Sadly. This is a not unexpected answer. Such marriages are simply inventions and are not of the people, by the people or for the people. The Dictatorship of Relativism has been recognized for what it is.On the contrary, the President is defending marriage as it is. As it is in Massachusetts, as it is in Connecticut, as it is in Iowa, as it is in Vermont and as it is in New Hampshire.
rossum
Do you think they are being a bit uppity?… The homosexuals want to be looked at, considered legally, and treated in every way as those who are NOT homosexuals. …
^ (Not addressed to me)Do you think they are being a bit uppity?
WOW!!! that is awesome. you are so honest.^ (Not addressed to me)
In the sense that they are appropriating to themselves an artificial set of “rights” which belong to a category which they are not participating in, then yes, in that sense they are being “uppity.”
And if I appropriate to myself a privilege (not a right – marriage is not a right – it is a privilege, a privilege which grows out of a natural union as opposed to an artificial union) that belongs to someone who owns that right by reason of birth or some other ownership (such as earning a title, a position), then I am also acting “a bit uppity.” After all, I do indeed know as much, and in some selected cases, much more than, certain attorneys. That does not give me the “right” to go into court and supplant attorneys who have standing in the bar, even if I can prove that I am equal to them, or even superior to them, in whatever it takes to be a successful attorney, because I am essentially (by virtue of state law) unqualified for that position. And the state gets to make regulations like that, for the order of society. Marriage and even civil unions are part of the order of society.
And if there’s some role or position which is denied to me because of my height or some other physical attribute, but I nevertheless “demand” to be part of that category and partake the “rights” of that category, I am, yes, being ‘uppity.’
not everyone knows about the dictatorship of relativism (i sure don’t), so here it is from wikipedia:Sadly. This is a not unexpected answer. Such marriages are simply inventions and are not of the people, by the people or for the people. The Dictatorship of Relativism has been recognized for what it is.
There is real truth as opposed to novel invention.
Peace,
Ed
The various forms of the dissolution of matrimony today, like free unions, trial marriages and going up to pseudo-matrimonies by people of the same sex, are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man...from here it becomes all the more clear how contrary it is to human love, to the profound vocation of man and woman, to systematically close their union to the gift of life, and even worse to suppress or tamper with the life that is born.*It’s related by analogy. People are denied all kinds of opportunities (opportunities, not rights) because they are not part of a particular category or qualiicatoin necessary for that opportunity. Unless you’ve read the full document I referred to, there’s no point in drawing out the lengthy comparisons. The document says it better.when, pray tell, have you been denied a role or position because of your height or some other physical attribute? i know that it happens. many jobs will require that you are able to lift a certain amount of weight over your head, or whatever, but how specifically is this related to sexuality?
Read the docoument.also, how are you defining a natural union as opposed to an artificial one?
Incidentally, strictly speaking, Loving v. Virginia did no such thing. It identified heterosexual marriage as a fundamental right. Homosexual marriage was not on the table. Learn how the law works, how legal rulings work and how they’re defined, what the limits of legal rulings are as they are expressed. Loving v. Virginia did not redefine (expand) the definition of marriage.incidentally, strictly speaking, the us supreme court has identified marriage as a fundamental human right
i don’t have access to the full document you referred to, so if you would be so kind as to provide a link, i would be obliged.It’s related by analogy. People are denied all kinds of opportunities (opportunities, not rights) because they are not part of a particular category or qualiicatoin necessary for that opportunity. Unless you’ve read the full document I referred to, there’s no point in drawing out the lengthy comparisons. The document says it better.
Incidentally, strictly speaking, Loving v. Virginia did no such thing. It identified heterosexual marriage as a fundamental right. Homosexual marriage was not on the table. Learn how the law works, how legal rulings work and how they’re defined, what the limits of legal rulings are as they are expressed. Loving v. Virginia did not redefine (expand) the definition of marriage.
i don’t follow. what benefits are you referring to? in most states, mothers who abandon their children are required to pay child support to the father. in most states, mothers and fathers are treated equally under the law, although unfortunately it also depends on how good a lawyer you can afford.I may start a movement to give males the right to be called mother, and to enjoy any benefits given to mothers. The fact that we do not have the natural capability to give birth matters not. It’s equal protection, after all, regardless of natural impossibility.
No, I am saying that homosexual marriage is simply a contradiction in terms. Homosexuals do not have the natural capacity to marry (each other) because marriage requires a marital sexual relationship involving complementary sexual organs ordered to the production of the next generation. Consequently the state has an interest in marriage, because it has an interest in the preservation of the society and in the next generations of taxpayers. Counterfeit marriage does nothing for society.i don’t follow. what benefits are you referring to? in most states, mothers who abandon their children are required to pay child support to the father. in most states, mothers and fathers are treated equally under the law, although unfortunately it also depends on how good a lawyer you can afford.
i see what you are trying to do, is to say that men and women are different. you could go further and say that men are different from other men, and women from other women. you could go even further and say that every individual is a unique and beautiful snowflake.
now, your choice is how many of these snowflakes should have equal protection under the law: all, some or none. marriage is a civil right. it may have started as a religious sacrament during the bronze age in the middle east, but we are living in the post-industrial age in the west. marriage means two distinctly different things in both of these places. and unless you have a time machine, or plan on moving to one of the more backward theocracies, then i think you should get used to it.
but that’s just my advice, you don’t have to change your lifestyle or beliefs at all if you don’t want to. and that’s also my point: if gays are allowed to get married, you don’t have to change you beliefs or lifestyle if you don’t want to.
with all due respect, you are taking a very narrow view of what marriage is about. it isn’t only about having children and having sex. those things are undeniably part of most marriages, but it isn’t the end all of every marriage. further, you are citing canon law, but this discussion is about civil law. i have already provided counterexamples where your definition doesn’t hold true.No, I am saying that homosexual marriage is simply a contradiction in terms. Homosexuals do not have the natural capacity to marry (each other) because marriage requires a marital sexual relationship involving complementary sexual organs ordered to the production of the next generation.
i don’t know if i would agree with that last statement. i could see a scenario where the state could benefit from recognizing gay marriage, but you would have to admit that gays are people, in our society, and that society at large benefits through equality. that would be a long argument to make, but i think that it almost goes without saying.Consequently the state has an interest in marriage, because it has an interest in the preservation of the society and in the next generations of taxpayers. Counterfeit marriage does nothing for society.
again, this is only true if you use the rather narrow definition of marriage that you just made up. there are many other reasons that people may want to get married for, and you are not addressing them.Homosexual marriage is physically and naturally impossible. That is why it should not be recognized as marriage: it is not and never can be. Unlike even sterile heterosexual marriage, it is an ontological impossibility, just like me being a mother.
The link is also posted in the Moral Theology thread about “Gay love” (etc.) You don’t need more assistance than that. No one else has trouble accessing the document. It is also been posted twice before in different locations in the Social Justice subforum.i don’t have access to the full document you referred to, so if you would be so kind as to provide a link, i would be obliged.
your argument seems to me to boil down to “the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.” this a tautological argument, couched in an appeal to tradition. my argument for allowing gay marriage is threefold: denying gays their right to marriage harms them, denying gays the right to marry harms their children, and, allowing gays the right to marry does not harm anybody else or their marriage.
It’s not tautology, and it’s not about canon law. Read the linked document, which is based in philoosophy, logic, and the common good, not on religion. Because a fact is self-evident does not make it a tautology. Other than that, all your “arguments” have been refuted, in the link, and elsewhere on CAF discussions about non-specifically-religious arguments on this topic. That includes the so-called [artificial] rights, since genuine rights are also based on common understandings as opposed to self-proclaimed categories.if you can refute any of the above, then you will have made a stronger argument, but remember we are debating civil law, not canon law.
This is not currently the case with civil marriage. A woman past the menopause or who has had a hysterectomy can get married. A paraplegic can get married. A war veteran with an unfortunate injury can get married.No, I am saying that homosexual marriage is simply a contradiction in terms. Homosexuals do not have the natural capacity to marry (each other) because marriage requires a marital sexual relationship involving complementary sexual organs ordered to the production of the next generation.
It’s not about canon law, it’s about reality. Marriage has always been between opposite sexes since the beginning of civilization. That’s because it’s a natural institution. Trying to define something as other than what it is, always leads to bad effects. I could define plutonium as being the equivalent of sodium in the periodic table, in the interests of equality, but if anyone took it seriously the effects would be bad. To say that defining plutonium as sodium is a tautology, would be merely to ignore reality. The nature of marriage is also a reality; it has not and will not change.with all due respect, you are taking a very narrow view of what marriage is about. it isn’t only about having children and having sex. those things are undeniably part of most marriages, but it isn’t the end all of every marriage. further, you are citing canon law, but this discussion is about civil law. i have already provided counterexamples where your definition doesn’t hold true.
So, am I right to assume that you have no objections to homosexual ‘civil unions’ or ‘civil partnerships’ then because they do not use the actual word “marriage”?It’s not about canon law, it’s about reality. Marriage has always been between opposite sexes since the beginning of civilization. That’s because it’s a natural institution. Trying to define something as other than what it is, always leads to bad effects. I could define plutonium as being the equivalent of sodium in the periodic table, in the interests of equality, but if anyone took it seriously the effects would be bad. To say that defining plutonium as sodium is a tautology, would be merely to ignore reality. The nature of marriage is also a reality; it has not and will not change.
Jim, you are onto something very real here. Anyone who promotes same sex unions as the equivalent of marriage is showing that they have a very shallow understanding of Trinitarian theology and of the sacramental nature of creation, including and especially, the nature of man and woman as created by God.It’s not about canon law, it’s about reality. Marriage has always been between opposite sexes since the beginning of civilization. That’s because it’s a natural institution. Trying to define something as other than what it is, always leads to bad effects. I could define plutonium as being the equivalent of sodium in the periodic table, in the interests of equality, but if anyone took it seriously the effects would be bad. To say that defining plutonium as sodium is a tautology, would be merely to ignore reality. The nature of marriage is also a reality; it has not and will not change.
as to the argument that straight marriage is natural, you’re making an equivocation. natural doesn’t mean that some act results in or leads to procreation. if animals (including humans) are natural, and everything they do is natural, then gay sex is natural. over 450 species of animals have been observed to participate in homosexual sex, see here. however, of all of those species, only people seem to practice marriage. so by that reasoning, the institution of marriage is unnatural. but it’s irrelevant what people or animals do, because you are rather arbitrarily defining “natural” to mean what you want it to mean, not what it actually is.It’s not about canon law, it’s about reality. Marriage has always been between opposite sexes since the beginning of civilization. That’s because it’s a natural institution. Trying to define something as other than what it is, always leads to bad effects. I could define plutonium as being the equivalent of sodium in the periodic table, in the interests of equality, but if anyone took it seriously the effects would be bad. To say that defining plutonium as sodium is a tautology, would be merely to ignore reality. The nature of marriage is also a reality; it has not and will not change.
and i don’t understand how plutonium and sodium are going to march in the streets for their civil rights. you are straining the analogy. i’m talking about civil rights, you are referring to the periodic table. we might as well just be speaking two different languages.Deut 25:5-6 If brothers live together, and one of them dies and has no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry outside to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as a wife for himself, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And it shall be, the first-born whom she bears shall succeed in the name of his dead brother, so that his name may not be put out of Israel.
Deu 25:7 And if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate to the elders and say, My husband’s brother refuses to raise up a name in Israel to his brother. He will not perform my levirate.
Deu 25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. And if he stands and says, I do not desire to take her,
Deu 25:9 then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the presence of his elders, and take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done to that man who will not build up his brother’s house.
Deu 25:10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him who has his shoe taken off.