Homosexual civil unions

[Elizabeth502]

lucky for me, i don’t have to think about it, because the supreme court has already ruled otherwise. it was first recognized as a “fundamental right” in loving v virginia.

Just one more repeated fiction and distortion from the gay lobby. *Loving v. Virginia *recognized the fundamental right of heterosexual marriage. This was a heterosexual marriage being decided. The whole concept of interracial marriage was thoroughly covered in the linked document I have referred to several times and made available to this poster. There is no connection between Loving v. Virginia and homosexual “marriage.” It’s an artificial, manufactured connection non-existent in legal argument.

something you seem to be missing is that gay people are just like you and me and everyone else. they want basically the same things as everyone else,

A want is not a right. Never has been. Never will be, legally.

with love and acceptance ranking near the top.

No legal guarantee to love and acceptance. Zero. Nilch. Another “created” legal argument, born from emotion, not law, least of all constitutional law.

but the stigma attached to who they are, by bigots and homophobes and people that quietly assent to that discrimination, forces many gay people into dangerous and undesirable positions, just as it would force any other normal person to the brink.

Ah yes. Let’s use that argument (I’m sure a clever, creative criminal defense attorney will) the next time a murderer claims that out of frustration (not achieving sufficient “love and acceptance”) he murdered someone, held someone hostage, etc. because he was “forced to the brink.” In fact, many murderers allege precisely that. And in the civil arena as well, frustration over lack of love is not a legal justification for usurping rights given to others, demanding rights, or asserting rights not granted in the founding documents or existing legal decisions.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

“…supreme court has already ruled otherwise…”
Aaah, the government giveth the government taketh.

First, this is the problem when the rights of people are rooted in humaity and not God. When humans assert what is right and wrong, anything goes.

Also, I define a right as being able to do what one OUGHT to do and not as one WANTS to do. This is grounded in the pursuit of happiness. Now, happiness does not relate to a momentary pursiut of pleasure and need not even involve emotion. Pursuing what will really make you happy is what is TRULY good in and of itself. And the only thing good in and of itself is God and qualities in His nature. To do anything other than the latter mentioned items is to do what is bad for you, and thus leads to UNHAPPINESS.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

I also have some interesting tidbits.

"Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”
townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2008/05/26/gay_marriage_even_liberals_know_its_bad/page/2

I always hear things like “How does what THEY(gays) do affect you or your family?”
Well, for one, they already want to incorporate “sensitivity” courses in schools to explain different types of “families”. So, by teaching my kids who will be in school this, there is already an affect on my fmaily, I don’t want my kids to learn that content, and be taught the gay lifestyle is acceptable.
To go further, once there is MAINSTREAM acceptance of gay lifestyles and/or “families”, then, it will fundamentally alter the definition of marriage and relationships EVEN FURTHER. Liberal divorce laws and cotraception/abortion on demand has produced genertaions of impoverished unwed mothers. What will this novel understanding do to the already fragile state of marriage? I may be on a slippery slope, but we seem to be headed in the wrong direction incredibly.

 

[z0wb13]

Ah yes. Let’s use that argument (I’m sure a clever, creative criminal defense attorney will) the next time a murderer claims that out of frustration (not achieving sufficient “love and acceptance”) he murdered someone, held someone hostage, etc. because he was “forced to the brink.” In fact, many murderers allege precisely that. And in the civil arena as well, frustration over lack of love is not a legal justification for usurping rights given to others, demanding rights, or asserting rights not granted in the founding documents or existing legal decisions.

you are misrepresenting what i said. i was not making a legal argument, rather i was responding to the charge that “gay people only want to get married for legal and moral acceptance” which i think it actually quite correct. what you are doing is essentially quote mining, and it’s weak support for your position, also.

but in the civil arena, how does expanding marriage rights to gay people usurp your rights? furthermore, how do you think black people were given their civil rights? it was through fighting for their rights. that’s how it works. this founding documents argument is ridiculous, because nobody in their right mind would actually want to go back to the constitution as it was originally written (women can’t vote, black people are actually only worth 3/5th of a person).

@UnworthyApostle: Stanley Kurtz isn’t a reliable source. his methodology is all jacked up, see here and here. how does gay marriage affect out of wedlock births?

The main evidence Kurtz points to [supporting his theory that gay marriage is the end of the world] is the increase in cohabitation rates among unmarried heterosexual couples and the increase in births to unmarried mothers. Roughly half of all children in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are now born to unmarried parents. In Denmark, the number of cohabiting couples with children rose by 25 percent in the 1990s. From these statistics Kurtz concludes that " … married parenthood has become a minority phenomenon," and—surprise—he blames gay marriage.
But Kurtz’s interpretation of the statistics is incorrect. Parenthood within marriage is still the norm—most cohabitating couples marry after they start having children. In Sweden, for instance, 70 percent of cohabiters wed after their first child is born. Indeed, in Scandinavia the majority of families with children are headed by married parents. In Denmark and Norway, roughly four out of five couples with children were married in 2003. In the Netherlands, a bit south of Scandinavia, 90 percent of heterosexual couples with kids are married.

as to your fear that your children learn that there are gay people, it’s just a fact. your children will also learn that there is no santa claus, but i think they will weather that storm, too. but how exactly is it bad for society if all of our kids learn to accept people for who they are? it won’t turn them gay, and it doesn’t affect their chances of getting to heaven. i mean, you can’t save everybody, so if a few gays slip through the cracks, how does that affect your personal salvation? that’s something i don’t understand about this debate, is how straight people (that think they don’t know any gay people) are so emotionally involved in a topic that doesn’t affect their life at all.

First, this is the problem when the rights of people are rooted in humaity and not God. When humans assert what is right and wrong, anything goes.

anything does go, you just want it to go your way. see, you (a human) are trying to assert what is right and wrong, but you want to have the added weight of god on your side. well, let me appeal to the great juju of the mountain, and we’ll call it a wash, and now we have to debate the topic in earthly terms, since the discussion is on civil law and not canon law or catholic principles. i’m not asking catholic people to change their attitudes, i’m trying to debate civil, secular, gay marriage.

i’ll recap: denying gay people the right to marry hurts them, hurts their children, and does not hurt the institution of marriage or those already married. those are the three points i’m making in favor.

as far as i can tell, the opposition is that gay marriage is unnatural (refuted through other examples), marriage isn’t a right (refuted by the us supreme court), that gay marriage will lead to more divorces (refuted through empirical evidence), that gay marriage is bad for children (refuted through more empirical evidence), and that god hates sin (probably true, but irrelevant to the topic of civil law).

@Elizabeth502: the courts don’t say “heterosexual marriage.” you are making that up. it is not the case. here are links to the decisions that call marriage a “fundamental right” without qualification. the word “heterosexual” does not appear at all in any of those 3 decisions, but fundamental appears over and over again. so you have to concede the point in the interest of honest debate (or, you could argue that it was assumed, though not implied, that the court was dealing with straight marriage, and then i’ll remind you how making assumptions can be silly). and please be assured that i’m not calling you dishonest, i am using it in a narrowly defined way related to debate:

There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
i’m only speaking anecdotally, but most or all of the gay people i’ve met would choose a stable, monogamous relationship …

Your “anecdotal” account or experience is just that – anecdotal and therefore unverifiable. Studies paint a different picture, however, as this one from the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality by the San Francisco State University.

*New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”*

From Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret

Of note, here is a link to a study on 86 gay couples titled Beyond Monogamy by Blake Spears and Lance Lowen, a same sex couple who attest to the fact that non-monogamous relationships are very common in the gay community.

In addition, elsewhere in the world where countries are ahead in the gay marriage experiment, statistics do not favor the claims you and others are making in touting gay marriage: Statistics - same-sex relationships and homosexuality. It is a snapshot of how “stable” gay couples are, with data on number of partners and length of gay relationships at the end of the compilation. Notice that the data is not consistent to your view of the stability and monogamy of gay relationships.

Finally, here is another link to a study titled Demographics of Same Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden. Abstract here.

Patterns in divorce risks are rather similar in same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, but divorce-risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages. The divorce risk for female partnerships is double that for male partnerships.
,

 

[z0wb13]

Your “anecdotal” account or experience is just that – anecdotal and therefore unverifiable.

true, i don’t think anecdotal evidence is good support for anything.

In addition, elsewhere in the world where countries are ahead in the gay marriage experiment, statistics do not favor the claims you and others are making…

i’ll reiterate my position: denying gay people the right to marry hurts them, hurts their children, and does not hurt the institution of marriage or those already married.

you have sourced yourself, but what does it prove? how is any of it a good argument against gay marriage? i’m not being flippant, i just don’t see the connection.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

How to answer the claim that homosexuals having civil unions, but not marriages in separate, but equal and therefore not equal?

I’m wondering how to respond to that charge.

This essay by Rick Garlikov may not completely help you in responding to the charge that homosexual civil unions are separate, but equal, and therefore not equal. We can thank the Masschussets Supreme Court in part for its opinion when it allowed same sex marriage in 2003, and finding that homosexual civil unions are not sufficient: “The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.” But the fight is far from over, as we can see the battle for and against gay marriage playing out state by state.

Mr. Garlikov raised how linguistics, legality and psychology (with psychology being quite complicated) are factors in debating the matter.

Excerpts from the linked essay:…
For most people in our society, marriage is not about two people simply living together and having some sort of family or economic partnership, but it is about publically legitimizing their right to have private, mutually consenting sex. And many people in America do not think it is right for society to condone or give consent to the legalization of homosexuality because they believe homosexuality to be morally wrong. Even many of those who do not want to punish homosexuality or make it a crime do not wish to promote it or publicly authorize it as merely an acceptable choice, because they do not want to encourage children to be or become homosexual if role modeling or (the appearance of) social acceptance has anything to do with that.
…
Even if same-sex couples win the right to the word “marriage”, heterosexuals will just find some other way to designate the distinction between same-sex marriage and what they will consider to be “real” marriages or what has commonly been referred to simply as “marriage” until some challenged the use of normal language. The law can appropriate a term to mean anything it wants in legal contexts, and unfortunately, to the detriment of clarity and social usefulness, it often does. But it cannot successfully tell people what words ought to mean in ordinary language, unless we want to have grammar police with greater enforcement powers than schoolteachers.
A good many (not just faithful Catholics) oppose same sex marriage although there may be softness with some towards homosexual unions as the option affords a middle ground. This is the direction that Mr. Garlikov is suggesting. He thinks “civil unions” should suffice and legally be exactly like marriage, but they just won’t culturally be exactly like marriage or have the term apply. He gave his reasons at the end.
,

 

[z0wb13]

@Grace: i read the article, and i didn’t find it convincing. i took a portion of it and replaced “gay” or “homosexual” with [interracial] and “heterosexual” with [traditional] to point out how ridiculous it is.

From a linguistic standpoint, their solution will not help, since no matter what we call it, [interracial] marriages will not be the same as [traditional] marriages to people who do not see them as the same, and if “marriage” becomes a term applicable to [interracial] couples, those who oppose such unions will either add an adjective or use a different word altogether to distinguish them from what they consider proper unions.

and so what? the majority of people might think chocolate is better than vanilla. does that make all the vanilla people wrong? why should they care about the opinions of chocolate people?

but you didn’t quote that passage, so no need to defend it. but this one you did quote

For most people in our society, marriage is not about two people simply living together and having some sort of family or economic partnership, but it is about publically legitimizing their right to have private, mutually consenting sex. And many people in America do not think it is right for society to condone or give consent to the legalization of homosexuality because they believe homosexuality to be morally wrong. Even many of those who do not want to punish homosexuality or make it a crime do not wish to promote it or publicly authorize it as merely an acceptable choice, because they do not want to encourage children to be or become homosexual if role modeling or (the appearance of) social acceptance has anything to do with that.

are people seriously worried that if gay people where treated as normal that there would be some rush to homosexuality by the youth? and just because a majority of people find it immoral, so what? is there a crime or a victim i’m not seeing? and since when does anybody want the government to police the bedroom? people do a lot of weird stuff in there, and what kind of creeper is going to be sitting at a view screen deciding what passes for normal?

i appreciate that you are trying to prove your point with citations. you seem very thoughtful, and you obviously read a lot. but what is the point that you are making against gay marriage? i go back to my chocolate/vanilla analogy. the chocolates might say that vanillas don’t have as discerning a pallet, and that if they only knew better they would come around. but the vanillas won’t care.

i don’t understand the charge that people are going to have to condone gay marriage. people don’t have to condone any marriage, in that they don’t have to personally approve of it. so what? i might not my friend/sibling/parent/etc. to marry so and so because i think they are a real dirt bag, but i don’t think there should be a law against it. gay marriage advocates are seeking equal protection under the law, it doesn’t matter what some people might think about it.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

true, i don’t think anecdotal evidence is good support for anything.

i’ll reiterate my position: denying gay people the right to marry hurts them, hurts their children, and does not hurt the institution of marriage or those already married.

you have sourced yourself, but what does it prove? how is any of it a good argument against gay marriage? i’m not being flippant, i just don’t see the connection.

The research by same sex couple Spears and Lowen is especially damaging to your claim about the stability and monogamy of gay couples.

If you have not read this excellent piece, What is Marriage?
Robert George, Sherif Girgis, & Ryan T. Anderson please do. It addresses your question which I underlined. Btw, it appeared in the Harvard Law Journal in December 2010. It’s not like Slate or the Huffington Post which you cited in criticizing Dr. Stanley Kurtz in your earlier post. Not shabby, that Dr. Kurtz, holding among other credentials a PhD in social anthropology, also from Harvard. But I guess I’m not surprised his articles would not impress ardent supporters of gay marriage.

If you don’t see the connection of the counter argument to yours in the studies provided, I’m sorry to say that that would be your problem. You are not the first one to come to this forum (you still know this is a Catholic forum, right?) who insists on proving that the position of Catholics on gay marriage need revising.

I am curious, however, of your claim that gays are hurt and their children are hurt if they are “denied” their “right” to marry. What would be the basis of such a claim?

Peace.
,

 

[MaxTH]

Firstly, the condition of opposite sexes is not universal;there are already places in America and elsewhere where two people of the same sex can get married.
rossum

The fact is that at no time in all of recorded human history, not even in pagan Rome and Greece at their most depraved, had a culture, society, or civilization so taken a complete leave of it’s senses that it actually entertained the notion that two men sodomizing each other could be a marriage. That is, until the last few years.

Homosexuality is one of the greatest evils ever spat out of Hell, and is one of the 4 great sins that “cry out to Heaven for vengeance” according to the Church.

But as stated here, I do not oppose “homosexual marriage” for the same reason:
bedlamorparnassus.blogspot.com/2011/02/i-do-not-oppose-gay-marriage.html

 

[z0wb13]

I am curious, however, of your claim that gays are hurt and their children are hurt if they are “denied” their “right” to marry. What would be the basis of such a claim?

here 's a list, from pediatrics:

For same-gender couples and their children, enactment of marriage amendments halts the possibility of obtaining many legal and financial rights, benefits, and protections such as:

legal recognition of the couple’s commitment to and responsibility for one another;​

legal recognition of joint parenting rights when a child is born or adopted;​

legal recognition of a child’s relationship to both parents;​

joint or coparent adoption (in most states);​

second-parent adoption (in most states);​

foster parenting (in some states);​

eligibility for public housing and housing subsidies;​

ability to own a home as “tenants by the entirety” (ie, a special kind of property ownership for married couples through which both spouses have the right to enjoy the entire property, and when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets title to the property [in some states]);​

protection of marital home from creditors (in some states);​

automatic financial decision-making authority on behalf of one’s partner;​

access to employer-based health insurance and other benefits for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children (considered a taxable benefit for same-gender couples by the Internal Revenue Service, which is not the case for married heterosexual couples);​

access to spouse benefits under Medicare and certain Medicaid benefits (spouses are considered essential to individuals receiving Medicaid benefits and, therefore, are eligible for medical assistance themselves; family coverage programs would deny coverage to same-gender partners and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children);​

ability to enroll nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children in public and medical assistance programs;​

ability of both parents to consent to medical care or authorize emergency medical treatment for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;​

ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated or ailing partner;​

recognition as next of kin for the purpose of visiting partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child in hospitals or other facilities;​

ability to take advantage of the federal Family Medical Leave Act to care for a sick partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;​

ability to obtain life insurance (because of findings of no insurable interest in one’s partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child);​

ability to obtain joint homeowner and automobile insurance policies and take advantage of family discounts;​

recognition as an authority in educational settings to register a child for school, be involved in a child’s education plan, and provide consent on waivers and sign permission forms;​

ability to travel with a child if it will require proof of being a legal parent;​

access to spousal benefits of worker’s compensation;​

ability to file joint income tax returns and take advantage of family-related deductions;​

privilege afforded to married heterosexual couples that protects one spouse from testifying against another in court;​

immigration and residency privileges for partners and children from other countries;​

protections and compensation for families of crime victims (state and federal programs);​

access to the courts for a legally structured means of dissolution of the relationship (divorce is not recognized because marriage is not recognized);​

visitation rights and/or custody of children after the dissolution of a partnership;​

children’s rights to financial support from and ongoing relationships with both parents should the partnership be dissolved;​

legal standing of one partner if a child is removed from the legal/adoptive parent and home by child protective services;​

domestic violence protections such as restraining orders;​

automatic, tax- and penalty-free inheritance from a deceased partner or parent of shared assets, property, or personal items by the surviving partner and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;​

children’s right to maintain a relationship with a nonbiological/not-jointly-adopting parent in the event of the death of the other parent;​

surviving parent’s right to maintain custody of and care for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;​

Social Security survivor benefits for a surviving partner and children after the death of one partner;​

exemptions from property tax increases in the event of the death of a partner (offered in some states to surviving spouses);​

automatic access to pensions and other retirement accounts by surviving partner;​

access to deceased partner’s veteran’s benefits;​

ability to roll deceased partner’s 401(k) funds into an individual retirement account without paying up to 70% of it in taxes and penalties; and​

right to sue for wrongful death of a deceased partner.​

 

[MaxTH]

bedlamorparnassus.blogspot.com/2011/02/i-do-not-oppose-gay-marriage.html

[T]he advent of same-sex marriage has transformed marriage from a pre-political institution conferring “divine and human rights,” as the Roman jurist Modestinus put it, into a mere legal construct at the gift and disposal of the state.

Replaced by a kaleidoscope of transient sexual and psychological configurations, which serve chiefly to make children of adults and adults of children, the declining family is ceding enormous tracts of social and legal territory to the state. At law, parent-child relationships are losing their a priori status and privilege. Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact.

---

It cannot be stated too often or too strongly, homosexuality is one of the greatest evils ever spat out of Hell, which is why the Church states that it is one of the 4 great sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance, and is both a sign, and a symptom, of the destruction and disintegration of marriage and the family.

 

[z0wb13]

The research by same sex couple Spears and Lowen is especially damaging to your claim about the stability and monogamy of gay couples.

i’ll concede your facts. but what connection is there to then denying marriage rights? look at these statistics:

-In 2008, only 32 percent of blacks were married.
-72 percent of black women giving birth were unmarried.
-52 percent of black children were being raised in single-parent homes. (Contrast that with 27 percent of Hispanic children and 18 percent of white children.)
-Only 32 percent of black children are being raised in a home with two married parents; 6 percent were living with unmarried partners, and 10 percent with no parents at all.

so given these figures, would you conclude that black people shouldn’t be allowed to get married? of course not. but the numbers are comparable to the ones that you listed, so why the double standard? i don’t see how high rates of divorce or infidelity are related to equal rights issues.

You are not the first one to come to this forum (you still know this is a Catholic forum, right?) who insists on proving that the position of Catholics on gay marriage need revising.

if catholics want to think one thing or another is a sin, that’s their prerogative. but why should everyone else have to live by those rules, especially when catholics are a minority (~22%) in the US? there might be reasons, compelling reasons, why gay marriage should be illegal, and i figured that this would be a good forum to educate myself about what the objections to it are.

that “piece” that you linked to is more like a short book. i haven’t read all of it, admittedly. but here are somethings that caught my eye:

…a mistaken marriage policy tends to distort people’s understanding of the kind of relationship that spouses are to form and sustain. And that likely erodes people’s adherence to marital norms that are essential to the common good.

this is demonstrably false, and it is basically the heart of the argument. massachusetts, gay marriage ground zero, has a lower divorce rate than states that have enacted bans on gay marriage.

Because children fare best on most indicators of health and wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents, the further erosion of marital norms would adversely affect children

this is also demonstrably false. it might sound good, as most platitudes do, but it isn’t true. children that grow up in gay households fare no better or worse than other children in 2 parent households.

Because interpersonal unions are valuable in themselves, and not merely as means to other ends, a husband and wife’s loving bodily union in coitus and the special kind of relationship to which it is integral are valuable whether or not conception results and even when conception is not sought. But two men or two women cannot achieve organic bodily union since there is no bodily good or function toward which their bodies can coordinate, reproduction being the only candidate.

this is arrogant nonsense. what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. the article goes on to make a baseball analogy to make exceptions for infertile couples. the argument is basically the same as “gay sex is unnatural.” it doesn’t pass mustard for me, because there have been gay people for as long as we know, and there are gay animals besides people. so if you are going to use some definition of “natural” that i’m not familiar with, and doesn’t appear in a dictionary, then you need to define it more explicitly for me.

there is no qualification that marriages have to be only for the purpose of procreation. people in prison are allowed to get married, and if there are no conjugal visits, there is no consummation. but the supreme court protects this kind of marriage.

It’s not like Slate or the Huffington Post which you cited in criticizing Dr. Stanley Kurtz in your earlier post. Not shabby, that Dr. Kurtz, holding among other credentials a PhD in social anthropology, also from Harvard. But I guess I’m not surprised his articles would not impress ardent supporters of gay marriage.

his articles fail because the conclusions that he reaches are not supported by his evidence. marriage rates had begun to decline before gay civil unions were recognized. furthermore, he was misleading when he used the term “de facto gay marriages” to describe scandinavian registered partnerships, when in fact they afforded even less protections than civil unions in the US.

 

[MaxTH]

i don’t see how high rates of divorce or infidelity are related to equal rights issues.

Do you know who does not believe that sodomizing other men and boys is the same thing as being a person of color? People of color.

if catholics want to think one thing or another is a sin, that’s their prerogative. but why should everyone else have to live by those rules, especially when catholics are a minority (~22%) in the US? there might be reasons, compelling reasons, why gay marriage should be illegal, and i figured that this would be a good forum to educate myself about what the objections to it are.

In the 32 times that the people have been asked to vote on whether or not government has the authority to change the definition of marriage to something that it has never meant in all of human history, the vote as always been no.

this is also demonstrably false. it might sound good, as most platitudes do, but it isn’t true. children that grow up in gay households fare no better or worse than other children in 2 parent households.

Actually, there are studies that deny that. And no child should be forced to live, or be in any way exposed, to homosexual sodomy “lifestyle”.

there is no qualification that marriages have to be only for the purpose of procreation.

If fundamental principles are arbitrary, then subordinate principles are then also arbitrary.
The fact is that if marriage can be changed to mean something it never has, then it can be changed to mean anything at all. In fact, any word can be changed to mean anything at all which in fact is the very goal of post-modern deconstructionism.

“The decision also does not stand the test of common sense. It is hardly “discrimination” to say that a husband and a wife have a unique and singular relationship that two persons of the same sex—or any unmarried persons—simply do not and cannot have. Nor is it “discrimination” to believe that the union of husband and wife has a distinctive and exclusive significance worthy of promotion and protection by the state. It is not “discrimination” to say that having both a mother and a father matters to and benefits a child. Nor is it “discrimination” to say that the state has more than zero interest in ensuring that children will be intimately connected with and raised by their mother and father.”

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=9484

 

[z0wb13]

It cannot be stated too often or too strongly, homosexuality is one of the greatest evils ever spat out of Hell, which is why the Church states that it is one of the 4 great sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance, and is both a sign, and a symptom, of the destruction and disintegration of marriage and the family.

why should people that aren’t christians care? and what kind of vengeance would you call for? i’d have to say i prefer the “hate the sin, not the sinner” crowd, even if i find that attitude slightly demeaning. at least i could get along with them.

is that somewhere in the gospels, the 4 sins that cry to heaven for vengeance? i thought the whole “turn the other cheek” thingy was about pacifism.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.

@MaxTH: this thread is about civil law, not cannon law. i’m sure that your opinions would be appreciated on other threads, but i don’t see how it adds to the discussion here. you mentioned one thing that i might be able to address

Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact.

true, marriage is a state artifact, if you mean it’s a legal institution. that’s why non-religious people can get married, even if it’s for all the wrong reasons. that’s why people have to register their marriages in a courthouse if they want to take advantage of the protections afforded by the law. i posted a big list describing these protections here.

i don’t see how gay marriage rights is related to slavery (chattel means slave, i had to look it up).

 

[MaxTH]

why should people that aren’t christians care?

catholicexchange.com/2010/11/02/140232/

Let’s say you wanted to “marry” your Dad, and also perhaps your lawn mower, anyone with even the slightest sense would say, “Friend, that is not what a marriage is.” What you are saying is that you believe that the State can change the meaning of a word to anything it wishes. You are saying that the term “marriage” can quite simply mean anything anyone wants it to mean and the force and coercion of the State must be used to pound nay-sayers into submission.

The reason people use the slippery slope argument is because it cannot be logically refuted.

 

[z0wb13]

Do you know who does not believe that sodomizing other men and boys is the same thing as being a person of color? People of color.

please read what i was responding too. if you want to have an honest debate, don’t misrepresent my arguments, or it will be a literal impossibility. i say this with all due respect. thank you.

the claim against gay marriage was that lots of gay people (it was specified gay men) are promiscuous. i said fine, but then any group that can be shown to be promiscuous should be denied marriage rights, or else there would be a double standard. not that i believe that, either. i don’t see the relevance, because it is about individual rights, and if some gay people are monogamous, they shouldn’t be disallowed marriage rights because others aren’t.

In the 32 times that the people have been asked to vote on whether or not government has the authority to change the definition of marriage to something that it has never meant in all of human history, the vote as always been no.

this is an appeal to popularity. for thousands of years, people thought the sun revolved around the earth; it did not make it so. sometimes doing what’s right is unpopular.

Actually, there are studies that deny that. And no child should be forced to live, or be in any way exposed, to homosexual sodomy “lifestyle”.

link to these studies, or do something to back up your assertion. most evidence has concluded that children raised by gay parents turn out much the same as any other children raised in 2 parent households.

If fundamental principles are arbitrary, then subordinate principles are then also arbitrary. The fact is that if marriage can be changed to mean something it never has, then it can be changed to mean anything at all. In fact, any word can be changed to mean anything at all which in fact is the very goal of post-modern deconstructionism.

appeal to tradition. it is reminiscent of arguments against interracial marriage.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

"The decision also does not stand the test of common sense. It is hardly “discrimination” to say that a husband and a wife have a unique and singular relationship that two persons of the same sex—or any unmarried persons—simply do not and cannot have.

this is a nice piece of circular reasoning. “gay people can’t get married because it’s not legally recognized. it’s not legally recognized because they can’t get married.”

Nor is it “discrimination” to believe that the union of husband and wife has a distinctive and exclusive significance worthy of promotion and protection by the state.

if it violates the 14th amendment, there is a problem.

It is not “discrimination” to say that having both a mother and a father matters to and benefits a child. Nor is it “discrimination” to say that the state has more than zero interest in ensuring that children will be intimately connected with and raised by their mother and father."

you can say it, but evidence does not support the claim. two parent households fair better than single parent household. it doesn’t seem to matter who the parents are, be they biological parents, adoptive parents, etc.

also, i fail to see the need for the quotations around “discrimination.” i wonder if the author of that passage knows what they are for. not your fault.

 

[z0wb13]

The reason people use the slippery slope argument is because it cannot be logically refuted.

from wikipedia; “The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn’t a slippery slope fallacy.”

so how exactly did you get from gay to dad to lawnmower?

 

[rossum]

Do you know who does not believe that sodomizing other men and boys is the same thing as being a person of color? People of color.

Two points. Firstly, are you asking for automatic divorce if a heterosexual couple indulge in anal sex? Secondly, am I correct to assume that you have no objection to two women getting married because they will be even more unlikely to indulge in sodomy than heterosexual males?

In the 32 times that the people have been asked to vote on whether or not government has the authority to change the definition of marriage to something that it has never meant in all of human history, the vote as always been no.

There remains the question as to whether or not the outcome of those votes is constitutional. I would also point out that those votes have been a lot closer than they would have been twenty-five or fifty years ago. The anti gay marriage side is losing ground in the long term.

Actually, there are studies that deny that. And no child should be forced to live, or be in any way exposed, to homosexual sodomy “lifestyle”.

You have this obsession with “homosexual sodomy”. What about heterosexual sodomy? What about lesbians who do not indulge in sodomy? You are using an emotive but very narrow argument.

The fact is that if marriage can be changed to mean something it never has, then it can be changed to mean anything at all.

Civil marriage has been changed many times, for example in Loving v Virginia. You have already lost this argument. Civil marriage can be, and has been, changed. It is a civil legal matter and can be changed under the Constitution.

rossum

 

[MaxTH]

p .
the claim against gay marriage was that lots of gay people (it was specified gay men) are promiscuous. i said fine, but then any group that can be shown to be promiscuous should be denied marriage rights, or else there would be a double standard. not that i believe that, either. i don’t see the relevance, because it is about individual rights, and if some gay people are monogamous, they shouldn’t be disallowed marriage rights because others aren’t.

Well first off, statistically speaking, no group is more promiscuous than homosexuals. That point cannot not even be debated.
And unless I missed it, you have not demonstrated where you believe this supposed “right” exists for those who engage in homosexual acts to same gender “marry”

this is an appeal to popularity. for thousands of years, people thought the sun revolved around the earth; it did not make it so. sometimes doing what’s right is unpopular.

The reason equating homosexual sodomy to a marriage is unpopular is because that is not what a marriage is. And if it goes against God’s law, then under what authority do you claim to call something “right”? But, no, it is not an “appeal to popularity” anymore than saying a man cannot marry his own son or daughter is an appeal to popularity.

link to these studies, or do something to back up your assertion. most evidence has concluded that children raised by gay parents turn out much the same as any other children raised in 2 parent households.

Your statement above about “most evidence” simply means that you in fact know that there is evidence that children raised by homosexuals do not in fact turn out the same.

appeal to tradition. it is reminiscent of arguments against interracial marriage.

Not to people of color it isn’t. As Colin Powell himself stated, skin color is a benign skin characteristic, while homosexual sodomy is conduct, and pretty damn disgusting conduct at that. To be so vile as to sodomize, or desire to be sodomized by another man, to be so without any honor or dignity, what kind of hell must that be?

this is a nice piece of circular reasoning. “gay people can’t get married because it’s not legally recognized. it’s not legally recognized because they can’t get married.”

No, it isn’t. Those who suffer from homosexual orientation disorder are not a “people”.
Homosexuality is no more the other side of the coin from heterosexuality than any other sexual deviancy. Simply put, there is what God intended, and then there is everything else. Pederasty, pedophilia, incest, homosexuality, necrophilia, beastiality, and so on.

f it violates the 14th amendment, there is a problem.

Well it clearly doesn’t so there is no problem.

you can say it, but evidence does not support the claim. two parent households fair better than single parent household. it doesn’t seem to matter who the parents are, be they biological parents, adoptive parents, etc.

If you are actually saying that there are no studies that indicate that children raised in a household with their mother and father “fair no better”, then, my friend, you cannot claim to have ever seriously investigated the matter.