Gay Marriage

[Ilovejesus1234]

If you guys that are starting a conversation, are going to argue, please PM each other

 

[Rau]

Even if we managed to find such a distinction, what difference would it make? You can claim the Catholic definition of marriage is entirely consistent with the intrinsic nature of marriage. And the secular government would still be well within its rights to alter its definition to fit within a pre-existing legal framework. Doing so would not affect the Catholic definition of marriage in the slightest, or affect any Catholic’s right to determine for themselves what is a valid marriage and what is not.

Marriage is not a Catholic definition either. The ritual is not the thing. Marriage is a sexual relationship and by virtue of our God-given nature (not faith, not laws) it can only be between a man and a woman.

 

[Rau]

If you guys that are starting a conversation, are going to argue, please PM each other

This is a discussion board and all are free to converse with each other subject to the rules of the site.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

Ok just don’t be off topic

 

[Rau]

It isn’t about love in this case, even if my son was a transvestite, I would still love and accept him. But reject what he does. Nothing wrong with that.

I Hope you would love him and not reject him. It is right to reject wrong acts. One should not pretend to endorse and celebrate wrong acts, for that may mislead others as to the nature of those acts. Attending and celebrating a same sex wedding with your friends would mislead others.

 

[Rau]

Ok just don’t be off topic

No one has been off-topic.

 

[AyJSimon]

Marriage is not a Catholic definition either. The ritual is not the thing. Marriage is a sexual relationship and by virtue of our God-given nature (not faith, not laws) it can only be between a man and a woman.

That’s what you religion says - and I’m sure many other religions agree. The secular government does not care, and never has. In practice, the government’s definition of civil marriage has always existed free of religious doctrine, or how God supposedly defines it.

 

[Rau]

That’s what you religion says - and I’m sure many other religions agree. The secular government does not care, and never has. In practice, the government’s definition of civil marriage has always existed free of religious doctrine, or how God supposedly defines it.

My religion agrees with the notion that marriage arises from our nature, it did not create it! Marriage gives rise to children and families - the building blocks of society. The societal/legal framework attached has now subsumed the rest.

 

[Thorolfr]

Marriage gives rise to children and families - the building blocks of society.

So if there was no marriage, we wouldn’t have any children or families?

 

[AyJSimon]

My religion agrees with the notion that marriage arises from our nature, it did not create it! Marriage gives rise to children and families - the building blocks of society. The societal/legal framework attached has now subsumed the rest.

And even if I grant all that, the government still has a right to do so for itself, just as another religion has a right to redefine it for itself. And you have a right to make the argument you’re making. But as far as I can see, that’s where it ends.

 

[Rau]

So if there was no marriage, we wouldn’t have any children or families?

If men and women were not made for each other, that is the case.

 

[Rau]

And even if I grant all that… But as far as I can see, that’s where it ends.

If you “grant all that”, then your conclusion is a good one!

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

So mainly is the reason why it should be illegal is to protect the weak, foolish, bad part of society and guide it to know that gay marriage or other forms of marriage are not ok, I think I get it now…But no one will really answer me.

 

[PolarGuy]

No one really will answer you? Please. You were answered over and over and over again.

Interesting that you “get it” when people decide they’ve had enough and wander off…

…which is where I’m going!

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

No one really will answer you? Please. You were answered over and over and over again.

Interesting that you “get it” when people decide they’ve had enough and wander off…

…which is where I’m going!

Please?..I am sorry…

 

[JimG]

So mainly is the reason why it should be illegal is to protect the weak, foolish, bad part of society and guide it to know that gay marriage or other forms of marriage are not ok, I think I get it now…But no one will really answer me.

The main reason for opposing same sex marriage is the same reason for opposing contraception, adultery, fornication, and pederasty. Deviant forms of sexual relationships do in fact hurt the family structure, and in doing so, they hurt society and everyone in it.

You seem to think that it’s no big deal. That’s what a lot of people said about the sexual revolution. “It’s only sex; just let people do what they want!” Things have gone downhill fast from there: extramarital sex, babies out of wedlock, abortion, cohabitation, divorace, throwaway kids. It’s all been bad for society. I’ve watched society collapse in on itself with the destruction of families. If you can help stop that destruction in some way, every little bit helps.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

The main reason for opposing same sex marriage is the same reason for opposing contraception, adultery, fornication, and pederasty. Deviant forms of sexual relationships do in fact hurt the family structure, and in doing so, they hurt society and everyone in it.

You seem to think that it’s no big deal. That’s what a lot of people said about the sexual revolution. “It’s only sex; just let people do what they want!” Things have gone downhill fast from there: extramarital sex, babies out of wedlock, abortion, cohabitation, divorace, throwaway kids. It’s all been bad for society. I’ve watched society collapse in on itself with the destruction of families. If you can help stop that destruction in some way, every little bit helps.

I see and I think I may support you on this, seeing as how society always wants to do this and when we let them do it they can’t do very good…Therefore the moral is we should apply our morals to when we vote so we could guide them through that. But one opposing argument, are there any websites that show what gay couples seem to miss out on when they cannot get married, financially, socially, mentally, economically etc…Hope this isn’t bothering you, I am just starting to get it you know?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I’m not talking about biology but about how much the question of who should be allowed to marry should be left up to voters. Voters in the past decided that interracial couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry and biology had nothing to do with this. Maybe it’s good that the courts have stepped in.

If the courts were inherently better at this sort of thing than the voters, then you might have a point. But the courts have demonstrated time and again that they are not. (Slavery through abortion were all upheld at some point, sometimes in defiance of voters, sometime in alignment with them.)

Since neither the courts nor the voters can be trusted to reach the right decision (leaving aside the fact that making such decisions is simply not the courts’ job to start with, since the courts exist to interpret what the voters have already decided), the solution is clear: all such decisions should be made by me.

I jest of course, but there is a reason why policy making is supposed to be done by the legislature/referendum rather than the courts - once we realize how boneheaded we’re being about a certain thing, we can change laws through the normal legislative process much more easily.

Neither the legislature nor the people can not reasonably overturn the courts, and the courts are much slower to overturn themselves, since judges tend to stick around longer and be safer (in the US) than legislators. Don’t get me wrong, I think the safety of Judges’ positions is a good thing, it needs to be there. But it’s only good so long as judges restrict themselves to their actual job, otherwise they’re legislators who can’t be voted out and only need a 5 man majority to pass whatever they want.

All in all, the result is this: we should all do our best to determine what the law should be, and then do our best to make the law be so. If we’re wrong, hopefully we’ll a) realize this, b) lose the fight, or c) make relatively short lived bad laws.

But the fact that people have made bad laws regarding a certain subject before does not really affect this process at all. In the past, many people were wrong about interracial marriage. This is because their reasoning was dumb, not because purely because they said no. The take away from that is not that the law should recognize any union whatsoever as marriage so long as someone wants it to, but that we should work harder to make sure our reasoning isn’t dumb.

 

[Rau]

…Neither the legislature nor the people can not reasonably overturn the courts, and the courts are much slower to overturn themselves, since judges tend to stick around longer and be safer (in the US) than legislators. Don’t get me wrong, I think the safety of Judges’ positions is a good thing, it needs to be there. But it’s only good so long as judges restrict themselves to their actual job, otherwise they’re legislators who can’t be voted out and only need a 5 man majority to pass whatever they want.

In general, legislatures can readily put courts back in their box, by passing relevant laws. The difficulty arises when courts “deduce” rights by reference to a Constitution - overcoming that requires the Constitution itself to be clarified - which is notoriously difficult. The leaps made by courts in this regard are somewhat breathtaking, wandering far from matters which ever crossed the minds of the framers of the Constitution.

 

[Thorolfr]

In general, legislatures can readily put courts back in their box, by passing relevant laws. The difficulty arises when courts “deduce” rights by reference to a Constitution - overcoming that requires the Constitution itself to be clarified - which is notoriously difficult. The leaps made by courts in this regard are somewhat breathtaking, wandering far from matters which ever crossed the minds of the framers of the Constitution.

One of the main functions of the courts, especially the Supreme Court, is to interpret the constitution.