Let's talk same sex marriage, shall we?

[josephdaniel29]

You think as a Catholic I’m not called to do that? Sir, please read up on what it is to be Catholic…a follower of the TRUTH. A proclaimer of the Truth.

Like I said, defend and follow all you want. Don’t use the police power of government to force others to follow.

What do you think gives you the right to infringe upon another individual’s freedom when they are not infringing upon your right to life, liberty or property in any way?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[lil_flower_luv]

What do you think gives you the right to infringe upon another individual’s freedom when they are not infringing upon your right to life, liberty or property in any way?

For goodness sake I am not infringing upon anyone here. I am only saying (with a Catholic perspective, that, like it or not OP, I have) that there is much risk in allowing this to become a “norm.” It is similar to abortion. Can we agree on that?

Christian marriage is not redefined and this has nothing to do with what we believe is immoral. The only question is should we as the majority have the right to force our views on people who don’t share them.

Not force, but surely not allow anyone to walk over us until we have said our share about God’s voice on this issue. We must.

whoa whoa WHOA lil_flower_luv…

How could you possible attest to the effect of gay marriage on society? You cited one statistic to back up your point…where did this come from? Really? You’re saying the majority of suicides are adopted children of homosexuals?

Wake up and smell the coffee, dear. If you’re going to be in a real debate or discussion, be prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

Au contraire, here is an accreditted mental health website about suicide statistics. Read it if you want, but I could list dozens more and NONE of them would say that adopted children of homosexuals have the highest suicide rate.
mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=13737&cn=9

catholicnewsagency.com/news/children_with_same-sex_parents_prone_to_suicide_study_reveals/

 

[josephdaniel29]

I fail to see any good reason the state should recognize same-sex relationships as marriage and confer the same benefits on such relationships as it does marriage. That said, the American government, given its constitution, cannot make homosexual behavior illegal.

Marriage is the monogomous union between a man and a woman. It is also the beginning of a family unit, whereby new citizens are born. Therefore it is in the interest of the state to provide certain benefits to these marriages to aid them in raising as many healthy children as possible. On the other hand, homosexual relationships, by their very nature, are unable to produce and raise new and healthy citizens.

Keep in mind, this is not a question of whether or not homosexuality should be legalized. It isn’t even a question of rights; not even heterosexual marriages have a natural right to the benefits the state has chosen to give them. The question is whether or not the state has an obligation to grant benefits to homosexual unions, and I see no reason why it would be in the interest of the state to grant such benefits.

Having said that, I stress again that the state can in no way make homosexuality illegal or deny people who lean towards or practice it the same basic civil rights that all other people have. I only say that special benefits are not a basic civil right.

I think this is an excellent post. The state is under no obligation to recognize same-sex unions or opposite sex unions for that matter. Also I don’t feel that homosexual’s rights are being violated in any way by the state not recognizing same-sex marriage.

The question is about the proper role of government. Recognizing same-sex marriage may not promote a state interest but it doesn’t harm a state interest either. Homosexuals are not going to be procreating either way.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Homosexuals are not going to be procreating either way.

Hilarious.

 

[peduzzi89]

I fail to see any good reason the state should recognize same-sex relationships as marriage and confer the same benefits on such relationships as it does marriage. That said, the American government, given its constitution, cannot make homosexual behavior illegal.

Marriage is the monogomous union between a man and a woman. It is also the beginning of a family unit, whereby new citizens are born. Therefore it is in the interest of the state to provide certain benefits to these marriages to aid them in raising as many healthy children as possible. On the other hand, homosexual relationships, by their very nature, are unable to produce and raise new and healthy citizens.

Wrong. No, 2 men cannot produce a biological child. But they could take a child, previously a ward of the state, for instance, and bring him or her up to be a new healthy citizen. Not only is this possible, but reality - it has happened and is happening right now. As I stated in a previous response, the interest of the state is NOT to keep the population going…we all know that we do not have a problem with that. The interest of the state in providing marriage benefits is purely economic. If marriage is only to reproduce, why would the state be involved in opposite sex marriage either? It is because 2 people with the comittment to eachother that a marriage entails provide a strong economic bond as well, contributing to the economy with the power of 2 people rather than one - something in which the state takes a great interest.

Keep in mind, this is not a question of whether or not homosexuality should be legalized. It isn’t even a question of rights; not even heterosexual marriages have a natural right to the benefits the state has chosen to give them. The question is whether or not the state has an obligation to grant benefits to homosexual unions, and I see no reason why it would be in the interest of the state to grant such benefits.

Having said that, I stress again that the state can in no way make homosexuality illegal or deny people who lean towards or practice it the same basic civil rights that all other people have. I only say that special benefits are not a basic civil right.

Umm…we know that this isn’t a question of whether homosexuality should be legal…that is extremely old news. It is legal and that won’t be changing anytime soon…moving on…

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I don’t mean to pollute this thread with all my negativity, but this is an issue that Christians/Catholic must not be silent on. You seem like a smart and kindly person, OP. And I pray you and I are on the same page on what the Church believes.

 

[josephdaniel29]

For goodness sake I am not infringing upon anyone here. I am only saying (with a Catholic perspective, that, like it or not OP, I have) that there is much risk in allowing this to become a “norm.”

It’s wonderful to look at things from a Catholic perspective. We share the same values here. Marriage is between one man and one woman. I question whether or not we have the right to seemingly force our beliefs on others.

It is similar to abortion. Can we agree on that?

Not we can’t. It’s not like abortion at all. When an unborn child is murdered their right to life has been violated. We and the government have an obligation to protect that life.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[peduzzi89]

I think this is an excellent post. The state is under no obligation to recognize same-sex unions or opposite sex unions for that matter. Also I don’t feel that homosexual’s rights are being violated in any way by the state not recognizing same-sex marriage.

The question is about the proper role of government. Recognizing same-sex marriage may not promote a state interest but it doesn’t harm a state interest either. Homosexuals are not going to be procreating either way.

There we go, I finally feel like I can debate with someone with all the irrelevant clutter out of the way…please see my latest post as to why I feel the gov’t should recognize them

 

[PJY86]

josephdaniel29,

I appreciate you comment. I agree with you up until you say that recognizing homosexual unions would not hurt any interests of the state. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean. If by ‘recognize’ you mean grant the same benefits it does to marriages, then I would say to do so would be a clear waste of government (and therefore the citizen’s) funds. Since there is no reason for the state to grant such benefits, it would be superfluous, and therefore irresponsible of the government to do so.

What do you think?

 

[mamabear3]

So the Christian Taliban continues. Using the police power of government, the only people who can use legally use guns to achieve their goals, to force others to live by religious precepts that they don’t accept.

You have to be very careful with this line of thought my friend. One day we may not be the majority. What happens when the day comes that the atheist majority attempts to use the government to force us to live by their morality?

Yours in Christ
Joe

Dude, trust me I’m not the christian taliban. To me it’s just common sense that marriage is for a man and a woman…if they make gay civil marriage legal i wouldn’t be any kind of crazy activist outside protesting. people already live homosexual lives together out in public anyway without being married. gay marriage just doesn’t make sense, don’t act like it does. and do you mean to tell me you water down your beliefs just incase there is an athiest government one day who will force their beliefs on you? are you scared that atheists will force you to live an immoral life? and you do realize that this government was started by christians with christian morals right? Once they make gay civil marriage okay, then what’s next? don’t be so watery.

 

[peduzzi89]

Not force, but surely not allow anyone to walk over us until we have said our share about God’s voice on this issue. We must.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/children_with_same-sex_parents_prone_to_suicide_study_reveals/

This website is not a scientifically accreditted medical account. It is a website about religion, and therefore is bound to have underlying religious biases. I’m not saying that that renders it completely useless, simply that that article, which is not even a study, but a new article ABOUT one study in countless on the subject, is not enough to say for fact that homosexual parents cause children to be suicidal. It also does not prove your earlier declamation, which was that most suicidal children are adoptives of gay parents.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

It’s wonderful to look at things from a Catholic perspective. We share the same values here. Marriage is between one man and one woman. I question whether or not we have the right to seemingly force our beliefs on others.

Not we can’t. It’s not like abortion at all. When an unborn child is murdered their right to life has been violated. We and the government have an obligation to protect that life.

Yours in Christ
Joe

I get ya, Joe. I am always so touchy on this subject. It’s like the world is screaming in my ears to just accept same-sex unions…and I just want to scream back, “I won’t!!!”

I would never force my Catholic beliefs on others, homosexuals and heterosexual alike. Just inform.

I am trying very hard to remember:
There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save or to destroy.
Who then are you to judge your neighbor?
(James 4:12)

 

[lil_flower_luv]

This website is not a scientifically accreditted medical account. It is a website about religion, and therefore is bound to have underlying religious biases. I’m not saying that that renders it completely useless, simply that that article, which is not even a study, but a new article ABOUT one study in countless on the subject, is not enough to say for fact that homosexual parents cause children to be suicidal. It also does not prove your earlier declamation, which was that most suicidal children are adoptives of gay parents.

You’re right. I am very sorry for misleading you with inaccurate information. But the study must mean something. A child with homosexual partners at home might not too often be in the “in crowd” at school. Just saying.

 

[Alethiaphile]

But the point I tried to make in my introduction (which perhaps wasn’t clear enough) was that the law is not based on any particular set of moral codes, because everyone’s is different. For those who say it is wrong there are just as many who don’t. Contrary to popular belief, laws do not decide what is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Laws are there to protect rights.

And do you actually think that “rights” have no connection with morality? One clue for you: they’re called “rights”.

 

[peduzzi89]

Dude, trust me I’m not the christian taliban. To me it’s just common sense that marriage is for a man and a woman…if they make gay civil marriage legal i wouldn’t be any kind of crazy activist outside protesting. people already live homosexual lives together out in public anyway without being married. gay marriage just doesn’t make sense, don’t act like it does. and do you mean to tell me you water down your beliefs just incase there is an athiest government one day who will force their beliefs on you? are you scared that atheists will force you to live an immoral life? and you do realize that this government was started by christians with christian morals right? Once they make gay civil marriage okay, then what’s next? don’t be so watery.

Yes, to you it is common sense, but that doesn’t make it universal. As has been previously stated, no one is forcing everyone to change their beliefs. As for PJY86, please note my most recent post regarding the state interest in same sex marriage.

 

[peduzzi89]

And do you actually think that “rights” have no connection with morality? One clue for you: they’re called “rights”.

And do you suppose both of those have a connection with the use of the word meaning opposite the left as well? That doesn’t mean the words are connected. In short, no they do not have a connection. The basic right is to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness a.k.a. freedom to do whatever you want; laws are there to make sure that one individual’s exercising of that right does not ingringe upon anyone else’s.

 

[josephdaniel29]

josephdaniel29,

I appreciate you comment. I agree with you up until you say that recognizing homosexual unions would not hurt any interests of the state. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean. If by ‘recognize’ you mean grant the same benefits it does to marriages, then I would say to do so would be a clear waste of government (and therefore the citizen’s) funds. Since there is no reason for the state to grant such benefits, it would be superfluous, and therefore irresponsible of the government to do so.

What do you think?

I think that wasteful, irresponsible and superfluous is a wonderful description of our government.

Just so you understand me. I don’t necessarily approve of government recognized same-sex marriage.I am very torn on this issue between my personal religious conviction and my inherent libertarianism.

It is not a constitutional issue and I believe it should stay that way, i.e. no constitutional amendment. I also believe it should be left up to the individual states to decide whether or not they want to recognize same-sex unions.

When thinking of this issue I often think of a famous quote by Martin Niemöller. Talking about the Nazi’s he said.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not comparing opposition to same-sex marriage to Nazism in any way. We are in the majority today but one day we may not be. If there aren’t limits to the power of the majority one day there may be no one to speak out for us.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[peduzzi89]

You’re right. I am very sorry for misleading you with inaccurate information. But the study must mean something. A child with homosexual partners at home might not too often be in the “in crowd” at school. Just saying.

Sorry if I started to sound like a bad guy Ruby Bridges was certainly not in the crowd when she first stepped into that all white school…but is it really about being in the crowd? As a child of a single mother, I was not in the crowd either…but it would have been better for me than staying with my alcoholic abusive father. As it would be I’m sure for a child being tossed around foster homes because nobody wants to adopt them. There are countless cases of gay couples adopting drug/sick babies and taking them under their wing and caring for them because the couples most in contention for adopting a child wanted a “better” baby. Now if that’s not a loving home then I don’t know what is.

 

[peduzzi89]

josephdaniel29,

That is one of my favorite quotes - very nice.

I think you have the right idea that if you don’t agree with it you shouldn’t necessarily be advocating shooting it down for other people - especially if it isn’t going to infringe on your own rights.

 

[mamabear3]

from the very start marriage was meant for a man and a woman, that is universal it’s not just common sense to me. only lately have people wanted to change the definition of marriage to fit for homo-sexuals as well. it just alll around doesn’t make sense. marriage is not a right it’s a privilege. not all men and woman can get married either, can brothers and sisters get married?