How My View on Gay Marriage Changed

[ConstantineTG]

Society has failed, but God still expects Catholics and those who claim to be followers of Christ to continue to be a light to the world. We are called to tell the truth in season and out of season regardless of if people want to hear the truth or not. If people won’t listen to us when we tell them the truth about marriage God will judge them for it but not us.

I don’t disagree with what you said at all

 

[livingwordunity]

That’s fine – the debate over SSM isn’t a debate over what “marriage in the Catholic Church” should be. It’s a debate over whether same-sex couples should have the same right as their heterosexual counterparts to enter into **civil marriage. **So, the Catholic view of marriage is irrelevant to this debate.

That’s simply not true. The Church is currently fighting against the government trying to force Catholics to violate our conscience with the HHS mandate. The same people behind the HHS mandate are promoting “same-sex marriage” and show no sign of compromise with that either. Therefore, there’s no reason to believe they won’t try the same with so-called “same-sex marriage”.

Catholic Charities was already negatively affected by the gay agenda by being pressured by the government to abandon it’s adoption services because they would not violate Church teaching by giving a child to a homosexual couple. And there’s already been the first lawsuit filed against a Catholic hospital for not recognizing a “same-sex marriage”.

 

[spencelo]

That’s simply not true. The Church is currently fighting against the government trying to force Catholics to violate our conscience with the HHS mandate. The same people behind the HHS mandate are promoting “same-sex marriage” and show no sign of compromise with that either. Therefore there’s no reason to believe they won’t try the same with so-called “same-sex marriage”. There’s already been the first lawsuit filed against a Catholic hospital for not recognizing a “same-sex marriage”.

You are conflating two issues: (i) how marriage should be defined in a church, and (ii) to what extent do Catholic organizations and other entities have to abide by civil laws of general applicability. (Btw, a Catholic hospital isn’t a church).

 

[livingwordunity]

You are conflating two issues: (i) how marriage should be defined in a church, and (ii) to what extent do Catholic organizations and other entities have to abide by civil laws of general applicability. (Btw, a Catholic hospital isn’t a church).

When did I say that a Catholic hospital is a church? The point is the government is trying to force Catholics to violate our conscience with one thing therefore there’s no reason to think they won’t try it with another.

 

[CopticChristian]

No. But I would say that the laws governing marriage are unequal, in that they permit unjustified discrimination.

Sure, there are leaders and well-known advocates on both sides of the SSM debate.

Well-known advocates and leaders = high up. Everyone else (myself included) = down here.

Many people “down here” are influenced by what people “high up” say in this debate – not sure why you find this fact surprising. And I have no idea why you think such influences violate our freedom to choose.

Marriage isn’t a right? That’s news to me. I must have misread Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court said that marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man.”

Spence,

Do you need a license to drive? That is a privelge. Do you need a license to get married?

You are confused. Loving vs Virginia deals with race. Someone born black, someone born yellow, are you saying that someone is born gay. That means that you are proposing a genetic predisosition and implicating gay as a disease. Now what?

 

[spencelo]

When did I say that a Catholic hospital is a church? The point is the government is trying to force Catholics to violate our conscience with one thing therefore there’s no reason to think they won’t try it with another.

When I pointed out that the debate over SSM isn’t about what “marriage in the Catholic Church” should be, you responded by saying that that’s “simply not true,” and then proceeded to bring up the subject of catholic hospitals. Thus, your response seemed to conflated the two issues I identified.

Claiming that it isn’t true that the debate over SSM isn’t about what “marriage in the Catholic Church” should be addresses issue (i). Claiming that Catholic hospitals are being forced, unconstitutionally, to abide by civil laws of general applicability addresses issue (ii).

 

[spencelo]

Spence,

Do you need a license to drive? That is a privelge. Do you need a license to get married?

I’m not sure I understand your distinction between a privilege and a right. If I meet the qualifications for obtaining a license to drive, then I have a right to go buy a car and drive. If I meet the qualifications for obtaining a marriage license, then I have a right to get married.

You are confused. Loving vs Virginia deals with race. Someone born black, someone born yellow, are you saying that someone is born gay. That means that you are proposing a genetic predisosition and implicating gay as a disease. Now what?

I simply cited Loving for the fairly straightforward proposition that marriage is a “basic civil right” – as opposed to a privilege (whatever you mean by that). Loving, at the very least, stands for the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right in some sense of the term, which you appear to deny.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not sure I understand your distinction between a privilege and a right. If I meet the qualifications for obtaining a license to drive, then I have a right to go buy a car and drive. If I meet the qualifications for obtaining a marriage license, then I have a right to get married.

I simply cited Loving for the fairly straightforward proposition that marriage is a “basic civil right” – as opposed to a privilege (whatever you mean by that). Loving, at the very least, stands for the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right in some sense of the term, which you appear to deny.

Spence based on Loving vs Virginia you fail the test for right of marriage. Reread loving vs Virginia. You are correct that the right is stated based on

Skinner vs Oklahoma…found here

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=535#541

This is a summary…Your basic obstacle in imputing what you believe to be a right based on loving as stated is calling into question this ruling and in partiuclar the word “AND”…this is your stumbling block…

This case stating that marriage is a right is based on sterlilzation in Oklahoma and the, now get this “the right to procreate”

This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race-the right to have offspring. Oklahoma has decreed the enforcement of its law against petitioner, overruling his claim that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the body of the text read what the right is…

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the** basic civil rights of man.** **Marriage and **procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects.

Now I don’t know about the higher ups but the guys down here have never seen a homosexual union able to procreate.

What is the basic civil right…all together now…marriage and procreation…not marriage alone…That word will cause more problems…

 

[spencelo]

Spence based on Loving vs Virginia you fail the test for right of marriage.

Oh, why’s that?

In the body of the text read what the right is…

Now I don’t know about the higher ups but the guys down here have never seen a homosexual union able to procreate.

Two basic civil rights are identified in the quoted passage: (i) marriage and (ii) procreation. Notice that the passage never says that procreation is a prerequisite for marriage.

 

[CopticChristian]

Oh, why’s that?

Two basic civil rights are identified in the quoted passage: (i) marriage and (ii) procreation. Notice that the passage never says that procreation is a prerequisite for marriage.

Spence,

Now we have a debate. In my understanding of reading legal cases you have to take into account the entirety of the ruling. You cannot say that it is marriage and procreation because you want to.

The issue was sterilization. Marriage was allowed if sterile and ruled that it was not proper to sterilize prior to marriage. If marriage alone were the issue there would be no case.

I am on this side you are on that side…you have no case.

I suggest you read the concurring opinions because the issue of inheritance is the thrust of the case which implies and solidifies the issue at hand here, Marriage and procreation.

So, in your scenario this would be the higher ups designating marriage as a civil right to procreate. Now I can agree with these higher ups…

 

[spencelo]

I am on this side you are on that side…you have no case.

Well then, present your case! In the passage you quoted, there is nothing to indicate that procreation is a prerequisite for marriage – in fact, “marriage” and “procreation” appear to be identified as separate civil rights. If you want to argue that Skinner stands for the proposition that procreation is necessary for the right to marry, go ahead. Show me!

Btw, we have strayed a bit left-field from your contention that marriage is a privilege and not a right. I think we both know which one of us doesn’t have a case in that debate.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well then, present your case! In the passage you quoted, there is nothing to indicate that procreation is a prerequisite for marriage – in fact, “marriage” and “procreation” appear to be identified as separate civil rights. If you want to argue that Skinner stands for the proposition that procreation is necessary for the right to marry, go ahead. Show me!

Btw, we have strayed a bit left-field from your contention that marriage is a privilege and not a right. I think we both know which one of us doesn’t have a case in that debate.

Spence,

Read the concurring opinions and abstract any sentence you can find that suggests your unfounded opinion that the higher ups are speaking of marriage alone.

 

[spencelo]

Spence,

Read the concurring opinions and abstract any sentence you can find that suggests your unfounded opinion that the higher ups are speaking of marriage alone.

I never said the opinion was speaking of “marriage alone” – only that from the quoted passage, marriage and procreation appeared to be identified as separate and distinct rights. Why should I think otherwise? In particular, why should I think that Skinner stands for the proposition that procreation is a prerequisite for marriage? Is it too much to hope that you’ll at least attempt to support your claim in the next post?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Loving, at the very least, stands for the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right in some sense of the term, which you appear to deny.

…in a sense that cannot be applied to homosexuals whatsoever, as the case was not presented or decided in that context, nor was the institutional definition widened by the Court. Therefore, the introduction of Loving is off-topic.

 

[spencelo]

…in a sense that cannot be applied to homosexuals whatsoever, as the case was not presented or decided in that context, nor was the institutional definition widened by the Court. Therefore, the introduction of Loving is off-topic.

I brought up Loving only because CC kept insisting that marriage is a privilege and not a right, so my introduction of the case was not off-topic at all.

 

[CopticChristian]

I never said the opinion was speaking of “marriage alone” – only that from the quoted passage, marriage and procreation appeared to be identified as separate and distinct rights. Why should I think otherwise? In particular, why should I think that Skinner stands for the proposition that procreation is a prerequisite for marriage? Is it too much to hope that you’ll at least attempt to support your claim in the next post?

Spence,

Your honor…the case before you is whether marriage is a right or a privelege…it has been identified that in a case Loving vs Virginia that marriage is a right.

This case you know was between a black and a white. The case was based on racism and was found to be unconstitutional. In this case we find that Skinner vs Oklahoma support the right to marry.

Your honor prisoners were being sterilized prior to marriage and as you know this was done in the belief that prisoners would transmit their propensity for crime by marriage and procreation. There is no evidence that criminal activity has been shown to be genetic.

While the parties were free to marry the very right to procreate was denied and it is clear that the right to marry and procreate constitute a right that cannot be denied.

As you know homosexuals have come to believe that discrimination of the same sex union is based on Loving vs Virginia and have implicated racial discrimination in the same vain as sexual discrimination denying homosexuals the same right and privelge as granted in this case.

However, in consideration that the right to marry is based on the very right to marry and procreate as stated in Oklahoma vs Skinner their is no violation of the right to grant a same sex union for two reasons.

First, there is no proof that in consideration of the case of Loving vs Virginia the case was argued as an attempt to maintain white supremacy and that implies and implicates the right to procreate. The very foundation of White Supremacy as stated in this case is based on the procreation of the white race at the expense of the black race. There is no indication that homosexuals constitute a race and therefore do not qualify in this test and there is no evidence that homosexuallity is transmitted genetically, denying the rights of homosexuals to propogate as is seen in Loving vs Virginia.

Secondly the case of Oklahoma vs Skinner brings to the attention of the court the very foundation as stated the right to marry and procreate. In regards to this right homosexual unions are by definition sterile and therefore there is no right denied as a homosexual union by its very nature cannot be equated with sterilization and marriage as the very nature of the union is sterilization by choice. While no freedoms are violated and free choice is expressed…I submit that no right to same sex marriage be granted…

Counselor…your response…opcorn:

 

[spencelo]

CC,

Your honor, opposing counsel initially identified the issue before us as “whether marriage is a right or a privilege,” and quickly **conceded it **by correctly noting that Loving identified marriage as a “right.” In short, we both agree!

The remaining issue before us is whether procreation is a necessary prerequisite for marriage. Opposing counsel seems that believe it is, citing Skinner, but I can find nothing in his argument to you, your honor, that would support such an incredible and dangerous notion. In fact, as he recognizes, Skinner talked about the right to “marry and procreate” – two distinct rights. Nowhere in Skinner does it say that the right to marry is conditioned on the ability to procreate. If Skinner stood for that proposition, then it would be perfectly constitutional to prevent infertile opposite-sex couples from marrying, which is not a view that I think opposing counsel holds. Certainly, it’s not a view that any court in this country – high or low – has *ever *held. Hence, from the mere fact that same-sex couples can’t procreate, that in itself isn’t any reason at all for denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry.

Your honor, to conclude: it appears that opposing counsel has explicitly, and without qualification, conceded the first issue before us. On the second issue, he has utterly failed to support his contention that procreation is a necessary prerequisite for marriage. Accordingly, the case for denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry cannot be made on that basis.

 

[CopticChristian]

CC,

Your honor, opposing counsel initially identified the issue before us as “whether marriage is a right or a privilege,” and quickly **conceded it **by correctly noting that Loving identified marriage as a “right.” In short, we both agree!

The remaining issue before us is whether procreation is a necessary prerequisite for marriage. Opposing counsel seems that believe it is, citing Skinner, but I can find nothing in his argument to you, your honor, that would support such an incredible and dangerous notion. In fact, as he recognizes, Skinner talked about the right to “marry and procreate” – two distinct rights. Nowhere in Skinner does it say that the right to marry is conditioned on the ability to procreate. If Skinner stood for that proposition, then it would be perfectly constitutional to prevent infertile opposite-sex couples from marrying, which is not a view that I think opposing counsel holds. Certainly, it’s not a view that any court in this country – high or low – has *ever *held. Hence, from the mere fact that same-sex couples can’t procreate, that in itself isn’t any reason at all for denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry.

Your honor, to conclude: it appears that opposing counsel has explicitly, and without qualification, conceded the first issue before us. On the second issue, he has utterly failed to support his contention that procreation is a necessary prerequisite for marriage. Accordingly, the case for denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry cannot be made on that basis.

on the contrary. Infertile couples through no fault of their own have the inherent ability to procreate and such is not the case with those that choose by their own recourse to cohabitate with intention however no ability to procreate due to the lack of understanding of the nature of the union. In that regard as it is stated in Oklahoma vs Skinner the sterile prisoner rendered sterile was denied a right not granted to those that by choice choose to be sterile as their is a difference in intention and parts. While same sex unions desire what they can never have, unless there is proof that this union qualifies as procreative by intention with ability then no marriage can be granted as considered to be a right.

 

[Elizabeth502]

CC,Your honor, opposing counsel initially identified the issue before us as “whether marriage is a right or a privilege,” and quickly **conceded it **by correctly noting that Loving identified marriage as a “right.” In short, we both agree!

Objection, Your Honor. Counsel has not established that marriage is a right outside of a narrow definition of the partners of that marriage. The argument cannot proceed without such a basis. Merely stating that it is a right “in some sense” is insufficient for this case, which concerns partners never recognized by any Court as participating in the “right” of marriage.

 

[spencelo]

on the contrary. Infertile couples through no fault of their own have the inherent ability to procreate

uh, they do? Infertile couples, by definition, lack the ability to procreate. It appears that opposing counsel is confused about basic medical facts.