G
How do i come up with a good reason why governments shouldn't allow same sex marriage?
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Everyone has the right to marry - even gay people have the right to marry. They just can’t marry someone of the same sex. That understanding applies to everyone equally. The only reason it appears unequal is that gay people want to marry someone of the same sex. But the prohibition against marrying someone of the same sex also applies to heterosexuals. Again - equal application to everyone. The only reason it appears unequal is that heterosexuals don’t want to marry someone of the same sex. But if they wanted to, the prohibition would apply to them the same as to gays.
You said:
Did you mean “a mother-son marriage is a terrible thing, while a mother-son civil union is OK”? If that is what you meant, I can see how what I posted can look like a gross misunderstanding. However until we accept your definition of civil union, I have to continue to operate on the premise that civil union embodies most of the features of traditional marriage. By that I mean what marriage has traditionally meant in a secular society - not a sacramental marriage. And I do not accept your definition of civil union because very few other people do, and when you use a term with a new definition that very few people share, misunderstandings are bound to happen.
M
MacQ
Guest
“Why sho nuff, Jesse, you have civil rights, just like everybody. You can get married…long as you don’t marry no white woman. And you can eat at a diner…long as it’s not the white folks diner. And you can ride the bus…long as you sit in the back”, said Niggle.
Yes, if you want to put it that way. A civil union for government purposes is a contract.
In reality, in the eyes of government your marriage (if you have one) and mine are just that. And if laws are to be written about this, that’s how they should be framed.
It doesn’t have to include love and it doesn’t have to include children or even sex for that matter. Those are not the purview of government and government should be blind to those things.
The religious sense of “marriage” does, however imply those things.
Look:
I know married heterosexual couples who never once wanted to have children. They think they’re little vermin. On the other hand, I know a gay couple who rescued a little kid from one of their heterosexual married relatives who are too drug addled and coked up half the time to even feed the kid. The kid is now in a safe home, and is being nurtured and fed, schooled and taken to church.
I’m fine with the fact that my church will never confer the sacrament of matrimony on this couple, but I think they should be entitled to the same societal benefits under the secular laws that their cousin is.
T
thewanderer
Guest
The reason I was confused is because when I asked you just a little earlier in this thread what reason you thought the government had to have a legal marriage contract you said they had no reason. Then, when I asked why you were defending legal marriage of any sort if you thought the government had no reason to be involved with such a contract you said you do actually think it has a reason to be involved. Maybe you misunderstood my question earlier and thats what led to the confusion? I’m sorry if my earlier question wasn’t clear enough.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Do you mind me asking though why you think the government has no reason to have a contract for the sake of improving the well-being and caliber of its future citizens? It just seems pretty obvious to me that that is a legitimate reason for the government to be involved, so I’m curious why you think its not.I don’t think I said anywhere that the government currently requires proof from couples that they are romantically involved before agreeing to marry them. If I am wrong though and did I apologize for mis-typing. I know I’m not always perfectly clear in what I’m saying. Rather I was speaking about the fact that if the government suspects your marriage is fraudulent, say, simply for the sake of gaining a green card, one of the things they will enquire about is where you went for dates and when your relationship became romantic. You might not need proof of a romantic relationship to get married, but if the government suspects your marriage is fraudulent, and then finds out you are not in a romantic relationship you can bet they will insist the marriage was a fraud.As for proving a romantic relationship, I have no idea what you’re referring to.
I was not aware the government EVER required couples to ‘prove’ they are romantically attached to get a marriage license. Where did you get that? Kinda boggles the mind about what kind of “proof” you’d submit.
Yes, it is currently illegal for a brother and a sister to marry each other. If civil marriages have nothing to do with future generations or romantic relationships then this is very clearly an extremely discriminatory law. However, you will have a very hard time finding many people who are for allowing siblings to be civilly married, even though they claim that our current civil marriage has nothing to do with the wellbeing of future citizens. The thing is you can’t have it both ways. If you want to insist that civil marriage is and ought to be about next-of-kin legal issues and inheritance rights etc then you have to admit that prohibiting siblings from marrying is discriminatory, just as it is discriminatory to decide someones marriage is a fraud and so invalid because of a lack of romantic involvement. However, nobody who I’ve talked to who is for expanding civil marriage to people of the same sex want to expand civil marriage to siblings or ensure non-romantic relationships will be upheld as valid civil marriages. They like to claim anyone who disagrees with them is discriminatory and all the while they continue to discriminate against others. Its really quite hypocritical.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That is not the same thing. When it comes to marriage, being of one race or another is an irrelevant distinction. But being of one sex or the other is at the core of what marriage is.
If marriage in the eyes of the government is a contract, it is a contract between three parties - the man, the woman, and the society. Yes, the society is part of that contract. The man and the woman agree to society to be responsible in the raising of any children and to look after each other. In return society agrees to offer some measure of support to that couple in their effort. This is clearly more than just a contract between two people.
I disagree. The society (as represented by its government) does have an interest in some of what a couple does, especially in the raising of children, which are independent members of that society and are not wholely “owned” by the parents.
This is a beautiful example, and I am very happy that the kid was rescued by the gay couple. But anecdotes are not a good basis for deciding public policy that is going to apply to millions.
But from what you have said these “societal benefits” should be, they are limited to inheritance rights. Are you still referring to that very limited form of societal benefits when you make this statement? Or are you referring to the richer set of society benefits that comes with marriage today? Because if you are referring only to inheritance rights, then as I have said before, I have no problem extending those rights to gay couples too. The trouble is, if we extend marriage (or civil unions) to gays today, it will come with a lot more than just those limited rights.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
M
MacQ
Guest
I am referring to any benefits that spouses have in the eyes of government, the state, the law. I never hinted that those were LIMITED to inheritance. I just got tired of repeating them.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.
I think we’ve more than exhausted this discussion. I have said what I think should be a fair public policy.
You disagree. That’s fine. If we all thought alike it would be a boring world indeed.
Over and out,
Mac.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
They are GREAT questions…I will take the one about imposing ethical beliefs into civil law.
The Catholic Church DOES NOT impose any beliefs into civil law.
It is the understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence that just because a civil law harmonizes or agrees with religious beliefs is not grounds for finding an Establishment Clause violation.
Certainly, if the civil law granted recognition only to sacramental marriages as defined in the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, this would violate the Establishment Clause. But no law purports to do so.
McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 442 (1961).
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Mac, I agree with you…
For the state to redefine marriage is a serious abuse of power.
I agree with you here also.
“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”-- Lyndon B. Johnson
I agree again because I have no problem with civil unions. In fact, I would like to see “civil unions” redefined to grant all the rights and benefits of marriage to those who want to form a civil union.
Again I agree.
I do not think restricting civil unions cause gays to go straight.
I’ll leave that one between you and Leaf.
M
MacQ
Guest
I guess we pretty much agree.Mac, I agree with you…
For the state to redefine marriage is a serious abuse of power.
I agree with you here also.
“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”-- Lyndon B. Johnson
I agree again because I have no problem with civil unions. In fact, I would like to see “civil unions” redefined to grant all the rights and benefits of marriage to those who want to form a civil union.
Again I agree.
I do not think restricting civil unions cause gays to go straight.
I’ll leave that one between you and Leaf.
That last thing was pure snark on my part, I admit.
Testy, I was.
A
Abu
Guest
**Little Recognition Given To Study of Sexual Reorientation Therapy at APA Convention
Findings contradict the APA position that homosexuality is not changeable.
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski **
Extract:
TORONTO, August 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Stanton Jones and his research partner, Dr. Mark Yarhouse, were given the opportunity, on Sunday morning at 8:00 a.m., to present their findings on a study of sexual reorientation therapy, at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association (APA) in Toronto.
The paper titled, “Ex Gays? An Extended Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation,” was presented as a part of an APA symposium titled Sexual Orientation and Faith Tradition Symposium.
The six year study concluded that there is evidence that homosexual tendencies can be controlled and redirected toward normal sexual attraction.
Drs. Jones and Yarhouse conclude that their findings contradict the APA position that homosexuality is not changeable.
“In conclusion, the findings of this study would appear to contradict the commonly expressed view of the mental health establishment that sexual orientation is not changeable and that the attempt to change is highly likely to produce harm for those who make such an attempt.”
The report also stressed the need to keep “a range of professional and ministry options open to clients who experience same sex attraction, are distressed by this because of their moral or religious beliefs, and who may benefit from hearing about a number of intervention modalities.”
lifesitenews.com/news/little-recognition-given-to-study-of-sexual-reorientation-therapy-at-apa-co#.
The best reason is the reality that Christ founded His Church to teach in His Name on faith and morals and any attempt to denigrate that teaching by Catholics merely demonstrates that they are mistaken or insincere in their beliefs as “Catholics” as She is crystal clear in explaining Christ’s mandate for marriage and the family.
Findings contradict the APA position that homosexuality is not changeable.
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski **
Extract:
TORONTO, August 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Stanton Jones and his research partner, Dr. Mark Yarhouse, were given the opportunity, on Sunday morning at 8:00 a.m., to present their findings on a study of sexual reorientation therapy, at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association (APA) in Toronto.
The paper titled, “Ex Gays? An Extended Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation,” was presented as a part of an APA symposium titled Sexual Orientation and Faith Tradition Symposium.
The six year study concluded that there is evidence that homosexual tendencies can be controlled and redirected toward normal sexual attraction.
Drs. Jones and Yarhouse conclude that their findings contradict the APA position that homosexuality is not changeable.
“In conclusion, the findings of this study would appear to contradict the commonly expressed view of the mental health establishment that sexual orientation is not changeable and that the attempt to change is highly likely to produce harm for those who make such an attempt.”
The report also stressed the need to keep “a range of professional and ministry options open to clients who experience same sex attraction, are distressed by this because of their moral or religious beliefs, and who may benefit from hearing about a number of intervention modalities.”
lifesitenews.com/news/little-recognition-given-to-study-of-sexual-reorientation-therapy-at-apa-co#.
The best reason is the reality that Christ founded His Church to teach in His Name on faith and morals and any attempt to denigrate that teaching by Catholics merely demonstrates that they are mistaken or insincere in their beliefs as “Catholics” as She is crystal clear in explaining Christ’s mandate for marriage and the family.
B
barts61
Guest
You are behind the times…cnn.com/2013/06/20/us/exodus-international-shutdown/ they disband & apologized because it does more harm then good.
A
Abu
Guest
The real Catholic assents to and understands the teaching of Christ through His Church – that mankind has been created male and female for procreation; that through Original Sin human nature has been affected; that “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” CCC 2358].
The real Catholic knows that heterosexuality is the design of the Creator. Homosexuality is a disorder. You don’t choose to be heterosexual, but you do choose whether you will live it chastely.
Pope John Paul II teaches in the 1993 encyclical *Veritatis Splendor *(#50): “The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and in particular to make use of his own body.”
A
Abu
Guest
Illustrating the inconsistencies and vagaries of many who do not assent to Christ and His Church, the closing of the Protestant *Exodus International *and the recanting of the reality of God–given males and females created for marriage and children, and to remove help for those with the disorder, echoes the Protestant capitulation in 1930 against the consensus based on the teaching of Christ’s Church against contraception.
The Catholic *Courage *and Encourage groups continue to offer the reality of Christ’s teaching and the assurance of the sound therapy for the seekers of reason, truth and rehabilitation.
couragerc.net/
As a non–Catholic wisely observed: “Many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.” (William James).
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Courage does not offer therapy to change the object of people’s sexual desires. You have been misinformed.
Example after example shows that, although sexual attractions do change of their own accord, attempts to change them through psychological therapy hardly ever work. Even the most successful “ex-gay” programs don’t say that their goal is to change the attractions.
R
Rin
Guest
Yes! This, combined with the removal of marriage as such from secular law, would solve all the controversies and all the problems.
Gay couples would receive the legal recognition they need. Religions would not be forced to marry anyone, since marriage is no longer a legal concept. And the other way around - religions would also not be forced to not marry anyone; if a religion’s notion of marriage includes gay unions, then they’re free to follow their definition. The same would go for humanist organizations - they would be just as free to hold marriage ceremonies.
I doubt it will happen, though. Liberals and conservatives, be they Catholic or Protestant or Atheist or otherwise, have one thing in common: They want to be right. They believe other people have no right to challenge their definitions. This is why I don’t think it will happen.
But a secular state has no business at all to make such a determination. Hence, the natural course is for governments to stop meddling with marriage at all. They should govern unions, be they sexual or non-sexual (let’s say brother and sister, two friends, perhaps even priests in some situations, who never married and live together chastely), childless or not, and so on. I really wish people could leave aside the ideology and find a solution that would be neutral and work for everyone.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Good Afternoon Abu: Do you see disorder in the design of the creator? Or is it possible that the human condition, as is the case with all life, is varied in its aspects and expression? And with regard to design, are we a mechanistic product of design at all, or an organic and sentient development of God’s appetition for experience?
On a side note, I am a Catholic and insofar as I am able to perceive, I am quite real.
Thank you,
Gary
A
Abu
Guest
Whatever that means???
From the Courage website for those who need to know reality:
“Spiritual support for Catholic men and women with same-sex attractions who desire to live chaste lives in accordance with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.”
couragerc.net/
No real Catholics labour under the delusion that God is responsible for human frailty, when they know that Original Sin has weakened that nature, and all the wise and necessary designs of Christ’s Church are needed to nurture mankind to reality.
The real Catholic knows that heterosexuality is the design of the Creator. Homosexuality is a disorder. You don’t choose to be heterosexual, but you do choose whether you will live it chastely.
R
Rin
Guest
That is not what the Church actually says. The theological term “disordered” means “not ordered towards its goal” which in this case is unification of man and woman, and reproduction. The term is one of teleology, not of medicine. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the word “disorder” as used in psychiatry and daily speech.
I really wish people would at least try to get a basic understanding of theological terminology before they made bold statements about the nature of homosexuality.
- Status