Illinois passes same sex marriage bill

[ThinkingSapien]

Marriage being only between a man and a woman used to be a self evident truth, but with the total rejection of any truth, how do you place any limit at all on it?

I may be missing something, but I don’tthink this really addressed the question of how it limits ones religious freedom.

The bill passed in Illinois has no impact on the Sacrament of Matrimony, right? What impact does it have on some one practicing ones religion?

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[JTD_Eagle1]

I may be missing something, but I don’tthink this really addressed the question of how it limits ones religious freedom.

The bill passed in Illinois has no impact on the Sacrament of Matrimony, right? What impact does it have on some one practicing ones religion?

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-gay-marriage-religious-freedom-20131107,0,2882465.story

Even though churches won’t be forced to perform them, business owners, etc, may be at risk due to discrimination laws, for following their beliefs.

 

[SuperLuigi]

God created people homosexual, so there is nothing sinful about living homosexual lifestyle

Incorrect logic.

Some people are attracted to little kids, but sex with young minors would be a sin.

 

[SuperLuigi]

chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-gay-marriage-religious-freedom-20131107,0,2882465.story

Even though churches won’t be forced to perform them, business owners, etc, may be at risk due to discrimination laws, for following their beliefs.

Indeed.

They can never get enough.

 

[josh987654321]

That’s why I encourage all homosexual couples to marry before having sex.

Whoa. Are you kidding me?

FreakyLocz14, what are you thinking?

May I ask, do you believe in God?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I may be missing something, but I don’tthink this really addressed the question of how it limits ones religious freedom.

The bill passed in Illinois has no impact on the Sacrament of Matrimony, right? What impact does it have on some one practicing ones religion?

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

My apologies, I thought the question was aimed at “How will allowing this affect you.” In which I believe it will effect all of society, namely the institution of marriage itself.

But in relation to our religious freedom, to be honest, I really don’t know. Do you know? What happens when the next generation are brought up with this taught in their classes? When this is indoctrinated into our youth as a societal norm and that to be against it is intolerance, bigotry etc?

What happens when our youth are taught that the words 'husband, wife, boyfriend and girlfriend are homophobic language?

Many people compare us to the KKK and the persecution of the blacks, now when people view it like that, I am very worried about what will happen. Do you view it like that at all ThinkingSapien?

I could give a huge number of reasons how it will impact us, but at this point it would only be speculation, we will never really fully know the consequences of this until it happens.

As G.K. Chesterton said, “Don’t take down a fence until you know the reason it was put up.” very wise words indeed.

What happens when you mess with the institution that is at the foundation of society?

As Ravi said -

*An utterly fascinating illustration of this duping of ourselves is the latest arts building opened at Ohio State University, the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts, another one of our chimerical exploits in the name of intellectual advance. Newsweek branded this building “America’s first deconstructionist building.” It’s white scaffolding, red brick turrets, and Colorado grass pods evoke a double take. But puzzlement only intensifies when you enter the building, for inside you encounter stairways that go nowhere, pillars that hang from the ceiling without purpose, and angled surfaces configured to create a sense of vertigo. The architect, we are duly informed, designed this building to reflect life itself-senseless and incoherent-and the “capriciousness of the rules that organize the built world.” When the rationale was explained to me, I had just one question: Did he do the same with the foundation?

The laughter in response to my question unmasked the double standard our deconstructionists espouse. And that is precisely the double standard of atheism! It is possible to dress up and romanticize our bizarre experiments in social restructuring while disavowing truth or absolutes. But one dares not play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking.* Ravi Zacharias

Now when it comes to same sex marriage, I believe they really are now daring to play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Captain_America]

That’s why I encourage all homosexual couples to marry before having sex.

In reality, human life is more than a matter of individualism. We all share a common good, and this extends past our own selfish interests and desires and “rights.”

It’s clear that marriage is an intergenerational matter, and it’s also very clear that females and males both complement each other in very important ways. Homosexual behavior is psychologically disordered and it’s not something to be proud of, or modeled. The whole effort to put on blinders and see this as only a rights issue helps obscure and obfuscate the real need for homosexuals to understand their situation. In this, the “marriage” idea hurts, not helps.

 

[Tous_Logous]

Illinois is practically bankrupt. There will be much more “bread and circus” coming from IL to keep the masses appeased.

Your words echo my sentiments exactly. Illinois is one of the most bankrupt and corrupt states in the union.

Reminds me in the days of the Roman Empire when emperors would throw lavish games in coliseums across the empire to distract the mobs from the political corruption and real problems of government. And the sad thing is, we haven’t learned our lesson. As long as people are focused on worldly things, who cares right?

 

[Midwest88]

That’s why I encourage all homosexual couples to marry before having sex.

Well, technically a homosexual couple can’t have sex due to their sexual organs being incompatible. Penis and penis? Vagina and vagina? Unless of course we expand the definition of sex … like the IL SSM Bill of “person and person” which sounds like person A and person B.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But in relation to our religious freedom, to be honest, I really don’t know. Do you know?

That’s what I was asking you. Some others that have responded point to the potential liabilities of not rendering the services of their business to a gay couple.

What happens when the next generation are brought up with this taught in their classes? When this is indoctrinated into our youth as a societal norm and that to be against it is intolerance, bigotry etc?

You won’t have to wait too long to investigate. As far as I recall “Will and Grace” was one of the earlier shows that displayed homosexuality as just another variation within people. Kids that were 10 years old when that show came on came of voting age 5 years ago. Pools also show that the younger some one is the higher the chances of the person supporting the legality of gay marriage[1]. Do you see the greater support as limiting your religious freedom?

What happens when our youth are taught that the words 'husband, wife, boyfriend and girlfriend are homophobic language?

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that heterosexuals will stop pairing?

Many people compare us to the KKK and the persecution of the blacks, now when people view it like that, I am very worried about what will happen. Do you view it like that at all ThinkingSapien?

Nope. To use modern terms the KKK is most known for being a terrorist white supremacy group. I don’t view it like that. But where is the comparison on the KKK coming from?

I could give a huge number of reasons how it will impact us, but at this point it would only be speculation, we will never really fully know the consequences of this until it happens.

Would you mind sharing a few of the speculations of which you are more confident?

[1] - PDF Reference

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Whoever so called law “professional” told you this needs to go back to first year of law school and needs to take the bar again. Civil marriage is not even part of contracts! You were given inorrect information, did that person took the bar like seventy years ago?

Sorry for my late reply. I wasn’t ignoring your response, but waiting until I could get back to some printed resources. But the law books I have access to don’t seem to agree with you. For example:
"Street Law:

In legal terms, marriage is a contract between two persons who agree to live together. It creates legal rights and duties for each party. Any one who wants to get married must meet certain legal requirements.
In the United State, marriage laws are set by the individual states. The legal rules vary from state to state. However , all states have the following requirements.
…]
**Consent. **Both persons must agree to the marriage…]

I included the consent part because that alone excludes people from marrying other objects. Including the building that that was referenced earlier. Speaking of which:

As Ender on another thread so well put it, in reply to what I said here -

Ender:

I don’t think this point is fully appreciated. Once the definition of marriage becomes accepted as nothing more than an arbitrary definition by the state then there are no logical arguments to set any limits to it at all. One woman in Washington (state) wanted to marry her house, well - why not?

No one is forcing you to marry a house. You aren’t harmed if she marries a house. How do we justify discriminating against her? It sounds ludicrous but if we accept that the meaning of the term marriage is completely arbitrary then we have no rational basis on which to place any limit at all.
I believe Ender is absolutely correct here.
Marriage being only between a man and a woman used to be a self evident truth, but with the total rejection of any truth, how do you place any limit at all on it?

The building in question wasn’t her house, it was an abandoned warehouse that she was trying to save. The lady, Babylonia Aivaz had planned a ceremony to be performed as a display to “…show the community why she loved [the] building…and how much[they] need community space…[she]was arrest a few months ago trying to reclaim it as a community center” When asked “Can you actually marry a building legally” Babylonia’s response was “I don’t know.” I don’t think Babylonia makes a good example of some one trying to stretch the definition of marriage.

 

[Brendan]

Whoa. Are you kidding me?

FreakyLocz14, what are you thinking?

May I ask, do you believe in God?

Thank you for reading
Josh

Actually Freaky is right on the mark, sex SHOULD only be practiced in marriage.

But, by definition, homosexuals are not interested in the sex within an actual marriage.

 

[Cat]

I live in and love the great State of Illinois.

My personal opinion is that gay marriage will not last. I believe this for two reasons:

The first reason has to do with scientific theory.

According to the theory of evolution, which is widely accepted by many as fact and is the basis of most of our scientific research in the United States, changes that occur in species only become permanent if they increase the chances of survival of the species. Changes that impede the chances of survival of a species are eventually eliminated by natural selection.

Marriage between two people of the same sex is a sterile marriage; i.e., no children can be conceived.

This is harmful to the human species, which must reproduce in order to survive.

I realize that we are not talking about a change in the genetic code when we talk about gay marriage. But the theory of evolution is also applied to social settings as well as biological settings, and the same conclusions are drawn: those changes in society that don’t contribute to the survival of the society will eventually disappear.

My second reason for believing that gay marriage will disappear is based on experience…

Homosexuality, especially among males, is generally a promiscuous lifestyle. Of course there are exceptions. And among lesbians, the relationships tend to be monogamous, as women have a deep need for security, including financial security.

But homosexual men often flit from relationship to relationship, and often, it’s about sex.

Homosexuals who marry may experience personal conflict between their love for the marriage partner, and their drive to have relationships with other homosexuals. Simply put, they may find it difficult to “settle down” with one person.

The homosexual “lifestyle” is in total conflict with marriage, which is monogamous (at least for now). I believe that many homosexuals, especially men, will realize that marriage is at odds with their homosexual lifestyle, and they will no longer seek to get married.

One other reason why homosexuals will become disillusioned with marriage is because of the reality of divorce. We have a gay acquaintance who got married, and the marriage lasted 7 months. He said that in all his other relationships (non-married), he and his partner were simply able to split the possessions and walk away from each other. But since he and his “husband” were married, they had to do things legally and divorce, and this cost a lot of money, and it was emotionally wrenching for both men.

So this is another reason I believe that gay marriage will eventually disappear: just like a lot of heterosexual couples are skipping the trouble of getting married (and for half, getting divorced) and just co-habiting. I believe many gays will decide to skip the “legal” ceromony and the expense of a wedding (and possible divorce) and just co-habit, which is what they already do.

I think the only people who are going to benefit from gay marriage are divorce lawyers.

All of this is my personal opinion, but I think it makes sense. Gay people will protest that the lifestyle is NOT promiscuous. Once again, I realize that there are exceptions. We know several gay couples that have been together for more than 30 years. These couples do make it difficult to draw conclusions. But I think that even if the homosexual rights organization refuse to admit it in public, the majority of homosexuals are not involved in long-term monogamous relationships.

Finally, I believe that the Christian response is to live out sacramental marriages according to God’s plan, and to steadfastly hold out against any laws that would require us to perform gay weddings in our churches.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

According to the theory of evolution, which is widely accepted by many as fact and is the basis of most of our scientific research in the United States, changes that occur in species only become permanent if they increase the chances of survival of the species. Changes that impede the chances of survival of a species are eventually eliminated by natural selection.

Marriage between two people of the same sex is a sterile marriage; i.e., no children can be conceived.

This is harmful to the human species, which must reproduce in order to survive.

I’m not sure that’s applicable unless you are talking about the possibility of the entire population deciding to no longer sexually reproduce due to having “gay genes”. There are people that choose not to have offspring (both homosexuals and heterosexuals). But the lack of these people having offspring doesn’t mean the end of occurrences of people that don’t want o have children. Also there are gay people that have children (sperm donations, surrogate mothers, and through other means) so gay people aren’t necessarily removing themselves from the gene pool

So this is another reason I believe that gay marriage will eventually disappear: just like a lot of heterosexual couples are skipping the trouble of getting married (and for half, getting divorced) and just co-habiting. I believe many gays will decide to skip the “legal” ceromony and the expense of a wedding (and possible divorce) and just co-habit, which is what they already do.

Are you implying you think marriage will go away all together?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-gay-marriage-religious-freedom-20131107,0,2882465.story

Even though churches won’t be forced to perform them, business owners, etc, may be at risk due to discrimination laws, for following their beliefs.

I mentioned this conversation to a pre-law student, and she had me look at something relevant. It was on a conflict between Fair Housing and religious freedom. It doesn’t resolve any conflicts here, but I thought I would share.

Long story short, Susan Parson’s wanted to rent a house from some one (Layle French) and put down the $250 deposit. It was accepted. Later the land lord discovered that Susan was going to have her Fiance move into the house with her. This caused a religious conflict because Pearson and her fiance might have sex before they were joined in Matrimony ( French was a member of the Evangelical Free Church. ). So he told Susan that she could not rent the house. Susan took the landlord to court using the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which prohibited discrimination based on the basis of marital status.

Minnesota’s department of Human Rights agreed with Parson’s, so to did an administrative law judge as well as the appellate court panel of justices. The Supreme Court of Minnesota however did not agree. That court argued, among other things, that the landlord’s right to exercise his religion under the Freedom of Conscience provision of the Minnesota Constitution outweighed any interest of the tenant to co-habitate with her fiance in rented property prior to marriage. The California supreme court reached quite a different conclusion in a 1996 case involving similar facts, however. The court held that the landlords refusal to rent commercial property to an unmarried couple for religious reasons violated a California statute that prohibited discrimination because of “marital status.” The court stated that enforcing the law would not “substantially burden” the landlord’s freedom of religion under either the federal Constitution or the California Constitution. *

• • this case was referenced in “West Business Law.” See also Cooper v French.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I asked a law professional about this. It’s a non-issue. Animals cannot engage in contracts, thus they cannot engage in the contract of civil marriage.

To paraphrase a line from Star Trek the Next Generation: “What if animals could consent, even in the absolute smallest degree, what then?”

Or you could throw in robots or androids with enough AI to consent.

Then what? Do we need to recognize and subsidize that?

How can we not if marriage is all about “love” in the eyes of the state?

I’m not sure that’s applicable unless you are talking about the possibility of the entire population deciding to no longer sexually reproduce due to having “gay genes”. There are people that choose not to have offspring (both homosexuals and heterosexuals). But the lack of these people having offspring doesn’t mean the end of occurrences of people that don’t want o have children.

It doesn’t take the entire population to stop having kids or be encouraged not them through bad polices like so-called “gay marriage”, free contraception or feminism.

All it takes to wreak havoc in an entitlement society, which is what most of the First World is, is for the TFR to drop below that 2.1 or 2.05.

Also there are gay people that have children (sperm donations, surrogate mothers, and through other means) so gay people aren’t necessarily removing themselves from the gene pool

That’s not a good policy to continue on civilization.

And actually, a lot of GLBTQ folks have kids by having straight sexual partners, in so small part because their lifestyle is not stable.

Why do social liberals always have to fight against 200 million years of evolution and natural law by involving the state?

Come on…

 

[SuperLuigi]

I do not believe gay marriage will last

Neither do I. It will peak, but current global demographics don’t favor it.

This isn’t the first time homosexual behaviour has been openly celebrated, either.

All of this is my personal opinion, but I think it makes sense. Gay people will protest that the lifestyle is NOT promiscuous. Once again, I realize that there are exceptions.

The average gay relationship is less than 2 years. Some gays surveyed have had 1000s of sex partners, including heterosexual relationships.

Throw drunk college girls experimenting out the window and tell me how often straight people dabble in homosexuality.

The GLBTQ folks are being sold down the river the First World elite and progressives with false promises.

All of this is my personal opinion, but I think it makes sense. Gay people will protest that the lifestyle is NOT promiscuous. Once again, I realize that there are exceptions.

State policy should not be based on exceptions.

 

[VanSensei]

Whoa. Are you kidding me?

FreakyLocz14, what are you thinking?

May I ask, do you believe in God?

Thank you for reading
Josh

Is it really necessary to question one’s belief in God over something like this? That seems a bit callous, don’t you think? I support Freaky’s logic because of the fact that it exists in civil law purely. No sacrament at all. Until the day someone goes to a cathedral with a loaded firearm, points it at a priest’s head demanding they perform a same-sex marriage, no one’s religious liberty or marriage is being threatened by 2% of the population.

 

[Cat]

I’m not sure that’s applicable unless you are talking about the possibility of the entire population deciding to no longer sexually reproduce due to having “gay genes”. There are people that choose not to have offspring (both homosexuals and heterosexuals). But the lack of these people having offspring doesn’t mean the end of occurrences of people that don’t want o have children. Also there are gay people that have children (sperm donations, surrogate mothers, and through other means) so gay people aren’t necessarily removing themselves from the gene pool

Are you implying you think marriage will go away all together?

It’s already half gone in the United States. (Half of couples co-habit before marrying.)

 

[JimG]

The fight against same sex marriage may be a lost cause, but it is a cause that Catholics and others must continue to fight.

Why oppose same sex marriage? First, because it provides legal and social approval to moral evil, and second because it makes real marriage equivalent to fake marriage. Both of those things are detrimental to a culture, and make it less likely to survive. Law need not incorporate religious doctrine, but it ought not to incorporate moral evil. And law ought not to enable the disintegration of the family, which is the fundamental unit of society.

Why Catholics Must Fight Lost Causes.