Gay marriage : who cares?

[Leela]

Then what about couples marrying other couples, or whole community marrying each other to take advantage of healthcare and taxes, one guy marrying 10 women, or one woman marrying 10 men or two brothers marrying each other or two sisters marrying each other or mother/daughter or father/son or two or more business partners marrying each other to take advantage of the tax codes/insurance? If you allow a change you must accept all forms of marriages that can be concieved in the human mind. So you have to do better with your counter point.

Your slippery slope argument suggests that there are no good reasons why a guy shouldn’t be able to marry 10 women. Is that what you think? Once you open marriage to gays, then there would be no good reason why someone shouldn’t marry a rock? All I am saying is that there needs to be some good reason of refusing the right to marry to certain groups of people. Do you think that there are no good reasons why the sorts of marriages you described above ought not to be allowed? I bet you can come up with reasons other than “that’s just not how it has always been.” How things have been in the past is never a sufficient justification for how things ought to be in the future.

 

[ERose]

The simple and obvious reason is that homosexuals are human beings deserving of all the same rights as all other human beings. The onus is on you to say why a particular group of people ought not to have the same rights as other people. In a liberal democracy, the question is never “why should we extend rights that other people get to this group?” but rather “is there any good reason to deny these rights to this particular group?” It is clear that there is no good reason to deny marriage rights to homosexuals. That is why courts have ruled and will continue to rule against such description regardless of what the public opinion is of homosexuals and whether or not people think what they do is icky.

But they do have the same rights as you and I. This is where alot of people on your side get confused. Also you confuse rights with privileges, which are not the same thing. Marriage is a privilege not a right. So actually the onus is on you to explain why a privilege must be changed to allow others that do not meet the current criteria to be allowed to have that privilege.

Concerning no good reasons we will have to agree to disagree then for I have seen far more reasonable arguments against gay marriage than for. There really hasn’t been anyone on this forum that has done a good job of arguing for. I am sorry but that is the truth.

Leela if you believe that gay marriage should be allowed then produce an argument that is reasonable. You will be the first on this forum that I have seen if you do.

 

[ERose]

Your slippery slope argument suggests that there are no good reasons why a guy shouldn’t be able to marry 10 women. Is that what you think? Once you open marriage to gays, then there would be no good reason why someone shouldn’t marry a rock? All I am saying is that there needs to be some good reason of refusing the right to marry to certain groups of people. Do you think that there are no good reasons why the sorts of marriages you described above ought not to be allowed? I bet you can come up with reasons other than “that’s just not how it has always been.” How things have been in the past is never a sufficient justification for how things ought to be in the future.

What I am saying is that if you allow gay marriage then you must allow every type of consentual marriage for the same arguments apply for them as well as gay marriage. In fact I would say polygamy would have a better argument for legality than gay marriage. At least in polygamy children are produced. I am not saying we should legalize polygamy, but they do have a better argument than gay marriage.

 

[Elizabeth502]

What I am saying is that if you allow gay marriage then you must allow every type of consentual marriage for the same arguments apply for them as well as gay marriage. In fact I would say polygamy would have a better argument for legality than gay marriage. At least in polygamy children are produced. I am not saying we should legalize polygamy, but they do have a better argument than gay marriage.

I completely agree with this as a logical extension of the argument. For example, I constantly hear proponents of gay marriage argue that it’s good for children because it offers them two parents. Hell, why stop there? Why don’t we have group marriages? That way a child could get 6,7, whatever adults involved in his/her parenting.

 

[ERose]

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 massive change are you talking about? The only change I can think about is the liberalization of divorce. And the church has come out heavily against this in the past and present as well. We do not believe in divorce. Catholics that get divorces cannot remarry because marriage cannot be desolved. Don’t throw out annulments because the only way a marriage gets annulled is if it is proven that the marriage was not a real marriage to begin with. But please tell me of the massive change in divorce that my Church has allowed. I want to hear this.

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.

Marriage is not a right my friend. It is a privilege. So the burden of proof is primarily on you.

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.

Well the only argument your side has proposed has been “why not?” Which argument do you think is better.

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.

We cannot because there is no data out there since SSM is a new practice. The only data we can use is concerning same-sex couples and those stats have been given. You just haven’t researched them and that is on you. Do your own research. I have provided this data on this thread. Go back and read it. At least then you can be informed.

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.

Not yet but in the countries that have allowed SSM, others are challenging the marriage laws even further. Polygamy will be the next allowable marriage type and then what will be next. The pedifiles are making headway in the UK so I would guess adult/child marriages will be next. Don’t take my word for it. Research it. Canada, Netherlands, UK etc.

 

[StTommyMore]

I don’t know if it’s ok to call people “queer.” I’ve never heard that term being used in a good way. Enlighten me if I’m wrong. If I’m right, this should be removed immediately.

“Queer” has been reclaimed by the GLBT community, and is actually used in academia.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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!”

And you should know because you were there, right? And all any Christian who complained got was "Leave us alone! We’ll live how we want! You don’t like it?! Mind your own business!" Are you sure about that? I would like to know how you became privy to every single incident of what happened when every single Christian “complained” about alternative lifestyles. Are you omniscient or something?

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!

Over-simplification. Again.

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?

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.

There is a lot more to human existence than your concept of “natural law.” It is not only biology that the wife gets pregnant and the father helps her raise their children. That also involves sociology, psychology, and more. Biology is involved with how animals (including human beings) reproduce and add to the gene pool and how they develop through life, ecosystems, and much more. It’s not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Nor is it as simple as a female bird resting on the eggs. Many times it is the male who keeps the clutch warm and the female finds the food, or both take turns. Or the female lays the eggs in another bird’s nest and leaves. Or the bird lays the eggs anywhere and leaves. Or, in the case of the seahorse, the male carries the fertilized eggs.

Do you have a link for your story about the deaf people? Would you be happier if the deaf baby did not exist?

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.

I left this thread but have been lurking and now I feel that I must speak out. Ed, you know nothing about medical marijuana. For one thing, this is completely off-topic but I will still respond. You suggested, no you stated absolutely that anyone who needed MM could take Marinol. When I pointed out that it is not used for pain but for anorexia and the cost is prohibitively high, you ignored my post.

I asked my physician and pharmacist about Marinol. Both told me it would not be prescribed for me because my problem is severe chronic pain, not anorexia. They both said it is also so expensive (over $800/month for one pill/day) that few people could afford it and certainly not me.

Different states have different MM laws. In Oregon (and I believe it is also true of the other states who have legalized MM) one of the advantages is that a person can grow his own MM instead of paying a pharmaceutical company’s expenses and for their profit and then for the pharmacy’s expenses and profit. People in severe chronic pain usually cannot work. How are we supposed to get the money to pay for the drugs in marijuana? It’s a plant, easily grown (and actually very pretty). Why should a pharmaceutical company and pharmacy be involved in growing a plant that I can grow all by my little self? Do you buy caffeine at the pharmacy? Wine? It’s used as a medication. I would appreciate an answer to these questions. You can put it in the MM thread if you like, as it is off-topic here. And I would also like a response to my questions about Marinol. And now you are saying marijuana is “pointless and useless.” Did you even read the research I posted on the MM thread? Are you aware that MM is an excellent medication for those people who, like me, just want the agonizing pain to stop? What is pointless about that? How is that useless? Also, “joints” are not the preferred method of consuming MM. Smoking is bad for you. It’s much better to make a tea or to mix the MM in with food. Don’t you remember this all from the MM thread? It is not as simple as you think it is.

This is a health issue. People who use MM do not want to be blasted out of their minds. I could do that right now with the meds I have close by me. I’m lying down in bed on my side which is the only position where I am not in agony, yet I still really hurt, and I could pop ten methadone right now. Or more. And let’s add some klonopin. I have that, too. And a bunch of other medications.

-----continued-----

 

[SwizzleStick]

Swizzlestick suggests some reasons why he thinks gay marriage ought to be illegal. …

No, that is not correct. I must clarify that the “suggestions” below are not my arguments (and you only posted part of those arguments with your response), but they are ERose’s instead.

…“1) The Slippery Slope Argument is that if same sex marriage is allowed based on the 14th amendment (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) then all forms of marriage that can be conceived must be allowed as well.” …
…
“2.) By social definition of Marriage, same-sex marriages are not compatable. When evaluating the primary function and purpose of marriage, it is easy to conclude that the only reason why marriage exists in the first place is for procreation,” …
…
“3.) It has also been mentioned on this forum that this isn’t a valid argument because there are marriages allowed where one or both of the members is either unable or unwilling to have children.”…
…

I simply reposted ERose’s Posts #142, #143,#144

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7082161&postcount=142
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7082167&postcount=143
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7082172&postcount=144

in response to your post #320 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7100802&postcount=320 below because you keep asking for good reasons against gay marriage when you have been given several good reasons already.

I don’t recall any reasons that stood up to scrutiny. Can you remind me what these good reasons are? (Note that to say it is against natural law is just to say that it is immoral in your view. That is not a reason why it is immoral.)

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation-----

Your comments re MM show a lack of compassion to those who are in pain, especially those who are in pain and dying. Catholics should be compassionate to those who suffer. My father suffered immense physical pain when he was dying. Oh, but he was a plumber and we know how you feel about them.

You see, to you, life is black and white, very simple. Whatever you have seen in the last 40 years is the way it is. You were there!! You were there, so you are the expert. You fail to recognize that many people other than yourself were also there. Billions of people were there. You’ve repeated your positions on everything so many times that those who have read your posts are very knowledgeable about them (the billboards, the men standing in front of church making sure that people agree with the position you don’t agree with, otherwise they can’t enter, the bags of chemicals suddenly talking, women causing men to have evil thoughts because the women wear bikinis (although men walk around topless and think that’s perfectly OK), how you’re going to stay away from the beach, how strippers became exotic dancers, how those people who work as plumbers and those who use MM are stupid, ignorant, and use poor English, and can’t spell or pronounce Catholic and how those on MM will go on to the “good stuff” which is a quite strange position, Ed, as they are already on the “good stuff” such as opiates and are trying their best to get off it,, and on and on…

You go off-topic and throw this stuff into your posts all over the place, never missing a chance to get a jab in at people who are not as fortunate as you are. Poor people, people in pain, people who are ignorant or less intelligent through no fault of their own - they are jeered at and mocked by someone who should understand that any good thing he has is because of God and he should appreciate those gifts and be thankful instead of mocking those who do not have those gifts.

And you do not stop. It goes on and on and on even though I have begged you to stop. So once again, I will ask you - please stop mocking people who are not as fortunate as you. It hurts and angers me and others. I don’t want to call you a hypocrite or self-righteous but your posts indicate that your behavior is hypocritical and self-righteous.

My apologies to everyone posting in and reading this thread. I’m in a huge amount of pain today and I have to respond when someone makes remarks that are so untrue. I’m not asking for pity or anything like that. I am just hoping that you understand why I can’t let remarks such as those made in the post quoted above go by without a response. It is my hope that MM will be legalized by the federal government so that people such as myself, and those that suffer even more and are dying will be allowed to legally use a drug from a plant created by God in love, that will ease their pain (which can be overwhelming at times).

I know this is off-topic but I didn’t introduce it and I won’t let it just go by. Please forgive me.

I pray that God grants us all understanding and peace.

 

[Leela]

What I am saying is that if you allow gay marriage then you must allow every type of consentual marriage for the same arguments apply for them as well as gay marriage.

That doesn’t follow at all.

Why do you oppose polygamous marriages?

Do you oppose them for the same reasons you oppose gay marriage or different reasons?

 

[CradleCath]

That doesn’t follow at all.

Why do you oppose polygamous marriages?

Do you oppose them for the same reasons you oppose gay marriage or different reasons?

Leela, I’d like for you to answer my question, before you start asking a bunch of your own. I’ve copied & pasted it from a previous message that you ignored:

If one is going to change a law that has been in existence for centuries…one has to be able to show that the change will benefit society in general. Please show me how changing the laws on marriage to include homosexuals…will benefit society. This proof has to come from the small minority who want to do the changing. The burden of proof is on you.

HOW WILL GAY “MARRIAGE” BENEFIT SOCIETY??

 

[mackk]

ERose
I keep seeing statements like “they can live how they want …” ect… but that is the issue. I used to be adamant in my views against gay marriage. i thought what do they care about marriage? or my favorite was "god made adam and eve not adam and steve… blah blah blah…

i lived near a hospital here in tulsa called Hilcrest. one night i was walking to the store and found a grown man sitting on a bus bench all by himself and weeping. his love had been hit by a car and was in ICU and he was not being allowed to hold the hand of the man he had been in love with for more than a decade. He wasn’t married to the man so the mans’ ex-wife was taking everything and wouldn’t let him say goodbye. imagine if you had been in love with another person for 10 or more years … living with them through their ups and downs and then being told you had no rights.
that gay man while i do NOT approve of his lifestyle was suffering in a way that would devastate me. it was HIS right to be there with his lover as he died. the ex-wife took EVERYTHING she even had the police escort him out of the home that he had helped this man build. he killed himself two nights later. and i cry still … because there wasn’t anything i could do to make it better.
i’m not the best at expressing my self i’ll never be the one who wins a debate … but i know the truth and the truth is that man had been treated horribly all because of a piece of paper.
the way i see it weddings happen in churches and churches can choose who they wed but simple civil binding should be available to EVERY ADULT COUPLE … there are lines i agree … brothers and sisters … a wife with ten husbands … no but two ppl who are in love and building a life together whether i approve of their life or not have a right to protect themselves and their union from the rest of the world.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Uh, why do you post here? Do you think the members of this forum can impose an obligation on anyone? This is a Catholic forum, and if you don’t like the answers, I understand, so why do you keep asking as if you hope to get a different answer? The Church is not a social club, it is the Body of Christ, and Catholics are part of that body.

A diversity of opinion has no bearing on Church teaching.

God bless,
Ed

Perhaps Leela posts here because she wants to debate subjects that are important to her with people of other faiths, especially Catholics, and with atheists and agnostics. I’ve always been under the impression that people of all faiths (and even [gasp!] atheists) are welcome here. And Leela is very welcome here and can post all she wants.

Uh, why do you post here? This is a Catholic forum and I get the impression that you don’t like the responses to your points. Yet you keep on posting the same things over and over as though you expect to receive different responses.

CAF is not the Church. It’s a forum. It’s a meeting place where people can write what they think.

A diversity of opinion has a great bearing on a forum, Catholic or not.

 

[edwest2]

Your slippery slope argument suggests that there are no good reasons why a guy shouldn’t be able to marry 10 women. Is that what you think? Once you open marriage to gays, then there would be no good reason why someone shouldn’t marry a rock? All I am saying is that there needs to be some good reason of refusing the right to marry to certain groups of people. Do you think that there are no good reasons why the sorts of marriages you described above ought not to be allowed? I bet you can come up with reasons other than “that’s just not how it has always been.” How things have been in the past is never a sufficient justification for how things ought to be in the future.

Your foundational argument (not you) is irrational. What does past or present have to do with anything?

Boats are built a certain way. It’s always been like that. Should we start making boats with a hole in the bottom because time has passed and things need to change?

People eat every day. It’s always been like that. Should we stop eating because time has passed and things need to change?

Babies take 9 months on average from conception till birth. Should we arbitrarily change the gestation period because it’s been the same for so long?

Change is not necessary for many, many things because we know, historically, how many things actually work. Can you accept the fact that some things simply exist and function without any changes needing to take place?

God bless,
Ed

 

[kenofken]

…

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??

Sorry I’m a big late on the response for this, but I do get out from behind the keyboard now and again for real world socializing (even us forum trawlers do that now and then)

The area of “natural law” is a complex one, but the short of it is that I think it’s bunk. It’s an attempt to put a mask of science or philosophy on a claim that is always sectarian religious at its root. It’s basically an assertion that one’s own religion possesses ultimate and undebatable truth, and that it is self-evident to anyone of good will. It’s a bit like the old colonial attitude that deep down every human being strives to be English, and will ultimately thank us for breaking them of their savage ways.

Your last question is more interesting to me. How would gay marriage benefit our decendants? A fair question.

My answer is that they will reap the benefits that always accrue to all of a society’s people whenever it becomes more just and less savage. Societies which respect the rights of ALL people, especially the un-powerful and un-loved minorites are better places to live. Conversely, societies in which homophobia, racism and other “isms” are given legal sanction, people learn from an early age that a human being has no inherent worth apart from the power they can wield. These societies tend to be coarser and uglier places to live, and not just for the weak and minorities.

To me, Martin Luther King’s most brilliant insight was that regimes of oppression debase the soul of the oppressor in powerful, if sometimes subtle ways. There’s a school of thought in sociology that one of the reasons America is such a violent place stems from our long history of institutional racism. It taught people that force was the best and only reliable way to deal with people. That manifested itself not only in white on black violence (slavery), but in how white people dealt with each other. We forget that the old South was a very oppressive place for poor whites, and that even the well to do died frequently by violence in duels etc. If we teach a person that its OK to deny the humanity of one class of people, there is nothing at all to stop them from doing the same to you when it suits their purpose. The regime which denied human status to Jews found it quite easy and convenient to do the same for Polish Catholics and people born with mental or physical deformities. A society that thinks it’s perfectly OK to deny gay people basic legal rights because it can will have no qualms whatsoever in doing the same to Catholics, the unborn, the elderly - anyone who doesn’t have the guns and numbers and money to live at the top of the power structure at any given moment.

If you want more concrete benefits, let’s consider the societal benefits that always come from encouraging people to form long-term stable relationships. Much of the contempt that people have for gays is rooted in the idea that they are promiscuous and self-destructive. To the extent that is true, it’s an artifact of our society’s contempt for them. All but the wisest and strongest people tend to internalize how they are valued by the culture at large. People who don’t feel valued and see no future for themselves will tend to bitterly reject the values of the majority and will live for the moment, not tomorrow.

People who have the option of married happiness and a nice, “normal” life, will aspire to it, more often than not. People that feel invested in society tend to live longer and healthier lives and they put more back into society. They buy nice homes and keep them up. They serve on Neighborhood Watch groups and PTAs. They fuss over the quality of education where their children will grow up. They often earn and save more and put more back into the economy by buying stuff (the whole engine of jobs in this country), and taxes.

I don’t expect I will sway anyone who simply hate gays or who feel they must defend their god’s honor by denying them marriage, but for those few who may still be weighing the issue, don’t overlook the human dimension of this dirty little culture war of ours…

 

[John21652]

… 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.

Cradlecath, if I can add a bit more to your argument here. The Natural Law is most often equated with the Catholic Church and Thomas Aquinas. However it should be remembered that through Aquinas the Church adopted the Natural Law and its objective reasoning processes for discerning morality. The Natural Law actually transcends religion. One can substitute Gaia for God, or even simply use the Big Bang as a starting point. Natural Law and Theology are not inextricably linked. Natural Law is founded on reason and rational enquiry. Even Aquinas recognises this. The thing to remember is that the Natural Law is what is discoverable about those universal normative behaviours and which apply to humankind and its search for ‘the good’. Its history can be traced all the way back to Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics and then back again to the present day. When discussing the Natural Law, one can even remove God from the equation and still arrive at an objectively recognised Moral Truth. The process continues on today, as mankind uses his reason to discern what is ordered and universal. The process requires that mankind study the known universe, together with his place in it and so arrive at a moral code which is validated through a process of discernment.

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.

Referring to what I wrote above, this paragraph of yours refers to the universality of the human design and human behaviour. The sex act between male and female is a recognised basic drive and desire of the human species. It is universal and normative because of this. Other sex acts are considered to be unnatural and disordered under the Natural Law. You are right in stating that this basic sex drive is aimed at procreation. As someone wrote on another thread, one man shoving his penis into another man’s rectum is a disordered way of arriving at pleasure and of showing ‘love’ for another of the species. It is disordered, not universal and therefore not normative behaviour.

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??

. To put it simply, if the State allows a marriage between same sex couples, it is allowing disordered contracts and social relations to be enshrined in legislation and to come under the protection of the State. What other disordered contracts, or social relations, does the State allow? If there are any, then the introduction of same sex marriages will only increase the amount of disorder in society. Because there may already be disordered contracts in existence is no argument in favour of any more.

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 marriage of close relatives, along with the marriage of same sex couples creates problems and disorder as you have indicated. There is plenty of available modern research to support this. And it only reinforces what the human race has considered to be disordered and wrong according to the Natural Law for millenia.

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??

Nineteenth-century American natural-rights theorist Elisha P. Hurlbut, in his Essays on Human Rights and Their Political Guarantees (1845), wrote the following -

The laws shall be merely declaratory of natural rights and natural wrongs, and … whatever is indifferent to the laws of nature shall be left unnoticed by human legislation … and legal tyranny arises whenever there is a departure from this simple principle.

If the State legislates on matters which are " indifferent to the laws of nature" your children and grandchildren will receive some wonderfully confusing lessons in hedonism and little more. Hedonism is an aspect of utilitarianism, a philosophy much debunked. If governments continue to pander to noisy minority groups who strive to make normal that which has never been, then the drift away from Natural Law to relativism will gradually pull society apart into enclaves of vested interest groups. Social harmony will disintegrate. There is strong evidence of this occuring already under positive and relativistic law making in western societies. Positivist Law is not derived from reason.

 

[John21652]

Sorry I’m a big late on the response for this, but I do get out from behind the keyboard now and again for real world socializing (even us forum trawlers do that now and then)

The area of “natural law” is a complex one, but the short of it is that I think it’s bunk. It’s an attempt to put a mask of science or philosophy on a claim that is always sectarian religious at its root. It’s basically an assertion that one’s own religion possesses ultimate and undebatable truth, and that it is self-evident to anyone of good will. It’s a bit like the old colonial attitude that deep down every human being strives to be English, and will ultimately thank us for breaking them of their savage ways.

Sorry to be so blunt, but your thesis is pure bunk. See my last post.

Professor Patterson, Assistant Professor of Public Law, Columbia University in * Jurisprudence: Men and Ideas of the Law (1953) -

Principles of human conduct that are discoverable by “reason” from the basic inclinations of human nature, and that are absolute, immutable and of universal validity for all times and places. This is the basic conception of scholastic natural law … and most natural law philosophers.

Dutch Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius declared, in his De Iure Belli ac Pacis (1625):

What we have been saying would have a degree of validity even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God.

Now here it from a modern Priest, who was Associate Professor of Jurisprudence, School of Law, Marquette University.

If the word "natural’ means anything at all, it refers to the nature of a man, and when used with “law,” “natural” must refer to an ordering that is manifested in the inclinations of a man’s nature and to nothing else. Hence, taken in itself, there is nothing religious or theological in the “Natural Law” of Aquinas.

The late realist philosopher John Wild wrote -

Realistic [natural law] ethics is now often dismissed as theological and authoritarian in character. But this is a misunderstanding. Its ablest representatives, from Plato and Aristotle to Grotius, have defended it on the basis of empirical evidence alone without any appeal to supernatural authority

He also wrote -

Realistic ethics is founded on the basic distinction between human need and uncriticized individual desire or pleasure, a distinction not found in modern utilitarianism. The basic concepts of so-called “naturalistic” theories are psychological whereas those of realism are existential and ontological.

Your arguments are Utilitarian.

 

[ERose]

ERose
I keep seeing statements like “they can live how they want …” ect… but that is the issue. I used to be adamant in my views against gay marriage. i thought what do they care about marriage? or my favorite was "god made adam and eve not adam and steve… blah blah blah…

i lived near a hospital here in tulsa called Hilcrest. one night i was walking to the store and found a grown man sitting on a bus bench all by himself and weeping. his love had been hit by a car and was in ICU and he was not being allowed to hold the hand of the man he had been in love with for more than a decade. He wasn’t married to the man so the mans’ ex-wife was taking everything and wouldn’t let him say goodbye. imagine if you had been in love with another person for 10 or more years … living with them through their ups and downs and then being told you had no rights.
that gay man while i do NOT approve of his lifestyle was suffering in a way that would devastate me. it was HIS right to be there with his lover as he died. the ex-wife took EVERYTHING she even had the police escort him out of the home that he had helped this man build. he killed himself two nights later. and i cry still … because there wasn’t anything i could do to make it better.
i’m not the best at expressing my self i’ll never be the one who wins a debate … but i know the truth and the truth is that man had been treated horribly all because of a piece of paper.
the way i see it weddings happen in churches and churches can choose who they wed but simple civil binding should be available to EVERY ADULT COUPLE … there are lines i agree … brothers and sisters … a wife with ten husbands … no but two ppl who are in love and building a life together whether i approve of their life or not have a right to protect themselves and their union from the rest of the world.

Mack,

That is a very sad story and it would have broken my heart as well. Personnally if they want to legalize civil unions I truly have no problem with that, and I do not think there would be a significant amount of opposition. But they must leave marriage alone. The fact of the matter is gay marriage is an oxymoron. Those who are pushing this in the political arena know this but they do not care. Their goal is social re-engineering and nothing more. The very few gay couples who want to legitimize their relationships are just pawns in this war. It is well known that the percentage of gays is somewhere between 1-2% of the general population. Personnally I think it is less than that. But in countries that gay-marriage has been legalized only 3-7% of gay couples took advantage.

The other thing that I see here is that there are other legal actions these men could have taken and it sounds like they didn’t. Power of Attorney and Wills for example.

 

[SwizzleStick]

"Honoring Marriage for the Good of All

8 Reasons to Resist ‘Gay Marriage’

1. ‘Gay marriage’ radically redefines the meaning of marriage.

Marriage is the most basic and arguably the most important building block of civilized society. For thousands of years, society has made marriage the one context in which sexual attraction between a man and woman matures into an enduring, exclusive unit that creates and protects children.

Marriage has always been defined by gender complementarity, or gender unity within difference, and by commitment, a pledge of permanence and fidelity. ‘Gay marriage’ radically alters that definition, and the values that underlie it. To say that the definition of an apple must include the attributes of an orange changes the meaning of an apple. It ceases to be what it was. Similarly, ‘gay marriage’ changes the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood by civilized society.

A wise man said that ‘the corruption of society begins by a failure to call things by their proper names.’ I refuse to ascribe marriage to homosexual unions based on the original and true meaning of marriage. That is why I use quotes to reference the misnomer of ‘gay marriage.’ I urge you to do the same.

1. ‘Gay Marriage’ devalues gender differences in human relating.

‘Gay marriage’ is founded on the premise that gender should no longer matter in sexual relationships. For example, licenses in states which have legalized ‘gay marriage’ have replaced the language of ‘Bride and Groom’ with ‘Partner 1 and Partner 2’.

‘Gay marriage’ removes the centerpiece of marriage: how one gender provokes and balances the opposite gender, creating (besides children) an emotional, spiritual, and sexual whole. Instead, ‘gay marriage’ redefines sexual wholeness as the freedom to desire and wed whomever one wants, regardless of gender. That undermines the inner logic of man for woman, and woman for man, and makes freedom from that logic optional for all.

1. ‘Gay Marriage’ devalues monogamy.

‘Gay marriage’ tweaks the meaning of fidelity. Gay men in particular tend toward tolerating multiple sexual partnerships in the context of a commitment to one partner. A marriage license will not change that tendency.

J. Michael Bailey, Chair of Psychology at Northwestern University and one of the foremost researchers in homosexuality, contends that “regardless of marital laws and policies, gay men will always have more sexual partners than straight people do. Those who are attached will be less monogamous.”

1. ‘Gay Marriage’ is founded on a false understanding of homosexuality.

California’s ‘gay marriage’ decision was founded on a 1948 Court decision (Perez vs. Sharp) to strike down a state ban on interracial marriages. That means today’s Court tends to equate ethnicity with homosexuality. Bad reasoning. Unlike ethnicity, homosexuality is neither genetically-based nor immutable.

Same-sex attraction is a three-fold cord of nature, nurture, and culture, all bound together by one’s moral decisions. The fact is: many choose to change their homosexuality, and find peace and purpose in heterosexual relationships. ‘Gay marriage’ advocates refuse that truth and insist that homosexuality is destiny, which is a false understanding.

1. ‘Gay Marriage’ makes its opponents racists.

Based on #4, those who oppose gay marriage will be seen as bigots. ‘Gay marriage’ validates as normal and good the problematic, complex condition of same-sex attraction; all who choose to view that attraction as a problem not a birthright will inevitably be accorded the same social shame and even legal consequences that racists incur.

1. ‘Gay Marriage’ encourages and increases homosexual behavior.

Over the last 50 years, homosexual behavior has increased due to media advocacy, our culture of divorce, porn, and promiscuity, and the greater economic and emotional independence of women from men. Validating ‘gay marriage’ will further encourage men and women to explore homosexual unions.

Social shame used to inhibit homosexual experimentation; ‘gay marriage’ casts off the last restraint, and increases homosexual behavior in our society. Between 1995 and 2005, lesbian unions in the USA increased 7 times, while male unions doubled.

1. ‘Gay Marriage’ opens the door to other types of ‘marriage.’

In changing the meaning of marriage to include infidelity and gender sameness, ‘gay marriage’ sets a precedent for other types of units, like incest and polygamy. Legal cases involving polygamy now invoke the same legal precedents of gay rights advocates. What seemed unthinkable 10 years ago is now ‘gay marriage’ law. We flinch until we become sensitized, then we flinch no more.

1. ‘Gay Marriage’ unleashes a global legal nightmare.

‘Gay marriage’ will clog the courts with myriad issues. Already, married gay couples are demanding marriage rights wherever they settle, regardless of the current laws of that state or nation. Not to mention the hundreds of cases in the USA alone concerning a host of bewildering issues, like gay divorce and ownership of artificially inseminated offspring.

The profound needs and fragility of soul at the core of same-sex unions will make for messy and consuming court battles—all within an already beleaguered system that has no precedents for the legal Medusa that ‘gay marriage’ has created."

Source: desertstream.org/Group/Group.aspx?ID=1000050702

 

[Leela]

Marriage is not a right my friend. It is a privilege. So the burden of proof is primarily on you.

Nope. It’s a right. The Supreme Court has specifically said so.

The Fourteenth Amendment was used in the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia to repeal anti-miscegenation laws, making interracial marriage legal. Via Wikipedia:

“The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia’s argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

“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 discrimination. 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.”

As I have said many times the US Constitution is a wise and living document and in it’s wisdom, the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of ALL people.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”