P
peduzzi89
Guest
Please get with the program and read what people have said in this post - like REALLY read it before you just randomly post something.
- Status
S
Smber2c
Guest
Let me first say, that I’m strongly opposed to government telling anyone just about anything that they can or cannot do, unless it directly affects the life, health, or property of another person (including hurting unborn people).
But since we’re where we are, and gov’t has to have it’s grubby hands in every part of American society…no they shouldn’t legalize gay marriage. To say religious morals have no role in our constitutional republic is just wrong. We don’t allow polygamy - which is a moral decision of the vast majority. We don’t allow marriages to animals. There are laws on age of concent, child pornography, and sagitory rape. There are blue laws limiting alcohol sale all over the south. Gambling laws. Sin taxes. Drug laws. What is affermative action? It dictates that some part of the population deems it moral to have minorities get a more opportunity and legislates that. Basically, we do legistlate morality.
I’m against it from a moral stand point, but despite not agree that morals isn’t enough in our current trend of over legislating, I’m also against it from the grounds that I firmly believe it does directly hurt others.
Homosexual marriages of course lead to homosexual households. What is lacking here? A whole parenting subsect. I honestly think that a child has a right to 2 parents - 1 mom and 1 dad. Life isn’t always fair and thus mom, dad, or both may be gone; but they naturally have a right to them. Lacking a mom and a dad is an injustice - and a society should act to make families as complete as possible, as often as is possible.
Sometimes that injustistice is unavoidable (mom died in child birth or dad had a stroke and is completely comatose) - chalk that up to life isn’t just.
Other times lack of parents is choice we make b/c of difficult circumstances. Ex. Dad’s deployed to Iraq, sorry but it’s the job he chose - and to not go would mean jail. Or mom left dad b/c he’s abusive and we needed to get away.
------these are unfortunate, and the child isn’t getting the parenting they deserve (yes, just as a child decerves to be born with 10 fingers and 10 toes - they deserve a mom and dad), but circumstances being what they are…that’s life.
The alternative to hard choices is easy choices. “Sorry Jill, We fell out of love, so mommy’s single now.” “Dad isn’t attracted to women, so he married a man then went and found another couples child and adopted. Sorry, you don’t get a mommy.”
Basically, I feel that accepting homosexual marriage in society is accepting homosexual households. Accepting that, makes victims of children, who lack the different caring that a mother and father provide. Biologically we aren’t made for homosexuallity (if we had such genes - non-reproduction would have wiped them out long ago), morally it’s wrong, developmentally 2 moms or 2 dads lacks proper balance and formation for children. It weakens society, by making sex for another purpose than reproduction, which weakens commitment, stregnthens divorce even more, leads to swingers parties or casual sex, which leads to STDs epidemics or relativism. (I know random seeming string, but seemingly little things like condoms can start chains of behavior that eventually result in the collapse of the family unit in an entire society)
Don’t single parent families also lack the ideal 1 mom and 1 dad? Absolutley. We as a society should discourage this as much as possible. It is also quite harmful. If dad’s abusive or mom’s high on drugs then yes, it’s better to get away, but don’t pretent that 1 mom or 1 dad isn’t unfortunate.
But since we’re where we are, and gov’t has to have it’s grubby hands in every part of American society…no they shouldn’t legalize gay marriage. To say religious morals have no role in our constitutional republic is just wrong. We don’t allow polygamy - which is a moral decision of the vast majority. We don’t allow marriages to animals. There are laws on age of concent, child pornography, and sagitory rape. There are blue laws limiting alcohol sale all over the south. Gambling laws. Sin taxes. Drug laws. What is affermative action? It dictates that some part of the population deems it moral to have minorities get a more opportunity and legislates that. Basically, we do legistlate morality.
I’m against it from a moral stand point, but despite not agree that morals isn’t enough in our current trend of over legislating, I’m also against it from the grounds that I firmly believe it does directly hurt others.
Homosexual marriages of course lead to homosexual households. What is lacking here? A whole parenting subsect. I honestly think that a child has a right to 2 parents - 1 mom and 1 dad. Life isn’t always fair and thus mom, dad, or both may be gone; but they naturally have a right to them. Lacking a mom and a dad is an injustice - and a society should act to make families as complete as possible, as often as is possible.
Sometimes that injustistice is unavoidable (mom died in child birth or dad had a stroke and is completely comatose) - chalk that up to life isn’t just.
Other times lack of parents is choice we make b/c of difficult circumstances. Ex. Dad’s deployed to Iraq, sorry but it’s the job he chose - and to not go would mean jail. Or mom left dad b/c he’s abusive and we needed to get away.
------these are unfortunate, and the child isn’t getting the parenting they deserve (yes, just as a child decerves to be born with 10 fingers and 10 toes - they deserve a mom and dad), but circumstances being what they are…that’s life.
The alternative to hard choices is easy choices. “Sorry Jill, We fell out of love, so mommy’s single now.” “Dad isn’t attracted to women, so he married a man then went and found another couples child and adopted. Sorry, you don’t get a mommy.”
Basically, I feel that accepting homosexual marriage in society is accepting homosexual households. Accepting that, makes victims of children, who lack the different caring that a mother and father provide. Biologically we aren’t made for homosexuallity (if we had such genes - non-reproduction would have wiped them out long ago), morally it’s wrong, developmentally 2 moms or 2 dads lacks proper balance and formation for children. It weakens society, by making sex for another purpose than reproduction, which weakens commitment, stregnthens divorce even more, leads to swingers parties or casual sex, which leads to STDs epidemics or relativism. (I know random seeming string, but seemingly little things like condoms can start chains of behavior that eventually result in the collapse of the family unit in an entire society)
Don’t single parent families also lack the ideal 1 mom and 1 dad? Absolutley. We as a society should discourage this as much as possible. It is also quite harmful. If dad’s abusive or mom’s high on drugs then yes, it’s better to get away, but don’t pretent that 1 mom or 1 dad isn’t unfortunate.
B
baylee
Guest
Aren’t unmarried, homosexual couples already adopting children (and therefore have “homosexual households”)?
And if we are so concerned about protecting children in any household, why don’t we make divorce illegal too?
And if we are so concerned about protecting children in any household, why don’t we make divorce illegal too?
L
Lethe
Guest
I agree with civil partnerships as we have in the UK for same sex couples. I can understand people’s views that perhaps they don’t want it seen as the same as a religious marriage (but then marriages happen in all religions, even before all the Abrahamic ones.)
I think commitment ceremonies are important to people, and always have been - it is when you say ‘I am settling down,’ and make the relationship publicly commited in front of friends and family. I do not, however, see the law part as a necessity. I am speaking for people who do. I think it would be enough to publicly make known your decision to friends and family.
What religious people have to realise is that there are many people of different religions and many who have none. I’m an agnostic, and I don’t take kindly to being expected to follow someone else’s religious teachings. I feel there is logic in all people following the Golden Rule, as all people should care about other people, but apart from that it all depends on which text and which version of God you believe in…
I think commitment ceremonies are important to people, and always have been - it is when you say ‘I am settling down,’ and make the relationship publicly commited in front of friends and family. I do not, however, see the law part as a necessity. I am speaking for people who do. I think it would be enough to publicly make known your decision to friends and family.
What religious people have to realise is that there are many people of different religions and many who have none. I’m an agnostic, and I don’t take kindly to being expected to follow someone else’s religious teachings. I feel there is logic in all people following the Golden Rule, as all people should care about other people, but apart from that it all depends on which text and which version of God you believe in…
L
Lethe
Guest
They can’t natrually have kids but apart from that I don’t see your point and would agree that you can’t know much about gay people… They have relationships that involve sexual contact and romantic love for one another. Many commit and live monogamously for the rest of their lives (stats for gay men + promiscuity may be worse than for straight couples, but stats for lesbian women are better…)
What exactly is the commonsense part of your argument? You havent proven anything. And the ‘marriage has been m/f for ages’ argument is ridiculous. Think slavery, racism, believing the world was flat. Progress happens, and a lot of things were accepted before that we do not accept today.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Right!
And since we believe it is immoral and harmful to society why not outlaw contraception as well? We could just start chucking people in the hoosegow for using a condom!
Yours in Christ
Joe
A
angelerulastiel
Guest
You are really very insulting. I actually did read- like REALLY read. No one has a right to marriage, otherwise the government couldn’t deny marriage licenses based on various criteria. Therefore it is a privilege for the government to give to those who partners that are good for the country. 1 man 1 woman allows for children which perpetuates society. 2 men or 2 women can’t do that. No one is denying them any rights. The government is just choosing to not grant legal privileges to homosexual couples.
You’ve just started this thread so you can spew your beliefs. Anyone who disagrees with you isn’t addressing the question, isn’t arguing the right way, or hasn’t read the thread. You are trying to portray yourself as an intellectual, but you’re really just promoting your own agenda until the guise of an argument, where you refuse to hear anyone else’s point.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
It infringes upon my right to participate in the democratic process and define what my society will recognize as marriage.
There is no reason for society to want two homosexuals to marry. There are many reason that society wants a heterosexual couple to marry, including the legal framework for raising natural children.
As in most things gay, gay marriage is about what gay people want, not what makes sense or what is needed by society.
K
kage_ar
Guest
Oh goody, just what this forum needs, more relativism.
M
Murphs10
Guest
A man and a woman coming together is the way in which God ordered humanity. Marriage reflects that and the necessity of these relationships in creating life. In a strictly scientific sense, same sex relationships are incapable of preserving the species.
So, to recognize two men or two women as married would be a lie in a sense and we would need to either redefine marriage as not reflecting reality, both physical and spiritual, or create a new type of acknowledgement for strictly finiancial and contractual purposes.
I also think it is important not to get too confused between governmental law which can be manipulated and changed with only societal consequences and laws that God has established.
Gravity would be one example. We could change what we call it or how we define it, but we will still die if we walk off a cliff. Same with marriage. We can allow same sex marriage, but that would not change that fact that it contradicts the natural order of creation. So, change it…how would what we say or do as humans change the reality God has established? This is the case even if you do not believe in God.
So, to recognize two men or two women as married would be a lie in a sense and we would need to either redefine marriage as not reflecting reality, both physical and spiritual, or create a new type of acknowledgement for strictly finiancial and contractual purposes.
I also think it is important not to get too confused between governmental law which can be manipulated and changed with only societal consequences and laws that God has established.
Gravity would be one example. We could change what we call it or how we define it, but we will still die if we walk off a cliff. Same with marriage. We can allow same sex marriage, but that would not change that fact that it contradicts the natural order of creation. So, change it…how would what we say or do as humans change the reality God has established? This is the case even if you do not believe in God.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
S
Spirithound
Guest
There are rather a few people on these fora who would support that, me being one of them. Granted, it would probably work as well as prohibition of alcohol, but perhaps we’re idealists…
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
I cannot help but agree. And on top of that the OP identifies himself as Catholic, while defending homosexuals, the act, and their right to civil unions.
2357*** *Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms throughout the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which present homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Gen. 19:1-29, Rom. 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:10, 1Tim. 1:10], tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered [Persona Humana 8]. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. *
P
peduzzi89
Guest
Baylee said it all…homosexuals are already adopting children whether you agree with it or not…their being able to get married would just put less stress on the household…children included
P
peduzzi89
Guest
My apologies - I didn’t mean to be insulting. The reason I said that is because you are making points that have already been addressed. You repeated what someone else said about perpetuating society and then I posted a rebuttal to that. If you were to continue the debate you would respond to that since that is the latest response to the type of point you’re trying to make. I am not hear to just spew my beliefs. I’m here to debate. I do not have an “agenda” which is a word tossed around by many people sway people onto one side. I’m not here to be mean - but your response led me to believe that you just scrolled to the end of the thread and posting your opinion rather than seeing if what you had to say was already being talked about.
P
peduzzi89
Guest
Do you have a point? Could you elaborate perhaps?
P
peduzzi89
Guest
Contrary to popular belief, this country is not a true democracy, it is a republic. If it were, everyone would vote on every issue. But it’s not. We elect public officials who are trained to be knowledgeable about what’s good for society to make laws for us. You got your say when you voted for them. The truth is, a gay couple getting married does not infringe on YOUR right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
I have already outlined in above posts why there is a societal need for gay marriage. The gist would be this: there are already gay couples living together, comitting to eachother, and raising successful children and households. Providing them the right to marry simply means that they’ll have the same rights that other couples/households have who have exhibited this type of success. I think there’s this myth that allowing gay marriage equals allowing gay households (not to imply that the whole household is gay). The truth of the matter is whether not it is legalized doesn’t change whether or not these households exist.
Be careful, my friend, about making generalizations about “all things gay.” Generaliations are for people who don’t know enough about a particular group of people. This isn’t about selfishness here…if it were there would be single gay people fighting for benefits for themselves only. These are people wanting to share what they have with people they love.
P
peduzzi89
Guest
I please beg of everyone to read through the whole thread if you’re going to make an argument…all of the points you have made have already been rebutted elsewhere in this very thread. If you wish to further rebut those, please do go ahead…but it seems pointless to me to just keep repeating things.
P
peduzzi89
Guest
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Peduzzi et al,
I read through the thread, and I’m interested in engaging you on this topic. A few have already hit on some topics I would address. I agree that it is naive and unrealistic to believe that government is not in the business of legislating morality. It is actually a rather common occurence, especially when the high court gets involved.
I would disagree with one individual above attempting to assert that marriage is not a right. I’m fairly certain that the Supreme Court has ruled in a prior case that there does exist a natural right to marry. Now, whether that right pertains to this or that case is a separate question. For example, as a nation, are we ok with government sanctioning polygamous relations? So far, no. So, this is an instance where, although a general right to marry can be affirmed as a right of Americans, it does not apply to this particular group. And, it does seem a bit like gay marriage is just the particular flavor of ice cream of the day. We could just as easily be discussing polyamory or any of a given few ways of ‘expanding’ the definition of marriage.
But, I find it odd that there is such a push for gay marriage, in the sense of involving the State in a public santioning of the union such that it’s on equal terms with marriage as marriage has been understood since time immemorial.
I strongly disagree with anyone who asserts that all that is sought after here are legal rights (eg, deathbed rights) by proponents of gay marriage. It is very clearly a push for public legitimization of this alternative lifestyle, else why attempt to involve the State at all?Just draft up a legal contract between yourself and your partner delineating all rights. And this gets at an important philosophical distinction, if you will.
There is a crucial difference between tolerance and acceptance. As an American public, I think many have moved to the point of tolerating gay relationships. After all, as most of us are not interested in having others tell us what we ought and ought not to be doing in the bedroom, so too, we feel little need of telling others the same. However, outright acceptance is a move further in the direction of legitimization. And I don’t see how getting the State to sanction homosexual unions would do anything other than force individuals to accept gay marriage as a perfectly legitimate union of two persons. Ironically, perhaps, this would be akin to the legislation of morality that the OP seems so averse to.
I read through the thread, and I’m interested in engaging you on this topic. A few have already hit on some topics I would address. I agree that it is naive and unrealistic to believe that government is not in the business of legislating morality. It is actually a rather common occurence, especially when the high court gets involved.
I would disagree with one individual above attempting to assert that marriage is not a right. I’m fairly certain that the Supreme Court has ruled in a prior case that there does exist a natural right to marry. Now, whether that right pertains to this or that case is a separate question. For example, as a nation, are we ok with government sanctioning polygamous relations? So far, no. So, this is an instance where, although a general right to marry can be affirmed as a right of Americans, it does not apply to this particular group. And, it does seem a bit like gay marriage is just the particular flavor of ice cream of the day. We could just as easily be discussing polyamory or any of a given few ways of ‘expanding’ the definition of marriage.
But, I find it odd that there is such a push for gay marriage, in the sense of involving the State in a public santioning of the union such that it’s on equal terms with marriage as marriage has been understood since time immemorial.
I strongly disagree with anyone who asserts that all that is sought after here are legal rights (eg, deathbed rights) by proponents of gay marriage. It is very clearly a push for public legitimization of this alternative lifestyle, else why attempt to involve the State at all?Just draft up a legal contract between yourself and your partner delineating all rights. And this gets at an important philosophical distinction, if you will.
There is a crucial difference between tolerance and acceptance. As an American public, I think many have moved to the point of tolerating gay relationships. After all, as most of us are not interested in having others tell us what we ought and ought not to be doing in the bedroom, so too, we feel little need of telling others the same. However, outright acceptance is a move further in the direction of legitimization. And I don’t see how getting the State to sanction homosexual unions would do anything other than force individuals to accept gay marriage as a perfectly legitimate union of two persons. Ironically, perhaps, this would be akin to the legislation of morality that the OP seems so averse to.
- Status