or one woman and more than one man in some cultures but it has always been between man and woman because only man and woman can procreate.

I have argued this point in previous posts yet I haven’t found anyone of you that have the ability to debate this so you skip it.
…
But you guys dodge this point because truly you have no argument except for “why not?” I would love to see a new one if you have it.

Given that marriage has clearly been so many different things for different people at different times, how can you be sure that marriage has *always *been between man and woman?

But the question is really irrelevant anyway because regardless of what you think marriage has always been throughout history we are still left to note that marriage has changed substantially over time and left to decide what marriage ought to be today and in the future.

I see no reason to think that there is anything essential about having at least one person of each gender in a marriage even if we grant for the sake of argument that marriage is for child-rearing given that homosexuals adopt and even give birth to their own children.

 

[Leela]

Hi Leela,
With respect, I think the fact that you see marriage as an imposition says more about your view of marriage than it does about any apparent injustice inherent in it…(which, of course, there isn’t.)
God Bless,
Colmcille.

??? I was talking about the problem of imposing the Catholic view on marriage (or Mormon or whatever particular religious view) upon everyone else. I think we all agree that it is immoral to force marriage upon anyone.

 

[Leela]

So you are an anarchist? Should all laws be thrown out the window?

Of course not. What I am looking for and what we should all be looking for are good reasons for our laws other than “that’s just how it has always been.”

 

[mackk]

I can understand the churches point of view about homosexual marriages . it is their right to say what they do and don’t believe…
what i can’t understand is the american point of view. gays pay taxes and as such are legally entitled to ANY service provided by the government. There was a point in our history in which minority races could not vote or own property same for women and even for catholics. there were places here in america in which you could not own lands if you were not protestant. it was very early on in our history and it isn’t well know but it is true.
if the government doesn’t want gays to get married they need to get out of the marriage racket.
other wise it is a constitutional right and when the legal rights of one person is in jeopardy then the legal rights of all people are in jeopardy.
//mackk

 

[ERose]

Given that marriage has clearly been so many different things for different people at different times, how can you be sure that marriage has *always *been between man and woman?

But the question is really irrelevant anyway because regardless of what you think marriage has always been throughout history we are still left to note that marriage has changed substantially over time and left to decide what marriage ought to be today and in the future.

I see no reason to think that there is anything essential about having at least one person of each gender in a marriage even if we grant for the sake of argument that marriage is for child-rearing given that homosexuals adopt and even give birth to their own children.

What do you mean substantially over time? Do you have proof of this? The only thing that you have thrown out as ‘proofs’ of the change in marriage are primarily how people were brought together and how they got married. How women or men are treated inside of marriage does not change the structure of marriage which has always included at least one man and at least one woman.

Do you have proof of the existence of widescale same-sex marriage in a previous time in history? Stop throwing out assumptions that you cannot support.

 

[ERose]

??? I was talking about the problem of imposing the Catholic view on marriage (or Mormon or whatever particular religious view) upon everyone else. I think we all agree that it is immoral to force marriage upon anyone.

It is not a Catholic or Mormon view upon marriage. It is the historical world view of marriage we are talking about here. Catholics and Mormons are not the only folks out there that see marriage as being heterosexual.

And who is forcing marriage on anyone here. Again produce facts if you have none then find some. There is plenty out there.

 

[edwest2]

Of course not. What I am looking for and what we should all be looking for are good reasons for our laws other than “that’s just how it has always been.”

You know what? I’ve been watching anarchists living in alternative lifestyles for 40 years. And when Christians complained, and we did, all we got was: “Leave us alone! We’ll live how we want! You don’t like it?! Mind your own business!”

Well, as the cohabitation, S&M, guys dressing like women, or as half man/half woman, pain is fun subcultures have done, and are continuing to do, whatever they want, in private, now it’s: legalize how we want to live!! Just do it!

In the newspaper the other day, the Leftist-Anarchist Editors ran a political cartoon crticizing a certain political party for opposing a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

And now, you are proposing a “we want things different because that’s what we want” concept.

Do you know anything about natural law? The wife gets pregnant, the father helps her raise their children. That’s biology. It’s not a social construct - that’s the way it’s always been. I read about two women who are profoundly deaf. They found a sperm donor who is profoundly deaf. They now have a baby that is profoundly deaf. They think it’s a good thing. Ears are, have been, and will always exist for their natural purpose - hearing. You can’t “invent” that away. It is not good. It is not useful either.

So now people want the “coercive government” to coerce most Americans into gay marriage. It was voted down twice in California but apparently, what the people want doesn’t matter. In Ferndale and Royal Oak, anarchist pot-heads want the local government to recognize “the voice of the people” because they want useless, pointless dope to be legal, because that’s what they like. And for those who say they need ‘medical marijuana’ for pain or to ease other symptoms, why isn’t medical marijuana sold in drug stores just like every other drug? The plan is to let “dispensaries” grow their own and you can set up a business making 100K a year just for handing out joints.

Laws are based on something, not nothing, and certainly not whim.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ERose]

I can understand the churches point of view about homosexual marriages . it is their right to say what they do and don’t believe…
what i can’t understand is the american point of view. gays pay taxes and as such are legally entitled to ANY service provided by the government. There was a point in our history in which minority races could not vote or own property same for women and even for catholics. there were places here in america in which you could not own lands if you were not protestant. it was very early on in our history and it isn’t well know but it is true.
if the government doesn’t want gays to get married they need to get out of the marriage racket.
other wise it is a constitutional right and when the legal rights of one person is in jeopardy then the legal rights of all people are in jeopardy.
//mackk

What Constitutional right? Which amendment of the Constitution equates ‘lifestyle’ with race or ethnicity? The facts of the matter are that the practising homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. If one is black, hispanic, or whatever is black, hispanic or whatever from the moment of birth to the moment of death. He/she cannot choose their race or ethnicity. But this isn’t true for practising homosexuals. It is a lifestyle choice. And don’t come back and say people are born gay, because until you or someone produces ‘proof’ that there is a gay gene it is not a valid argument.

Lifestyles are not covered in the 14th amendment.

 

[ERose]

Of course not. What I am looking for and what we should all be looking for are good reasons for our laws other than “that’s just how it has always been.”

But to change those laws you need to have a better argument than “why not?”.

 

[Leela]

Laws are based on something, not nothing, and certainly not whim.

At least we agree that we ought to have a good reason for making any legal prohibitions and “it’s just always been that way” is not sufficient justification for anything.

 

[edwest2]

At least we agree that we ought to have a good reason for making any legal prohibitions and “it’s just always been that way” is not sufficient justification for anything.

The only argument you appear to be making is:

A) There are alternative lifestyles we invented.

B) Make them legal. All of them.

My argument is: you are for novelty, not what is biologically normative, or moral.

You seem to be entirely missing the point that some things have always been a certain way because people figured out long ago that that is how they should be. Novelty can and does only get in the way of stable life.

God bless,
Ed

 

[kenofken]

Of course not. What I am looking for and what we should all be looking for are good reasons for our laws other than “that’s just how it has always been.”

What more do you want? They’re offering us historical revisionism and human prejudice dressed up as theology!

Oh, right, you said “good” reasons. This pill would go down SO much easier if we didn’t have this damnable capacity for reason and critical thinking…

 

[Leela]

The only argument you appear to be making is:

A) There are alternative lifestyles we invented.

B) Make them legal. All of them.

My argument is: you are for novelty, not what is biologically normative, or moral.

You seem to be entirely missing the point that some things have always been a certain way because people figured out long ago that that is how they should be. Novelty can and does only get in the way of stable life.

God bless,
Ed

No, I’m saying the burden of proof goes the other way in a liberal democracy. If you want to make something illegal (or maintain it as illegal) you need to provide good reason why it ought to be illegal.

As in the Supreme Court Lawrence decision on sodomy laws, it just isn’t enough to say that something was always thought of as immoral. While that may be true, it is not valid justification for making something illegal.

You may very well be right that homosexuality is immoral, but the mere fact that something is immoral is not sufficient to say that it ought be illegal. Refusing an old lady’s request for help with her groceries is immoral, but I don’t know anyone who thinks it ought to be outlawed.

 

[ERose]

What more do you want? They’re offering us historical revisionism and human prejudice dressed up as theology!

Oh, right, you said “good” reasons. This pill would go down SO much easier if we didn’t have this damnable capacity for reason and critical thinking…

Instead of spewing your ignorance, how about providing solid arguments for your point of view.

Also how is it being prejudice by arguing for keeping the definition of marriage as it is? You are the one that is proposing changing an institution not us. So provide us with a legitimate argument why we should change this institution. I have provided legitimate arguments and so have others on why marriage should stay the way it is. So I am waiting.

 

[ERose]

No, I’m saying the burden of proof goes the other way in a liberal democracy. If you want to make something illegal (or maintain it as illegal) you need to provide good reason why it ought to be illegal.

As in the Supreme Court Lawrence decision on sodomy laws, it just isn’t enough to say that something was always thought of as immoral. While that may be true, it is not valid justification for making something illegal.

You may very well be right that homosexuality is immoral, but the mere fact that something is immoral is not sufficient to say that it ought be illegal. Refusing an old lady’s request for help with her groceries is immoral, but I don’t know anyone who thinks it ought to be outlawed.

Good reasons have been supplied Leela. But the problem with your assertion is how can we go off and change a law without a good reason to do so. Would that make any sense at all? Should we reduce the age of consent because we are keeping girls/boys who like older men/women from being happy, and we are keeping these older men/women from being happy as well? What is the damage done they will say. Wouldn’t the kids benefit from having another adult influence in their lives? These are the arguments that Men Boy Love ***. would argue.

My point is if you are going to change a law you have to ask, what are the benefits of changing this law and do they outweigh the drawbacks.

I have argued no they do not outweight the drawbacks. All the information I have read on this subject has led me to that point. The people I find that support gay marriage hasn’t looked at the data in my opinion and the reason why I say this is that no facts are provided to support their cause.

If we just look North to Canada, who has allowed gay marriage for the last 5-6 years. Their primary argument was that married people are happier and financially more successful than single people and so gay people would benefit from being allowed to marry. But the data does not support this as the case, which I outlined in detail in my posts 142-144. But do not take my word for it. See what the gay organizations are saying about their community in Canada:

exacom.net/firstlibrary/Articles/Moral%20Issues/Homosexuality/Health%20consequences/HRC%20complaint.pdf

Leela, I do recommend that you go back and read my posts. The data I have in there is from as many unbias sources I could find out there and granted there are not many. But I believe these three posts will provide some education on why I am against same-sex marriage and none of the arguments are religious.

 

[Rose27]

Wrong, we can change our preferences. We can change any aspect about ourselves if we want to enough. I know that there is this popular saying out there that “people don’t change”. I say this is the biggest bull****. We change throughout our lives. My tastes today are not the same as when I was younger. In fact I will even to as far to say that I am no where near the same man as I was 10-15 years ago. Preferences can be changed, desires can be changed, attractions can be changed. Some are hard to do no doubt as any former alcholic, drug addict, sex addict, etc and they will tell you the same thing.

I would say that Christianity is based upon us making changes to our core selves. In fact I would call it a requirement of being a true Christian.

Wrong, we can change some aspects of ourselves. If I were born without legs I could not will them into being. I am not gay and so I have no personal experience to tell me what it is like, but I have had my own struggles with clinical depression. This is a condition, perhaps a lot like homosexuality, which is still very mysterious to doctors. They think it’s part genetics, part upbringing, part lifestyle, but they really don’t know. I am blessed that there are now medicines to treat it, but my doctors admit they really don’t know how they work, just that they do. Maybe someday there will be similar treatments for those who no longer wish to be gay. I don’t know.
My point is that my condition has, in the past, led me to contemplate and even attempt a far greater sin than gay sex. If I had been born a hundred years ago I would have been ostracized instead of helped and told I just needed to get over it, and if I had been successful in taking my own life I would have been prohibited from being buried in consecrated ground. My loved ones would have been told that I was in hell. Now I fear we are going too far in the other direction. Suicide is becoming okay somehow and couched in terms like “end of life decisions”.
There is no more scientific evidence to prove that my sadness in inborn than there is to prove the homosexuality is. All I can tell you is that, as far as I can remember, this is how I have always been. I don’t know why you would believe me and not believe them. A person without legs doesn’t pray for their legs to grow, they pray for the courage to live without them. Some things we can’t will, some things we must bear.

 

[kenofken]

Instead of spewing your ignorance, how about providing solid arguments for your point of view.

Also how is it being prejudice by arguing for keeping the definition of marriage as it is? You are the one that is proposing changing an institution not us. So provide us with a legitimate argument why we should change this institution. I have provided legitimate arguments and so have others on why marriage should stay the way it is. So I am waiting.

I have offered an argument on why the reasons to ban gay marriage are NOT based on any logically consistent objective reason. This has so far gone unchallenged on this thread and every other where I have posted it. In short, that argument boils down to the fact that you have allowed MASSIVE change to marriage by heterosexuals, allowing tens of millions of them to use the institution to perpetuate mortal sins which are every bit the equal of homosexuality in the Church’s eyes. You have no apparent intentions of moving the government to prohibit this. You only intend to enforce morality through civil law selectively against homosexuals. That is the very definition of prejudice.

Under our system of governance, the Bill of Rights makes it crystal clear that the burden of proof for denying individuals their freedoms falls on the government, or those who would do the denying. The government must demonstrate a clear and compelling reason. Sectarian religious beliefs are not reasons. Citing (largely inaccurate) data that things “have always been done this way.” is not a reason. The longevity of a practice or idea is proof of nothing. Plenty of rotten ideas in medicine and science and morality (slavery) lasted thousands of years. Cultural inertia does not create a presumption that something is good. It must demonstrate such on its own merits.

No one on this forum or any other has provided verifiable evidence by mainstream research which shows that gay marriage has caused REAL harms anywhere it is allowed, or that it is reasonalby likely to do so in the future. Again, we have to qualify things a bit. Offense to your sensibilities does not count as a real harm. Ludicrous predictions about waves of incestuous marriages and legal bestiality do not count as real harms. NO ONE has produced evidence that would convince a reasonably intelligent panel of disinterested, non-religious people that gay marriage must be banned for the public good. That being the case, the move to do so is very obviously driven by prejudice.

 

[edwest2]

“on its own merits”?

traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php

God bless,
Ed

 

[JDaniel]

I have offered an argument on why the reasons to ban gay marriage are NOT based on any logically consistent objective reason. This has so far gone unchallenged on this thread and every other where I have posted it. In short, that argument boils down to the fact that you have allowed MASSIVE change to marriage by heterosexuals, allowing tens of millions of them to use the institution to perpetuate mortal sins which are every bit the equal of homosexuality in the Church’s eyes. You have no apparent intentions of moving the government to prohibit this. You only intend to enforce morality through civil law selectively against homosexuals. That is the very definition of prejudice.

What? Are you serious? Almost every argument that I have read, herein, has been completely consistent and objective. We didn’t allow massive change. Marriage is essentially the same now as it was 2,000 years ago. The only difference, greater population and easier transportation.

The fact that Christians cheat on their spouses is not something that the law is prepared to deal with. The Church assures each and every Catholic that it is mortal sin, which puts their Eternal lives in great jeopardy. Shall we shoot them, too?

Under our system of governance, the Bill of Rights makes it crystal clear that the burden of proof for denying individuals their freedoms falls on the government, or those who would do the denying. The government must demonstrate a clear and compelling reason. Sectarian religious beliefs are not reasons. Citing (largely inaccurate) data that things “have always been done this way.” is not a reason. The longevity of a practice or idea is proof of nothing. Plenty of rotten ideas in medicine and science and morality (slavery) lasted thousands of years. Cultural inertia does not create a presumption that something is good. It must demonstrate such on its own merits.

“Freedoms?” This is a very new and august theory, and, primarily it is part of United States folk lore. Not too many years ago, females decided it was time for them to go into men’s showers and dressing rooms under the guise of doing their job of “reporting.” (Let a male reporter try to get into a ladies shower or dressing room!)

A few years further back, females decided it was time that they were allowed into men-only clubs. For what purpose? To infringe on men’s rights. By and large, most men-only private clubs are gone. (Notice, the underlined word.)

You sound like a person who would be happiest if every single freedom people have ever had was removed.

No one on this forum or any other has provided verifiable evidence by mainstream research which shows that gay marriage has caused REAL harms anywhere it is allowed, or that it is reasonalby likely to do so in the future.

Then you are typing different words into the search engines.

Again, we have to qualify things a bit. Offense to your sensibilities does not count as a real harm.

No, but “offense” to my own business does.

Ludicrous predictions about waves of incestuous marriages and legal bestiality do not count as real harms. NO ONE has produced evidence that would convince a reasonably intelligent panel of disinterested, non-religious people that gay marriage must be banned for the public good. That being the case, the move to do so is very obviously driven by prejudice.

So, why must it be called, “marriage” again? Can’t a sexier name be selected? The very purpose of wresting “marriage” away from the hetero community is to ram in our faces. There’s no objective or cogent other reasons!

God bless,
jd

 

[CradleCath]

=kenofken;7099388]I have offered an argument on why the reasons to ban gay marriage are NOT based on any logically consistent objective reason. This has so far gone unchallenged on this thread and every other where I have posted it. ** In short, that argument boils down to the fact that you have allowed MASSIVE change to marriage by heterosexuals, allowing tens of millions of them to use the institution to perpetuate mortal sins which are every bit the equal of homosexuality in the Church’s eyes. **You have no apparent intentions of moving the government to prohibit this. You only intend to enforce morality through civil law selectively against homosexuals. That is the very definition of prejudice.

I have no idea what “MASSIVE changes” you are referring to when you say that they “allow tens of millions of them (heterosexuals?) to use marriage to perpetuate mortal sins”. However, your remark re enforcing morality through civil law…is one that needs to be recognied. All or our laws…those against murder, theft, etc. are based on Moral Law. They are not based on the different laws of various religions (including ours). They are based upon the Moral Laws, by which God orders (i.e. regulates) His universe. Moral Law = Natural Law, which can be understood by an in depth reading of the works of Thomas Aquinas.
Natural Law is something that we can know simply by using our own reasoning ability. Breaking the Moral Law is also something that is sinful for all people, no matter the specific faith they belong to.

We can know, by being aware of the differences between the male & the female body, that two males as sexual partners cannot become a family & perpetuate the human race. They do not physically complete one another & the sexual acts between them are an abuse of their sexual organs, which were created by the God, principally, to bring about new life.

Under our system of governance, the Bill of Rights makes it crystal clear that the burden of proof for denying individuals their freedoms falls on the government, or those who would do the denying. The government must demonstrate a clear and compelling reason. Sectarian religious beliefs are not reasons. Citing (largely inaccurate) data that things “have always been done this way.” is not a reason. The longevity of a practice or idea is proof of nothing. Plenty of rotten ideas in medicine and science and morality (slavery) lasted thousands of years. Cultural inertia does not create a presumption that something is good. It must demonstrate such on its own merits.

Again, you are correct in your statement that Sectarian religious beliefs are not reasons for Laws. I with they were sometimes, but they are not…in a democracy. If they were, Southern Baptists would demand prohibition, other faiths would demand laws against dancing, etc., & it really doesn’t matter if it’s “always been done this way”.
What matters to a government is what a breakdown of the traditional family might do to that government’s society. Will it benefit the society we live in to allow two people of the same sex to call their disordered sexual union…a marriage. If so, how??

Twenty-six states now call marriage between first cousins legal. Does that benefit society? Once again, How?. I think that, in the case of two gay men, since one will be eligible for health care benefits under the other’s insurance policy, we’ll run into BIG health care problems. The incidences of anal cancer, STD’s, depression, alcoholism & drug abuse run disproportionately high in the homosexual population.

The offspring born of a marriage between 2 first cousins are also facing both physical & mental problems that aren’t so much of a concern within the general population.

I agree that, as much as I would like the beliefs of the Catholic Church to be the Law of the Land, they are not. Nor are they reasons to create a Law of the Land. Neither are those teachings of the Mormon Church, the Methodist Church or any other organized religion. Moral Law is.

No one on this forum or any other has provided verifiable evidence by mainstream research which shows that gay marriage has caused REAL harms anywhere it is allowed, or that it is reasonalby likely to do so in the future. Again, we have to qualify things a bit. Offense to your sensibilities does not count as a real harm. Ludicrous predictions about waves of incestuous marriages and legal bestiality do not count as real harms. NO ONE has produced evidence that would convince a reasonably intelligent panel of disinterested, non-religious people that gay marriage must be banned for the public good. That being the case, the move to do so is very obviously driven by prejudice.

You’ve made many good points, but I have a question for you.
Do you really think that gay “marriage” will benefit the society you live in. Do you think that it wouls benefit your children & grandhildren?
If so, could you present us with those benefits??