V
- Status
V
vsedriver
Guest
and on what grounds would you exclude family members from marrying each other? why is marrying a good friend more outlandish than gays marrying?
Stephen168
New member
Yes, it is so. For some reason society/government has treated married people different than unmarried people. We don’t seem to treat baptized people different than unbaptized or confirmed different than unconfirmed. If there is a “civil rights” problem, it is how we treat married different from unmarried. If a solution is required them we need to change the laws not legislate a legal fiction. As we do this, we would have to think about why this laws were created in the first place. This is something I don’t think supporters of same-sex unions think about.
Society recognizes partnerships without calling them married. The business I work for is a partnership between a guy and his parents, but he is not married to them.
Yes, and why only two?
The rubric that marriage is the of coming together of opposite sex people to create and rear children it logically eliminates same-sex coupling and children. When children or same-sex coupling is included the other cannot be logically eliminated.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
No you aren’t old fashioned, until around a hundred years ago many people married for reasons other than love, five hundred years ago marriage for love was uncommon. Love is not necessary for a marriage to be a marriage.
S
Slavonic
Guest
If you say that the key rubric is opposite gender then I guess sons can marry mothers and daughters can marry fathers.only if black is part of the concept of car.
ah the rubrics, well if they are following the same rubrics then they will choose a person of the opposite sex because that is one of the rubrics of marriage.
yes, all those perks to promote marriage. Yes, there are a few couples who never have children. But they are the exception to the rule and could still be parents by other means. They still meet the criteria for parentness, ie a mom and a dad.
Never thought they were. They are asking that the gender rubric of marriage be abolished. Since this is the key rubric for marriage it is only fair that if it falls then all of the other rubrics should fall too.
Which means I should be able to marry my mother.
For a less snarky answer, I will say that is why one should look at the relationship between two people and not the gender. If the relationship between two people is exactly the same as one we call marriage elsewhere, just recognize it as a marriage.
I’d use the same grounds one uses to exclude incestuous relationships from marriage like we do today.
Typically, people want to create and rear children with someone they are married to. So to say that marriage is the best institution for raising children (I agree with you there) does not mean that marriage is for raising children.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Slavonic,
This post is inconsistent with Catholic thought, Christ, the Church and the Teachings of the Catechism.
Stephen168
New member
I never claimed that marriage is the best institution to raise children. I said the rubric that marriage is the of coming together of opposite sex people to create and rear children logically eliminates same-sex coupling and children. When children or same-sex coupling is included the other cannot be logically eliminated.
That is why we asked the questions of your rubric:
Why do you limit the number to two?
Why can’t you marry your mother?
Why must they be adults?
We ask these questions because we don’t see the logic of eliminating them when you want to include same-sex couples.
V
vsedriver
Guest
But another rubric of marriage is no close blood relations. If opposite gender is not a key rubric then neither is close blood relations. So yes, sons can marry mothers, brothers marry brothers…
Well if you feel the need to get snarky… although I see this usually happens when people realize they are losing an argument…
No one looked at my relationship with my husband when we took out a marriage license. No place on the license that said anything about love, or sexual behavior. All it required was two genders, not already married, not a close blood relative, and only one man and one woman of legal age.
A marriage of convenience is still a legal marriage.
What grounds would those be? Can’t be because of the quality of offspring because with genetic testing and legal abortion a brother/sister marriage could produce happy, healthy kids. In fact incest was accepted in marriage in many cultures. Suppose I promise never to have sex with my mom? I’d be happy to sign a form stating that and then collect my marriage perks like any two gay women who love each other, live together etc.
Marriage isn’t necessary for two people to have sex. Marriage is necessary for the welfare of children. Marriage is for raising children even though a few can’t or don’t. And the can’t or don’t can still change their minds at any time and become a mom and dad parenting team. No gay relationship can do that.
F
fix
Guest
If he same sex persons can “marry” then anything goes.
A
awsiukiewicz
Guest
A
awsiukiewicz
Guest
Good morning all…I guess I’m just a little confused as to the position of certain individuals with access to this site with respect to the LGBT…( I guess I’m really out of the loop, owing to the fact that I had to give more than a little thought to what LGBT stands for)…If, and only if, I am acutally misinterpreting much of what is being presented back and forth regarding ‘Marriage’ and the entire LGBT agenda…it seems that there is an ongoing dialogue pro/con…I suppose that I am more than a little concerned that it seems to be going on and on and on…I could get into the old 'I have friends who are homosexual and live the livestyle…they understand my position…I don’t dislike them. I try not to judge them …forget the fact that I don’t understand it…but it would be pointless…might I suggest…very respectfully, and in total sincerity…that those on this site. that hold…that homosexuals should be granted marital status…and not respect the teachings of the Church regarding this matter…consider worshiping in another church…Please don’t think that I am being sarcastic, but everyone knows that there are churches that welcome (even ordain) individuals that live openly homosexual lifestyles… and even conduct marriage ceremonies for these souls…I suppose what I am suggesting, is , rather than perpetuating , regardless of how articulate, and philosophical , that rather than trying to argue the pro stance…that those who seem to perpetually attempt to argue some logical rationale for validating these lifestyles consider moving on…we all know that many of the Protestant churches have no problem with many of the things that the Catholic Church teaches against. Please feel free to correct me if I am mis reading the Pro stance people…PAX
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Aus,
Here is the loop. The LGBT are arguing that their plight is the same as the plight of Blacks in obtaining Civil Rights and that they have the same row to hoe…and that is the dialogue.
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
True love and compassion is about caring for the well-being of your spouse, including the well-being of their eternity and of their soul.
Tingly butterfly feelings and giddiness is not true love. It is emotional and superficial.
P
PaulinePresbytr
Guest
Black people were first enslaved, then after that terrorized, dealt with lynchings and Jim Crow laws, and were segregated. They were ACTUALLY oppressed. Gays want to change the definition of marriage. Gays are not legally discriminated against in any way shape or form, anyone can get married regardless of sexual preference, but not to someone of the same gender because that’s not a marriage. The “gay rights” movement is nothing more than a secular progressive agenda which poses as a civil rights movement so that people buy into their propaganda.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
It is a rights movement, just one for poositive rights not natural rights.
R
rorydaman
Guest
I am going to assume you are straight. Do you think you could just choose to be gay? I am going to guess that you could not and likely find it repulsive. If everyone had gay tendencies and we were supposed to control them, I could see where you were coming from…but most people are not attracted to their own sex.
R
rorydaman
Guest
The fact of the matter is that without religion homosexuality or gay marriage is not a “sin” or immoral. There is no convincing secular argument that homosexuality is immoral. “Natural law” is just veiled Catholic logic and unless you are some sort of Christian it really doesn’t make much sense.
R
rorydaman
Guest
You don’t think that gay people were oppressed (and are still oppressed)? Seriously? I wouldn’t be surprised if an openly gay person in the 1960’s was more oppressed than a black person.
R
Robertanthony
Guest
I agree with your 1st post. My own father argues along the same lines: I suppose it might say something about his own struggles with his sexual orientation growing up. For true heterosexuals, homosexuality just isn’t a temptation to overcome, the mere thought of it doesn’t even cross one’s mind. My guess is that some people would like to portray homosexuality as something that one chooses consciously and can turn on and off at will because, in their views, it makes God look "cruel"or “unjust” to forbid homosexual persons to engage in homosexual sex if homosexuality is: 1-deep-seated 2-not a conscious, free choice per se. The “Born this way” creed isn’t too far from the truth IMO, where I definitely depart from that creed is the condonement and approval that is implicit. In less obscure terms: being born this way doesn’t make it ok, doesn’t make it something that you mustn’t fight against.
As for your 2nd post, in a secular world you have basic, common morality (don’t steal, don’t do violence unless in self-defense, abide by the law etc.), a higher and more demanding morality is from God, and if you’re an atheist I would understand that that morality that comes from beyond is, to you, groundless and irrelevant. Even if an atheist agrees that per the natural law, homosexuality is disordered and homosexual acts, an aberration, why would they feel compelled to live according to this conclusion when they think that life stops at death. There isn’t much of a motivation to feel accountable to or bound by the natural law. Eloquence-wise, I have better days.
- Status