Homosexuality and marriage

[saintjoe]

Hi Joe, but that is your religious position. You can call it a sin, but why should that be an issue for the wider world who may follow different gods or no god.

I think you will find that laws banning homosexual behaviour and society making them outcasts and forcing them ‘underground’ and to meet in secret is very much ’ homosexuals sit at the back of the bus’ type inequality.

I was responding to the OP, who is Catholic. You are right though, taking a religious point of view is probably not the best approach when talking to nonbelievers.

It is easy for me to discuss sensitive issues with Christians, because of a common reference point. If I was going to discuss civil unions or same-sex marriage with an atheist (and I’m not particularly gifted at this), I would start the discussion by appealing to a natural order to the way things work. Everyone knows that stealing is wrong, taking an innocent life is wrong, and that nature intended a man to be joined to a woman to bring life into the world.

This natural order, or natural law, is absolute and can not be change, regardless of how far science has progressed. Just because babies can be created in test tubes, does not change the way nature intended the marital bond to be, just like I can not change the fact that 2+2=4. There are absolute truths in the world.

I would never be in favor of laws that take away our freedom or invade our bedroom privacy. And, I fully realize that same-sex couples want their views and lifestyle choice to be accepted by our culture, but marriage should not be redefined; it is the lifelong natural bond that brings life into the world.

 

[buffalo]

Whose 'revelations" should be embraced by the government and imposed upon it’s citizens?

Histories and the recording of God coming to meet man. Now be careful. In the beginning settlers came here to escape tyranny. So they had a choice, came to an agreement and the greatest country in the history of the world was born. We should be protecting this heritage. We have a choice - love it or leave it. If you stay you accept the basis of this country.

 

[Apolojez]

Here below (excerpts with link) is a very good reason for “No”…on civil unions…but the most important to me is in Christian charity in truth…legal contracts OK…but same sex unions as recognized “human unions” is a lie and uncharitable…to support a lie is uncharitable…even if the persons want to have it. We make these type decisions every day…decisions based on truth…not sentimentality or feelings…we do this in family life and civil life and in our religious faith based life.

Pax Christi

Sounds like where people feared the abolishment of slavery would eventually lead. Blacks would then want the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. Oh heavens no!

 

[Apolojez]

Bingo. And that is exactly why religion should inform government. Catholicism is a proposition and a great one at that. Government should not impose religion, but citizens should propose it to government. Man by himself is not capable of deciding these important questions and why Revelation is so important.

Homosexuals can exercise their free will choice. But to try and change basic definitions to do it?

Religion has no place in government IMO. Religion is an individual choice.

Gays can choose to marry but they still aren’t treated the same as a man and a woman are. It’s about simple equal treatment under the law.

 

[aprilfloyd]

I would start the discussion by appealing to a natural order to the way things work. Everyone knows that stealing is wrong, taking an innocent life is wrong, and that nature intended a man to be joined to a woman to bring life into the world.

I would contend that nature ‘expected’ heterosexual men and heterosexual women to join to procreate, but it also created homosexuality which does not procreate, but survives.

This natural order, or natural law, is absolute and can not be change, regardless of how far science has progressed. Just because babies can be created in test tubes, does not change the way nature intended the marital bond to be, just like I can not change the fact that 2+2=4. There are absolute truths in the world.

Not sure of your logic here. Don’t quite see how ‘nature’ in the common use of the word would create ‘marital bonds’. The human race nearly became extinct and there is no reason to assume that humans will remain at the ‘peak’ of evolution and not be superseded. There are no certainties.

I would never be in favor of laws that take away our freedom or invade our bedroom privacy. And, I fully realize that same-sex couples want their views and lifestyle choice to be accepted by our culture, but marriage should not be redefined; it is the lifelong natural bond that brings life into the world.

Interesting use of ‘lifestyle choice’. Would you view heterosexuality as a lifestyle choice.

 

[buffalo]

Religion has no place in government IMO. Religion is an individual choice.

Gays can choose to marry but they still aren’t treated the same as a man and a woman are. It’s about simple equal treatment under the law.

Does morality have a place in government? Ethics?

 

[buffalo]

Religion has no place in government IMO. Religion is an individual choice.

Gays can choose to marry but they still aren’t treated the same as a man and a woman are. It’s about simple equal treatment under the law.

It cannot be treated equal because by definition it isn’t.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Religion has no place in government IMO. Religion is an individual choice.

.

 

[saintjoe]

I would contend that nature ‘expected’ heterosexual men and heterosexual women to join to procreate, but it also created homosexuality which does not procreate, but survives.

Ok.

Not sure of your logic here. Don’t quite see how ‘nature’ in the common use of the word would create ‘marital bonds’. The human race nearly became extinct and there is no reason to assume that humans will remain at the ‘peak’ of evolution and not be superseded. There are no certainties.

My point is that marriage is natures intended bond between a man and a woman. And that this is an absolute truth that can not be redefined.

Interesting use of ‘lifestyle choice’. Would you view heterosexuality as a lifestyle choice.

Yes, we all have free will and live in a free country. We decide how to live our lives.

 

[buffalo]

Does truth exist?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

buffalo

**Does morality have a place in government? Ethics? **

Yes, it does. And morality is not the province of the Catholic Church only. This is not a matter of Catholics imposing their morality on others. It IS a matter of moral people imposing their morality on disgustingly immoral people. Catholic are not alone in being incensed by this complete lunacy before the Supreme Court. Catholics who don’t see this are incapable of reasoning through to the truth.

And there IS such a thing as the slippery slope. They used to argue for abortion only for cases of incest and rape. Now it is argued for anyone, including the wrong sex of the baby.

If same-sex marriage is approved by the Supreme Court, there will be no argument left for outlawing incestuous marriages or polygamy. And if we reach that point at last, there will be little enough morality left to continue outlawing sex between adults and children.

I hope never to live so long, but if the line is not held now, we will become a completely depraved people. Moreover, it will become, even more than it is now, open season on the character assassination of Catholics everywhere.

And most likely we will have a dominantly Catholic Supreme Court to thank for that.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Does truth exist?

What do yo mean? As a concept? An idea? Are you thinking of anything specific?

 

[RevDon]

It is so easy to label someone a bigot or racist. This is not about equal rights. I do not see signs that say “heterosexual toilets” or “homosexuals sit at the back of the bus”. This is about redefining the definition of marriage.

I have nothing against laws that allow people to grant legal rights to anyone they want; and anyone can freely choose to love who they what, but civil unions just encourage (or gives a cultural acceptance) to sin. We should not encourage people to live a sinful lifestyle, regardless if those people have different religious beliefs then us – because God is still the God who does not want sin in the world. Encouraging sinful acts is in itself a sin.

There has been a great deal of talk about redefining marriage, but I do not believe that is what the proponents of same-sex marriage are after. They want, I believe, to have relationships that are stable, loving, monogamous, sharing a household of life and love, perhaps with children. In other words, they want marriage that is the same as heterosexual marriage, with protections and privileges similar to those of heterosexual couples. The issue is not a change of definition; it is a change concerning who may have access to that institution.

 

[aprilfloyd]

buffalo

If same-sex marriage is approved by the Supreme Court, there will be no argument left for outlawing incestuous marriages or polygamy. And if we reach that point at last, there will be little enough morality left to continue outlawing sex between adults and children.
:

Whoa - Heterosexual marriage did not lead to the above. Why do you think homosexual marriage will? Why do so many people on these threads draw a line from homosexuality to incest or polygamy or child abuse?

 

[aprilfloyd]

There has been a great deal of talk about redefining marriage, but I do not believe that is what the proponents of same-sex marriage are after. They want, I believe, to have relationships that are stable, loving, monogamous, sharing a household of life and love, perhaps with children. In other words, they want marriage that is the same as heterosexual marriage, with protections and privileges similar to those of heterosexual couples. The issue is not a change of definition; it is a change concerning who may have access to that institution.

 

[RevDon]

buffalo

**Does morality have a place in government? Ethics? **

Yes, it does. And morality is not the province of the Catholic Church only. This is not a matter of Catholics imposing their morality on others. It IS a matter of moral people imposing their morality on disgustingly immoral people. Catholic are not alone in being incensed by this complete lunacy before the Supreme Court. Catholics who don’t see this are incapable of reasoning through to the truth.

And there IS such a thing as the slippery slope. They used to argue for abortion only for cases of incest and rape. Now it is argued for anyone, including the wrong sex of the baby.

If same-sex marriage is approved by the Supreme Court, there will be no argument left for outlawing incestuous marriages or polygamy. And if we reach that point at last, there will be little enough morality left to continue outlawing sex between adults and children.

I hope never to live so long, but if the line is not held now, we will become a completely depraved people. Moreover, it will become, even more than it is now, open season on the character assassination of Catholics everywhere.

And most likely we will have a dominantly Catholic Supreme Court to thank for that.

Law is made for the protection of citizens. Where a danger of harm can be demonstrated, as in the case of sexual relationships with children, I would expect laws to prohibit it.
In some cultures polygamy is not only permitted, but is considered to be noble, especially in that it provides a haven for women and children who might otherwise be destitute. Those circumstances are different in our culture, where we might see the multiple-spouse arrangement as having some harmful outcomes. When legislation is sought to provide that arrangement with legal status, I hope a thorough study is made to consider all sides of the issue.
In terms of the current legislation, aside from rhetoric that claims harm to the society, I’m at a loss to come up with any real argument that shows harm to individuals or society (aside from the “I think it’s disgusting” claims). On the other hand, I don’t think it’s very hard to come up with a list of ways that individuals and society might benefit from same-sex marriage.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Law is made for the protection of citizens. Where a danger of harm can be demonstrated, as in the case of sexual relationships with children, I would expect laws to prohibit it.
In some cultures polygamy is not only permitted, but is considered to be noble, especially in that it provides a haven for women and children who might otherwise be destitute. Those circumstances are different in our culture, where we might see the multiple-spouse arrangement as having some harmful outcomes. When legislation is sought to provide that arrangement with legal status, I hope a thorough study is made to consider all sides of the issue.
In terms of the current legislation, aside from rhetoric that claims harm to the society, I’m at a loss to come up with any real argument that shows harm to individuals or society (aside from the “I think it’s disgusting” claims). On the other hand, I don’t think it’s very hard to come up with a list of ways that individuals and society might benefit from same-sex marriage.

RevDon - I like the cut of your jib

 

[RevDon]

Religion has no place in government IMO. Religion is an individual choice.

Gays can choose to marry but they still aren’t treated the same as a man and a woman are. It’s about simple equal treatment under the law.

I agree fully with the conclusion you draw regarding the issue of this string.
But I would say that I must disagree with you in terms of your conclusions on the place of religion in the public forum. Perhaps my argument on this is too nuanced, but here it is:

Religion is not individual, it is by definition the common understanding of a group. Religion is concerned with ultimate things, including the manner in which that group perceives a higher power, how that group perceives the relationship betweeh humanity and that higher power, and how that perception governs the way human beings relate to each other and to the natural world.

It is in that last part that ideas about what is good and what is bad come forth. As a society ponders those conclusions, it must deal with the fact that not all people will hold the same values, and that some actions by individuals may cause harm to themselves, to others, or to the natural world. Laws are made to define and outlaw actions of that kind.

While individuals may come to conclusions about what behaviors ought to be permitted and which ought to be outlawed, the values of religious groups hold some worth for the society, at least as a starting place for the conversation, since there is a long-standing tradition behind them.

In the issue at hand, religious people of good conscience have come down on both sides of the issue, and a common understanding of the religious content seems to be a long way off. Christianity, which seems to hold center-stage on this issue, has tenets that seem to impact on the conclusions that may be drawn other than the literal reading of a handful of passages from the Bible.

Government, on the other hand, need not be concerned about the reasoning behind the conclusions drawn by religious adherents. Government is the servant of the people, and in the United Stated, we have established a basis for government that favors the protection of the individual even when the manority are in disagreement with the ideas or behaviors of the individuals, as long as there is no harm done to self, others or the natural world.

 

[buffalo]

What do yo mean? As a concept? An idea? Are you thinking of anything specific?

Can anything be true?

 

[buffalo]

There has been a great deal of talk about redefining marriage, but I do not believe that is what the proponents of same-sex marriage are after. They want, I believe, to have relationships that are stable, loving, monogamous, sharing a household of life and love, perhaps with children. In other words, they want marriage that is the same as heterosexual marriage, with protections and privileges similar to those of heterosexual couples. The issue is not a change of definition; it is a change concerning who may have access to that institution.

They cannot have the same thing heterosexual marriage has, by definition.