C
ConstantineTG
Guest
How many heterosexual couples are infertile?
Meanwhile, even without doing a study or survey, I can safely say that 100% of gay couples have no ability to procreate whatsoever.
- Status
Meanwhile, even without doing a study or survey, I can safely say that 100% of gay couples have no ability to procreate whatsoever.
S
spencelo
Guest
Objective overruled! Both counsels agree, contrary to CC’s initial contention, that marriage is a right – a claim amply supported by the very case CC cites, Loving.
S
spencelo
Guest
Why does it matter how many? Whether the number is high, medium or low makes no legal difference – they have the right to marry, fertile or not.
So what? You and others seem to place great relevance on this fact without explaining why.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
Completely irrelevant. The real point is this:
There exist religions willing to allow gay marriage. What your religion believes about marriage is irrelevant to what their religion believes. Homosexuals want the right to free exercise of their religion. They also want the same legal protections for their religious arrangement as their heterosexual counterparts. If the government were to simply deny them the protections, they would be establishing certain religions’ definitions of marriage as more valid than those of other religions. This would be in violation of the establishment clause.
The government could deny them the protections if it were demonstrated that their arrangement is harmful to society. Also, marriage, under the law, is essentially a contract. The government could also refuse to grant marriage to people who are not able to enter into contractual agreements (e.g. animals or minors) but this does not apply to homosexual partnerships.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Because of their incapability to procreate naturally, they have absolutely nothing to contribute to society. So why do they deserve to get the benefits reserved for those who build the society by raising families?
M
MidnightSun12
Guest
For the record, I strongly and respectfully disagree with what you are saying. I also strongly disagree with any definition of marriage that does not involve one man and one woman united within the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony.
For the sake of this debate, however, if you are going to take God out of the equation, then why stop at allowing gay marriage? Why not also support poygamous marriages and incestuous marriages?
I think if you’re promoting gay marriage using a Godless argument to support your views, then you also have to justify why you are not also promoting these other two possible definitions of marriage (since if it’s morally wrong to deny one group marriage, then it should morally wrong to deny the others as well). You say that homosexual marriage is about “equal rights”, so why would it then be just to leave polygamous and incestuous relationships out of this debate? If we are truly oppressing and denying the rights of people in our society, then why are we cherry-picking the homosexual group and leaving everybody else out without representation?
M
MidnightSun12
Guest
For the record, I strongly and respectfully disagree with what you are saying. I also strongly disagree with any definition of marriage that does not involve one man and one woman united within the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony.
For the sake of this debate, however, if you are going to take God out of the equation, then why stop at allowing gay marriage? Why not also support poygamous marriages and incestuous marriages?
I think if you’re promoting gay marriage using a Godless argument to support your views, then you also have to justify why you are not also promoting these other two possible definitions of marriage (since if it’s morally wrong to deny one group marriage, then it should morally wrong to deny the others as well). You say that homosexual marriage is about “equal rights”, so why would it then be just to leave polygamous and incestuous relationships out of this debate? If we are truly oppressing and denying the rights of people in our society, then why are we cherry-picking the homosexual group and leaving everybody else out without representation?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Couples do not approach marriage with or without the knowledge of fertility. It is discovered after the fact with the exception of those that are married, found to be infertile and then remarry.
In the case of those that marry with the intention to procreate they have the necessary parts to accomplish the task which is not so in those homosexuals that are voluntarily sterile by their union.
Beyond that it is known that this country in declaring itself free from tyranny noted that…
Those declaring themselves free from tyranny admitted, accepted and proclaimed that we adhere to the laws of Nature and that which Nature’s God entitles us. We are not in the business of proclaiming religion however insofar as it is within the confines of the laws of Nature as stated and that whcih Nature’s God intended as stated in Oklahoma vs Skinner and Loving vs Virginia it is within the powers of the earth, the laws of Nature and Nature’s God that marriage is intended and is found to be seen as an intent to procreate.
In addition in defining this union we live in and the laws we abide by…
We accept that we as people forming that union make inference to that union of marriage as alluded to in the blessings of liberty we ask for ourselves and our posterity. The very mention of posterity is nothing more than the same right denied in Oklahoma vs Skinner. In order to have a posterity we freely admit and accept that unions are with the intent to procreate.
It is for that reason that we as people abiding by the powers of earth, the laws of Nature and Nature’s God we grant to ourselves and our posterity the virtue and benefit of marriage that is procreation and ask that all unions that are able within that union to procreate be granted the same right…it is for that reason that I ask that homosexual unions not be regarded as within the confines of anything other than a request not in keeping with the foundation of this land…
My country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee we sing…from every mountain side…
S
spencelo
Guest
Ah, the slippery slope objection! My problem is that I just don’t see the force. Allowing SSM may very well logically entail allowing other forms of marriages, and if so, then I’m willing to say those other marriages should be legal too. But allowing A and B doesn’t necessarily entail allowing C unless there are no relevant differences between A and B and C. Are there no relevant differences between SSM and polygamy and incest? Maybe, maybe not – but some argument is needed here. It’s no argument to just ask: if SSM, why not x, y or z? My response: why does x, y or z follow if we allow SSM? What’s the argument? If they do follow, so what?
S
spencelo
Guest
Really, that’s the *only *exception? Here are a few more: people on their death-bed, people who are permanently paralyzed from the waist down, people who’ve had vasectomy operations.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Spence,
question or answer to this
Problems need solutions.
Disallow SSM, x,y,z…problem solved, no argument.
S
spencelo
Guest
Except you haven’t identified the problem to be solved.Spence,
Problems need solutions. Disallow SSM, x,y,z…problem solved, no argument.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
And yet homosexuals in places where SS’M’ passed would not want Catholic to exercise theirs! It already started. Read the news article below. The tolerance demanded goes one way only – which is TYRANNY.
NY lawsuit pressures Catholic hospital to recognize same-sex ‘marriage’
Albany, N.Y., Jun 23, 2012 / 07:03 am
A New York woman’s lawsuit demanding that a Catholic hospital give spousal benefits to her same-sex partner shows that religious freedom warnings about redefining marriage went unheeded, says a prominent local Catholic.
“In 2011, when Governor Andrew Cuomo made the redefinition of marriage his top legislative priority, we warned not only that such action would have negative consequences for society, but also that it would infringe on the religious liberty of Catholic employers,” said New York Catholic Conference executive director Richard E. Barnes.
“Now, one year later, we have seen come to pass exactly what we warned would occur,” he noted in a June 21 statement.
Two women identified by the pseudonyms Jane Roe and Jane Doe have filed suit against St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Yonkers. The hospital and its insurance administrator Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield denied Roe’s application to add Doe to her medical benefits coverage.
Roe has worked at the hospital since 2007. She contracted a legal marriage with Doe in October 2011.
The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan’s Federal District Court, also names *Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield as a defendant. It seeks a court order to prevent the insurer from cooperating with companies that decline to grant benefits to same-sex couples because of religious beliefs, the New York Post reports.
Barnes said that the lawsuit is “attempting to use the force of law to compel the hospital (and all Catholic employers) to violate their religious beliefs.”
He noted the irony that the suit was filed ahead of the Fortnight for Freedom organized by the U.S. bishops to advocate for religious liberty.
He said that advocates of same-sex marriage had insisted that the bill would have no impact on religious institutions because it related only to civil marriage. [Yeah, right!]
“As we stated when the law was passed, the so-called ‘religious exemption’ language included in the bill was insufficient to protect religious institutions,” Barnes continued.
“We urge the governor and the legislature to pass legislation immediately to provide a full religious exemption to this ill-conceived law.”
St. Joseph’s Medical Center is a self-insured employer and so it is governed primarily by federal regulations. These employers do not have to recognize same-sex “marriages” recognized by individual states because the Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the New York Times says.
The lawsuit argues it is illegal to use the Defense of Marriage Act to deny coverage because the law is discriminatory and unconstitutional. The Obama administration has not defended the act in court against other legal challenges.
Read more: ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=5683&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+headlinebistro_complete+%28Headline+Bistro±
Further, is this the meaning of same sex civil marriages not ever going to matter to Catholics whose values should be confined to sacramental marriage? Which side is imposing their beliefs on the other side in truth?
,
C
CopticChristian
Guest
People on their death bed, and I have cared for many, are busy breathing and gasping…they are not thinking of marriage. Paraplegics and quadraplegics are out there and many of them are married prior to becoming paralyzed. There are some that are paralyzed prior to marriage. A vasectomy is a choice. The vasectomy removes the bullets…I cannot imagine a homosexual needing or wanting a vasectomy?
S
spencelo
Guest
uh, never heard of death-bed marriages? Come on now.
But not all, and in the eyes of the law, it makes no difference whether they are paraplegics before or after they get married.
And the law enables them to marry.
huh? You lost me there. People who undergo vasectomy operations become sterile, but in the eyes of the law, that is no barrier to marriage.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
This certainly changes my view on same sex marriage. I believe that the homosexual believes that forcing acceptance equates to acceptance. This is sad and if any homosexual tries me to force me to do anything, I am going to get real angry, pull out my hair and stick out my tongue…and of course do the right thing.
M
MidnightSun12
Guest
Again, from a purely secular point of view…Throughout various earth societies there have been 4 distinct requirements for marriage to occur:
- Two people
- One member from each gender
- Sufficient age
- Not close relatives
The fact is that the polygamy and incest debate has recieved dis-proportionately less public face-time which tells me that the gay marriage debate is less about equal rights and more about special interests…
S
spencelo
Guest
We fight one issue at a time – nothing wrong with that.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
We defend one commandment at a time:thumbsup:
S
spencelo
Guest
I get the sense that you’re trying to make an argument, and if so, I would encourage you to keep trying until you get it!
- Status