Homosexuals Say Married Couples Required to Have Children

[Mirdath]

Homosexual union does not have societial benefits. It breaks down society.

Where, when, and how? Athens, Sparta, and Rome were all pretty okay with it, as I recall – and at least two of those are models upon which our state is based. And I was referring to the benefits given couples by society anyway. I can see how that could be ambiguous the way I worded it, though – and actually, I like that double meaning. From everything I’ve seen and experienced, it’s accurate in both senses.

No, they don’t follow. Your examples happen because of some type of tragedy, such as divorce or death. Homosexual unions are looking for a pro-active blessing. Quite different.

Should not tragedy be prevented, and do we not have laws in place to prevent it? Does not divorce run contrary to Church law – not a tragedy, but a sin?

rlg94086:

This is the crux of the matter. Who is supposed to make that change? When it is voted on by the people, the proposed changes are generally rejected. When the small groups of black robes sit in a room and decide, the changes are accepted.

Who is supposed to make that change? The people we elect, and the people those elected appoint. The people to whom we have given the mandate ‘go make and maintain our laws’ – ie, small groups of people in suits and black robes. It is how this society has agreed to be run; the Constitution is a contract between the people and the government.

Your proposal doesn’t make the question irrelevant, it only makes the majority preference irrelevant.

The government is there to represent minorities as well. Everybody has an equal voice – well, ideally – and equal rights. Under my proposal, civil union would be such a right. Marriage would be merely a ceremony from the government’s point of view, and out of its domain.

 

[john_ennis]

Hilarious and pointed, though the aim may be slightly off – as shown in this thread, plenty of people are for straight-only marriage not for reasons of procreation but for the simple idea that ‘God/the Church/the bible said so’.

I’d rather see the government keep its nose out of marriage entirely. Offer civil unions to any who want them for tax purposes, custody, inheritance rights, &c., but leave marriage up to the churches. Everybody wins.

If the government keeps its nose out entirely, then it will not impose on me any requirement to recognize who is and is not married. I can refuse to pay the taxes that support the “wrong” kind of marriages, to my way of thinking.

Peace.
John

 

[john_ennis]

Hilarious and pointed, though the aim may be slightly off – as shown in this thread, plenty of people are for straight-only marriage not for reasons of procreation but for the simple idea that ‘God/the Church/the bible said so’.

I’d rather see the government keep its nose out of marriage entirely. Offer civil unions to any who want them for tax purposes, custody, inheritance rights, &c., but leave marriage up to the churches. Everybody wins.

If they keep their nose out, then they require me in no way to recognize marriages I don’t want to recognize.

e.g., I don’t have to pay taxes that support the “wrong” kind of marriages. Sound practicable?

Peace.
John

 

[Potato1]

It is heartening to see that “the other side” is so desperate that this is what they have to come up with. faulted analogies bitter attacts and gimmick initiatives. It only shows how out of touch they are with not just God, not just what marriage really is but also the American public.

 

[mvinca]

Should not tragedy be prevented, and do we not have laws in place to prevent it? Does not divorce run contrary to Church law – not a tragedy, but a sin?

I obviously did not portray my point very well. You have situation A, where we promote the virtuous marriage, then sinful tragedy somes along with divorce. Situation B, requires first accepting the sinful tragedy of homosexual union. It isn’t about what is sinful and what is not, but what we are promoting in the first step. Situation A promotes a virtue, but is broken down by the sin. Situation B promotes the vice.

 

[Courtneyjo]

Where, when, and how? Athens, Sparta, and Rome were all pretty okay with it, as I recall – and at least two of those are models upon which our state is based. And I was referring to the benefits given couples by society anyway. I can see how that could be ambiguous the way I worded it, though – and actually, I like that double meaning. From everything I’ve seen and experienced, it’s accurate in both senses.

Athens, Rome and Sparta did not have the studies that we have today. Mary Jo Andersen writes an excellent column on this, and it has endnotes.

publicsquare.net/article/Neither-a-Marriage-Nor-a-Civil-Right-ar60.html

“Gay pairs do not establish healthy households.Domestic violence is staggering…Homosexuals are…more likely to commit suicide…add to that soaring rates of…disease…”

“The risk of sexual abuse for children in homosexual households is fifty times greater than for children raised by their biological parents.”

 

[mvinca]

Athens, Rome and Sparta did not have the studies that we have today. Mary Jo Andersen writes an excellent column on this, and it has endnotes.

publicsquare.net/article/Neither-a-Marriage-Nor-a-Civil-Right-ar60.html

“Gay pairs do not establish healthy households.Domestic violence is staggering…Homosexuals are…more likely to commit suicide…add to that soaring rates of…disease…”

“The risk of sexual abuse for children in homosexual households is fifty times greater than for children raised by their biological parents.”

In addition, to my limited understanding, Rome was the only in the example of three to have homosexual unions. The other two looked down upon same-age homosexual unions. Their unions were usually between a middle aged man and a young teen (in Sparta’s case, in the militia) and weren’t of any official status.

 

[Courtneyjo]

For a very long time now I have been thinking that Marriage is a sacrament. It has no place in our government which is a Seperation of Curch and State.

In my opinion, if the Government is preventing the term "Marriage’ from homosexuals, then they should prevent it from heterosexuals.
All government unions should be called Civil unions, since that is what they are.

All “Marriages” would be preformed at a church or in a religious service of your faith.

just my two cents.

This is a common misunderstanding, There is no requirement for “Seperation [sic] of Church and State.”

Article I of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

 

[rlg94086]

Who is supposed to make that change? The people we elect, and the people those elected appoint. The people to whom we have given the mandate ‘go make and maintain our laws’ – ie, small groups of people in suits and black robes. It is how this society has agreed to be run; the Constitution is a contract between the people and the government.

You are half right. Judges are not supposed to make changes in definitions and laws. If a state legislature passes a law and/or change to the state constitution and the governor signs it (assuming that is enough, in the case of an amendment), then they have done the people’s work.

Judges are supposed to judge according to the laws and the constitution (state and/or federal). The problem lately, is that people are using the judiciary to circumvent the will of the people.

Also, in some states the people can decide directly through propositions.

 

[Jennifer123]

I do greatly oppose this, but they do have a real point. We’re going to have to come up with a pretty good definition of legal marriage to block these sorts of things. There has to be a better way for them to point this out, though…

The problem is that it requires some logical reasoning, and the fact that they make a point of saying that social conservatives believe the sole purpose of marriage is for procreation, which is not true, shows to me that they are willingly ignoring arguments in favor of traditional marriage and instead want to manipulate people rather than engage on honest discussion.

 

[Mirdath]

If they keep their nose out, then they require me in no way to recognize marriages I don’t want to recognize.

e.g., I don’t have to pay taxes that support the “wrong” kind of marriages. Sound practicable?

Sounds just fine with me – because marriages, being relegated to a religious ceremony, won’t have anything to do with taxation!

Now, if you want to avoid paying taxes to support the ‘wrong’ kind of civil union – where do you want to draw the line? Should it be required that you support interracial civil unions? Unions between people unable to bear children, whether heterosexual or not? Unions involving people who belong to religions you don’t approve of? If you don’t feel you should support society, why should it support you in return?

mvinca:

I obviously did not portray my point very well. You have situation A, where we promote the virtuous marriage, then sinful tragedy somes along with divorce. Situation B, requires first accepting the sinful tragedy of homosexual union. It isn’t about what is sinful and what is not, but what we are promoting in the first step. Situation A promotes a virtue, but is broken down by the sin. Situation B promotes the vice.

I’m afraid sin is not a legal concept.

CourtneyJo:

Athens, Rome and Sparta did not have the studies that we have today. Mary Jo Andersen writes an excellent column on this, and it has endnotes.

There are studies going both ways for longer than I have the patience to read. Let’s cut straight to the end result: Rome established a civilization lasting for centuries, whose works we still look upon with awe, whose history is an integral part of ours. Ditto Athens; Sparta not so much. Studies or no studies, they had a pretty good run of it and did not collapse from within due to homosexuality.

"Gay pairs do not establish healthy households.

Bull. Just one example is sufficient to disprove this, and I’ve known several.

Domestic violence is staggering…Homosexuals are…more likely to commit suicide…add to that soaring rates of…disease…"

Wow, suicide, disease, and domestic violence are rampant in all kinds of relationships. Big news there – maybe if they weren’t discriminated against they’d have less to be suicidal about, hm?

Nice ellipses, by the way.

“The risk of sexual abuse for children in homosexual households is fifty times greater than for children raised by their biological parents.”

That’s an amazingly convenient round number there. I don’t believe it for a second.

Did you know that most same-sex child molesters actually profess to be straight?

rlg94086:

You are half right. Judges are not supposed to make changes in definitions and laws. If a state legislature passes a law and/or change to the state constitution and the governor signs it (assuming that is enough, in the case of an amendment), then they have done the people’s work.

Judges interpret the law, and by that interpretation can force changes or even elimination of specific laws. The legislator passes, the governor signs, and the judge doesn’t challenge it – then the politicians have done the peoples’ work.

 

[Maranatha]

If they do, then make single motherhood illegal. Force everyone to live in plastic hamster-bubbles to avoid the possibility of making widows or widowers before the children attain majority. These follow naturally, do they not?

I applaud your consistency

If childless heterosexual couples and (childless) homosexual couples were considered on the same civil level by the government, with rights such as hospital visitation and inheritance, and the tax breaks and other goodies came when children started appearing, would you be satisfied?

Homosexual’s do not have a natural right to raise offspring because they are not naturally compatible to produce offspring.

Children have the natural right to a father and mother because that’s the way it is setup in nature. Sometimes, children don’t get to enjoy this right but that is the failing of society not nature.

If consistency is a hobgoblin, then I must have a little mind.

 

[Mirdath]

Homosexual’s do not have a natural right to raise offspring because they are not naturally compatible to produce offspring.

Children have the natural rights to a father and mother because that’s the way it is setup in nature. Sometimes, children don’t get to enjoy this right but that is the failing of society not nature.

That’s a whole separate issue (or several), care to take it to another thread? I think there’s one going over in Moral Theology right now.

 

[Maranatha]

That’s a whole separate issue (or several), care to take it to another thread? I think there’s one going over in Moral Theology right now.

The natural rights of children and state benefits given to marries couples are directly connected due to the state’s interest in building a vibrant healthy community.

 

[Courtneyjo]

There are studies going both ways for longer than I have the patience to read. Let’s cut straight to the end result: Rome established a civilization lasting for centuries, whose works we still look upon with awe, whose history is an integral part of ours. Ditto Athens; Sparta not so much. Studies or no studies, they had a pretty good run of it and did not collapse from within due to homosexuality.

Bull. Just one example is sufficient to disprove this, and I’ve known several.

Wow, suicide, disease, and domestic violence are rampant in all kinds of relationships. Big news there – maybe if they weren’t discriminated against they’d have less to be suicidal about, hm?

That’s an amazingly convenient round number there. I don’t believe it for a second.

Did you know that most same-sex child molesters actually profess to be straight?

Same-sex child molestors profess to be straight? No surprises there; they are in denial. Their actions speak louder than words.

Homosexual households are by definition unhealthy, since homosexual acts are disordered. And one example doesn’t disprove this. Exceptions to the rule don’t disprove the rule.

Did Rome ever study itself and the impact of homosexuality on its culture, marriages and children? Please give the citation.

The word “rampant” wasn’t used to refer to the high rate of suicide, disease and domestic violence among homosexuals, but it certainly applies.

Homosexuals have revealed their true agenda by the bill proposed in Washington state. They do indeed want to destroy marriage, as it says in black and white.

 

[Mirdath]

Same-sex child molestors profess to be straight? No surprises there; they are in denial. Their actions speak louder than words.

So far in denial, in fact, that they are often married with children of their own. And the people I am talking about freely express a preference for their own sex – except where children are concerned. So the people you’re so worried about, people trying to set up households with members of their own sex, aren’t even in this group at all.

Homosexual households are by definition unhealthy, since homosexual acts are disordered.

Then so is a household in which one member is overly scrupulous about sin – after all, it’s disordered. I don’t buy the homosexuality=disorder thing anyway, but that’s neither here nor there. People with illnesses and disorders are not automatically incapable of running or being a part of a functioning family.

And one example doesn’t disprove this. Exceptions to the rule don’t disprove the rule.

They do when the ‘rule’ is ‘all X is like Y’.

Did Rome ever study itself and the impact of homosexuality on its culture, marriages and children? Please give the citation.

If they did, it’s escaped my notice. Why would I need to provide them? Just from a quick glance at their history, one can see quite plainly that homosexuality was not a detrimental influence on their society – or, that if it was, its effect was totally negligible. That is the only point I was making, and it does not require ancient poll results to back it up.

Homosexuals have revealed their true agenda by the bill proposed in Washington state. They do indeed want to destroy marriage, as it says in black and white.

Their ‘true agenda’ is no more than equal rights under the law. This proposal exists merely to make a point, not to be passed into law – its proponents have said so themselves.

 

[Firefox]

Oops, I wasn’t specific enough… I mean, they have a real point about the idea that homosexuals shouldn’t marry because they can’t have children. I don’t mean they have a real point that they should marry, thus, “We need a good definition of marriage to block these sorts of things.” I totally rewrote my post before I put it in, and some words I had thought of didn’t get put in.

 

[blessedtoo]

Quote:
"Gay pairs do not establish healthy households.

Bull. Just one example is sufficient to disprove this, and I’ve known several.

Quote:
Domestic violence is staggering…Homosexuals are…more likely to commit suicide…add to that soaring rates of…disease…"

Wow, suicide, disease, and domestic violence are rampant in all kinds of relationships. Big news there – maybe if they weren’t discriminated against they’d have less to be suicidal about, hm?

Nice ellipses, by the way.

Glib responses do not advance the dialogue. The average lifespan of a gay male is 47 years old. You can easily get the facts about this and the stats on rampant disease within this community. How could this possibly be endorsed as a positive contribution to society?

I am pleased that my city has produced a group that is proposing this absurd initiative. I hope it gets a ton of press and support by the gay militants so that their true agenda might be revealed.

 

[Reepicheep]

I’m pretty sure this is a publicity stunt, rather than a serious proposal.
That is, they don’t expect their “initiative” ever to succeed. They just want people talking about it.

 

[LRThunder]

So far in denial, in fact, that they are often married with children of their own. And the people I am talking about freely express a preference for their own sex – except where children are concerned. So the people you’re so worried about, people trying to set up households with members of their own sex, aren’t even in this group at all.

Then so is a household in which one member is overly scrupulous about sin – after all, it’s disordered. I don’t buy the homosexuality=disorder thing anyway, but that’s neither here nor there. People with illnesses and disorders are not automatically incapable of running or being a part of a functioning family.

They do when the ‘rule’ is ‘all X is like Y’.

If they did, it’s escaped my notice. Why would I need to provide them? Just from a quick glance at their history, one can see quite plainly that homosexuality was not a detrimental influence on their society – or, that if it was, its effect was totally negligible. That is the only point I was making, and it does not require ancient poll results to back it up.

Their ‘true agenda’ is no more than equal rights under the law. This proposal exists merely to make a point, not to be passed into law – its proponents have said so themselves.

Equal rights? Maybe if they were being denied the right to vote, eat in the same restaurants as other people, forced to drink from separate water fountains or relegated to near slavery conditions you would have a point about them wanting equal rights.

Unless they are really being treated like the Jews in Nazi Germany or African-Americans in this country from the 1960’s and before, it’s not about equal rights but about the destruction of everything that’s good and decent in America.