How My View on Gay Marriage Changed

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheTrueCentrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spencelo said:
In other words, your “beliefs” are not amenable to rational argumentation and evidence.
Click to expand...
Spence,

I love this Church, I love this leadership, it has kept me sane and fortunately I need that…try reading “Fides et Ratio”🙂

you asked a question is this is a Catholic Answer:thumbsup:
 
spencelo said:
if you live in America, you live in a country where church and State are separate; the dictates of the church do not govern civil laws. The bubble you live in isn’t just Catholic Catholic Catholic.
Click to expand...
If you live in America, you live in a country where church and State intermingle, by virtue of the Constitution and the right of as many churches/beliefs as exist to influence the State in whatever nonofficial capacity they have to influence the public, as well as all the various governmental agencies, such as legislatures. The bubble you live in isn’t just Secular Secular Secular Atheist Atheist Atheist. 😉

Have a nice day.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
If you live in America, you live in a country where church and State intermingle, by virtue of the Constitution and the right of as many churches/beliefs as exist to influence the State in whatever nonofficial capacity they have to influence the public, as well as all the various governmental agencies, such as legislatures. The bubble you live in isn’t just Secular Secular Secular Atheist Atheist Atheist. 😉

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
You too!
 
spencelo said:
Perhaps it would be more helpful for you to explain why the term has caused you confusion.

Marriage has many purposes (plural), and I don’t think an in-depth discussion would be particularly relevant. As a factual matter, the State is involved. The question then is whether the distinction that the State has drawn – between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples – is rational or arbitrary.
Click to expand...
I believe the traditional “ability” to procreation is defined by consummation; the act which makes a marriage binding in many societies. When you ask, should there be a law; I believe there already is a law; generally speaking.

I believe the state has a rational reason to support opposite sex marriage as CopticChristian has discussed. You say there are many purposes of marriage but you failed to list any. Can you provided a few that would require the states interest?
 
Stephen168 said:
I don’t see where the author has changed his mind. It seems like he has either changed strategy or given up.
Click to expand...
Here’s a big clue: “But as a marriage advocate, the time has come for me to **accept gay marriage **and emphasize the good that it can do.” Moreover, in an npr interview, when asked whether he’d vote in favor of SSM in NY, he said yes.
 
spencelo said:
Here’s a big clue: “But as a marriage advocate, the time has come for me to **accept gay marriage **and emphasize the good that it can do.” Moreover, in an npr interview, when asked whether he’d vote in favor of SSM in NY, he said yes.
Click to expand...
Marriage is how society recognizes and protects this right. Marriage is the planet’s only institution whose core purpose is to unite the biological, social and legal components of parenthood into one lasting bond. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its children.
Click to expand...
At the level of first principles, gay marriage effaces that gift. No same-sex couple, married or not, can ever under any circumstances combine biological, social and legal parenthood into one bond. For this and other reasons, gay marriage has become a significant contributor to marriage’s continuing deinstitutionalization, by which I mean marriage’s steady transformation in both law and custom from a structured institution with clear public purposes to the state’s licensing of private relationships that are privately defined.
Click to expand...
I have written these things in my book and said them in my testimony, and I believe them today. I am not recanting any of it.
Click to expand...
 
Stephen,

Blankenhorn hasn’t changed his mind about certain matters, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t changed his mind about whether or not he’s in favor of SSM. He now clearly is.
 
The “Gay Marriage” debate is lost long ago, in the secular realm.

All of Christendom (except for the Catholic Church) starting in 1930, abandoned the definition of marriage as having children as the #1 reason for being married. When artificial birth control was accepted as moral by the overwhelming vast majority of Christian denominations, in opposition to Apostolic Doctrine, marriage was redefined as “Children optional” among Christians.

In the 1950’s the Supreme Court ruled that artificial contraception was a privacy right. Marriage was redefined in the legal sphere, imposing this new redefinition on the rest of the country.

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that babies may be slaughtered. Marriage was redefined again, this time giving married couples the right to murder their children.

In the rest of 1970’s, divorce laws were changed. No-fault became the norm. Marriage was redefined again as “oh, that life time thing? Naah, not anymore!”

Homosexual “marriage”? That’s the next logical step. Since Christians (except for the Catholic Church) have agreed for over 80+ years that Children are not part of the definition of marriage, complaining about “homosexual marriage” is like talking about the horse that left after the barn door was opened. The barn door, is artificial contraception.

In 20 years marriage will be redefined again and again to the point that it will be unrecognizable to people today.

Polygamists, polyandrists, pedophiles, and others are patiently waiting in line. They’re waiting for the “gay marriage” thing to run its course before stepping forward demanding their “equality of marriage”
 
BobCatholic said:
Polygamists, polyandrists, pedophiles, and others are patiently waiting in line. They’re waiting for the “gay marriage” thing to run its course before stepping forward demanding their “equality of marriage”
Click to expand...
Hmm, if gay marriage then why not rape marriage, is that it?
 
spencelo said:
Hmm, if gay marriage then why not rape marriage, is that it?
Click to expand...
Once we have given up one standard, another lesser one takes its place.

Once people walk away from the banquet with a six course meal, they will eat in dumpsters.
 
BobCatholic said:
Once we have given up one standard, another lesser one takes its place.

Once people walk away from the banquet with a six course meal, they will eat in dumpsters.
Click to expand...
This is a great example of sloppy reasoning. Can you show why, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, society is logically committed to allowing rape marriages?
 
Stephen168 said:
I’m not sure what you mean by rape marriage but yes if same sex marriage why not incest or pedophile marriage?
Click to expand...
By “rape marriage” I mean a forced, non-consensual union between a rapist and his or her rape victim. Can you demonstrate the connection between allowing SSM and allowing incestuous marriage or pedophile marriage? Asking “why not” isn’t an argument.
 
spencelo said:
This is a great example of sloppy reasoning. Can you show why, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, society is logically committed to allowing rape marriages?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that will happen immediately. There are many sexual orientations in line ahead of rapists, when it comes to the redefinition of marriage.

Next are homosexual men and women. They’re working on their link in the chain. Marriage will be redefined to accept all sexual orientations (what does it mean? that will be redefined too!)

Afterwards, there are those who think the number “2” in the definition of marriage is discriminatory against their sexual orientation, such as bisexuals, polygamists, polyandrists, polyamorists…those other sexual orientations are waiting patiently in line, waiting for the “gay marriage” thing to run its course. I think they’re the next group to demand “marriage equality” Multiple marriage will be next.

Where rapists stand in line, I have no idea. Probably after western civilization collapses in a century, radical Islam will take over and impose sharia law, allowing a husband to rape his wife. We already have that in many parts of the world. .
 
spencelo said:
By “rape marriage” I mean a forced, non-consensual union between a rapist and his or her rape victim. Can you demonstrate the connection between allowing SSM and allowing incestuous marriage or pedophile marriage? Asking “why not” isn’t an argument.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t making an argument, I was asking you a question. As it has it has already been shown; marriage is for the creation and rearing children. Same sex, and pedophile unions are not marriages because they are sterile by design. While incest marriages have a good chance of producing defective children. So again if same sex marriage, why not pedophile marriages or incest marriages?
 
BobCatholic said:
I don’t think that will happen immediately. There are many sexual orientations in line ahead of rapists, when it comes to the redefinition of marriage.

Next are homosexual men and women. They’re working on their link in the chain. Marriage will be redefined to accept all sexual orientations (what does it mean? that will be redefined too!)

Afterwards, there are those who think the number “2” in the definition of marriage is discriminatory against their sexual orientation, such as bisexuals, polygamists, polyandrists, polyamorists…those other sexual orientations are waiting patiently in line, waiting for the “gay marriage” thing to run its course. I think they’re the next group to demand “marriage equality” Multiple marriage will be next.

Where rapists stand in line, I have no idea. Probably after western civilization collapses in a century, radical Islam will take over and impose sharia law, allowing a husband to rape his wife. We already have that in many parts of the world. .
Click to expand...
But the question I asked was: Can you show why, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, society is logically committed to allowing rape marriages?
 
Stephen168 said:
I wasn’t making an argument, I was asking you a question. As it has it has already been shown; marriage is for the creation and rearing children.
Click to expand...
But I don’t think this has been shown. Marriage has many purposes, it seems to me, and no one has convincingly shown that procreation and child rearing is the primary purpose of marriage.
Stephen168 said:
Same sex, and pedophile unions are not marriages because they are sterile by design.
Click to expand...
So infertile couples can’t get married?
Stephen168 said:
While incest marriages have a good chance of producing defective children.
Click to expand...
Sarah Palin produced a kid with Down Syndrome. If a couple is likely to produce such a child, should they not get married?
Stephen168 said:
So again if same sex marriage, why not pedophile marriages or incest marriages?
Click to expand...
The question assumes a connection between SSM and other types of marriages. What is that connection?
 
Does anyone here not get this?

Being against gay marriage is not being nice. It’s being mean. That is the bottom line. Philosophical reasonings and verbal gymnastics will not win out against feeling good and being nice. It’s over, that fight is lost. It’s only a matter of now or later when it is law.

This country turned its back on the Lord long ago and indeed it would seem (in the words of St. Paul) we have been given up to our passions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top