How do supporters of so-called "same-sex marriage" define marriage?

[TracerBullet]

Among others, these are what are considered unreasonable demands on society as a result of same sex ‘marriage’ or legal unions:

Forcing Catholic run institutions to place children for adoption by same sex couples. It was always an exchange of tax benefits for a valued social service, with previous acceptance of the state of religious principles followed by Catholic Charities. No longer, as we see from the closure of Catholic Charities in Illinois.
​

if Catholic institutions take federal monies to provide adoption services and contract with state and local agencies to provide adoption services then they must abide by federal laws regarding discrimination.

Forcing Catholic parish halls to rent to gay ‘wedding’ partes. For actual reports, kindly do your own research.

If a parish is going to offer up its hall to be rented by the public then it can’t discriminate regarding who they rent to. If they don’t want to rent to minorities then they shouldn’t offer their halls up for rent.

Labelling of discussion of Church doctrine on wrongfulness of homosexual acts as bigotry or homophobia, and efforts to limit freedom of speech in this regard.

Well in my short time on these forums I’ve managed to see several statements that were bigoted.

As for homophobic its defined as fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals or people who are perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Including antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion and hatred.
And boy do a lot of posts here qualify as homophobic.

That aside just how is your free speech being limited?

The beginning of indoctrination of school children, like SB49 in public grade school with no opt out for parents in classes teaching gay history and contribution of gay culture to society, etc., all in the name of normalizing homosexuality.

Um…SB49 refers to a bill in Tennessee (the so called ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law that and makes it illegal for teachers and counselors to discuss any sexual orientation other than heterosexuality with their students. Meaning; if a student is bullied for being perceived as homosexual it is illegal for the teacher/counselors to help them confront their abusers.

Now what were you just saying about limiting of free speech?

Equality or the desire to have equal rights is not unreasonable. However I object to its use in the phrase ‘marriage equality.’ Marriage equality is a term of gay advocacy.

Your objection is noted but your but isn’t your demand that the phrase not be used because you don’t personally like unreasonable?

Marriage pre-dated the Church and all governments. It developed as a public institution with social impact through the generation of children, forming a family which is the very basic and irreducible unit of society. Individuals have identical liberties, rights and privileges.

So why should legal recognition of marriage bow to religion?

Man-woman configuration in marriage is equal to another man-woman pairing in marriage. The novel and relatively recent man-man or woman-woman configuration in a contrived ‘marriage’ is different.

Since when is being different a justification for discrimination?

Any child or children by adoption by gay couples or as a result of ‘creative’ IVF / egg-sperm donation, use of wombs-for-hire type of applied technology, will not benefit from the necessary mother-father modelling by opposite sexed parents.

By this logic children of armed forces personnel killed in the line of duty should be promptly taken away from their surviving parent because they “will not benefit from the necessary mother-father modeling”

Yet, advocates of SS’M’ want the same treatment on a clearly different pairing which would not have the same outcome in raising of children.

Yet studies have consistently shown that children of gays and lesbians are happy, healthy, well-adjusted individuals without any significant differences from children of opposite gendered parents

In a post that I directed to you in a related thread now closed, I asked you what do you hope to achieve as a self identified Catholic in this forum, in advocating for gay rights.

The answer remains the same. Equality and social justice. I will not stand by and watch any minority live as second class citizens.​

 

[Stephen168]

Perhaps…but unless the state legislatures of those states in which same sex marriage is legal know something about procreation which the rest of us don’t…marriage is a civil right WITHOUT the requirement of procreation.

I think they know about the same as we do about procreation, they just have disconnected procreation from marriage. Similar to disconnecting a fetus from humanity. I don’t consider the State a source of reason and morality. Political decisions are the same as feel good decisions. Humanity and marriage predates the State.

 

[Stephen168]

.

As for homophobic its defined as fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals or people who are perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Including antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion and hatred.
And boy do a lot of posts here qualify as homophobic.

Homophobe is a pejorative used against people you disagree with.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

if Catholic institutions take federal monies to provide adoption services and contract with state and local agencies to provide adoption services then they must abide by federal laws regarding discrimination.

You disregarded the premise under which the state and the church has started with its agreement of federal monies in exchange for a valued social service. What was acceptable before to the state as far as adherence to religious principles was never a problem until the clamor of new rights claimed by same sex parents.

If a parish is going to offer up its hall to be rented by the public then it can’t discriminate regarding who they rent to. If they don’t want to rent to minorities then they shouldn’t offer their halls up for rent.

So, if I get you right, you don’t see anything purposefully antagonistic to the Church under which you supposedly belong when a dissident or non-Catholic same-sex just ‘married’ couple wish to have a party at the parish hall, even if there are other options for them? Kinda like a the options that same sex couple have in approaching a non-Catholic organization to adopt a child, but the same sex couple would insist on adopting a child through the Catholic Church, even if it is generally known that the CC will not be able to place any child in a same sex parent home on the basis of a religious principle?

Well in my short time on these forums I’ve managed to see several statements that were bigoted.

As for homophobic its defined as fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals or people who are perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Including antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion and hatred.
And boy do a lot of posts here qualify as homophobic.

That aside just how is your free speech being limited?

Taking a position against SS’M’ and speaking of the wrongness of homosexual acts is not homophobic.

As for speech being limited, we only have to look at our neighbor to the north. I provided a link in another thread, the Canadian Crackdown, which another poster thought should be viewed for reading and he opened an entire thread on it. I provide it again here as it’s tedious to repeat the trend that curtailment to free speech is the direction to how far gay activists wish to take their brand of morality. A demand for tolerance, which is really a demand for acceptance by the rest of society, which can only be deemed as tyranny.

After reading the article, you really don’t need to ask how MY speech is being limited. Because it would be like the unthinking wise-guy question or statement, but not usually from one of our own (meaning a Catholic), that if I am against SS’M,’ I should just not marry another of the same sex as me.

Um…SB49 refers to a bill in Tennessee (the so called ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law that and makes it illegal for teachers and counselors to discuss any sexual orientation other than heterosexuality with their students. Meaning; if a student is bullied for being perceived as homosexual it is illegal for the teacher/counselors to help them confront their abusers.

Now what were you just saying about limiting of free speech?

You need to read up on the passage of SB49 in other states. Sorry, but I will not spoonfeed you. It would be great if you get a bit enlightened with this exchange of ours.

Your objection is noted but your but isn’t your demand that the phrase not be used because you don’t personally like unreasonable?

Nay. Personally, I have seen the unreasonableness of gay activists. Close up. What is your reason for being on the opposite side?

So why should legal recognition of marriage bow to religion?

It is more bowing to what makes sense, not simply to a religious principle. Fuirther, laws, good or bad, are instructive. But you know this already.

Since when is being different a justification for discrimination?

Discrimination is not always wrong. In fact, many laws have qualifiers and requirements which constitute as discrimination. Otherwise, we will have meaningless laws and society will be in perpetual chaos.

By this logic children of armed forces personnel killed in the line of duty should be promptly taken away from their surviving parent because they “will not benefit from the necessary mother-father modeling”

No, that is not what was meant.

Yet studies have consistently shown that children of gays and lesbians are happy, healthy, well-adjusted individuals without any significant differences from children of opposite gendered parents

You mean the APA studies that capitulated to the gay agenda?

The answer remains the same. Equality and social justice. I will not stand by and watch any minority live as second class citizens.

You did not answer the question. Repeat: Do you think it is appropriate that you as a Catholic advocate in effect against the position and teaching of the Catholic Church on SS’M’ and on gay adoption? Do you want the doctrine on homosexual acts changed? Yes or no?
,

 

[Stephen168]

So why should legal recognition of marriage bow to religion?

what is your definition of marriage?

 

[scipio337]

An appeal to tradition, a logical fallacy. If we followed your line of reasoning we would still have slaves, women and children would be property and diseases would be cured by bloodletting

If you didn’t notice, I was responding to another appeal to tradition (not a formal fallacy, btw), and an incorrect one, at that.

interestedman:

Who said that I relied on the state? Everyone keeps talking about “traditional marriage” around here but traditional in what culture? Should we adopt the marriage of ancient Rome? Maybe ancient sumaria? India? China? Mesopotamia?’

I was trying point out that the common misconception that “Romans (or any ancient or classical culture, a common argument for same sex marriage) had same sex marriages” is patently false.

I see your appeal to tradition and raise you a false analogy for your equating gay marriage and slavery.

 

[scipio337]

Trying to define a minority based on a sex act is pretty nasty. It usually stems from an attempt to dehumanize that minority, associate them with animalistic forces and therefore make them sub human. Consider history’s attempts to marginalize blacks (better hide the white women) as people driven solely by lust and incapable of higher emotions.

Would you accept being describes only by your sexual acts?

Perhaps you have a problem reading the posts I am responding to:

Publisher:

In as much as the State defines marriage as a civil right…civil rights of minorities are not decided by popular vote of the majority

Who has the one trying to define sexual behavior a protected minority class?

It wasn’t me. You fail to answer the question, and support its premise at the same time. On one hand, you attack me for “Trying to define a minority based on a sex act”, and then do the same thing yourself with your claime it’s “an attempt to dehumanize that minority”. How am I demonizing a minority, if sexual behavior isn’t a minority?

It’s not an attempt to demonize, but an accurate and pertinent question:

Should sexual behavior be a protected minority class, and if so, how far should those extend?

Nobody is being demonized or dehumanized, its a weak appeal to emotion, with the same tired slavery, race = sexual behavior, yadda, yadda.

I can provide a laundry list of sexual behaviors that some would find in “the minority” are those to be protected also?

 

[scipio337]

Domestic partnership or civil unions are not marriage and do not carry the legal rights and protections marriage does.

Your source? Here is the text of the California family code, which refutes your claim:

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

You can read a list of the benefits, here:

leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

Can you point out which legal protections weren’t offered under this California law, or the differences with “marriage”, other than the title?

You’ll probably make the claim that it doesn’t provide federal benefits, but neither does same sex “marriage” in CA, or MA, or NY…

There is no difference between what California had in 1999, and what it has now, sans labels.

Even the In re Marriage Cases decision admitted such:

Offering a legal relationship called “marriage” to opposite-sex couples while consigning same-sex couples to “domestic partnerships” impinges upon the fundamental right to marry by denying such legal relationships equal dignity and respect.

In other words, because “domestic partnership” did not carry the same societal import, traditional acceptance as the 2000+ year legal and religious institution called “marriage”, equality in this case wasn’t enough, and not the goal.

Sameness is not equality.

The California Domestic Partnership law is still on the books, its registry still open. Can you explain why, for some, equality under the law wasn’t enough, and finally, any compelling state interest (under strict scrutiny terms) as to why the historical legal precedent of what constitutes a “marriage” should be overturned.

I can tell you now that for the analogies you will provide (slavery, women and children would be property, etc), the compelling state interest is pretty easy to show. Not so with same sex marriage.

 

[interestedman]

If you didn’t notice, I was responding to another appeal to tradition (not a formal fallacy, btw), and an incorrect one, at that.

I was trying point out that the common misconception that “Romans (or any ancient or classical culture, a common argument for same sex marriage) had same sex marriages” is patently false.

I see your appeal to tradition and raise you a false analogy for your equating gay marriage and slavery.

I never said that Rome or any other culture had same sex marriage. But I could easily make an argument that a marriage not based on love but on the decisions of the parents of the bride and groom is more traditional than what we have now.

 

[Publisher]

Should sexual behavior be a protected minority class, and if so, how far should those extend?

Nobody is being demonized or dehumanized, its a weak appeal to emotion, with the same tired slavery, race = sexual behavior, yadda, yadda.

I** can provide a laundry list of sexual behaviors that some would find in “the minority” are those to be protected also? **

How does civil law define it? Civil law…in most states DOES protect gay and lesbian people…what other “sexual behaviors” does civil law protect?

 

[Stephen168]

How does civil law define it? Civil law…in most states DOES protect gay and lesbian people…what other “sexual behaviors” does civil law protect?

The State is not the source of morality and reason. You did not answer the universal question: Should sexual behavior be a protected minority class, …? And to make it most universal: Should any behavior be a protected minority class?

 

[Publisher]

The State is not the source of morality and reason. You did not answer the universal question: Should sexual behavior be a protected minority class, …? And to make it most universal: Should any behavior be a protected minority class?

I do not accept the notion that gay people are reduced to their sexual orientation and nothing else defines them as gay people…no more than my sexual orientation defines who I am…I am more than my sexual orientation…but my sexual orientation is definitely part of what defines me…but not the “end all”.

Your question suggests that gay people are defined soley on their orientation…difficult to answer a question that entails a false premise.

 

[scipio337]

How does civil law define it? Civil law…in most states DOES protect gay and lesbian people…what other “sexual behaviors” does civil law protect?

That’s the point, isn’t it? Why should civil law protect one sexual behavior or preference as a protected class, but not others?

Suppose one has a desire or attraction to polygynous relationships. What is the compelling state interest to protect that as a class?

I’m not defining gays by their sexual orientation, they are humans and do have the same human rights anyone does, but why should civil law differentiate for sexual behavior?

 

[Stephen168]

I do not accept the notion that gay people are reduced to their sexual orientation and nothing else defines them as gay people…no more than my sexual orientation defines who I am…I am more than my sexual orientation…but my sexual orientation is definitely part of what defines me…but not the “end all”.

Your question suggests that gay people are defined soley on their orientation…difficult to answer a question that entails a false premise.

It is interesting you use the word “orientation.” I agree that people should not be “reduced” to their sexual orientation whether it is to the same sex or the opposite sex. But what we are talking about in marriage is their behavior. The organic human institution of marriage requires proper behavior. Two people of the same sex cannot perform this fundamental human behavior.

 

[Stephen168]

I never said that Rome or any other culture had same sex marriage. But I could easily make an argument that a marriage not based on love but on the decisions of the parents of the bride and groom is more traditional than what we have now.

How a marriage comes about does not change what marriage is, so you can make your case and it would not change what marriage is.

 

[Publisher]

That’s the point, isn’t it? Why should civil law protect one sexual behavior or preference as a protected class, but not others?

Suppose one has a desire or attraction to polygynous relationships. What is the compelling state interest to protect that as a class?

I’m not defining gays by their sexual orientation, they are humans and do have the same human rights anyone does, but why should civil law differentiate for sexual behavior?

And this is where we differ…gay people ARE defined for the most part by their sexual orientation…their sexual orientation IS but one aspect of their “beingness”…but it no more defines who they are than my orientation defines me…as of now…the State does protect it’s citizens who happen to be gay and lesbian…

 

[scipio337]

And this is where we differ…gay people ARE defined for the most part by their sexual orientation…their sexual orientation IS but one aspect of their “beingness”…but it no more defines who they are than my orientation defines me…as of now…the State does protect it’s citizens who happen to be gay and lesbian…

“gay people ARE defined for the most part by their sexual orientation…but it no more defines who they are than my orientation defines me”

So just to be clear: gay people ARE defined by their sexual behavior, but at the same time they are not defined by their sexual behavior?

 

[Stephen168]

So just to be clear: gay people ARE defined by their sexual behavior, but at the same time they are not defined by their sexual behavior?

Yes, and whether that behavior is good or bad; or capable of marriage it is defined by the State; The State of Denmark 2012 or the State of Germany 1935, the State is correct.

 

[L_Trinity_2]

The meaning of the word arbitrary is that it describes a decision a person makes for no reason, about something that doesn’t matter, they just decided it on a whim. In this thread, Catholics repeatedly state that wanting to prevent marriages that would result in child rape is “arbitrary.” In other words, they do not believe child rape is a problem, there is no valid reason a marriage should be prevented just because it involves child rape. Their opinion is that the only reason child marriages are prevented is because the definition of marriage prevents children from being married, or because children cannot have children. They mock posters who state that child rape is reason enough to make a marriage illegal, and call this decision “arbitrary.” To them, child rape simply does not matter. To not want a situation to occur because it involves child rape is arbitrary, it is just as silly an nonsensical as saying that people who like the color blue should not be allowed to be married.

So, this means the following:

Catholics are in favor of the legalization of pedophilia, so long as the pedophile does not marry the child, because there is nothing wrong with child rape, the only reason we should not be allowed to marry children is that this does not meet their definition of “marriage.” However, “Sexual relationship” and “sexual intercourse,” means just that, two people are sexually involved. The definition of sexual relationship does not exclude predatory relationships that involve child molestation or rape, such as pedophilia. Therefor, since child rape itself is arbitrary and not wrong on its own, and since people’s relationships are automatically valid if they meet the definition commonly held for that relationship, Catholics believe that pedophilia should be legal. Yes, they would disapprove of it, as they are against pre marital sex, but as Catholics are not lobbying to actually illegalize premarital sex, just speak out against it, than the only logical conclusion is that Catholics are in favor of legalized pedophilia.

 

[L_Trinity_2]

How a marriage comes about does not change what marriage is, so you can make your case and it would not change what marriage is.

Do you know how marriage worked in ancient Rome? It was all about political and financial alliances. Marriages very rarely lasted. You’d be a politician and form an ally, you’d marry your daughter to his son. Then, you’d break your alliance and form a new one, in that case, you would force your daughter to divorce her current husband, and remarry the son of your new ally. In almost all cases, a woman who was remarried would be forced to abandon her female children when she entered a new house.

Couples did not get to decide to stay married, unless they were lucky enough to be heads of their families. Octavian famously made his son divorce his wife once Octavian found a stronger political ally he wanted to form a union with. His son was devastated, as they were despeartely in love. His wife was pregnant at the time, and upon being told she would be divorced, she miscarried, such was her distress.

It is also of note that in Roman culture, killing daughters was perfectly acceptable, and female babies were regularly killed or abandoned to die.

Do you honestly feel this fits your traditional view of marriage?