More questions about gay marriage

[Mumbles140]

In the US, it does seem that that religion and believing in a God plays a significant part in politics and public life, in a way that is difficult to imagine in other countries in the West. In the UK, it would be hard to imagine a prime minister or politician wishing to be taken seriously, being overly religious in public.

How said that politicians in the UK would have to hide or downplay who they are.

 

[Mumbles140]

Many countries have moved towards equal rights for homosexuals as they have done for race and gender.

Many countries still have a way to go. Religion can be a stumbling bock for some, but it is not insurmountable an issue. Religions progress just like the rest of society, albeit more slowly.

Funny how that works. Public sentiment (typically originating from the anti-religion side, but I don’t want to paint too broad of a stroke, so let’s use the word secular instead), not religious truth, turns the tides, and then so many religions abandon their beliefs to be ‘included’.

Do you think divine revelation in the past 75-100 years changed the previously held beliefs of billions of Christians (across many denominations) that stretch back hundreds and thousands of years? Or did man decide to change the beliefs that originated from the Lord?

 

[fencersmother]

April, the thing that gets to me about “gay marriage” is that homosexuals have as much right to “marry” as I have. And that old song, “I should be able to marry anyone I want” is just so much drivel.

Unless you believe you should be able to marry your sister, your mother, your father, your dog, your computer… Now that you can legally tie yourself to a person of the opposite sex, one can probably predict the true winners in this legal morass: DIVORCE LAWYERS.

What can’t homosexuals do that I can do? Marry the person I love? Well, sorry, but that happens all the time.

And I am not sure that I would call any country “advanced” because it allows homosexuals to “marry” each other, legally.

 

[epan]

April, the thing that gets to me about “gay marriage” is that homosexuals have as much right to “marry” as I have. And that old song, “I should be able to marry anyone I want” is just so much drivel.

Unless you believe you should be able to marry your sister, your mother, your father, your dog, your computer… Now that you can legally tie yourself to a person of the opposite sex, one can probably predict the true winners in this legal morass: DIVORCE LAWYERS.

What can’t homosexuals do that I can do? Marry the person I love? Well, sorry, but that happens all the time.

And I am not sure that I would call any country “advanced” because it allows homosexuals to “marry” each other, legally.

I think the argument goes more along legal gender roles in marriage, and how they have changed with the women’s equality movement. This line of thinking is not really related to your objections.

 

[JimG]

It is nature that made humans into two genders—men and women, sexually complementary. Courts can’t change nature. They can pretend that a counterfeit is real but that does not make it so. All that same sex marriage will do is to continue the destruction of real marriage and families, while destroying the social fabric of society.

 

[kozlosap]

It is nature that made humans into two genders—men and women, sexually complementary. Courts can’t change nature. They can pretend that a counterfeit is real but that does not make it so. All that same sex marriage will do is to continue the destruction of real marriage and families, while destroying the social fabric of society.

Families are as different as snowflakes, thank the Lord. There is no exact definition of what a “real” family is except in ones own mind. I have seen very close knit families who were anything but traditional, in contrast traditional families who were dysfunctional and not very loving.
When discussing civil marriage for gay individuals, it is just that, a civil license. I would really appreciate someone to once and for all explain how civil marriage between gay men or women make your straight marriage any less valid. How does it destroy real marriage and families? Yelling the “sky is falling” like Chicken a Little did does little to advance your point of view.

 

[JimG]

Families are as different as snowflakes, thank the Lord. There is no exact definition of what a “real” family is except in ones own mind. I have seen very close knit families who were anything but traditional, in contrast traditional families who were dysfunctional and not very loving.
When discussing civil marriage for gay individuals, it is just that, a civil license. I would really appreciate someone to once and for all explain how civil marriage between gay men or women make your straight marriage any less valid. How does it destroy real marriage and families? Yelling the “sky is falling” like Chicken a Little did does little to advance your point of view.

Well, if you start calling counterfeit money and actual currency by the same name, making them equal, it doesn’t take long for the counterfeit currency to drive out the good. If man + man is marriage, and man + woman is marriage, and woman + woman is marriage, marriage has pretty much lost its meaning. There is no particular reason why man + woman + woman cannot be marriage or woman + man + man cannot be marriage.

Indeed, marriage is already on the decline due to previous assaults such as contraception and no fault divorce. It will continue its decline, having lost a little more meaning.

Courts cannot change biology. Courts didn’t make man and woman sexually complementary. Neither can they make same sex couples into sexually complementary couples.

 

[kozlosap]

Well, if you start calling counterfeit money and actual currency by the same name, making them equal, it doesn’t take long for the counterfeit currency to drive out the good. If man + man is marriage, and man + woman is marriage, and woman + woman is marriage, marriage has pretty much lost its meaning. There is no particular reason why man + woman + woman cannot be marriage or woman + man + man cannot be marriage.

Indeed, marriage is already on the decline due to previous assaults such as contraception and no fault divorce. It will continue its decline, having lost a little more meaning.

Courts cannot change biology. Courts didn’t make man and woman sexually complementary. Neither can they make same sex couples into sexually complementary couples.

Yes, the world has changed more since the invention of the telegraph in the mid nineteenth century than it had in the previous eons. The invention of reliable contraception is certainly part of the drastic changes of the last 170 years, but I would have to argue that the difference in the world changing from an agrarian society to a technological society is more of a cause in humans changing tightly held beliefs about norms and mores. Traditional marriage is still the “norm” universally. You still have not explained how civil marriages between gay individuals are harmful to your straight marriage or make it any less valid.

 

[CaliLobo]

We can debate abstractly about “brainwashing” and “counterfeit” marriages all we want, but I think the increase in gay marriage rights support is due to:

1. More and more people are acquainted with a gay person, and therefore realize that gays are humans just like them and don’t deserve to suffer. (In addition, from personal experience, gays are some of the kindest, friendliest, most generous people you meet, and arguably reflect Christ much better than Catholics.)
2. Science has shown that homosexuality is not a disease, but merely an observable trait in the human population. It may not be “normal,” but it is NOT “abnormal”
3. Studies have shown that homosexual couples are just as stable or unstable as heterosexual couples. Studies have shown that the children of homosexual couples do no better or worse than those of heterosexual couples.

So therefore, homosexuality is “normalized,” but not because of any “brainwashing.” Brainwashing implies that there is an ulterior motive to change human thinking. No, this is merely a case of humans becoming more educated on the issue on their own, with no ulterior motives on anyone else’s part.

For those of you who think gay marriage is a temporary trend that will be reversed, you are dreaming. Social changes do not reverse on a dime. The suffering of gays who would lose their rights, combined with the economic impact of reversal, would ensure that gay marriage is here to stay forever. In the USA are still living with the legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, abortion, and even slavery if you consider human trafficking across the world.

 

[JimG]

What are men and women for? Why do humans come in two sexually complementary types? Does continuation of the species have anything to do with it? Do children have something to do with it?

For thousands of years, marriage has been the institution which regulated sexual intercourse between man and woman. Polygamy might have been recognized but it was always men and women—sexually complementary. Some societies recognized homosexual relations but did not count them as marital, since they could never be procreative.

But within what? Ten years? We have outgrown thousands of years of anthropology, biology, and anatomy.

The fact is, same sex unions are not marital. They can never be marital. They can never be conjugal. There’s no point in calling such unions something that they are not and can never be.

 

[edwest2]

Families are as different as snowflakes, thank the Lord. There is no exact definition of what a “real” family is except in ones own mind. I have seen very close knit families who were anything but traditional, in contrast traditional families who were dysfunctional and not very loving.
When discussing civil marriage for gay individuals, it is just that, a civil license. I would really appreciate someone to once and for all explain how civil marriage between gay men or women make your straight marriage any less valid. How does it destroy real marriage and families? Yelling the “sky is falling” like Chicken a Little did does little to advance your point of view.

Here is what the Church tells us:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[AprilFoolish]

Funny how that works. Public sentiment (typically originating from the anti-religion side, but I don’t want to paint too broad of a stroke, so let’s use the word secular instead), not religious truth, turns the tides, and then so many religions abandon their beliefs to be ‘included’.

Do you think divine revelation in the past 75-100 years changed the previously held beliefs of billions of Christians (across many denominations) that stretch back hundreds and thousands of years? Or did man decide to change the beliefs that originated from the Lord?

‘Religious Truth’ is an Oxymoron in that not all religions can be true, so some are by definition, false.

Religion is based on faith not truth. Truth requires evidence.

Catholics may believe that the ‘Lord’ has a view on homosexuality,and that that view should carry weight, but that is a religious position and not a ‘legal rights’ position.

Homosexuality predates Christianity. Man creates Gods not the other way round. There are millions of homosexuals that deserve our respect and their desire for equal rights. We should not use religious pretexts to hinder their rights.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Actually, the legal argument is quite clear, and your assumption is incorrect (in terms of the law).

I would recommend that you read Judge Walker’s decision. It is one of the more brilliant elucidations of the legal issues, and the nature of equality under the law for gay people who wish to marry.

The gay marriage movement was started by the women’s rights movement, and was its logical consequence, as Judge Walker clearly delineates.

I am familiar with Judge Walker’s decision regarding California’s Prop 8.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissent about the overturn of DOMA used Walker’s decision as an dangerous example of unelected judges legislating from the bench. This is true in Walker’s case. He should have excused himself from the trial because he is gay. Interestingly, Walker did not come out of the closet until he retired just a few months after his decision.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

‘Religious Truth’ is an Oxymoron in that not all religions can be true, so some are by definition, false.

Religion is based on faith not truth. Truth requires evidence.

Catholics may believe that the ‘Lord’ has a view on homosexuality,and that that view should carry weight, but that is a religious position and not a ‘legal rights’ position.

Homosexuality predates Christianity. Man creates Gods not the other way round. There are millions of homosexuals that deserve our respect and their desire for equal rights. We should not use religious pretexts to hinder their rights.

The Church’s teaching on homosexuality and marriage is Catholic because it is true, not true because it is Catholic.

In other words, the conclusion that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is because it is based on the truth, not just on Catholic teaching. Yet, saying that makes this conclusion all the more controversial.

If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.” Instead, saying that** truth **is the reason that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is offensive to those who deny the existence of truth, who prefer to live in a world dominated by what Pope Benedict XVI termed a “dictatorship of relativism.”

If you acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the Catholic Church correctly understands the truth of this matter. But if you deny that there is such a thing as truth, that is, the truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

For those of you who think gay marriage is a temporary trend that will be reversed, you are dreaming. Social changes do not reverse on a dime. The suffering of gays who would lose their rights, combined with the economic impact of reversal, would ensure that gay marriage is here to stay forever. In the USA are still living with the legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, abortion, and even slavery if you consider human trafficking across the world.

The last really big “change” in our civilization’s view of marriage was a gradual ascendance of the idea that romantic love is a prerequisite to marriage. That eventually ended the custom of predetermined (arranged) marriage. That was a good thing…but it took time

What is happening now is exactly a** social change on a dime.**

At present, no one, including social scientists, philosophers, and historians can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment.

Remember…what one court or judge can grant…another can take away.

With less than 2% of the population describing themselves as “gay”…I doubt an overnight reversal would have any economic impact.

 

[AprilFoolish]

If you acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the Catholic Church correctly understands the truth of this matter. But if you deny that there is such a thing as truth, that is, the truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

What do you mean, when you say ‘acknowledge that truth exists’.

Democracy is still the best system we have come up with to build a just and fair society.

I would not say democracy is ‘tyrannical’ - an essential part of it is hearing all views, and that includes religious ones. Although, I would argue that we have to be careful how we handle religious views and what role, if any they should play in law-making, democracy and rights.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What do you mean, when you say ‘acknowledge that truth exists’.

I mean that you admit that there is such a thing as “truth”.

Democracy is still the best system we have come up with to build a just and fair society.

I would not say democracy is ‘tyrannical’ - an essential part of it is hearing all views, and that includes religious ones. Although, I would argue that we have to be careful how we handle religious views and what role, if any they should play in law-making, democracy and rights.

If this were a democracy, gay marriage would not exist. Every state that defined marriage as between a man and a woman did so by MAJORITY vote.

Now wouldn’t that be a great system???

 

[AprilFoolish]

I mean that you admit that there is such a thing as “truth”.

If this were a democracy, gay marriage would not exist. Every state that defined marriage as between a man and a woman did so by MAJORITY vote.

Now wouldn’t that be a great system???

First Point

I agree there is truth. My question was why do you mention ‘truth’ in the way you do? What does the phrase mean to you in the context of how you are using the word?

Second Point

Do you think that a legislated definition of marriage - should exclude gay marriage? Is this a peculiarly american stance? What about the wider picture of equal rights, or giving a minority a voice.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

First Point

I agree there is truth. My question was why do you mention ‘truth’ in the way you do? What does the phrase mean to you in the context of how you are using the word?

Because the Catholic Church teaches the truth. Homosexuality is disordered.

Since that truth existed before the Catholic Church was established it is true because it is the truth…not because that is what the Church says.

Second Point

Do you think that a legislated definition of marriage - should exclude gay marriage? Is this a peculiarly american stance? What about the wider picture of equal rights, or giving a minority a voice.

Actually equal rights have no bearing on the legislated definition of marriage. Government has no business defining marriage at all.

A re-definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage is beyond the competence of the state, because marriage both precedes the state and is a necessary condition for the continuation of the state (because future generations arise from and are formed in marriage).

When a state enacts a law saying that a same-sex relationship can constitute a marriage, it has the power to enforce that in a society’s external practices, but it is devoid of any intrinsic moral legitimacy and is a contrary to any natural reality.

 

[edwest2]

The Church’s teaching on homosexuality and marriage is Catholic because it is true, not true because it is Catholic.

In other words, the conclusion that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is because it is based on the truth, not just on Catholic teaching. Yet, saying that makes this conclusion all the more controversial.

If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.” Instead, saying that** truth **is the reason that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is offensive to those who deny the existence of truth, who prefer to live in a world dominated by what Pope Benedict XVI termed a “dictatorship of relativism.”

If you acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the Catholic Church correctly understands the truth of this matter. But if you deny that there is such a thing as truth, that is, the truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

That is exactly true.

Peace,
Ed