Let's talk same sex marriage, shall we?

[PaulinVA]

You know, you don’t actually refute many arguements, you just attempt to bully the poster into believing that you did. I’m not falling for that.

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.

You refute an argument I did not make. I stated that, in a republic, if you will, I can elect representatives that shape the country and it’s institutions the way I want. I, not you, define my “pursuit of happiness”. So, yes, I have a right to determine what the construct of marriage is this country, as do you. Democracy in action.

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 each other, 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.

You might have attempted to explain why there is a societal need for gay marriage, but I am not swayed. You start in the middle of the question, instead of the beginning. The beginning of the question is should society allow gay couples, who can never have natural offspring due to the nature of their relationship, participation in a societal construct that has at it’s most important aspect the raising of children. It is unnatural for a gay couple to raise children, and society does not need to have any part in playing the game of deception that gay people are perpetuating that gay couples are just like heterosexual couples.

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.

Ha ha. I stand by what I wrote.

 

[edwest2]

Plans are already in place for what happens Beyond Gay Marriage:

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri

This ‘gay marriage’ issue is just another step to destroy the family.

God bless,
Ed

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Please do read my response to the post you’re quoting. Also…I do believe I was baptized in the Catholic Church just the same as you were. Let’s not play the game of calling one person more of a sinner than the other. Jesus would be the first person to disagree with that, of course.

I would not judge you. That is God’s job. But I can instruct you when you are failing to promote our Catholic beliefs - that’s my job as a fellow Catholic. If you do not agree with Catholic Teachings, you are Catholic in name only.

 

[angelerulastiel]

I think that this thread is pointless. The OP argues against things no one says. The OP says “no, you’re wrong” and considers that a rebuttal that no one can argue against. The OP does not want a real debate.

 

[Spirithound]

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.

Would this cover employer-provided health plans?

 

[kage_ar]

Do you have a point? Could you elaborate perhaps?

Relativism is the poison heresy that says “what you feel is okay is okay for you and what I feel is okay is okay for me let’s all hug and sing kubuyah”.

Right is right, sin is wrong.

Two people of the same sex cannot marry. That is God’s law, that is truth.

 

[Spirithound]

I think peduzzi is playing the devil’s advocate…

 

[Magnanimity]

Would this cover employer-provided health plans?

I’m not sure. I can envision scenarios where it could make sense to extend health benefits to those outside a nuclear family.

For example, suppose I’m a married man with three young children, and it is only our nuclear family in the household. Through a terrible twist of fate, one night my wife is on her way home and is struck by a drunk driver. She passes away. Suppose then that another individual moves into my home to help me to raise the children. Say it’s my mother who is single and retired. Would there be a problem including her in my company sponsored health plan?

Or, suppose it’s not my mother and it’s rather my celibate best friend from high school who is also a male? Does this change the dynamic? Say, further, that my friend and I develop a sexual relationship through the course of his living there, yet we care nothing for any pursuit of “gay marriage.”

In either case, the individual has practically replaced my deceased wife in the household, whether or not there is anything sexual going on. So…, what do you think? Employer subsidized health plans should only include nuclear families in all situations? And what does it matter who I’m having sex with, on the scenarios I’ve given above? Is that relevant?

 

[PaulinVA]

In either case, the individual has practically replaced my deceased wife in the household, whether or not there is anything sexual going on. So…, what do you think? Employer subsidized health plans should only include nuclear families in all situations? And what does it matter who I’m having sex with, on the scenarios I’ve given above? Is that relevant?

Well, your employer, first off, can decide what benefits are offered to you. That is the answer. If they want to cover your mother as a dependent, they can. If they want to cover your gay lover, they can. If they want to cover your three roommates in a group home they can.

Employers can do whatever they want in this regard. However, if they cover “spouses”, then, in the gay states, that includes gay spouses.

 

[Magnanimity]

Well, your employer, first off, can decide what benefits are offered to you. That is the answer. If they want to cover your mother as a dependent, they can. If they want to cover your gay lover, they can. If they want to cover your three roommates in a group home they can.

Employers can do whatever they want in this regard. However, if they cover “spouses”, then, in the gay states, that includes gay spouses.

The “gay states?!” Wow. Nice! I’ve got to start incorporating that into eveyday conversation.

Ok, I don’t see that you and I hold divergent views on this issue. I thought you were asking to challenge me or something.

I’m pretty hands-off when it comes to sexuality. I frankly don’t care who’s having sex with whom, so long as it’s consensual (to exclude children, of course). But, at the same time I’m vehemently opposed to gay marriage, for many the same reasons as I’m opposed to any ‘broadening’ of marriage (eg, polygamy). The State not only doesn’t have an interest in sanctionig these types of unions to put them on a par with “traditional” marriage, but I would argue that the State would do so to its own detriment. Gay marriage is so far off the radar screen that there’s actually more historical precedence for advocating polygamy.

I would hope that at the end of this struggle, in the next 50 years or so, we just end up much more like ancient Greece, where gay sex is tolerated, if not accepted, yet no one is suggesting we try to redefine the family according to it.

 

[hellopeople]

I would hope that at the end of this struggle, in the next 50 years or so, we just end up much more like ancient Greece, where gay sex is tolerated, if not accepted, yet no one is suggesting we try to redefine the family according to it.

The difference is that homosexuality back then was basically just big orgies and guys having lots of sex with each other. There wasn’t a redefinition of the family because no one wanted to be in monogamous relationships with other guys.

 

[Magnanimity]

The difference is that homosexuality back then was basically just big orgies and guys having lots of sex with each other. There wasn’t a redefinition of the family because no one wanted to be in monogamous relationships with other guys.

Just a bunch of orgies, eh? I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate. At least during the classical time of Socrates/Plato what was common among Greek male citizens was to take a teenage male lover (or more than one), for a period of time, normally before settling down to marry and start a family. And women were no strangers to homosexuality in Greek culture either. Recall the isle of Lesbos? But anyway, I’m not sure what your point is here.

Then or now, do you think something has altered the character of men such that they now want monogamous relationships today whereas they didn’t want that then?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

There’s no such thing as homosexual marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Two people of the same sex pretending to be married doesn’t mean they are married. I can call myself a rhinocheros - it doesn’t mean that I am a rhinoceros. It’s like the women ordaining themselves priests and bishops - they’re just deluding themselves, and cutting themselves off from God and His Church in the process.

 

[peary]

I could write a nice little dissertation about what I think about same-sex marriage right off the bat, but I would be far more delighted to hear what all of you have to say about it Almost 2 years ago, I started an almost identical thread, but now that I have grown more mature and my viewpoints have changed, I would like a fresh go at some indepth discussion.

Now, by indepth I mean I would love to have a discussion which consists of bias-free, open-minded ideas being tossed around and debated. Please don’t just go and copy-and-paste a link of some random website-let’s try to have a smidgen of verisimilitude to our posting I would like to really hear people’s thought processes on how the take the issue into consideration.

One minutia before we start:

~The point that I mean to discuss in this thread is civil marriage, as in one that has no tie to the church (like many opposite-sex marriages today). Keep in mind that, as much as many would advocate for this to be the case, the country’s laws do not take into account the church’s viewpoints on morality. So if you’re just going to type how the church says it’s a sin so there…well perhaps save your philanges the effort As a Catholic, I know full well what the church has to say about homosexuality so let’s stay focused and save discussion on whether or not it’s a sin for another thread since we are all quite aware!

Bearing that in your thoughts, by all means go ahead and discuss something surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage - I look forward to discussion and intelligent debate

Marriage, as far as the Church goes, is a sacramental union of man and woman before God, to live life and grow together, and to have children.

There is no such thing as “same-sex marriage”. There could be societal secular civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.

 

[Podo2005]

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.

Morality is not subjective…