"gay" marriage

[Kevin_Walker]

Tlaloc:

Slight correction, that’s how it should be but not how it is. Since marriage is incorporated into legal documents it has to have a legal (i.e. governmental) definition.

The best solution then is to remove marriage entirely from government, allow all partners (of whatever type) to get governmental civil unions and allow each religion to define marriage as it sees fit. No one is discriminated against and government and religion stay out of each other’s way.

But why do we then need to get “governmental civil unions” at all?

Where’s the imperative that marriage ‘must’ have a “legal (i.e. governmental) definition”? Why does the government need to have anything to do with marriage in the first place?

So the day I get married, and I refuse to buy a marriage license, but go through a proper Church wedding - I’m married! The license is totally unnecessary for me to devote myself forever to my wife! The marriage license makes no sense.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

otm:

Sociology and psychology both have studied marriage and the family, and both have ample literature that children are much healthier and better adjusted when raised by two parents, a man and a woman. Because men and women are wired somewhat differently, they both are necessary for raislng a child, be the child male or female. That is a practical, non-religious approach that simply sidesteps the relgious prejudices brought to your conversation. It is rooted in natuaral law, although I don’t know that I would use those terms, as they are too closely identified with religious issues.

It is a fairly simple arguement. that is what works because both the children and the parents are wired to operate as a family.

I totally agree. Social ‘scientists’ have observed all sorts of problems with single parent house holds; female dominated house holds; male dominated house holds; absentee parents; abandoned children growing up feral; or institutionalized children. The homosexual household is a sure formula for aberant and dysfunctional behaviour.

The presence of both well adjusted male & female parents is essential to develop a stable environment to raise emotionally healthy children; the homosexual household is absurdly incongruous to the development of an emotionally stable environment for children.

 

[Tlaloc]

Kevin Walker:

But why do we then need to get “governmental civil unions” at all?

Taxes, survivor’s benefits, etc. Marriage for the government represents a financial union, that’s all.

So the day I get married, and I refuse to buy a marriage license, but go through a proper Church wedding - I’m married! The license is totally unnecessary for me to devote myself forever to my wife! The marriage license makes no sense.

Hey I’m all for disentangling the secular partnership from the religious ritual.

 

[Tlaloc]

otm:

Sociology and psychology both have studied marriage and the family, and both have ample literature that children are much healthier and better adjusted when raised by two parents, a man and a woman. Because men and women are wired somewhat differently, they both are necessary for raislng a child, be the child male or female. That is a practical, non-religious approach that simply sidesteps the relgious prejudices brought to your conversation. It is rooted in natuaral law, although I don’t know that I would use those terms, as they are too closely identified with religious issues.

It is a fairly simple arguement. that is what works because both the children and the parents are wired to operate as a family.

Then wouldn’t it be logical to promote polyamory…for the good of the children…

 

[Tlaloc]

Kevin Walker:

I totally agree. Social ‘scientists’ have observed all sorts of problems with single parent house holds; female dominated house holds; male dominated house holds; absentee parents; abandoned children growing up feral; or institutionalized children. The homosexual household is a sure formula for aberant and dysfunctional behaviour.

The presence of both well adjusted male & female parents is essential to develop a stable environment to raise emotionally healthy children; the homosexual household is absurdly incongruous to the development of an emotionally stable environment for children.

You can’t remove the potential that any harm coming to the kids of a gay union is a product of a society that views them in an extremely negative light. I bet the kids of openly declared communists have some issues too. Weird how society calling your family an abomination can do that to a kid.

 

[serendipity]

Werner:

Of course non believers leave the church part away, and of course if you take only the sacrament and leave the town hall away you are entitled to no benefits from the state whatsoever, because for the state you aren’t married.

That makes it easy to introduce gay civil unions without touching sacramental marriage.

In the US where the sacraments at the same time makes the civil union you have a real problem.

What you should do is to separate the sacrament from the civil union and giv God what is God’s (the sacrament) and the state what is the state’s (civil union)

Werner

The legal movement to recognize gay marriages in the US is jsut that. Granting legal rights to homosexual couples, that heterosexual couples enjoy; tax benefits, ability to determine the course of life saving medical treatment, and custody of children the coulple are raising (if one fo the parents should die. It is not imposing that all religious insitutions be required to offfer marraige as a sacrament to gay couples - at least not yet. This is my worry, that the first step is cival recognition of equal rights under law (and it only makes sense that the person who knows the other best and loves them the most has legal rights to make certain deicisions), but that the next step would be law suits agianst religious organizations that will not offer sacraments of matrimony to gay couples.

It is not the government’s right to tell people what they believe is right or wrong; that religions must recognize certain forms of relationships as morally equal to others. Perhaps my fear is unjustified and unwarranted, but I don’t think that homosexual rights gorups will stop the attack for recognition of their relationship, once they receive civil rights.

 

[Tlaloc]

serendipity:

It is not imposing that all religious insitutions be required to offfer marraige as a sacrament to gay couples - at least not yet. This is my worry, that the first step is cival recognition of equal rights under law (and it only makes sense that the person who knows the other best and loves them the most has legal rights to make certain deicisions), but that the next step would be law suits agianst religious organizations that will not offer sacraments of matrimony to gay couples.

On what basis? The basis for secular equality is in the constitution but there is no constitutional right to be equally regarded by every religion. Anyway the best way to preserve both government and religion is to maintain the strictest of division between them.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Tlaloc:

You can’t remove the potential that any harm coming to the kids of a gay union is a product of a society that views them in an extremely negative light. I bet the kids of openly declared communists have some issues too. Weird how society calling your family an abomination can do that to a kid.

Don’t blame society, that is the fallacious determinists view. A homosexual household is practically guaranteed to produce a dysfunctional outcome.

 

[Tlaloc]

Kevin Walker:

Don’t blame society, that is the fallacious determinists view. A homosexual household is practically guaranteed to produce a dysfunctional outcome.

How can you claim society can’t be a determining factor? These children don’t grow up in a vacuum. They grow up seeing Fred Phelps types saying “God hates Fags.”

Children of a minority stigmatized viciously by the majority are likely to have some personality issues. That’s true across ethnic lines, religious lines, and class lines. Why would sexual orientation be any different.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Tlaloc:

How can you claim society can’t be a determining factor? These children don’t grow up in a vacuum. They grow up seeing Fred Phelps types saying “God hates Fags.”

Children of a minority stigmatized viciously by the majority are likely to have some personality issues. That’s true across ethnic lines, religious lines, and class lines. Why would sexual orientation be any different.

Because I believe that homosexuals, like everyone else, must take responsibility for their own behaviour and can’t make the vacuous claim that they’re victims of society. Humans aren’t stimulus/response organisms and society is not a giant Skinner Box as determinists and behaviourists would have you believe. Humans have minds and free will in which to make decisions, just as insipid humans have made the inane choice to be a homosexual, society cannot be credited with all the choices made by people. That is sloppy thinking on your part! :tsktsk:

What goes on inside the privacy of the family unit is largely independent of society, and that is true for the homosexual household as well. Society doesn’t creep into the sanctity and inner reaches of the family’s day-to-day activities, as studies on the lives of serial killers and sexual perverts will attest.

Behaviour patterns within the family will affect the developmental period of a child’s emotional growth independent of outside society. The homosexual marriage will only exacerbate the child’s developmental years, not society.

No, children don’t grow up in a vacuum, most children develop within the confines of a family unit, and a homosexual family unit is practically a formula for aberrant behaviour. Gay marriage is an absurdity since homosexual couples are incapable of reproduction, therefore must adopt and twist some poor kid into their emotionally damaged equivalents.

So don’t take the cheap and easy route by blaming society on the damage done to kids unfortunately enveloped within an absurd homosexual marriage.

 

[Tlaloc]

Kevin Walker:

Because I believe that homosexuals, like everyone else, must take responsibility for their own behaviour and can’t make the vacuous claim that they’re victims of society.

We aren’t talking about their actions we’re talking about the issues their children may encounter. To deny society’s rampant homophobia just might cause trouble for kids of gay couples is staggeringly short sighted.

What goes on inside the privacy of the family unit is largely independent of society, and that is true for the homosexual household as well.

That isn’t true of any household! Well, okay, maybe the amish. Other than that if you live in america your kids absorb huge amounts of cultural information.

Society doesn’t creep into the sanctity and inner reaches of the family’s day-to-day activities, as studies on the lives of serial killers and sexual perverts will attest.

Bull. Society most certainly creeps into our lives. TV is of course an enormous source of acculturation but so are other media sources, schools…
Advertisers work long hours to place their messages more and more seamlessly into your life.

Behaviour patterns within the family will affect the developmental period of a child’s emotional growth independent of outside society. The homosexual marriage will only exacerbate the child’s developmental years, not society.

Again bull. Do your kids live in a bubble, Kevin? Do they go to school? Watch TV? Movies? Listen to radio? Read books? They get the culture thrown at them a million different ways. Some of which can rival parental influence.

No, children don’t grow up in a vacuum, most children develop within the confines of a family unit, and a homosexual family unit is practically a forumal for aberrant behaviour.

Confines? You make childhood sound like a prison. You severely underestimate the effects of cluture. Keep in mind that America’s number one export has always been our culture. We’ve sold it over seas for two hundred years. We used it to lure immigrants to this country. We’ve been so successful at selling it that we’ve created an entire national mythoi around “The American Way of Life.” And yet you think kids are insulated from it?

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Tlaloc:

We aren’t talking about their actions we’re talking about the issues their children may encounter. To deny society’s rampant homophobia just might cause trouble for kids of gay couples is staggeringly short sighted.

That isn’t true of any household! Well, okay, maybe the amish. Other than that if you live in america your kids absorb huge amounts of cultural information.

Bull. Society most certainly creeps into our lives. TV is of course an enormous source of acculturation but so are other media sources, schools…
Advertisers work long hours to place their messages more and more seamlessly into your life.

Again bull. Do your kids live in a bubble, Kevin? Do they go to school? Watch TV? Movies? Listen to radio? Read books? They get the culture thrown at them a million different ways. Some of which can rival parental influence.

Confines? You make childhood sound like a prison. You severely underestimate the effects of cluture. Keep in mind that America’s number one export has always been our culture. We’ve sold it over seas for two hundred years. We used it to lure immigrants to this country. We’ve been so successful at selling it that we’ve created an entire national mythoi around “The American Way of Life.” And yet you think kids are insulated from it?

You have no argument, just a collection of non-sequiturs supporting generalizations. American culture in not homogeneous and society does not affect family units equally.

 

[Tlaloc]

Kevin Walker:

You have no argument, just a collection of non-sequiturs supporting generalizations.

Ah how nice of you to notice.

American culture in not homogeneous and society does not affect family units equally.

No it’s not homogeneous. Wait did you say “affect all families equally”? Funny, up til now you’ve been claiming it doesn’t affect them at all.

 

[atsheeran]

Beaver:

I see homosexual acidentally have sex and there is nothing deliberate about it.

I didn’t say that and I don’t think that it can be reasonably inferred from my post. Do you not think that there can be sins of a sexual nature that are independent of contraception? If the only sin in homosexuality is that it is contraceptive, then where is the sin in pre-marital heterosexual sex or adult males having sex with minor females (so long as no contraceptives are used).

I described contraception in this way:

Contraception involves deliberately rendering sterile/non-procreative an otherwise potentially procreative act.

The key in my description was that something that was inherently procreative was being deliberately rendered non-procreative. That is clearly not the case with homosexual sex! It is inherently non-procreative, so there is no taking of a procreative act and rendering it non-procreative. My guess is that when two individuals engage in homosexual sex they are not doing so to avoid conception.

Nothing that I said implies that homosexual sex was “accidental” or not deliberate. I’m sure that when two individuals engage in homosexual sex they do so purposely and knowingly.

 

[spurgeon]

yiannii:

Hello all,

://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=567 .

“I was wondering if any of you Catholic apologists out there could read the article and give me an honest opinion on it; your queries, any lies in the article etc. Thanks in advance for helping me defend the truth.”

“Gay marriage”, is not English you cannot have a marriage without two spouses of the opposite sex.You need to come up with some other term to label this rather unholy “union” be it two men three cats, a snake and two parrots etc but it is not a marriage. In any case of what consequency is such a union to the public? suppose one or two of these individuals sober up and decide toget properly married what is stopping them from disbanding?

 

[Beaver]

atsheeran:

I didn’t say that and I don’t think that it can be reasonably inferred from my post. Do you not think that there can be sins of a sexual nature that are independent of contraception? If the only sin in homosexuality is that it is contraceptive, then where is the sin in pre-marital heterosexual sex or adult males having sex with minor females (so long as no contraceptives are used).

I described contraception in this way:

The key in my description was that something that was inherently procreative was being deliberately rendered non-procreative. That is clearly not the case with homosexual sex! It is inherently non-procreative, so there is no taking of a procreative act and rendering it non-procreative. My guess is that when two individuals engage in homosexual sex they are not doing so to avoid conception.

Nothing that I said implies that homosexual sex was “accidental” or not deliberate. I’m sure that when two individuals engage in homosexual sex they do so purposely and knowingly.

I am glad you said this was a guess. The fact is that, that is precisely why they do it and heterosexually set the standard by practicing contraception. You can not get away with this…
The fact is that heterosexuals turn themselves into homosexuals by practicing contraception…

 

[Tlaloc]

spurgeon:

“Gay marriage”, is not English you cannot have a marriage without two spouses of the opposite sex.You need to come up with some other term to label this rather unholy “union” be it two men three cats, a snake and two parrots etc but it is not a marriage. In any case of what consequency is such a union to the public? suppose one or two of these individuals sober up and decide toget properly married what is stopping them from disbanding?

mar·riage cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifj)
n.

1. 
   *]
   1. • The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
      • The state of being married; wedlock.
      • A common-law marriage.
        *]A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
        *]A wedding.
        *]A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
        *]Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
        
        Apparently you not only can have a marriage, according to English, of two men but also of two cards. Who knew!
        
        Seriously, marriage has meant a lot of different things over the centuries and in different places. All the talk about the tradition of marriage is rubbish. Our modern marriages are entirely different than marriage just two hundred years ago when women were property of a man and marriage was an act of buying a wife, not forming a partnership. We’ve continually changed what marriage means.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

mar·riage cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifj)
n.

1. 1. 
      *]
      • The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
      • The state of being married; wedlock.
      • A common-law marriage.
        *]A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
        *]A wedding.
        *]A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
        *]Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
        
        Apparently you not only can have a marriage, according to English, of two men but also of two cards. Who knew!
        
        Seriously, marriage has meant a lot of different things over the centuries and in different places. All the talk about the tradition of marriage is rubbish. Our modern marriages are entirely different than marriage just two hundred years ago when women were property of a man and marriage was an act of buying a wife, not forming a partnership. We’ve continually changed what marriage means.

1. 1. • 
        
        Seriously, your use of cant and sophistry to defend an absurdity, homosexual marriage, has run its course and is no longer amusing, let alone pertinent.

 

[Tlaloc]

Kevin Walker:

Seriously, your use of cant and sophistry to defend an absurdity, homosexual marriage, has run its course and is no longer amusing, let alone pertinent.

If you aren’t nice to me I won’t invite you to my birthday.

Let me be crystal on this: I really don’t care whether you are entertained or not. If you have something to contribute then do so. If not, Ciao.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

mar·riage cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifj)
n.

1. 1. 
      *]
      • The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
      • The state of being married; wedlock.
      • A common-law marriage.
        *]A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
        *]A wedding.
        *]A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
        *]Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
        
        Apparently you not only can have a marriage, according to English, of two men but also of two cards. Who knew!
        
        Seriously, marriage has meant a lot of different things over the centuries and in different places. All the talk about the tradition of marriage is rubbish. Our modern marriages are entirely different than marriage just two hundred years ago when women were property of a man and marriage was an act of buying a wife, not forming a partnership. We’ve continually changed what marriage means.

1. 1. • 
        
        You must have received the same memo as Ken/Zoot. Do proponents of the homosexual agenda have some sort of sacred scripture to underpin their apologetics?