Gay marriage : who cares?

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

*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. *

You don’t have the first inkling of Catholic theology do you? God doesn’t impose damnation. We choose it. We were given the choice … heaven or hell. Out of stubborn pride, the sin of Lucifer himself, we may choose to be as far away from God as hell allows.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I’m a little puzzled here. Why is it that the pro gay marriage in this thread want to talk about slavery, adultery, abortion … anything but gay marriage. Isn’t constantly changing the subject a symptom of defeat?

Apparently the attempt is to show inconsistency on the part of Church leaders. That won’t wash. Some Church leaders down through history have not followed the teachings of Christ. But some physicians have killed their patients, and some lawyers have embezzled their clients. Does that mean their professional institutions are not sincere and committed to saving life or preserving the law?

 

[ERose]

Whoops. The Supreme Court ruled explicitly that it is.

To wit: Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Direct quote from the decision. You can read all about it here if you’re so inclined: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Seeker,

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

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

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

*These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

**Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. **To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. *

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

The second point is:

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

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

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

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

 

[ERose]

Virginia? Slavery had VERY solid standing in law way before there was a Virginia. The first papal bull sanctioning slavery that I have in mind, Dum Diversas, dates to 1452. For that matter, for the thousand plus years prior to that, Christendom did rather little to forcefully repudiate the insitution of slavery in its realms, even if they did manage to temper some of its worst abuses.

Show some proof K. I have to give Seeker credit on this thread. At least he tries at times to support his claims. Yet you throw out accusations with no proof whatsoever. You need to learn to display the so called proof you claim that you have. Until then all you are is smoke and mirrors.

 

[ERose]

I’m a little puzzled here. Why is it that the pro gay marriage in this thread want to talk about slavery, adultery, abortion … anything but gay marriage. Isn’t constantly changing the subject a symptom of defeat?

Apparently the attempt is to show inconsistency on the part of Church leaders. That won’t wash. Some Church leaders down through history have not followed the teachings of Christ. But some physicians have killed their patients, and some lawyers have embezzled their clients. Does that mean their professional institutions are not sincere and committed to saving life or preserving the law?

Because they have displayed an inadequacy in defending their assertions. That is why. They do not display rational arguments nor do they display proof to support their cliams. I do have to give Seeker some credit though at least he has tried to use outside sources to support his claims. K and Leela well they still have alot of work to do on that part.

 

[ERose]

Because it’s not the right way for everyone, he must find his own. When he is an ADULT, were he to ask our opinion he’d get it. As a child, what we do and with whom is simply none of his business.

What about your parent(s) or your wife’s parent(s). Do they know the life you are living?

 

[Seeker2010]

How did sodomy or lesbianism become defined as a “civil right?”

Lawrence v. Texas.

A homosexual man in Texas was charged and convicted of sodomy with another man. It wasn’t a serious conviction, I think the penalty was a $300 fine. One of the men paid the fine and moved on with his life, the other decided to challenge the conviction, and he did so all the way to the supreme court.

They found that the state lacked just cause to ban sodomy between consenting adults, and overturned not only his conviction, but every law in the country against private, consensual sexual behavior.

Thus sodomy, lesbianism, sex toys, swingers, BDSM, and any other thing you might label as ‘disordered’ became civil rights in our country.

Which is, of course, as it should be. For we do (at least in theory) live in a free country.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

Thus sodomy, lesbianism, sex toys, swingers, BDSM, and any other thing you might label as ‘disordered’ became civil rights in our country.

That’s a pathetic brag. We are awash in moral perversions and you want to celebrate them as civil rights?

Then why isn’t polygamy and incest also a civil right? And why isn’t pedophilia a civil right? This is crazy logic. Just as crazy as Roe v Wade, that we have the civil right to kill our own children.

Some right!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Why not just call them civil unions? Three reasons. Civil unions are not recognized as universally as marriage and never will be and do not convey the same rights as marriage. Two, the same people who fight gay marriage, by and large also fight civil unions with the same bitter determination (they’ll argue its all a slippery slope, you see). Third, civil marriage in this country is not a sacrament. A judge or clerk is not a priest, nor a representative of the Catholic Church or any other sectarian religions. They don’t take their marching order from Rome. If you don’t think there ought to be any line between church and state, than we ought to give you your wish: we could have state-appointed bishops and priests like they do in China. I don’t think you or the state really want that.

Countless arguments have been put forth on this and other threads as to why gay marriage should not be outlawed. Many of them are logically very persuasive, but because neither side will acknowledge the assumptions underlying the other side’s arugment, it is sort of a waste of time to pretend than any conceivable arugment would convince you. You have determined, in advance, that any argument contradicting your own belief on this matter is invalid on its face. If God himself rolled up to your door in a white BMW and handed you a hand-writted note saying gay marriage is OK, you’d ascribe it all to some liberal trickery and dismiss it out of hand. Unless you’re willing to specify EXACTLY what standard would have to be met before you’d reconsider your position, let’s not play games and pretend that your opponents argumentation skills are the problem.

No doubt many think I’m intransigent as well, but I’ve alreay laid out the conditions that would cause me to at least rethink my position. One would be conclusive evidence or at least a strong consensus among mainstream authorities that the harms of gay marriage would outweigh good. By this I mean a research-based consensus formed among mainstream, non-religious, secular authorities in the fields of psychology, child welfare etc. Not an unreasonable standard nor an unattainable one, I think. None has been produced.

I have also stated that I would accept the Prop 8 position as being logically and morally constent if I saw a substantial movement to ban civil marriage of previously divorced people and those of reproductive age who have rendered themselves sterile - sins of equal magnitude to homosexual activity. So far, I have heard not a peep from anyone willing to undertake what their own moral codes tell them they should be doing.

I have a question re civil unions vs. marriage that perhaps you can answer. We all know that a married couple (male and female) are considered married in every state in the U.S. I don’t know about other countries and I am somewhat disappointed to see that once again the debate considers only the U.S. even though this is a world-wide forum.

My question is: Are civil unions recognized in all 50 states of the U.S.? I.e. if a male/male civil union is formed in California, is that civil union and the rights that go along with it also applicable in all the states in the U.S.? If not, I can see why those who are in civil unions would want that title of “married” simply to protect their rights as a couple.

 

[edwest2]

Lawrence v. Texas.

A homosexual man in Texas was charged and convicted of sodomy with another man. It wasn’t a serious conviction, I think the penalty was a $300 fine. One of the men paid the fine and moved on with his life, the other decided to challenge the conviction, and he did so all the way to the supreme court.

They found that the state lacked just cause to ban sodomy between consenting adults, and overturned not only his conviction, but every law in the country against private, consensual sexual behavior.

Thus sodomy, lesbianism, sex toys, swingers, BDSM, and any other thing you might label as ‘disordered’ became civil rights in our country.

Which is, of course, as it should be. For we do (at least in theory) live in a free country.

Freedom without limits is not freedom. In this case, it is slavery to certain toys, devices and the flesh. Self-control is a virtue.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Redefining what gays choose and calling it “marriage” doesn’t make it so. But, I have to concede that gay “marriage” will likely yet become a nationwide “right,” because the twisted society we live in sees evil as good, right as wrong, etc., and all that twisting will likely be our undoing.

Considering the desire of some to return to Roman Orgies circa 2010, consider: where is the Vatican located? Where is the Roman Empire?

Don’t forget, the people in the United States have turned this down, twice in California. So American society, in general, understands this issue. So far, all that’s been used are a few select politicians.

Even if something like marriage is forced into effect, nothing will change for LGBT persons afterwards.

God bless,
Ed

 

[LittleSoldier]

Seeker

Thus sodomy, lesbianism, sex toys, swingers, BDSM, and any other thing you might label as ‘disordered’ became civil rights in our country.

That’s a pathetic brag. We are awash in moral perversions and you want to celebrate them as civil rights?

Then why isn’t polygamy and incest also a civil right? And why isn’t pedophilia a civil right? This is crazy logic. Just as crazy as Roe v Wade, that we have the civil right to kill our own children.

Some right!

You’re blinding me with your letter size, Charlemagne.

I’ve rejoined the thread as I see many posts that I just am yearning to respond to (or posts to which I am yearning to respond, in correct Englist). I agree with the Church that homosexual behavior is sinful. But it’s my impression that in the U.S. there is no iron-clad majority rule; the rights of all are protected (or they should be protected but aren’t and that’s another thread). In the U.S. there is also freedom of religion and it’s my understanding that this goes both ways - not only are citizens allowed to worship but they cannot be forced to worship. Mixing religious beliefs (even if they are correct to us) with law seems to me to be forcing people to accept certain precepts of a religion (homosexuality, sodomy, etc. being immoral).

I wonder if the right to polygamy doesn’t exist simply because a decision on it has not been handed down by the Supreme Court. I’ve tried to keep up with this thread but it’s getting long and if this has already been covered, I apologize for missing it. I can understand incest involving those under the age of consent being illegal as now we are speaking of children and actually polygamy can involve children, also. Have any decisions regarding adult incest and adult polygamy been handed down by the Supreme Court?

Roe v. Wade is a completely different subject as it does not involve sexual behavior but human lives and their murder. I don’t think abortion should be put in the same category as sodomy and homosexual behavior. It should be put in the category of crimes against humanity. From your post it doesn’t seem that you’re categorizing abortion with homosexual behavior but I just wanted to make my position clear on that.

I’m sitting on the fence. I lean one way and then the other and can’t make up my mind, so this thread is of immense interest to me.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

edwest

*Even if something like marriage is forced into effect, nothing will change for LGBT persons afterwards. *

If it is forced into effect, it will never be done by legislators or by the people’s referendum. It will be done only by lunatic judges who have usurped the role of the legislators and the people to define their own institutions.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Considering the desire of some to return to Roman Orgies circa 2010, consider: where is the Vatican located? Where is the Roman Empire?

Don’t forget, the people in the United States have turned this down, twice in California. So American society, in general, understands this issue. So far, all that’s been used are a few select politicians.

Even if something like marriage is forced into effect, nothing will change for LGBT persons afterwards.

God bless,
Ed

The Vatican is a sovereign city/state (Vatican City) that is physically confined within the boundaries of Rome. Being sovereign, it is not part of Rome or Italy. There is no Roman Empire.

Orgies are popular; they occur all the time. Or so I’ve heard.

But what does this have to do with this thread?

 

[ERose]

I have a question re civil unions vs. marriage that perhaps you can answer. We all know that a married couple (male and female) are considered married in every state in the U.S. I don’t know about other countries and I am somewhat disappointed to see that once again the debate considers only the U.S. even though this is a world-wide forum.

My question is: Are civil unions recognized in all 50 states of the U.S.? I.e. if a male/male civil union is formed in California, is that civil union and the rights that go along with it also applicable in all the states in the U.S.? If not, I can see why those who are in civil unions would want that title of “married” simply to protect their rights as a couple.

At this time no they are not. It is dependent upon the laws and constitutions of each individual state. But for the most part they are only recognized in states that allowed the marriage/civil union.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m a little puzzled here. Why is it that the pro gay marriage in this thread want to talk about slavery, adultery, abortion … anything but gay marriage. Isn’t constantly changing the subject a symptom of defeat?

Apparently the attempt is to show inconsistency on the part of Church leaders. That won’t wash. Some Church leaders down through history have not followed the teachings of Christ. But some physicians have killed their patients, and some lawyers have embezzled their clients. Does that mean their professional institutions are not sincere and committed to saving life or preserving the law?

Yeah, it’s all a plot conceived by a well-established group of anti-Catholics who travel through the forums (or fora, take your pick) wreaking havoc.

Is the above quote all yours, Charlemagne? I’m confused because you don’t use the function.

 

[LittleSoldier]

At this time no they are not. It is dependent upon the laws and constitutions of each individual state. But for the most part they are only recognized in states that allowed the marriage/civil union.

Then that is a good reason for homosexuals to want to be married - to protect their rights. Of course this is assuming that marriage is accepted in all 50 states as simply marriage and not marriage between one man and one woman.

 

[ERose]

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.

I take it you didn’t read this one as well did you. This ruling did not impact state adultery laws or stuck them down unilaterally. It was also emphasized that this ruling cannot be used to impact current marriage laws only what people do in the privacy of their homes only. Since adultery impacts negatively other people (spouse, children, domestic peace, etc.) it was not impacted by this ruling.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Considering the desire of some to return to Roman Orgies circa 2010, consider: where is the Vatican located? Where is the Roman Empire?

Don’t forget, the people in the United States have turned this down, twice in California. So American society, in general, understands this issue. So far, all that’s been used are a few select politicians.

Even if something like marriage is forced into effect, nothing will change for LGBT persons afterwards.

God bless,
Ed

By saying “American society, in general, understands this issue” you mean they agree with you, don’t you?

How do you know “nothing will change for LGBT persons afterwards”?

 

[ERose]

By saying “American society, in general, understands this issue” you mean they agree with you, don’t you?

How do you know “nothing will change for LGBT persons afterwards”?

You get this information from the countries that SSMs or SSCUs have been legalized. In Canada, SSM have been legalized, yet the gay activists in Canada issued a human rights complaint against their government because they are claiming that due to their lifestyle they have a greater need for healthcare than the average person. And these needs are not being met. I highly recommend to you to read the following article that was written by a gay rights group up in Canada. So this comes from the “horse’s mouth” as they say.

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