How my View of Gay Marriage is not changed

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopticChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe_5859 said:
But then what happens when a man wants to leave his wife for his mistress and leave her with nothing. Does the wife have no legal recourse? What about custody of their children? Or perhaps the woman is just claiming they were married when it’s really just her nice next-door neighbor she decided to take advantage of.
Click to expand...
Make contracts like that with a notary present.
Joe_5859 said:
I understand the desire to come up with a compromise to make everyone happy. I also understand the impulse to get the State out of anything having to do with the Church’s sacramental teaching. But this is not something that could ever be considered without some serious thought. The proposal of removing the State from the marriage business is completely novel and would be a profound sociological experiment with far-reaching consequences we can likely only begin to imagine. That’s not something we want to do just to end an argument and make everyone happy.
Click to expand...
That’s one of my first arguments. It’s not novel, state marriages are novel. In Europe, at least in the Netherlands, it was forced upon us by Napoleon. Before that we were fine too.
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
I could say in reference to gay marriage:

“I don’t follow your point. There’s nothing, in principle, to stop an homosexual person from getting married or civil union’d with a woman.”

Why the fuss about allowing gay marriage then?
Click to expand...
Because they don’t *want *to get married to someone of the opposite sex. What they want to marry someone they could love, and receive all the same government benefits that straight couples receive.

Asexuals get married. Asexuality is pretty rare in the first place, but it’s a big country, and the Internet helps people of like-minds to find each other rather easily. So it does happen. But if an asexual person isn’t married and able to access the benefits of being married, then that isn’t discrimination. That’s exercising a choice and dealing with the understood consequences.
 
As I see it’s a relatively simple matter, here in Britain at least.
Churches offer marriages, and have done ever since God married Adam & Eve.
The state offers unions, which it labels marriages.
The fact that each recognise ceremonies performed by the other is a relic of the time when church and state were not separated like they are now. And that, as I see it, is the confusion people have. There is this idea that to protect churches (mostly the Church of England really, though) the government will have to create two types of marriage: civil, and religious. What people forget, is that there already is two types, just both are generally accepted as the same thing.
The only issue, is that because the state is separate from religion, it has to be objective and cannot be seen to be discriminative. Employers cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, nor can businesses etc. therefore the state is bound to abide by its own principles and it’s hands are effectively tied to permit same sex civil unions. Very little will change, other than the terminology applied to something which already exists.
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
Make contracts like that with a notary present.
Click to expand...
So the solution to getting the State uninvolved in marriage is even more bureaucratic paperwork? 😉
Credo_ergo_sum said:
That’s one of my first arguments. It’s not novel, state marriages are novel. In Europe, at least in the Netherlands, it was forced upon us by Napoleon. Before that we were fine too.
Click to expand...
Ah, you are coming from a different locale than myself. I am unfamiliar with your historical situation, so I cannot really comment on that.

Maybe it’s just my American perspective, but if our government decided tomorrow to announce “We’re withdrawing from the marriage business; go handle these things for yourselves,” I cannot imagine a resulting scenario that would not be massively chaotic and unsatisfying for everyone.
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
Well, I don’t see liberalism going away anytime soon, how much I’d like that to happen.

But really, in the end gay marriage will be legalised and practicing homosexuality will therefore be endorsed by the state, which represent its citizens.

Also, the state won’t protect marriage anymore, it will only harm it. Better to prevent that to happen.
Click to expand...
Stopping state protection will not help, in fact it would be worse.
 
epan said:
I have a theory about this. We know from polling that the majority of Americans have supported gay marriage for some years. FOX recently ran a feature, asking exactly the question: why do the surveyed opinion poll results vary from the voting poll results. FOX comes up with its own conclusions, but here is what I think.
  1. The majority of those opposed to gay marriage see it as a moral issue which affects them personally. They have a strong stake in the issue. So, they will tend to turn out to vote.
  2. The majority of those who support gay marriage are heterosexual. While gays are very likely to vote on the issue, the balance of their support is not as likely to vote, in varying degrees.
In California the margin was narrow. FOX also speculated that this coming election may be the turning point in which the vote might represent a majority opinion on this topic.
Click to expand...
Unlikely.

The issue is probably the polling. There is a long recognized effect that people tend to tell pollsters what they think they want to hear, particularly if a stance is controversial.

PC positions always outpoll their actual votes.

Giving how pro-homosexuality the media is, people likely lie to the pollsters, saying they support gay marriage, when they actually don’t.

God Bless
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
Why not abolish state-marriages? The state should recognise no marriage. If people want to get married they can do so sacramentally in Church or, if they’re gay or not religious, organise some sort of ritual elsewhere and call it marriage. Everyone happy.
Click to expand...
Because the public purpose of marriage is to tie children to their parents and their parents to one another. If it weren’t for children, there would be no need for marriage; therefore, the state has a compelling interest in children being raised by a mother and a father.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Note needed changes. 😉

If there were no separation of Church and State, the State would be (synonymous with) the Church. Religious institutions are advocacy groups just like any other advocacy group with First Amendment rights not reducible by the fact of their religious identity
Click to expand...
Liz,

You are too good to me…:cool:
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
I’m also not in favor of renaming it civil unions. I’m advocating the state stops doing things they shouldn’t even by doing anyway, that is to meddle unnecessarily in the private life of its citizens.

What would be the difference for the Church if the secular marriage was done before a state official or before, let’s say, a notary?

And yes, marriage existed in the early beginnings of the human race, but I can’t remember the ancient Greeks or Romans going to a state official for their marriage. It was only done for friends and family.
Click to expand...
Then why go to the State and demand gay marriage?

People can and are living however they want, right now, but don’t put same-sex marriage on the ballot ever again. No one needs my approval to do anything.

Peace,
Ed
 
epan said:
I disagree. The trend is clear. 2012 is the tipping point for some, and the rest will follow.
Click to expand...
“tipping point” It’s on my top ten list of words I hate. It’s usually around number 5. There will be no tipping point at all.

Peace,
Ed
 
ASimon said:
What is incorrect? Your link does not address my comment.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. What is the recognized gay agenda is this:

Gay Marriage - the goal. But if that doesn’t work…

Civil Unions. But if that doesn’t work…

Domestic Partnerships.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Sure it does. What is the recognized gay agenda is this:

Gay Marriage - the goal. But if that doesn’t work…

Civil Unions. But if that doesn’t work…

Domestic Partnerships.
Click to expand...
Well, you’re wrong in the 2nd place because there is no “contingency clause” in the gay agenda. If Gay Marriage doesn’t work, they’ll keep pushing until it does. There will be no acceptance of CUs or DPs as consolation prizes.

And you’re still wrong in the 1st place because the link doesn’t address my comment.
 
edwest2 said:
“tipping point” It’s on my top ten list of words I hate. It’s usually around number 5. There will be no tipping point at all.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
good luck with that view. are you familiar with the ostrich?
 
ASimon said:
Well, you’re wrong in the 2nd place because there is no “contingency clause” in the gay agenda. If Gay Marriage doesn’t work, they’ll keep pushing until it does. There will be no acceptance of CUs or DPs as consolation prizes.

And you’re still wrong in the 1st place because the link doesn’t address my comment.
Click to expand...
At least you’ve got to give the polygamists something, they don’t push their agendas as stubbornly and agressive as the homosexuals.

Really, if they wont settle with CUs or DPs then they’re just provocating and should be dismissed.
 
epan said:
I disagree. The trend is clear. 2012 is the tipping point for some, and the rest will follow.
Click to expand...
E,

I thought that in December 2012 according to the Mayan’s that the world is coming to an end…is that the tipping point yous speak of?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top