Illinois passes same sex marriage bill

[ThinkingSapien]

So may I ask, what did you think of that youtube video ThinkinSapien? is there a definition of marriage? or were all those definitions just as valid as the other?

I was aware of the evolution and variations in what people have called marriage. The video didn’t invoke many new thoughts, but I thought it was nicely done. The only constant I see is some binding of people that may be recognized by others. (There have been marriages between people and animals too, but I am purposely overlooking those). In general I don’t think that I can rate them on validity since such a rating may be factitious and have pretty much no impact.

As to why the business denied rights to those with civil unions I don’t know. But I suspect that moving forward the “civil union” idea is considered tainted and not acceptable to the LGBT community now.

 

[josh987654321]

I was aware of the evolution and variations in what people have called marriage. The video didn’t invoke many new thoughts, but I thought it was nicely done. The only constant I see is some binding of people that may be recognized by others. (There have been marriages between people and animals too, but I am purposely overlooking those). In general I don’t think that I can rate them on validity since such a rating may be factitious and have pretty much no impact.

So if you see rating them as factitious, I wonder how other people rate the validity of same sex marriage or any legal definition of marriage.

Personally I relate the validity of them on ‘design’ when Jesus speaks of ‘marriage’ to me it makes perfect sense with what we see in the human anatomy of a man and a woman, their compatibility and complementarity with one another that produces new life, I believe it fits perfectly with the design shown for marriage by Christ.

Thank you for your posts ThinkingSapien

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[MJJean]

As to why the business denied rights to those with civil unions I don’t know. But I suspect that moving forward the “civil union” idea is considered tainted and not acceptable to the LGBT community now.

In a nutshell, because the law and/or company policy doesn’t require benefits be given to partners in civil unions across the board, but law and policy do require benefits be given to married couples.

The problem seems to be the Sacrament of Matrimony (permanent, exclusive, new life) is not how most of society defines marriage any more. As evidenced by the high divorce rate, “open” marriages/swingers/people who have affairs (somewhere around 40% of women and 50-60% of men have cheated), and contraception. So, I am one who favors a more European style of handling marriage.

I think all marriages should be performed by a civil servant in an office for legal recognition and if the couple wishes some sort of religious ceremony they can arrange for that afterward to cover spiritual recognition. This way the Church and the rest of Christian society can move on and work on other issues such as abortion, poverty, genocide, dictators, corporations raping and polluting the land,etc.

 

[rossum]

Why did they refuse to offer same sex couples the same health insurance benefits as married couples? I’m not sure how calling it ‘marriage’ changes anything in that regard?

Laws and regulations are written documents. If the written document uses the words “marriage”, “married”, “husband”, “wife” etc, then, read strictly, the law or regulation does not apply to “civil partner”, “partner” etc.

For example, many countries recognise marriages performed abroad. Very few countries recognise civil unions performed abroad.

It is simpler to change the name of “civil union” to “marriage” than to go through tons of laws and regulation and rewording them to include civil unions.

rossum

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Proponents of gay marriage are probably more likely conceptualizing marriage as a social construct, not a biological one.

Yes, I agree. That is why I leave the Church’s teachings out of the discussion until it is brought up…

So the apple/orange metaphor doesn’t come into play. I understand in marriage as described in Catholicism on is obligated to be open to the possibility of new life and not do anything to obstruct the possibility. But outside of Catholicism homosexuals and heterosexuals don’t necessarily share the view of that obligation. So I think the reproductive aspect has a lesser impact on non Catholics.

In simple terms the Church teaches that marriage is between a man an a woman. There are specifics about reproduction as well as consummation.

True. the Church’s teachings ** have no impact** on non Catholics. In fact the traditional understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman is not the invention of the Catholic Church it actually precedes Christianity. It is not based on religion, but on natural law.

First, neither the state nor the Church “created” marriage. Marriage is a natural outgrowth of human nature, capacities and needs in a similar way that language is a natural outgrowth of human nature, capacities and needs. No one at the dawn of time sat down with a committee of linguists to develop languages, nor did a blue-ribbon committee of sociologists and politicians create marriage.

Natural law simplified: “The inclination, natural desire and capacity towards procreation and creation of a family can only be fulfilled through the union of a man and woman.”

It is know as MARRIAGE.

So what do we call a same sex get together?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

.

regarding to convicted priest are homosexuals: many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women. psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

So what?

These “fixated” priests were all** admitted homosexuals** and in some cases very open and “in-your-face” about it. No one “described” them as homosexuals.

Unless you are ready to defend the pedophile actions of homosexual priests…don’t sugar coat it by calling them “fixated”

 

[barts61]

So what?

These “fixated” priests were all** admitted homosexuals** and in some cases very open and “in-your-face” about it. No one “described” them as homosexuals.

Unless you are ready to defend the pedophile actions of homosexual priests…don’t sugar coat it by calling them “fixated”

I’m not defending any pedophile, just felt the article was better at explaining them than I could. Just that most pedophiles don’t have a mature understanding of an adult relationship. That being said, an immature mind probably doesn’t/isn’t able to separate the two sexes as adults do. If the priest say they are homosexual, I blame the catholic church for that because the priest aren’t able to have a mature relationship - be it with a male or female - leaves them vulnerable to the only thing available, besides celibacy. Frankly, in my opinion, they may call themselves homosexuals, but since they probably never have experienced a “real” relationship - I would only call them a pedophile and not homosexual.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

True. the Church’s teachings ** have no impact** on non Catholics. In fact the traditional understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman is not the invention of the Catholic Church it actually precedes Christianity. It is not based on religion, but on natural law.

Well, yes and know. Humans have had some concept of binding themselve to one another. When that union was between one man and one woman we tend to translate that into “marriage.” For other configurations the inclination to call it marriage isn’t as high. In Rome it wasn’t until around the year 340 that same sex unions became illegal (and when they became illegal those that had been united were executed).

Though I don’t think history/tradition plays a role in the motivation to allow civil marriages between members of the same sex.

Side note, there’s an emphasis in Kenya to return to traditional marriage. One man, one or more women.

So what do we call a same sex get together?

That’s an open question especially with “get together” potentially referring to a lot of things. It could be referring to two people having sex, two people deciding to live with each other, so on. Heterosexuals can engage in many of the same things but depending on when and where they did it, it may or may not constitute becoming legally married.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Well, yes and know. Humans have had some concept of binding themselve to one another. When that union was between one man and one woman we tend to translate that into “marriage.” For other configurations the inclination to call it marriage isn’t as high. In Rome it wasn’t until around the year 340 that same sex unions became illegal (and when they became illegal those that had been united were executed).

Side note. In ancient Rome and Greece homosexual unions were prevalent. but they were never legally considered marriage.
ThinkingSapien;12067273:

Though I don’t think history/tradition plays a role in the motivation to allow civil marriages between members of the same sex.

I am certain that history/tradition would like to be forgotten in this discussion. It does not strengthen the current agenda of the same sex marriage proponents.

Side note, there’s an emphasis in Kenya to return to traditional marriage

. One man, one or more women.

Fantastic. Consummation and procreation require (at least) one man and one woman. The Kenyans know what a traditional marriage really is.

That’s an open question especially with “get together” potentially referring to a lot of things. It could be referring to two people having sex, two people deciding to live with each other, so on. Heterosexuals can engage in many of the same things but depending on when and where they did it, it may or may not constitute becoming legally married.

Perhaps my term “same sex get together” was a little terse. I apologize. But I’m trying to help here…what could we call a same sex relationship (other than a marriage) that would appeal to all???

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Perhaps my term “same sex get together” was a little terse. I apologize. But I’m trying to help here…what could we call a same sex relationship (other than a marriage) that would appeal to all???

I don’t think such a term can exists in the USA yet. See messages #94 and #100 on why. It’s been attempted, failed, and I think that realtors will fail. By happenstance a gay man just stopped by to drop off my sisters dog and I asked him (without giving him any contextual information*) the question “on the topic of gay rights do you think the LGBT community would accept ‘civil union’ or some other term? If so, then what term?” I know he doesn’t speak for the entire gay community. But he said he’s not struggling with the others in the LGBT community for a lesser union. Alternative terms are not acceptable because they don’t come with the same rights. He also offered me a bag of Skittles and gleefully said “taste the rainbow!” (Irrelevant, but it made me laugh).

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

• • didn’t give him contextual information because he just had a negative experience with a Christian in a grocery store and I didn’t want to risk dragging the emotional residue into this response.

 

[DrTaffy]

If that’s how society wants to define it, why do they need to call that marriage?

Why shouldn’t they call it marriage?

It looks like marriage to me, and has been called that in the past, so what right do you have to forbid us from calling it that?

Do you claim to own the word ‘marriage’?

Side note. In ancient Rome and Greece homosexual unions were prevalent. but they were never legally considered marriage.

Now how do you defend that assertion?

Ancient Greece was such a diverse and varied group of independent states that such claim is merely impossible to defend.

But in Rome it is worse - we have numerous explicit reports of same sex marriages, and no reference to them being not legally recognised. Indeed Cicero argues that one ‘Curio the Elder’ is legally liable for the debts of his son’s husband - how is that possible if such marriages have no legal standing?

For that matter, on three reported occasions one of the same sex couple was the Emperor, a man who’s word was law. How could that relationship not be legally recognised?

 

[barts61]

Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt
That would be true if marriage and a homosexual relationship were the same …but they are not. There is no such thing as a "heterosexual marriage.

Zoltan Cobalt you are SOOOO confused…if there is no such thing as a “hetersexual” marriage (man & woman) then same sex folks can be married! The whole definition needs to be changed then, by your remark.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why shouldn’t they call it marriage?

It looks like marriage to me, and has been called that in the past, so what right do you have to forbid us from calling it that?

You can call it whatever you want. Just don’t be surprised if others don’t agree with your definition.

Do you claim to own the word ‘marriage’?

Neither do you own it. If you want a societal agreement with what you want marriage to mean you have to put forth an argument that is convincing to the majority of those who may not agree with you. You can’t just dismiss their concerns out of hand as being out of bounds for anybody to object.

Now how do you defend that assertion?

Ancient Greece was such a diverse and varied group of independent states that such claim is merely impossible to defend.

But in Rome it is worse - we have numerous explicit reports of same sex marriages, and no reference to them being not legally recognised. Indeed Cicero argues that one ‘Curio the Elder’ is legally liable for the debts of his son’s husband - how is that possible if such marriages have no legal standing?

For that matter, on three reported occasions one of the same sex couple was the Emperor, a man who’s word was law. How could that relationship not be legally recognised?

The applicability of these examples is debatable. But what is most relevant for convincing any society today to accept gay marriage is not what some ancients did nor is it citing what some more recent societies may have done. What is relevant is convincing people of that society that you wish to adopt the change why it is a good and proper thing to do for their own society and today. And that argument I have seen precious little of.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt
That would be true if marriage and a homosexual relationship were the same …but they are not. There is no such thing as a "heterosexual marriage.

Zoltan Cobalt you are SOOOO confused…if there is no such thing as a “hetersexual” marriage (man & woman) then same sex folks can be married! The whole definition needs to be changed then, by your remark.

Is that the best you can do? To pounce on a typo?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Laws and regulations are written documents. If the written document uses the words “marriage”, “married”, “husband”, “wife” etc, then, read strictly, the law or regulation does not apply to “civil partner”, “partner” etc.

For example, many countries recognise marriages performed abroad. Very few countries recognise civil unions performed abroad.

It is simpler to change the name of “civil union” to “marriage” than to go through tons of laws and regulation and rewording them to include civil unions.

rossum

And that would be a good thing to make everyone think for a moment about each and every implication of such a change. For to make all the laws that were originally written for heterosexual marriage to apply** automatically** to homosexual unions would be to ignore the premise upon which all those laws were written.

 

[DrTaffy]

Neither do you own it.

But I am not trying to monopolise the word by preventing you from using it.

You are trying to prevent homosexuals from using it.

If you want a societal agreement with what you want marriage to mean you have to put forth an argument that is convincing to the majority of those who may not agree with you. You can’t just dismiss their concerns out of hand as being out of bounds for anybody to object.

But you have not put forth an argument that is convincing to the majority of those who may not agree with you - since you are the ones trying to impose your beliefs on those who do not share them, surely you are the ones who should be presenting the argument?

The applicability of these examples is debatable.

Feel free to do so. That was just an unsupported assertion.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Why shouldn’t

Now how do you defend that assertion?

Ancient Greece was such a diverse and varied group of independent states that such claim is merely impossible to defend.

But in Rome it is worse - we have numerous explicit reports of same sex marriages, and no reference to them being not legally recognised. Indeed Cicero argues that one ‘Curio the Elder’ is legally liable for the debts of his son’s husband - how is that possible if such marriages have no legal standing?

For that matter, on three reported occasions one of the same sex couple was the Emperor, a man who’s word was law. How could that relationship not be legally recognised?

Despite the widespread practice and acceptance of homosexual relations in the Greco-Roman cultures, neither Greek law nor Roman law ever sought to grant legal
status to same-sex relationships or to define them as “marriage.”

For an idea of how the ancient Greeks thought about homosexuality and marriage read
**Aristophanes’ Speech from Plato’s Symposium
**
connellodonovan.com/hen.html

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The arguments and message by gay “marriage” advocates are becoming more and more shrill, emboldened by judicial activism or misguided legislation in their favor.

“If you oppose gay marriage, just don’t have one.”

“How does gay marriage affect your marriage?”

Those who oppose gay “marriage” do not care if homosexuals use the word “marriage” to refer to their same sex unions. It is the aftermath of it being legalized. This is the picture of the sad future for us all that we can expect from such a radical social experiment that is gay “marriage.”
,

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I don’t think such a term can exists in the USA yet. See messages #94 and #100 on why. It’s been attempted, failed, and I think that realtors will fail.

After reading those posts, I see a legal problem rather than a redefining of traditional terms.

It would cause less heartburn and reduce legal hassles if the gay community focused on changing laws that discriminate against them and benefit married couples.

I would certainly support that avenue. I don’t like the idea of someone having more rights and benefits that I do and I don’t believe I should have more rights and benefits than anyone else.

So… what if homosexuals were granted all the rights and privileges enjoyed by married couples…would they be happy to call their relationship a “Rainbow Union”?

(Still trying to help with the terms)

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt
That would be true if marriage and a homosexual relationship were the same …but they are not. There is no such thing as a "heterosexual marriage.

Zoltan Cobalt you are SOOOO confused…if there is no such thing as a “hetersexual” marriage (man & woman) then same sex folks can be married! The whole definition needs to be changed then, by your remark.

Let us take this one step at a time…so we can be UN confused.

A homosexual relationship is two guys. A marriage is a man and a woman. They are different. Nothing confusing about that…there is a difference right?

Since a marriage is a man and a woman there is no logical reason to call it anything other than a marriage. Therefore there is no such thing as a “heterosexual” marriage.