Mere Civil Unions

[Leela]

Parts of Natural [Moral] Law include men providing for the welfare and safety of woman, wife, and children. A man’s natural attraction to a woman, along with their natural bonding is part of that plan. Similarly the bonding, mothering, nurturing, and general care giving to children, husbands, and parents is part of the woman’s design. The children produced in this design are society, and will later full fill the role of the man or woman. Certainly today society can afford many forms of protection and even the role of a provider. Notice the “Oct Mom” who will receive all her safety, protection, as welfare from society, which is you and I. Sadly though even this state welfare cannot overcome the natural balance, survey after survey, study after study, shows these children raised without a father are far more likely to be troubled individuals. These are why man changing the design is a violate of Natural [Moral] Law.

hope that helps

Some people are as naturally attracted to people of he same sex as others are to people of opposite sex. Why is it unnatural for one group to act on their acttraction?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Some people are as naturally attracted to people of he same sex as others are to people of opposite sex. Why is it unnatural for one group to act on their acttraction?

I do believe some (though a small percentage) of the SSA crowd are born SSA and SSA only. And to go to the extreme let’s assume two of these people met and like each other. Since both of these people have an impediment to marriage*, the question becomes “why be celibate?” The answer is the same as for all non married people. If a 20 year old said to you “I do not want to marry” would you tell them to just have relations as a replacement? Of course not, those relations if they occur have many downsides as a) impede intimacy of all future relations, b) diseases (which only spread through multiple partners) c) pregnancy, etc., etc… In summary giving into sexual desires outside marriage contribute to many, many problems. When one follows the Church’s teaching none of these problems exist! The intimacy develops and is a good thing, no STD’s would exist (no means to spread), and pregnancies are positive events. By no means is this a comprehensive list.

Now to help you let’s try to go deeper with the thought that these two SSA are going to try to marry, and remain monogamous. At first this seems to overcome many of the problems. But is that real? The answer is no, the bond between SSA is not equal to the bond between a man-woman pair. If you look deep into the statistics you will find the must man-woman pairs have very long runs of monogamy. Even when infidelity is involved in the man-woman pair studies show it is usually restricted in time, and typically done while young. However the same studies on SSA show the data flips were monogamy is usually short term to homosexual relationships. Now that has a drastic affect on disease, particularly the male side. I would like to say the pregnancy is not an issue however it turns out some gays particularly woman want children and now go outside the marriage to get these kids whether invetrofertiliztion, adoption, or relations. So again we see problems with all the same issues associated with non-married relations.

Hope that helps

• I know from your posts you do not accept this position.

 

[GodIsGracious]

deleted

 

[RobbyS]

I refer you to this review with comments on Professor John Boswell’s book.

Boswell makes up stuff.

 

[RobbyS]

Some people are as naturally attracted to people of he same sex as others are to people of opposite sex. Why is it unnatural for one group to act on their acttraction?

People naturally need to eat, but we recognize that some people eat “normally” and others do not. So why not rules for sexual behavior. And should those rules not start by noting the purpose of sex which is manifested in the biological differences between men and women? As we are, after all, animals, the purpose of mating is to produce offspring. That is not the only purpose, of course, but it is primary. Which is why the word for the sacrament is matrimony. The word marriage is synonymous with matrimony and our system of family law is based on a family in which the reproductive act is central. So many of the benefits attached to the family pass through the couple as father and mother to the offspring. Childless couples do benefit also, but where these are relatively rare, no distortion in the intent of the law happens. It is only when, as in our society, when a great number of childless couples are awarded this benefit. A gay couple and an infertile straight couple are on the same footing so far as ability to have children are concerned, but it is not “good” for society. Society is rewarding people for
taking what fairly is intended for the rearing of children. ** Only in a society like our own where sterility is considered to be better than fertility could gay marriage be conceived**.
But from the perspective of history, this makes our society very odd. No wonder devout Muslims despise us.

 

[Leela]

Now to help you let’s try to go deeper with the thought that these two SSA are going to try to marry, and remain monogamous. At first this seems to overcome many of the problems. But is that real? The answer is no, the bond between SSA is not equal to the bond between a man-woman pair. If you look deep into the statistics you will find the must man-woman pairs have very long runs of monogamy. Even when infidelity is involved in the man-woman pair studies show it is usually restricted in time, and typically done while young. However the same studies on SSA show the data flips were monogamy is usually short term to homosexual relationships. Now that has a drastic affect on disease, particularly the male side.

If it is true that homosexual realtionships are less stable than marriages and that lack of stability has all the negative consequences you describe, that sounds to me like an argument for extending marriage rights to homosexuals so these realtionships may also be more stable within the bonds of marriage.

But again, I am not arguing that the state shoudl recognize gay marriage. I am arguing that the state should not sanction any marriage since marriage is a religious rather than economic institution. There should be a civil institution that the government grants in addition to or insteadof marriage while leaving marriage to the churches. I argue this because I suspect that civil unions for gays and marriages for heterosexual couples will be rules unconstitutional since “separate but equal” has always been ruled to be inherently unequal.

 

[1holycatholic]

I am arguing that the state should not sanction any marriage since marriage is a religious rather than economic institution.

If that were true then marriage would not exist in officially atheist states.

 

[Thales]

But again, I am not arguing that the state shoudl recognize gay marriage. I am arguing that the state should not sanction any marriage since marriage is a religious rather than economic institution. …

I’m almost in agreement with you. The ony questions remaining are: Does a state need to
incentivize procreation? I’m sure people will have kids on their own but is it in the best interest of society for a government to give a little extra encouragement to the situation? I suspect that’s why the government got involved in the first place. The other question would be what benefits do same-sex unions offer to a society outside of personal fullfillment for the individuals involved, which as a micro personal issue, the state should not be involved in?

These aren’t retorical questions to steer people to my opinion. I would really like to know what people think, because this for me is the heart of the issue.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If it is true that homosexual realtionships are less stable than marriages and that lack of stability has all the negative consequences you describe, that sounds to me like an argument for extending marriage rights to homosexuals so these realtionships may also be more stable within the bonds of marriage.

Again the marriage is in the design of men and women, so the legal “help” will not work

But again, I am not arguing that the state shoudl recognize gay marriage. I am arguing that the state should not sanction any marriage since marriage is a religious rather than economic institution.

If that were true then marriage would not exist in officially atheist states.

1holycatholic is correct, There are fundemental reasons for the state to assist in procreation and child development

  There should be a civil institution that the government grants in addition to or insteadof marriage while leaving marriage to the churches. I argue this because I suspect that civil unions for gays and marriages for heterosexual couples will be rules unconstitutional since "separate but equal" has always been ruled to be inherently unequal.

Well that is possible but if it occurs it will not stand through time. Men and women have fundemental differences and eventual that has to be addressed

I’m almost in agreement with you. The ony questions remaining are: Does a state need to incentivize procreation? I’m sure people will have kids on their own but is it in the best interest of society for a government to give a little extra encouragement to the situation?

yes, those children are society and if unhealthy and under educated then that is society. If healthy and well educated then that is society

I suspect that’s why the government got involved in the first place. The other question would be what benefits do same-sex unions offer to a society outside of personal fullfillment for the individuals involved, which as a micro personal issue, the state should not be involved in?..

maybe homosexual marriages can offer some disadvantages, as the legal issues associated with marriage like divorce, inheritance, and determining child custody for those invetro fertilized babies and adoptions ?