Gay marriage : who cares?

[Seeker2010]

Not to mention adoption rights. Married gay men can adopt a little boy. Married gay women can adopt a little girl. I wonder what for.

Are you implying that homosexuals are by definition pedophiles? You’ll need to back that assertion up.

I don’t know that many pure homosexuals, but it’s a number greater than zero, and I know a LOT of bisexual women, and not a single one of them is a pedophile.

 

[edwest2]

That has always been what it’s about. The equation of wants with “rights.” It’s not about anything else, because as we’ve seen in many quarters, the granting of the privileges of marriage without the title, “marriage,” is insufficient for them.

This about forcing their sexual code on the rest of society. It’s also about the artificial creation of a “protected class” so that they can claim special status, requiring representation in government, educational institutions, and even religions.

That is absolutely correct. Military funerals where the husband of the deceased husband gets a flag.

University speeches where the professor’s husband introduces his husband, the professor.

It’s called social engineering.

Gay divorce is already occurring. Can you imagine what will happen if Canada allows “polyamory”?

---

Divorce Court, Part 15

Judge: OK. I want the biological children of the party of the first part to stand on the left side of the courtroom. Then I want the adopted children of the party of the first part to stand on the right side of the courtroom. Now, I want the party of the first part to stand in front of the bench with his/her husbands/wives behind him/her.

And now we get to the party of the second part. Just repeat my instructions to the party of the first part.

The Court now directs the Defense to present its flow chart to navigate the relationships between the various parties.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker
*
but were someone to be arrested for adultery, I’m pretty sure they’d get it kicked arguing the Lawrence precedent.
*

Ho-hum. For I guess the tenth time: If you were sued by your wife for adultery, you would pay through the nose. So you see, you have no civil right to break a contract, and the judge will hammer you with financial penalties at the request of the offended party.
*
It also depends on how you’re defining ‘fundamental civil right’, the way I’m using it is to mean anything which government is prohibited from prohibiting is a civil right. Not all rights result in good things. The Klan has the fundamental civil right to spew their hatred. That doesn’t mean their hatred is good.*

They are protected by free speech, yes. But if they incite others to hateful crimes, they have no civil right left. Civil rights can only be delegated to rights we have by our human nature. Gay marriage is not natural, therefore there can be no civil right to protect it. Black people are black by their nature, that’s why they have a civil right to be in the front of the bus or President of the United States.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

Are you implying that homosexuals are by definition pedophiles? You’ll need to back that assertion up.

Not by definition, but by option. Many are. Look at the cases brought against Catholic priests. How many of them are for female victims of pedophiles as opposed to male pedophiles. A Male pedophile who selects male children is a homosexual (or possibly bi-sexual if he molests both sexes of children).

 

[kenofken]

kenofken
*
To your last point, how is it that the church has the power to funnel millions of dollars and tirelessly push for a ban on gay marriage, but when it comes to the substantially equal sin of adultery, it can only meekly “advise and consent” ? Is there some magical barrier or force field that prevents them from demanding protection in civil law for the sanctity of marriage when it is being violated by straight people? If there is not, than it is simple political expedience or a moral double standard, and a glaring surrender to the relativism and utilitarianism that the Church so loves to despise… *

The Church does not approve adultery. However, it is in the class of a broken contract rather than a crime against nature. The Church has had to fight many battles. The Church has already lost the battle against lax divorce laws. The battle against insane laws protecting gay marriage and sodomy as a civil right is still ongoing. You choose your battles where and when you can. Today’s battle is the subject of this forum, not adultery. But I can see why you want to change the subject when you are losing the debate.

Where exactly in Canon Law does it specify that adultery is “little m” mortal sin and that same sex relations are “Big M” mortal sin and that one has a special obligation to advocate civil law prohibitions in one instance and not the other?

If you really are a church of absolutes, the political prospects of success are not material to whether you fight for a principle or not. You DON’T get to choose your battles (not if you’re working from sincere religious belief). You seem to imply that if the Church “already lost” the battle in the political arena, then it’s ok to write it off and move onto some other crusade. If that were true, Catholics would have no more obligation to fight abortion, would they? From a legalistic standpoint, it’s already a matter of settled law, give or take certain restrictions. I don’t recall ever seeing a papal document or bishop’s letter saying it is OK to give up on causes that happen to be impolitic.

I don’t think I’m changing the subject at all because this whole area of debate rests in part on whether those fighting gay marriage are sincere and consistent in their moral reasoning. I’m not challenging anyone here to do anything crazier than to consistently and publicly uphold the moral principles that they pledge to at Confirmation and every time they recite the Nicene Creed. The fact that no one will speaks volumes about the moral reasoning underlying the Prop 8 fight.

 

[Windfish]

Bringing up adultery and other social woes to undermine our opposition to gay marriage is a total non sequitur and not worthy of serious reply. “You against gay marriage? We’ll how about adultery! Hah, so there!”

 

[Seeker2010]

So you see, you have no civil right to break a contract, and the judge will hammer you with financial penalties at the request of the offended party.

We’re not arguing that there is a fundamental civil right to break a contract, we both agree that there is not. We’re arguing whether or not adultery is.

Well, we know from Lawrence v. Texas that SCOTUS has essentially declared ALL sex between consenting adults as a fundamental right. Which is to say, the state does not possess the authority to ban it. Since adulterous sex is (presumably) between consenting adults, it therefore IS a right.

Bill, assuming he is of age, has the fundamental, constitutional right to have sex (in a private place) with Suzy, so long as Suzy is okay with the idea and of age herself. That does not change if Bill is married to Joan. Now, if Bill has a contract with Joan that he won’t have sex with Suzy (or anyone else), there may be consequences to his actions, but that’s because of the contract, not because he didn’t have a right to have sex with Suzy.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

Well, we know from Lawrence v. Texas that SCOTUS has essentially declared ALL sex between consenting adults as a fundamental right. Which is to say, the state does not possess the authority to ban it. Since adulterous sex is (presumably) between consenting adults, it therefore IS a right.

You just don’t get it. You have a right to commit adultery only if you are willing to pay for it in divorce court. That is a penalty meted out by a judge and the everlasting disgust of the aggrieved wife. But I guess you’ve really got an axe to grind here.

You also are changing the subject because you have no arguments for gay marriage.

Again, gay marriage is not a right. Marriage was designed for heterosexual couples. Civil unions was designed for homosexual couples. You don’t get to re-invent the wheel with a flat tire.

 

[Seeker2010]

You just don’t get it.

I get it. We’re arguing different points. You are saying, effectively, that because an action has consequences it is not a right. Now, mind you, the term ‘right’ in our debate is a legal term.

You have a right to commit adultery only if you are willing to pay for it in divorce court. That is a penalty meted out by a judge and the everlasting disgust of the aggrieved wife. But I guess you’ve really got an axe to grind here.

No axes here, you’re claiming because adultery has potential civil partners, you have no legal right to commit adultery. And you are wrong.

You also are changing the subject because you have no arguments for gay marriage.

I did not change the subject, you inquired as to whether or not someone thought a ‘right’ to adultery existed. Legally speaking, it does.

Again, gay marriage is not a right.

I disagree. I find the equal protection argument compelling. Apparently, you do not. The Court took my side. Time will tell what the Appeals and Supreme court say. If SCOTUS upholds the ruling, are you still going to maintain it’s not a right?

 

[SwizzleStick]

Well, I’m sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but that horse has left the barn. Within a generation or two from today, being gay will be seen as no more abnormal than being left handed. It’s just a matter of time. When my grandfather was my age, homosexuals kept in the closet or faced discrimination. **When my father was my age, they were more out, but the idea of gay marriage was so ridiculous that it wasn’t even up for discussion. ** Today, it’s controversial. By the time someone born today is my age, they won’t even realize it was once that, it will be normal. …

And, the idea is no less ridiculous now.

As far as the rest of your post, what a very depressing, disturbing thought. But, I fear you might be correct and debauchery and chaos will take us the way of the Roman empire.

 

[hosemonkey]

And, the idea is no less ridiculous now.

As far as the rest of your post, what a very depressing, disturbing thought. But, I fear you might be correct and debauchery and chaos will take us the way of the Roman empire.

“Right is right, even if nobody is doing it. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”
Moral relativism is wrong and is condemned by the Church. I am sure that the Aztecs thought that human sacrifice was OK, because everybody was doing it too. Fights to the death in the arena were OK too, because everybody enjoyed them. Homosexuality is abnormal and wrong, always.

 

[Seeker2010]

And, the idea is no less ridiculous now.

Actually, it’s not. For truly ridiculous ideas don’t get debated in public. Or should we start a thread advocating the legalization of murder?

As far as the rest of your post, what a very depressing, disturbing thought. But, I fear you might be correct and debauchery and chaos will take us the way of the Roman empire.

Homosexual marriage caused the fall of the Roman Empire?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

*If SCOTUS upholds the ruling, are you still going to maintain it’s not a right? *

Of course. It’s unnatural to kill your own child. It’s homicide. The child has a right to live that supercedes the mother’s so-called right to privacy, a right that isn’t even in the Constitution…

But this as another red herring.

When are you going to make a cogent case for gay marriage as a right other than that “it’s a right”?

Is polygamy a civil right? Is incest a civil right? When are you going to get off the dime and make a case?

Just remember, there is no place in the law for people who are insane, criminal, or sexually perverse to claim their civil rights.

It seems to me you have to make a case, at the very least, that gay marriage is not a perversion or laughable mockery of the institution of marriage. As such it has to be called something other than marriage. How about civil unions? Oops! We already got that!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

Homosexual marriage caused the fall of the Roman Empire?

Not by itself. But homosexuality and other perversions were symptomatic of the period of decline as the historian Will Durant pointed out in his book,* The Lessons of History*. In that book, first published in the early 60s, he remarked that we had not yet arrived at that stage. I think today he would admit that we already rival the sexual excesses of the Roman empire. The Romans never demanded marriage rights for homosexuals. And they weren’t even in a Christian culture.

 

[Elixir]

Homosexual marriage caused the fall of the Roman Empire?

That’s being absurdly literal. Things such as legalized abortion and homosexual unions are not direct causes of instant cultural decline but are obvious symptoms of a society heading toward a serious decline.

You simply can’t kill off 4,000 children a day and promote unions that can’t create children and maintain a society in the long run. The numbers don’t add up.

Now as for the legality of homosexual unions…they’ll happen eventually. The cat is out of the bag and I have no hope that my country will regain it’s senses in regards to such issues. But call it what you want it ain’t a marriage.

 

[Ignatius]

Thx

In answer to the title question, who cares about gay marriage?

There is no such thing as gay marriage. A same sex act is not capable of creating new life. God cares because he loves them and wants them to avoid eternal damnation. Just as immoral heterosexual acts are a sin, so are theirs. Entering into both types of relation ship creates a situation in which it is very difficult to break the sinful habit, repent and return to God’s grace.

 

[Seeker2010]

Things such as legalized abortion and homosexual unions are not direct causes of instant cultural decline but are obvious symptoms of a society heading toward a serious decline.

But how, exactly, are we in decline? I don’t do abortion debates, but I will point out that our population hasn’t been on the decline. Granted, our financial system is in deep, deep doo-doo, but that’s not even peripherally related to the point you’re trying to make.

STD infection rates are at all time lows, divorce rates are falling, I haven’t researched unwanted pregnancies, but I’m not sure any reliable stats are available on that at any rate. What decline are you talking about??

 

[SwizzleStick]

Actually, it’s not. For truly ridiculous ideas don’t get debated in public. …

Obviously, that is incorrect, because here we are, yes?

 

[Seeker2010]

God cares because he loves them and wants them to avoid eternal damnation.

I do not believe sexual behavior results in eternal damnation. That said, should I be wrong, the God you speak of who supposedly loves them is the one IMPOSING eternal damnation on them, for following their feelings during a physical existence that in the overall scope of eternity, is meaningless.

Some love that is.

 

[Seeker2010]

Obviously, that is incorrect, because here we are, yes?

My point exactly. We ARE debating the legalization of gay marriage. We are NOT debating the legalization of homicide. Unless you’d like to start.