Homosexuals Say Married Couples Required to Have Children

[mlchance]

Faith is defined as belief without reason.

Only by people who wish to demean one and/or the other rather than engaging in an honest discussion. Defining faith in such a ridiculous way relieves you of the burden of actually addressing people of faith. Instead, you can simply dismiss them as unreasonable. How convenient.

And, yes, the social contract is myth, even if a useful one. There was never a point in time where people existed in an isolated state of nature, and then agreed to come together under a social contract in order form a government.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Mirdath]

Only by people who wish to demean one and/or the other rather than engaging in an honest discussion. Defining faith in such a ridiculous way relieves you of the burden of actually addressing people of faith. Instead, you can simply dismiss them as unreasonable. How convenient.

It’s short, it’s blunt, you’re never going to get a PhD with that as your dissertation – but it is accurate. I am not using ‘without reason’ insultingly, but to mean that faith is belief in something one has not or cannot personally experience or deduce from empirical postulates. The articles that have been linked at me seem to hold this definition accurate as well. Faith is well defined as belief without Reason with a capital R – apologies for any offense I caused.

And, yes, the social contract is myth, even if a useful one. There was never a point in time where people existed in an isolated state of nature, and then agreed to come together under a social contract in order form a government.

Well no, because we evolved from social animals, who had their own social contract and killed or expelled from the group those who violated it. The foundation of the social contract is unspoken – implicit even in the act of a mother holding her newborn child. It is only when society reaches a certain size that it begins to create institutions such as government.

 

[mlchance]

It’s short, it’s blunt, you’re never going to get a PhD with that as your dissertation – but it is accurate.

Again, no it isn’t, and tossing in big words doesn’t alter the situation. In fact, big words almost always serve to do nothing but further confuse the matter. It’s like the comment overheard among students leaving a professor’s lecture: “I didn’t understand a word of what he said. He’s so brilliant!”

Faith is not believing without reason. People who say otherwise invariably seek to demean, discount, and silence people of faith.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[fix]

You realize you’re actually restating my position?

Rather I am correcting it. It is becoming almost pedantic. You assert the state has authority because it is the state. I am saying the authority to pass unjust laws is an inauthentic authority. Their authority is legitimate as long as it does not contradict natural law. There is no authority to do what is wrong it is a misuse.

Is it not so? You are Catholic according to your profile.

Not all marriages are sacramental. There are many valid marriages that are not sacramental. The argument I am making does not rely on marriage being a sacrament.

I’m claiming virtue is not something with which government should be concerned. Ethics, yes, but moral virtue, no.

An academic distinction with little meaning for our discussion. The rightness or wrongness of any law refers to some standard. If there is no standard to judge from then are we amoral?

And here I had such a good run not being accused of relativism…

No. My vision of society is one in which people get along.

What does get along mean? Is it like turing a blind eye to bad acts so we pretend all is well?

That requires no moral concessions from any; it only requires people not force their beliefs on right and wrong on others. This is not relativism – you can be as absolutist as you like, but your rule ends with yourself and those who’ve chosen to follow you. You have no moral rights on others – you can believe they’re wrong all you like, but you can’t force your idea of Right on them.

We force laws all the time. What right have you to claim one ought not murder? Absolutism requires a supreme lawgiver. Your view seems some type of eclecticism .

It’s a logical extension, isn’t it? If one consents to sex, it is not rape; if one consents to transfer of ownership, it is not theft; if one consents to die, it is not murder but suicide.

It is an extension of relativism, yes. It all stems from a faulty understanding of freedom and rights. How is it you think it justified one may bind another to murder them simply because the other consented?

Leaving aside that I don’t buy that excuse for a moment, can’t you see that I’m not proposing doing away with heterosexual marriage?

I was trying to understand your last post. From your wording it seemed you were asking if all marriage should be converted to private contracts.

 

[setter]

It’s short, it’s blunt, you’re never going to get a PhD with that as your dissertation – but it is accurate. I am not using ‘without reason’ insultingly, but to mean that faith is belief in something one has not or cannot personally experience or deduce from empirical postulates. The articles that have been linked at me seem to hold this definition accurate as well. Faith is well defined as belief without Reason with a capital R – apologies for any offense I caused.

You are still failing to grasp how one comes to greater understanding of truth, i.e., reality. Try this:

V. ANALYSIS OF THE ACT OF FAITH FROM THE SUBJECTIVE STANDPOINT

(a) The light of faith. – An angel understands truths which are beyond man’s comprehension; if then a man were called upon to assent to a truth beyond the ken of the human intellect, but within the grasp of the angelic intellect, he would require for the time being something more than his natural light of reason, he would require what we may call “the angelic light”. If, now, the same man were called upon to assent to a truth beyond the grasp of both men and angels, he would clearly need a still higher light, and this light we term “the light of faith” – a light, because it enables him to assent to those supernatural truths, and the light of faith because it does not so illumine those truths as to make them no longer obscure, for faith must ever be “the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not” (Hebrews 11:1).

(b) The necessity of such light is evident from what has been said, for faith is essentially an act of assent, and just as assent to a series of deductive or inductive reasonings, or to intuition of first principles, would be impossible without the light of reason, so, too assent to a supernatural truth would be inconceivable without a supernatural strengthening of the natural light “Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?” (i.e. what is faith but belief in that which thou seest not?) asks St. Augustine; but he also says: “Faith has its eyes by which it in some sort sees that to be true which it does not yet see- and by which, too, it most surely sees that it does not see what it believes” [Ep. ad Consent., ep. cxx 8 (al. ccxxii), P.L., II, 456].

(e) But just as the intellect needed a new and special light in order to assent to the supernatural truths of faith, so also the will needs a special grace from God in order that it may tend to that supernatural good which is eternal life. The light of faith, then, illumines the understanding, though the truth still remains obscure, since it is beyond the intellect’s grasp; but supernatural grace moves the will, which, having now a supernatural good put before it, moves the intellect to assent to what it does not understand. Hence it is that faith is described as “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).

newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

 

[fix]

I believe man is a being with morals, and that those morals are not graven on the heart as some suppose but constructed in order to live with others. I’ve yet to find any reason to believe otherwise.

Faith is defined as belief without reason.

No, that is how rationalist’s may define it. Why is your definition correct. Who is your authority.

 

[blessedtoo]

Their presentation may be, and usually (as in this case) is.

So facts presented by the homosexual community are biased? Facts borne of studies from impartial sources are biased? Your desperation is showing.

Ever been intimate with someone possessing the same genitals? No? Sorry, your experience isn’t there yet.

Silly question. What’s the answer you want? If I say no, does that strip of the right to speak? Is my position than invalid? Does it mean I don’t “understand” the plight of the homosexual? Absurd. BTW: If you look at other threads on this topic, you will see how many posters here have had experience with homosexuality, either themselves or with family members. We are not a horde of ignorant fools who have never been exposed to the “real world”. And the answer to your silly question is, yes, indeed. For many years. Until I understood how the lifestyle contradicted natural human behavior. And that was long before I got “religion”.

That is her decision, not yours, and I’m pretty sure you’ll both be happier once you realize that fact. You are not in charge of her life or that of anyone other than yourself. Don’t try to be.

So, by your “logic”, if my sister decides become a herion addict, I should chalk that up to her own “decision”. If she develops an eating disorder, I should leave her to it. God help us if that’s the world we end up in.

 

[blessedtoo]

BTW: Heard this guy Gary Gadow on the radio today discussing this initiative. I truly pray that he gets as much publicity as possible on this insanity so that everyone can see the truth of the homosexual lobby. This initiative would invalidate not only all marriages of couples who haven’t had children within 3 years, but all couples who have adopted, couples who are trying to get pregnant and can’t, and all married couples who are past childbearing age.
Charming, huh?

 

[Mirdath]

So facts presented by the homosexual community are biased? Facts borne of studies from impartial sources are biased? Your desperation is showing.

I said the presentation was biased, not the facts themselves

Silly question. What’s the answer you want? If I say no, does that strip of the right to speak? Is my position than invalid? Does it mean I don’t “understand” the plight of the homosexual? Absurd.

I was calling your statement ‘My experience with homosexuality could not get any more “up close and personal”.’ into question. You did not mention any actual first-hand experience, only that of your sister – second-hand.

So, by your “logic”, if my sister decides become a herion addict, I should chalk that up to her own “decision”.

While I’m still admitting things, that is, in fact, how I preferred to be treated when I was one. I appreciated the love and support I got from those close to me, but did not look kindly upon others’ attempts to regulate my life. If you ended up another junkie, I would offer my love and support the same way.

BTW: Heard this guy Gary Gadow on the radio today discussing this initiative. I truly pray that he gets as much publicity as possible on this insanity so that everyone can see the truth of the homosexual lobby. This initiative would invalidate not only all marriages of couples who haven’t had children within 3 years, but all couples who have adopted, couples who are trying to get pregnant and can’t, and all married couples who are past childbearing age.
Charming, huh?

It seems satire is truly a lost art… This is the gay marriage equivalent of Swift’s A Modest Proposal.

 

[blessedtoo]

I said the presentation was biased, not the facts themselves

I’m still confused about your point. If the facts are reported by unbiased sources, how can their presentation be biased? I don’t get it .

I was calling your statement ‘My experience with homosexuality could not get any more “up close and personal”.’ into question. You did not mention any actual first-hand experience, only that of your sister – second-hand.

And you didn’t answer my question: what difference does it make with regard to the validity of my position? If I were basing my comments on my opinion, then fine, you can question it. But this is not opinion, you see. And FYI: having a homosexual family member is NOT second-hand experience. It is indeed, first hand and up close and personal. Despite what you might think, the actions we take as human beings effect other human beings at all times and everywhere.

While I’m still admitting things, that is, in fact, how I preferred to be treated when I was one. I appreciated the love and support I got from those close to me, but did not look kindly upon others’ attempts to regulate my life. If you ended up another junkie, I would offer my love and support the same way.

Give it some time, my friend. It took me many years into recovery before I could be profoundly grateful to those friends and family who “interfered” in my life and took the courageous risk of ticking me off so they could help me save myself. In my opinion, that’s the only love the counts.

It seems satire is truly a lost art… This is the gay marriage equivalent of Swift’s A Modest Proposal.

Unfortunately, this guy and his gang of 15 (wow!) members really believe they have a chance of obtaining 250,000 signatures.

 

[Mirdath]

I’m still confused about your point. If the facts are reported by unbiased sources, how can their presentation be biased? I don’t get it .

Quite easily. Cherrypicking statistics, focusing on one or two ideas, ignoring statistics that contradict your agenda… there’s a reason stats are third after lies and damned lies.

And you didn’t answer my question: what difference does it make with regard to the validity of my position? If I were basing my comments on my opinion, then fine, you can question it. But this is not opinion, you see.

You may consider your moral views as God-granted fact, but as far as I can tell they are an opinion – and one that requires some kind of justification.

And FYI: having a homosexual family member is NOT second-hand experience. It is indeed, first hand and up close and personal. Despite what you might think, the actions we take as human beings effect other human beings at all times and everywhere.

The definition of first hand is experienced yourself. Having an homosexual family member can be a highly in-depth second hand experience, but quite simply, not first hand. You can look, you can know what your sister is put through, but you aren’t privy to her innermost thoughts unless she wills it. And while it may hurt you to see her mistreated, it’s still indirect and perhaps somewhat alien. Straight people don’t generally get fired for their sexual orientation – it happened to me.

Give it some time, my friend. It took me many years into recovery before I could be profoundly grateful to those friends and family who “interfered” in my life and took the courageous risk of ticking me off so they could help me save myself. In my opinion, that’s the only love the counts.

Oh, the first group I mentioned didn’t exactly like it either – but they didn’t try to scare me clean. Instead they let me know what they thought as friends, without trying to push me into anything, and we remained friends. It was their influence that convinced me it was time to quit, not the people who decided to tell me about somebody’s overdose getting in the papers while I was panicking.

Unfortunately, this guy and his gang of 15 (wow!) members really believe they have a chance of obtaining 250,000 signatures.

‘This guy’ has also said up front he isn’t serious.

 

[Courtneyjo]

This “guy” and his group, WA-DOMA, are not writing a piece of satirical literature. What they are doing is abusing the Initiative process for “political theater.” They want it both ways–to be taken seriously in order to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couplings (which would destroy marriage), but not to be taken seriously on this Initiative which would destroy marriage. You can be sure that if this Initiative did not advance their cause they would not be wasting their precious resources on it.

This group is used to living in denial, and think that the rest of us can’t see them for what they. But the majority of us can see that the emperor has no clothes. The WA State Supreme Court was correct to emphasize procreation in its decision against so-called “homosexual” marriage. Heterosexual marriages are naturally fertile and have the capacity and potential for procreation. Homosexual couplings are naturally always sterile, are never, ever fertile and do not have the capacity and potential to be. Homosexual couplings can never be equal despite what WA-DOMA says, and their rhetoric and wishing won’t make it so.

 

[Mirdath]

This “guy” and his group, WA-DOMA, are not writing a piece of satirical literature. What they are doing is abusing the Initiative process for “political theater.” They want it both ways–to be taken seriously in order to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couplings (which would destroy marriage), but not to be taken seriously on this Initiative which would destroy marriage. You can be sure that if this Initiative did not advance their cause they would not be wasting their precious resources on it.

That’s exactly what satire is intended to do.

The WA State Supreme Court was correct to emphasize procreation in its decision against so-called “homosexual” marriage. Heterosexual marriages are naturally fertile and have the capacity and potential for procreation.

Not always. And if potential for procreation is rightly the qualifier for ability to marry, why shouldn’t it be enforced on all equally?

 

[mvinca]

Not always. And if potential for procreation is rightly the qualifier for ability to marry, why shouldn’t it be enforced on all equally?

Their petition doesn’t focus on the “potential for procreation” but the tangible result of procreation.

 

[Peter_Parker]

Mirdath,

Please allow me to apologize if I caused offense. I did not intend to demean your education or your intelligence. What I was trying to point out is that the water gets deep fairly quickly, and without much study it can be challenging to know good arguments from bad ones. Some ideas look appealing on their face, but if you go deeper you find that they’re very shallow and/or unable to be applied. My suspicion is that you may have only seen the surface of some of these legal and moral lines of thought.

Your arguments have a few different (and conflicting) theories at work in them, and I simply assumed you had not studied sufficiently. You speak like a Positivist about law, then base your argument that the law should be changed on ethics and Civil Liberties (which are incompatible with a Positivist perspective). You conflate the Social Contract theory with Natural Law theory, and claim that the first is real and the second is a myth (and it is unlikely a Positivist would ascribe to either). I would wager that if given time and opportunity you would introduce some of Utilitarian thought into your arguments (Bentham and Mills are modern favorites). It just doesn’t appear that you’ve reasoned this through adequately. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your education or your intelligence - it has to do with the amount of time spent on study and contemplation in this particular field.

I don’t claim to be an expert, though I have studied. A child can point out a math error in a Physicist’s equations, if the math error is one known to the child. I claim only to be that child.

I have started a thread on Natural Law which discusses some of the reasoned foundations. I’m sure it’s only stuff you already know, but I would appreciate your taking a look nonetheless.

 

[Mirdath]

Please allow me to apologize if I caused offense. I did not intend to demean your education or your intelligence. What I was trying to point out is that the water gets deep fairly quickly, and without much study it can be challenging to know good arguments from bad ones. Some ideas look appealing on their face, but if you go deeper you find that they’re very shallow and/or unable to be applied. My suspicion is that you may have only seen the surface of some of these legal and moral lines of thought.

Thank you Like I said, I’ll tell you when I’m out of my depth

You speak like a Positivist about law, then base your argument that the law should be changed on ethics and Civil Liberties (which are incompatible with a Positivist perspective).

Legal positivism asserts that laws are not necessarily ethical – which is true. There’s no contradiction in saying laws should be made or changed based on ethics.

You conflate the Social Contract theory with Natural Law theory, and claim that the first is real and the second is a myth (and it is unlikely a Positivist would ascribe to either).

Oh, I can see that they’re different things; but they’re both ways of describing human civilization. I just happen to think one makes a lot more sense, even if it isn’t necessarily perfect.

I would wager that if given time and opportunity you would introduce some of Utilitarian thought into your arguments (Bentham and Mills are modern favorites).

You’d be wrong Utilitarianism looks great on a chalkboard, but I know all too well it doesn’t hold up in real life.

I have started a thread on Natural Law which discusses some of the reasoned foundations. I’m sure it’s only stuff you already know, but I would appreciate your taking a look nonetheless.

I’ll keep an eye out for it

 

[Courtneyjo]

That’s exactly what satire is intended to do.

Not always. And if potential for procreation is rightly the qualifier for ability to marry, why shouldn’t it be enforced on all equally?

The only way that your first sentence makes sense in relation to the paragraph of mine that you quoted is that you think that the satire is being used to advance their cause. Since I’ve stated that their goal is to destroy marriage, I agree with this

As for the the potential for procreation being a qualifier for the ability to marry, it already is currently enforced on all equally. That is why homosexuals may not marry each other.

 

[Other_Eric]

In an odd twist of fate it seems to me that these homoactivists may have stumbled upon something of a point. Obviously this is a measure designed to destroy everyone else’s marriages because they cannot get the government to recognize their own hedonistic couplings. It may make sense to vote it down. Personally, I would go a little further and remove such mischief-makers as these activists from the political process altogether. Nevertheless, in its own odd way, this perhaps should introduce for the rest of us the opportunity to discuss our own ill-conceived perceptions of marriage.

It seems to me that the benefits normally associated with marriage are there exactly to support the begetting and raising of children. Tax benefits, assumed inheritance and the automatic medical decision-making authority for one another provided married couples are all designed to ease the financial burden of raising the next generation of citizens and, in the event of some unfortunate event, to maintain a somewhat stable environment for those children to develop in. Government grants these benefits to such fruitful marriages because it expects to see a return on its investment with the next generation.

A marriage that is sterile, either due to some medical issue or (more likely in this society) because of the willful use of contraception, gives no return on the government’s investment. Such a couple might substitute adoption to overcome a biological deficiency but what purpose would be served by the government effectively subsidizing a couple that willfully chooses to make their marriage a dead end?

The thing I tend to like about this proposed initiative is that it reintroduces the notion that marriage has duties associated with it. It is not just a vehicle for romantic wish fulfillment. Under this directive, young couples would go into marriage knowing that something definite and tangible is expected from them. The insular search for someone based on such superficialities such as height, weight, eye color and overall appearance would give way to the search for someone dependable, responsible and level-headed; in short, someone who would make a good parent.

This idea of putting romance before any practical consideration has not served the Western culture very well. One need only look to Europe to see how the Muslims, with their efficient, arranged marriages are quickly overtaking the Christians who are endlessly seeking “the one” as though there could be someone else out there who would sate every self-centered craving and aesthetic preference one might like to have indulged.

So, as I see it, while this particular initiative may be borne out of an adolescent temper tantrum, that should not blind us Christians to the positive direction it will point the culture in.

 

[Courtneyjo]

Other Eric, have you even read this Initiative?

wa-doma.org/Initiative.aspx

It would annull the marriages of couples when they are past childbearing age, when they are trying to get pregnant, and so on.

The homoactivists have not stumbled upon a point. You can be sure that no stumbling was involved. This is a willful attempt to destroy marriage. It is not presented as a public service to further dialogue about marital duties. It is an attack on marriage, period. Everthing about this is intentional.

 

[blessedtoo]

**

The State contends that procreation is a legitimate government interest
justifying the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples. The State reasons
that partners in a marriage are expected to engage in exclusive sexual relations
with children the probable result and paternity presumed.

**

**

Individuals may marry regardless of fertility or intent to procreate. But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally
linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the
only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link
between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to
procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that
single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or
through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks
a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a
rational basis.

**
Andersen v. King Co., Nos. 75934-1, 75956-1 (Wash. July 26, 2006)
courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.internetdetail&newsid=707
Here are excerpts from the decision in the case this group is attempting to dismantle. The fact is they have misrepresented what the court said with regard to procreation in attempt to advance their agenda.