How My View on Gay Marriage Changed

[fix]

Indeed, the age of consent can change, and it is different between different states. If we define pedophilia as “attraction to girls below the age of consent” then we would clearly see it could not happen. However, we could also (and more correctly) define pedophilia as attraction to girls who are not yet sexually mature. Therefore, in order for pedophile marriage to be legalized, the age of consent would have to be lowered to an age before the typical onset of puberty, or ~10-12 years old. There are very few developed countries with ages of consent near there (some parts of Mexico: 12, Japan and Spain: 13, Germany, Italy: 14) We should note, however, that these are the minimum ages of consent, i.e. sex with people under the listed ages is always criminal, but legal sex with people over these ages may require certain other conditions be met. Therefore, I find it highly unlikely that the US would ever set the age of consent low enough to legalize pedophilia marriage.

20 years ago: religioustolerance.org/hom_mar5a.htm

Anything goes as we see today as certain proof.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

True,

I oppose gay marriage for religious beliefs, accept that Culture needs marriage to produce the next generation and that it is in the best interest of the children to oppose any notion of gay marriage that could lead to children being raised by homosexuals.

I do not believe that any specific right on a list of benefits for homosexuals needs to be specified, I believe that the denial should be all inclusive and to specify a specific one is inconsequential to the notion that any benefit should be allowed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

So you believe, for example, that it is immoral for a man to have next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims to another man?

Maybe you believe it would be immoral for a man to have tax-free transfer of property between himself and another man (including on death) and exemption from “due-on-sale” clauses.

Maybe you believe it would be immoral to give a man court notice of another man’s probate proceedings.

 

[CopticChristian]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

So you believe, for example, that it is immoral for a man to have next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims to another man?

Maybe you believe it would be immoral for a man to have tax-free transfer of property between himself and another man (including on death) and exemption from “due-on-sale” clauses.

Maybe you believe it would be** immoral** to give a man court notice of another man’s probate proceedings.

True,

You have made inferences that do not make sense. I stated what I stated. Read it again.

I do not believe that any specific right on a list of benefits for homosexuals needs to be specified, I believe that the denial should be all inclusive and to specify a specific one is inconsequential to the notion that any benefit should be allowed.

No rights or priveleges should be granted to homosexuals as special individuals.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m on the fence about this point.

On the one hand, it seems to not matter that there exist non-religious marriages. How people want to get married and people’s beliefs about marriage seems like something the government should not consider when granting marriage licenses. In other words, it is true that there exist secular marriages, but that doesn’t change the fact that the government has decided to legally recognize certain types of marriage over others. The government should grant marriage licenses to anyone who wants them unless the people who want them would be committing a crime (e.g. pedophilia, incest, or tax evasion.)

On the other hand, the existence of secular marriage may indicate that the government has its own definition of marriage which is decided separately from the definitions of religion. Indeed, the states typically require people who wish to get married to complete a marriage license independently of a religious ceremony. From this perspective, the government is not institutionalizing a religious arrangement. Instead, the government is recognizing that two people have taken on certain responsibilities towards each other, and correspondingly gives them certain rights. Those rights, specifically, are: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
**Therefore, if gays wanted to take on those responsibilities and receive the rights, the correct thing to do would be to ask if there were any specific reason why gays would be unable to fulfill the any of the responsibilities or if it would be wrong to give them any particular right./**QUOTE]

True,

Gays deserve no special rights or privelges, and marriage is ordered towards procreation, Skinner vs Oklahoma says as much and if one right is granted then other rights will be demanded. You are in favor of benefits as heterosexuals are entitled to and that is not correct. You favor granting special rights and priveleges and extended benefits and whatever child rearing that can be allowed. You want to promote legal status and it is not in the best interest of the child or the culture.

I oppose gay marriage for religious beliefs, accept that Culture needs marriage to produce the next generation and that it is in the best interest of the children to oppose any notion of gay marriage that could lead to children being raised by homosexuals.

I refuse to consent to scientific studies with children and homosexuals.

 

[Petersmate]

Once you allow contraception … its anything goes.

You play a sports game without boundaries and it’ll be complete chaos.

start taking the boundaries away from life and anything goes.

as any decent parent will tell you.If kids don’t have boundaries there is craziness.

Isn’t it amazing how Pope Pauls Humanae Vitae predicted the state of todays society- the meltdown of western civilization.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Once you allow contraception … its anything goes.

You play a sports game without boundaries and it’ll be complete chaos.

start taking the boundaries away from life and anything goes.

as any decent parent will tell you.If kids don’t have boundaries there is craziness.

Isn’t it amazing how Pope Pauls Humanae Vitae predicted the state of todays society- the meltdown of western civilization.

I do tend to find that, in the discussion of homosexuality, people opposed to gay marriage tend to eventually resort to the “but… but… abortion!” argument. It is, of course, not a real argument, but I think it is effective at riling people up so as to prevent them from realizing that their debate opponents have any legitimate points.

 

[CopticChristian]

I do tend to find that, in the discussion of homosexuality, people opposed to gay marriage tend to eventually resort to the “but… but… abortion!” argument. It is, of course, not a real argument, but I think it is effective at riling people up so as to prevent them from realizing that their debate opponents have any legitimate points.

True,

You seem to find yourself in discussion about gay marriage noting that there is opposition. It is clear that you favor gay marriage and offer frequent support. You point out a weakness as you see it and therefore should realize that there is no point in arguing with something that you don’t believe in. There is only debate when there is a need to believe that you need to convince someone else of a point.

I conclude that culturally and for the benefit of the children gay marriage should be dismissed as normal and there should be no benefits for gays period. No debate.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

True,

Gays deserve no special rights or privelges, and marriage is ordered towards procreation, Skinner vs Oklahoma says as much and if one right is granted then other rights will be demanded. You are in favor of benefits as heterosexuals are entitled to and that is not correct. You favor granting special rights and priveleges and extended benefits and whatever child rearing that can be allowed. You want to promote legal status and it is not in the best interest of the child or the culture.

I oppose gay marriage for religious beliefs, accept that Culture needs marriage to produce the next generation and that it is in the best interest of the children to oppose any notion of gay marriage that could lead to children being raised by homosexuals.

I refuse to consent to scientific studies with children and homosexuals.

Skinner vx Oklahoma found:

Compulsory sterilization as a punishment for a crime when applied only to certain categories of crimes violates the Equal Protection Clause.

So you’ll have to elaborate if you want me to believe it claimed that marriage requires procreation.

You keep saying that it is in the best interest of children, but you have still offered no proof of that claim beyond religious belief. We know that the government cannot establish your religious belief as law. Therefore, on what non-religious basis do you believe such a law could be justified?

Indeed, if the government has its own definitions of marriage, then what your religion believes about marriage is irrelevant here. If we call the government’s marriage “civil marriage” and your version of marriage “Catholic marriage” then we can describe the two as completely distinct. Civil marriage is not derived from the principles of Catholic marriage, any more than it is derived from the principles of Jewish marriage or Shinto marriage. What is civil marriage then? It is simply a governmental recognition that two people have taken on certain responsibilities towards each other, and consequent conferring of rights.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

You seem to find yourself in discussion about gay marriage noting that there is opposition. It is clear that you favor gay marriage and offer frequent support. You point out a weakness as you see it and therefore should realize that there is no point in arguing with something that you don’t believe in. There is only debate when there is a need to believe that you need to convince someone else of a point

Not true. These forums are a great source of people who will never change their minds regardless of the evidence or arguments put before them. I get two things from debates with such people:

1. I get to enjoy the mental gymnastics people come up with to try and hold their position against a much stronger argument, or compelling evidence that they are wrong.
2. I get to find out if there are any weaknesses in my positions. It is like playing tennis with a wall: you will never hit the ball through the wall, but you can become a much better tennis player. In the same way, I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do expect to get more experience debating the issue.

 

[CopticChristian]

Skinner vx Oklahoma found:
So you’ll have to elaborate if you want me to believe it claimed that marriage requires procreation.

You keep saying that it is in the best interest of children, but you have still offered no proof of that claim beyond religious belief. We know that the government cannot establish your religious belief as law. Therefore, on what non-religious basis do you believe such a law could be justified?

Indeed, if the government has its own definitions of marriage, then what your religion believes about marriage is irrelevant here. If we call the government’s marriage “civil marriage” and your version of marriage “Catholic marriage” then we can describe the two as completely distinct. Civil marriage is not derived from the principles of Catholic marriage, any more than it is derived from the principles of Jewish marriage or Shinto marriage. What is civil marriage then? It is simply a governmental recognition that two people have taken on certain responsibilities towards each other, and consequent conferring of rights.

True,

The intent of Skinner was to deny criminals the right to procreate. They were being sterilized prior to release to marry so that the genetic predisoposition to crime would not be translated. The finding states clearly that the right of “marriage and procreation” was the reason for eradicating the practice of sterilization of criminals was because of the right to “marriage and procreation”…this is the ruling that is referred to in Loving vs Virginia as the “right to marriage”…Go find it, read it…

I do not have to prove anything. Family law makes decisions in the best interest of the Children all the time, not in the best concern, best desire, best request…just the best interest of the children…

No experimentation with children for it is in their best interest.

 

[CopticChristian]

Not true. These forums are a great source of people who will never change their minds regardless of the evidence or arguments put before them. I get two things from debates with such people:

1. I get to enjoy the mental gymnastics people come up with to try and hold their position against a much stronger argument, or compelling evidence that they are wrong.
2. I get to find out if there are any weaknesses in my positions. It is like playing tennis with a wall: you will never hit the ball through the wall, but you can become a much better tennis player. In the same way, I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do expect to get more experience debating the issue.

True,

I understand in reading all your postings and threads that you have started that you like controversy. I see by implication that you believe you have a strong compelling argument…quite honestly Scarlet I don’t give a hoot…

 

[Petersmate]

Not true. These forums are a great source of people who will never change their minds regardless of the evidence or arguments put before them. I get two things from debates with such people:

1. I get to enjoy the mental gymnastics people come up with to try and hold their position against a much stronger argument, or compelling evidence that they are wrong.
2. I get to find out if there are any weaknesses in my positions. It is like playing tennis with a wall: you will never hit the ball through the wall, but you can become a much better tennis player. In the same way, I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do expect to get more experience debating the issue.

well I didn’t want to say it but from personal experience and nothing else this is mental llness. I was married to someone with mental illness for 18 years

 

[CopticChristian]

Not true. These forums are a great source of people who will never change their minds regardless of the evidence or arguments put before them. I get two things from debates with such people:

1. I get to enjoy the mental gymnastics people come up with to try and hold their position against a much stronger argument, or compelling evidence that they are wrong.
2. I get to find out if there are any weaknesses in my positions. It is like playing tennis with a wall: you will never hit the ball through the wall, but you can become a much better tennis player. In the same way, I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do expect to get more experience debating the issue.

True,

I believe that you may want to look into megalomania. You believe that your compelling evidence proves someone wrong. :whacky:

Think about different, in contrast, not consistent with my beliefs, not understood, unaccepted…this is healthy thinking.

Arguing on this thread you are arguing with beliefs that are based on teachings that we believe and I believe come from God. Now I know your belief in the almighty is irreverent, impious, and the like as I have sorted through your postings so I understand and see your nihilistic point of view however to believe that you are right and others are wrong is a sign of dysfunctional thinking…rethink this one my impious friend.

I think you are wrong, not based on argument and debate but becuause as a nihilist you do not acknowledge the God I believe in and the OHCAC that I believe is His as well. You are wrong because you disagree with the teachings of the OHCAC and I understand that those that do not acknowledge and worship as I do believe that reason prevails. It is not through debate and I take no credit for the reasons you are wrong.

You believe that there are weaknesses in your positon. That is good and admittedly you must then see strengths of others and that is good. There is hope for the irreverent, impious, unbelieving soul.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

General Reminder:

This discussion has strayed from its original topic. Please return to the original topic under discussion. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

 

[jmcrae]

My views on same-gender marriage changed recently. Just a year ago, I was opposed to same-gender marriage because I believe Western civilization needs to improve out fertility rates, and promoting traditional marriage would promote fertility rates. While I have not abandoned that consequentialist argument, I find it less compelling now.

It was a deontological argument which shifted my views. The simple fact of the matter is that sometimes, people change their gender. Some of those transgender individuals are in long-term loving relationships when they change their gender. Around 90% of relationships do not survive gender transition, and that travesty is due in part to society’s negative view of “gay marriage.” Since transgender individuals find it medically necessary to change their gender, it is morally wrong to punish them by making it difficult for them to marry, or to stay married. It is wrong to regulate such relationships.

It isn’t actually possible to “change your gender.” Your DNA will remain whichever gender you were born as, no matter how many prosthetics you wear, or how many body parts you have surgically removed or altered, or how many hormones you take.

Heterosexual marriage is because God created them male and female; in His own image created He them. (Genesis 1:27)

 

[epan]

I absolutely agree with you there!

The problem is that so many priests and lay-Catholics have no concept of what the church teaches, is apathetic towards the teachings, or even actively opposes them that we can no longer simply direct inquiring minds towards the nearest RCIA class in the hopes that the truth will be revealed to them there. As enlightened Catholics, we have to take the first steps in sheperding the flock and teaching people about the beauty of the authentic Catholic faith since the majority of church leaders just don’t seem to be up to the job, anymore…

It is an interesting dialectic. Due to recent events, and the current leadership, the Catholic Church is at a low with public opinion, and among the other than conservative Catholics. So, it is not likely that moderate Catholics will agree with the official line.

As a non-catholic, this makes me wonder what the role of descent is in the Catholic Church? What is the mechanism? How does it work? The last MAJOR change in doctrine was Vatican 2. How does the immutable doctrine change, as it does, yet still be called immutable. I’m intrigued by the longevity of the institution of the Catholic Church. For most of its existence, it has been as much a secular political power, as a religious power. The paradoxes of the height of its 2,000 years of promoting the faith, when contrasted to the utter depravity of some of its leaders throughout history, and even recently, is a fascinating paradox.

But I digress… The Catholic Church changes, ever so slowly. What it the mechanism for this?

 

[CopticChristian]

It is an interesting dialectic. Due to recent events, and the current leadership, the Catholic Church is at a low with public opinion, and among the other than conservative Catholics. So, it is not likely that moderate Catholics will agree with the official line.

As a non-catholic, this makes me wonder what the role of descent is in the Catholic Church? What is the mechanism? How does it work? The last MAJOR change in doctrine was Vatican 2. How does the immutable doctrine change, as it does, yet still be called immutable. I’m intrigued by the longevity of the institution of the Catholic Church. For most of its existence, it has been as much a secular political power, as a religious power. The paradoxes of the height of its 2,000 years of promoting the faith, when contrasted to the utter depravity of some of its leaders throughout history, and even recently, is a fascinating paradox.

But I digress… The Catholic Church changes, ever so slowly. What it the mechanism for this?

Epan,

I confronted this Protestant notion that the Church changes and has changed…I as a Catholic am not aware of any issue changed by dissent as it regards Faith and Morals.

Help me understand what it is you say “The Catholic Church changees, ever so slowly”…what changes were related to dissent concerning Faith and Morals?

 

[epan]

Epan,

I confronted this Protestant notion that the Church changes and has changed…I as a Catholic am not aware of any issue changed by dissent as it regards Faith and Morals.

Help me understand what it is you say “The Catholic Church changees, ever so slowly”…what changes were related to dissent concerning Faith and Morals?

Sure. Money lending, anti-semitisicm. divorce (annulment)… The Catholic Church has lagged behind society, and behind or ahead of other denominations, on these topics. Is not the explicit rejection of anti-semiticm in Vatican 2 not an issue of contention with a splinter group of Catholics, which the Holy Father is trying to reconcile with?

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is an interesting dialectic. Due to recent events, and the current leadership, the Catholic Church is at a low with public opinion, and among the other than conservative Catholics. So, it is not likely that moderate Catholics will agree with the official line.

It doesn’t matter. The Church doesn’t change its position because of non-agreement from some of its members, nor because of “low public opinion,” LOL.

IAs a non-catholic, this makes me wonder what the role of descent is in the Catholic Church?

I’m sure you meant “dissent,” unless that was a Freudian slip.

The last MAJOR change in doctrine was Vatican 2.

There were no doctrinal changes via Vatican 2. There were policy changes regarding things like liturgical celebration, the vernacular, the sacraments, etc.; there were also policy suggestions, a broadening of language about fixed doctrine, and some expanded explanations of things like the role of the laity, etc.

 

[epan]

It doesn’t matter. The Church doesn’t change its position because of non-agreement from some of its members, nor because of “low public opinion,” LOL.

I’m sure you meant “dissent,” unless that was a Freudian slip.

There were no doctrinal changes via Vatican 2. There were policy changes regarding things like liturgical celebration, the vernacular, the sacraments, etc.; there were also policy suggestions, a broadening of language about fixed doctrine, and some expanded explanations of things like the role of the laity, etc.

No, more like automatic spelling correction on one of a number of Apple devices which come up with rather interesting, and sometimes frustrating “spell check” corrections as one types.

I’m bemused by the claims that the Catholic Church does not change its doctrine over time. Students of history disagree. Theologians disagree. This seems to be a hot topic with Benedict XVI. I know that he puts great store in immutability.