Massachussets governor wants to ban gay marriage

[renee1258]

I realize I’m in the moral theology forum, but let’s take the issue of gay marriage from a language point of view.

Follow me on this…

Marriage by definition alone and not by law does discriminate against same sex couples. So we need to BAN all marriage, because marriage is a hateful institution because two people of the same sex can’t engage in marriage.

Words having meaning and if the word unjustly discriminates as a matter of law then that word should be struck from the statute. The government even though it does have the ability to change the definition of a word, it shouldn’t because it burdens everyone else to bend and change a basic understanding of a word that has been institutionalized since man and woman were created.

As someone who understands marriage and defends its definition, because I as a mother need the protection of marriage not as a legal benefit but as a universal institution that keeps intact the family and fosters the and provides the love and care needed for the children my husband and I CREATED. Civil law does nothing to protect my marriage, since either my husband and I can leave the marriage no questions ask through divorce.

Last time I check two people of the same sex can’t create a child, unless it involved the transfering of genetic material from an anonymous parent (usually bought and sold i.e. human trafficing) in which the child if created by such mean is denied the idenity of its biological origins for the sole purpose of making a homosexual couple equal, and not out of the gift of sexuality.

One can not even argue a value or meaningful concept anymore, because we have been stripped of the very words we need to uphold such an argument. I have to be careful about what words to use, for example “sexual intercourse” doesn’t mean “coitus”. Sexual intercourse can mean other types of sexual activity involving any penetration with any orifice. I have to use the word “coitus” now. Who uses the word “coitus” except medical professionals? Now I lose the meaning of marriage.

It seems the goal isn’t about civil rights or legal benefits, and definitely it isn’t about hatred or bigotry but the complete dismantling the complimentary nature of heterosexuality through a forced change of language. Our voices are being muzzled to speak of the value of marriage brings to children who are conceived through the institution, because all procreative elements (which would require one man and one woman) are eliminated from the meaning.

There is a substantive and rational reasoning that links marriage with responsible procreative activity. Even though with modern day contraception some people plan never to have children marriage if there is an unexpected blessing occurs or a change of heart occurs as the relationship matures. Children even though not perfectly planned and come to this world as a surprise; benefit from their parents being in a healthy marriage compared to being unmarried or divorced. Even if no children ever come from the marriage, the couple’s procreative activity is protected if a child were to be conceived.

From a legal and rational point of view that is why government became involved in the licensing of marriage and rewarded couples who remained together for the children, not for individuals to merely share in any residual legal benefits that do occur in a married relationship. If government can’t uphold or foster the understanding of marriage, then it should stop being involved marriage.

 

[HoppityRedux]

If we look at government’s involvement in marriage today, it is from a legal and contractual standpoint. There are several areas where government bundles contractual relations and obligations into a single bundle. For example, the Universal Commercial Code is invoked everytime we buy something at the store. We do not sit down with the seller and a lawyer and hash out the details of warrantees, fitness for use, return rights, ownership, etc. These are all covered by a single UCC. They could all be negotiated each time we buy something, but we have made the bundle for convenience.

That’s what we have with civil marriage. It’s just a bundle of righs and obligations. We could contract for each individually, but the bundle makes life easier for everyone.

So, if the government got out of marriage, all it would be doing is unbundling the set of laws involved. We could contract for them individually, but that would make life harder for everyone, including those who choose religious marriage.

 

[renee1258]

Even though we have the UCC, companies still take the time to create their own contracts taylored to their benefit to perform. But anyways I don’t think of my relationship with my husband as contractual, but institutional. A contract for a sexual relationship is really nothing more then prositution.

Currently as a wife/mother civil marriage is detrimental, since my husband can unilaterally leave me with out being able to contest the divorce after all the sacrifice I have made bearing children and his sacrifice providing for us… All he or I have to do is take half of our assets and pay child support, being a parent is more then handing over a check and being a spouse is more then leaving the other destitute. I’m not a prostitute or a maid, I can’t be paid off for my services.

Marriage isn’t prostitution. Marriage is a relationship that opens itself to life giving abilities, where man and woman physically become one flesh by engaging in sexual acitivty which actually uses their sexual organs… Two people of the same sex can never engage in such. That isn’t bigotry or discrimination, that’s reality. If the government was to bundle such things so be it, but it isn’t marriage and if such benefits do exist they should not only be for sexual relationships but also non-sexual companionships and non-married relatives. .

 

[HoppityRedux]

Even though we have the UCC, companies still take the time to create their own contracts taylored to their benefit to perform. But anyways I don’t think of my relationship with my husband as contractual, but institutional. A contract for a sexual relationship is really nothing more then prositution.

Currently as a wife/mother civil marriage is detrimental, since my husband can unilaterally leave me with out being able to contest the divorce after all the sacrifice I have made bearing children and his sacrifice providing for us… All he or I have to do is take half of our assets and pay child support, being a parent is more then handing over a check and being a spouse is more then leaving the other destitute. I’m not a prostitute or a maid, I can’t be paid off for my services.

Marriage isn’t prostitution. Marriage is a relationship that opens itself to life giving abilities, where man and woman physically become one flesh by engaging in sexual acitivty which actually uses their sexual organs… Two people of the same sex can never engage in such. That isn’t bigotry or discrimination, that’s reality. If the government was to bundle such things so be it, but it isn’t marriage and if such benefits do exist they should not only be for sexual relationships but also non-sexual companionships and non-married relatives. .

Companies do create their own contracts. But these are in addition to the UCC. The UCC forms a base, then they add to that base. It is similar in marriage. The civil marriage is a base, then folks can add to it with religious commitment or other arrangement. In some counties a couple is first married by a civil authority, then they go to a priest for a religious marriage. That is a perfect example of the two tiered system.

We may each think of our relationships any way we please. However, the law looks at them from a legal perspective, and it is based on a series of contractual rights and obligations. I say this because of the many laws which regulate relations between spouses. I think Illinois has 1102 such laws.

Civil marriage today is whatever the couple chooses it to be. I say this because any couple can get married for any reason they choose, and then define their relationship any way they choose. We can observe this.

 

[Riley259]

IOW, “I’m just going to whine about how prejudiced and unreasonable religious people are since that relieves me of the burden of actually addressing the arguments, both secular and religious, against homosexual marriage.”

The Secular Case against Gay Marriage

– Mark L. Chance.

Thanks for that article - it’s very convincing.

 

[renee1258]

I should mention. I am a lawyer in all places Massachusetts.

I have represented clients in divorce cases. All the law looks at is assets and debts of the couple, it doesn’t care about the issue of marriage. Many people when entering marriage are misguided thinking the state upholds and fosters marriage and only until one spouse wants out they realize the government isn’t there to help and the lawyers can’t do anything for them.

I’ve represented the victims and the selfish jerks in there cases, it was incredibly hard to tell a client I wasn’t there to fight the fight just to divide if anything left. Usually in many cases the selfish one ran up debt and wasted away the marital assets only to leave the other spouse with half of the bill or no equity left in the home.

I try help them find a divorce support group or the proper social services for mothers with children. It is rather cruel and cold, but the family lawyers would perfer just to have divorce be a cold transaction as if the married couple was trying unincorporate themselves as if they were a business with no fault. 40 years ago they believe “no fault” would make the divorce process easier for the victims by making it speedy, but it did the opposite encouraging people to just screw and leave.

I find it crazy that a person could be so cruel and mean in the sacred institution of marriage and the state doesn’t even punitively atleast punish one spouse at least through the division of assets. If marriage was a business, and spouses were partners instead they would have criminal charges against them for fraud.

I good legal essay on marriage and the legal system was done by law professor Stephen Safranek.

By the middle of the 1800’s America had placed divorce in the hands of the courts and approximately 100 years later in the 1960’s, beginning in California “no-fault” divorce swept through America. Both state court determinations – based upon “fault” and “no-fault” – ignore the principles upon which American government was founded; the right of the individual to determine for themselves what forms and contracts best served their needs.
Interestingly, although divorce has gone through these different stages, marriage – the allowance of it and what it means to people and who could perform it – have been quite stable.Most people knew what was expected; most honored the commitment because of the social and personal costs of failing to do so. Common law marriage has been known since time immemorial. In order to eliminate the need to “prove” that a marriage had occurred, states increasingly disallow “common law marriage” and require a license to be married. …

Dealing with problems upon the dissolution of marriage or disputes that may arise even within marriage can be incredibly complex. The more a marriage actually encompasses contract, children and covenant, the more difficult a dissolution is to manage. Because the raising of children is complex, a vast array of laws and supervision is required when dissolution of such marriages occur. Covenant and contract are also complex. “No-fault” dealt with those complex realities by imposing a one size legal norm – contract and covenant are of no legal importance. It was the imposition of a Soviet Standard much like the USSR handled the production of clothing in the 50s; one size, one color, and it hardly fits anyone. But some profit from this apparatus – state divorce courts have grown to prodigious levels, an array of social workers, therapists and other “experts” are enriched by the divorce bonanza ushered through state divorce gates. These courts and these experts hold virtually every family in their jurisdiction in complete control – their judgments can be disturbed only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. The inscription on those courthouses should read like the inscription on the gates Dante places at the entrance to Hell, “abandon all hope, ye that enter there.”

 

[Imagine23]

It’s not about “fun”, it’s about what is morally right. Massachussetts Catholics and Christians of other denominations, please call, write, or e-mail your legislators. We need to show support for traditional marriage, as God ordained it, and as He taught it in His Word, the Holy Bible. :bible1:

What’s immoral about consenting adults joinining each other in holy matrimony? I fail to see how permitting consenting adults of the same sex to marry in any way harms heterosexual marriages. Please explain.

We can’t just point to biblical passages. The bible also gives instruction on the treatment of slaves so we all know that the bible is riddled with concepts that civilized humans find reprehensible.

 

[renee1258]

Imagine I think I answered that for you.

Also I think it is interesting thatyou brought up slavery. It is interesting that two people, can buy sperm, buy eggs, and hire out a woman to produce a child. Basically it is human trafficing of human beings to purchase a child from a catalog. People who engage in natural reproductivity are at the will of their fertility, children (human life) is a gift of the sexuality. The institution of marriage protects the natural biological parents and their children. Since homosexuals can never achieve that, they can not fall into the definition of marriage.

Consider this I want to change my Catholic Forum name to “Imagine23” it would be rather confusing if I had the same name as you, conversation and communication would become a mess to understand. But what if I claimed it was my “civil right” to call myself whatever I wanted even if I did not fit that description? You don’t own the identity of “Imagine23”. You have no right to such a existence to be your own. What is happening through statutory measures is the stripping the identity of what marriage is and what its rational reasoning for its existence.

 

[Imagine23]

Imagine I think I answered that for you.

Also I think it is interesting thatyou brought up slavery. It is interesting that two people, can buy sperm, buy eggs, and hire out a woman to produce a child. Basically it is human trafficing of human beings to purchase a child from a catalog. People who engage in natural reproductivity are at the will of their fertility, children (human life) is a gift of the sexuality. The institution of marriage protects the natural biological parents and their children. Since homosexuals can never achieve that, they can not fall into the definition of marriage.

Consider this I want to change my Catholic Forum name to “Imagine23” it would be rather confusing if I had the same name as you, conversation and communication would become a mess to understand. But what if I claimed it was my “civil right” to call myself whatever I wanted even if I did not fit that description? You don’t own the identity of “Imagine23”. You have no right to such a existence to be your own. What is happening through statutory measures is the stripping the identity of what marriage is and what its rational reasoning for its existence.

Your text is fairly convoluted and circuitous, but it sound like you said that since homos can’t have kids naturally, they don’t fall within the definition of marriage. By your logic then, heterosexual infertile couples don’t fall within the definition of marriage. Please explain this cruel declaration.

 

[renee1258]

Actually I answered the question quite clearly. You just don’t like it. As I need to restate…

There is a substantive and rational reasoning that links marriage with responsible procreative activity. Even though with modern day contraception some people plan never to have children marriage if there is an unexpected blessing occurs or a change of heart occurs as the relationship matures. Children even though not perfectly planned and come to this world as a surprise; benefit from their parents being in a healthy marriage compared to being unmarried or divorced. Even if no children ever come from the marriage, the couple’s procreative activity is protected if a child were to be conceived.

Actually entering into marriage in which a person has voluntarily sterilized themselves permanently would also be against the definition of marriage, since one is deying the other from being open to life. Most heterosexual couples don’t try to procreate until they are actually marriage, so it is unknown at the point of marriage if one is actually sterile. Homosexuals know they can never have procreativy activity or be open to life.

Marriage sets up a stable enviroment in which children may strive and be nutured in, it protects the mother who is venerable for survival while caring for those children, and it allows the investment the father provides for his wife and children. This is universal in every culture not just the Catholic religion…

As you stated…

it sound like you said that since homos can’t have kids naturally, they don’t fall within the definition of marriage

That would be correct, but I wouldn’t use the term “homos” because that is offensive who are attractived to the same sex. As a Catholic I enjoy sex (coitus) and it also produces sometimes wonderful things called children. These are wonderful things, but sex and children are venerable things that can be abused or disposed of. Marriage protects these very things.

I was much a moral relativist like yourself. “Who cares as long as they consent…” I’ve used birth control, I’ve had pre-marital sex… I was taught all sexual acts were merely recreational and had no aspect of procreativity to them, if you did get pregnant don’t worry it is just a “clump of cells”.

In reality I was being used and degraded as a woman. I was nothing more them to be used at the whim of others. I was a object, not a human. Sexuality and reproductivity can not be divided, they are one in the same. It is your reproductive organs that give you the sexual drive when you do through puberty. Being a wife and mother is a part of identity as married, and even if I wasn’t married or had children that aspect of sexuality and reproductivity is present and would be honored and respected.

When you engage in procreative activity and indeed become pregnant, you become very dependent on the father of the child to care and provide. Marriage is what protects me. Why do you think women have abortions? Do you really think any mother would kill her own child? Of course not they feel they have no other choice because the father of the child abandoned her.

I’ll be here and waiting and ready to welcome you with open arms. No matter how angry you might be with me, I have an obligation to speak the truth. So if you have for now attack the messenger, I just give it all up to God.

 

[Imagine23]

Actually entering into marriage in which a person has voluntarily sterilized themselves permanently would also be against the definition of marriage, since one is deying the other from being open to life.

So you would have the constitution revised to read that “marriage shall be between a man and a women, each of whom shall have not voluntarily sterilized themselves permanently.” I guess we could do that, but then people reading the constitution 100 years from now would think we are idiots.

 

[HoppityRedux]

renee1258;1697975:

Actually entering into marriage in which a person has voluntarily sterilized themselves permanently would also be against the definition of marriage, since one is deying the other from being open to life.

So you would have the constitution revised to read that “marriage shall be between a man and a women, each of whom shall have not voluntarily sterilized themselves permanently.” I guess we could do that, but then people reading the constitution 100 years from now would think we are idiots.

Could we add involuntary sterilization, too?

 

[Imagine23]

Imagine23;1698876:

Could we add involuntary sterilization, too?

Absolutely Hoppity. We must be all inclusive, amending a constitution not easy and we want to get it right the first time. As a starting point I propose the following language. Everyone please feel free to wordsmith as Jesus would. I suggest when we finish we submit this draft as a group to our elected representatives.

“Legally recognized marriage shall be between a man and a women, each of whom has the intent at the time of marriage to pro-create and each of whom shall have not voluntarily or involuntarily sterilized themselves permanently.”

 

[Imagine23]

It is interesting that two people, can buy sperm, buy eggs, and hire out a woman to produce a child. Basically it is human trafficing of human beings to purchase a child from a catalog.

So you would view adoption as the human trafficking of children? Wow, that’s harsh.