Need Help With Same-sex "Marriage"

[Aureole]

I’m not sure if this is the right thread or not, but it seemed like the best one for the topic.

Currently I’m in a discussion elsewhere defending the traditional definition of marriage, so far the arguments for it I have been able to fairly thoroughly refute. However I have come across a post that I need some help with. Either I’m really tired or I’m actually stumped, anyhow onto the post:

The issue (and I hear it alot) is not about procreation or other rationalizations for having sex, nor is it about the government “giving” gays and lesbians the right to marry. The real issue is that the highest court in the land has reviewed a challenge made about the constitutionality of disallowing same sex couples access to a legal procedure that is available to opposite sex couples and has found that there is no basis to deny them the right to marriage. The government cannot deny the right to equal treatment under the law even if all of them were against it in principle. So the question really must come down to whether or not marriage is an exclusive right of the church devoid of any legal definition defined by law, or if they can deny the right to equal treatment to prevent others from being injured by it.

Although the churches might have one time held the process, we cannot deny that the process today is largely a legal arrangement, with the church only playing a small part (inlcuding the signing of the legal documents). Marriage then is no longer an exclusive practice of the Church and then a religious exemption under the constitution is no longer valid.

Gays and lesbian couples can raise children just as well - nourished, competent and stable - as heterosexual couples. In fact with a divorce rate, abuse rate and dysfunctional issues on the rise within traditional families it is becoming apparent that opposite sex couples are not doing such a good job at raising children, anyway and society as a whole needs to examine new ways of providing familial child care.

Although the real issue behind the groups in opposition is the thought of cunnilingus or felatio being performed in their minds and find the thought immoral and distasteful (even if they themselves enjoy the act). So the real problem are prudes and hypocrits who want to impose their morality on others instead of taking responsibility for their own actions.

Can anyone help me out? I’d need completely secular arguments for this. My main problem is with the first paragraph, pretty much everything else I can deal with easily. So far my argument against the first paragraph consists of the Supreme Court of Canada not ruling that same-sex “marriage” is law, though that’s flimsy at best.

I’d much appreciate any help you all could offer.

God bless.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Well, if marriage is not about procreation, why don’t we allow incestuous ones?

 

[Aureole]

If you guys also have time could you help me with this one as well? (I must be really tired.)

Anthropolgically marriage is about economics. In the cave man days men went out to get the food and women raised the children. Obviously a women could not also run down a whole lot of food while also giving birth to children. Same goes for the man. He benefits economically from the union in that he was able to sow his oats in between hunts and the women, while spending time feeding and looking after the children could make clothes and cook food.

No different today, although the roles are somewhat blurred. Some get married because the sex is good and safe. Some get married because it is easier to feed and house two people cheaper than one alone. Some people get married because they enjoy each other and the spoils of two incomes. While love might play a role, the ultimate argument for marriage is one of economics (as opposed to staying with each other in love). Few people go into a marriage with a definite understanding of having children and many determine through the marriage that children are not economically feesible, nor are they prepared socially or mentally to accept the responsibilities of having children.

With many options, unions are no longer dictated by the Church. Look at any culture for the basis for marriage and you will find the same connection - economics, past or present.

Thanks again.

God bless.

 

[Deacon2006]

The arguments that are presented are a mix of false data, and red herrings. Stick to objective reality that all know to be true.

What is the word that reflects the reality of a man and woman who enter into a lifelong exclusive relationship for the purpose of naturally begetting children, raising and educating them for the benefit of all?

The term used to be marriage, now the courts are simply equivocating marriage to mean any type of sexual intimate union.

So if you live under the same roof and masturbate with a friend this is now marriage in Canada. Clearly the homosexual relationship of marriage is defective from biological grounds and as such cannot be equated to heterosexual marriage. It is like saying it is discriminatory to deny blind people drivers licenses. Objective biological differences that disqualify the blind from driving are analogous to the objective biological differences that disqualify homosexuals from so called gay marriage, if marriage is the only term to describe the union that exists between heterosexuals.

Who is a parent in a homosexual marriage when they contrive to have children, the lesbian who provides no egg or the man who gives the sperm? Clearly, the man is the parent in every intellectual discipline except the delusions of law. The objective rights of a child to parental identity are arbitrarily squashed based on who the other parent declares as their sterile masturbation partner. There is no reference to the child biology when it comes to identifying parents in the current legal fiction being forced on us.

Anyone who says that homosexual parents can raise children as well as heterosexual parents is simply lying. They know that in the best of all worlds ever child has a emotional, sociological, psychological and biological right to a female mother and an a male father. To suggest that gay raised children are as well adjusted compared to the ideal is not supported but in fact refuted by every respected study. Not just gay raised but all forms of alternative child rearing consistently demonstrate weakness in respected studies compared to the heterosexual ideal. If you simply declare that a child will not be harmed in the face of all the known societal and biological pressures that meld in creating our identity as human beings because two masturbators seem to think they have a love is reckless and a violation of every medical and legal principle of stewardship or do no harm.

God Bless

 

[Deacon2006]

Aureole:

If you guys also have time could you help me with this one as well? (I must be really tired.)

Anthropologically marriage is about economics. In the cave man days men went out to get the food and women raised the children. .

Interesting how we are so willing to accept this notion of marriage since there is no historical record evidence to support it. I suspect that as long as we have been human the motivators towards marriage have never changed. Attraction, desire and reproduction to exclusion of others are far more primal and definitive motivators to marriage than the relatively modern and narrow lens of economics. As such, the premise of the argument is flawed at the beginning and needs no refutation to the conclusion because they are unsubstantiated by the premise.

God Bless

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The CCCB has issued a paper linking the abandonment of natural law to totalitarianism:

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05060308.html

Here is a new angle on this question. People have discussed at length the property law and contract law aspects of this question. Far more pressing is law concerning power of attorney for substitution decision-making in health care. Bishop Henry suggests this:

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05060804.html

Canadian Bishop Proposes Solution to Same-Sex “Marriage” Dilemma

No gay marriage, no civil unions but recognize adult interdependent relationships

OTTAWA, June 8, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In the House of Commons committee hearings on the same-sex ‘marriage’ Bill C-38 Monday, Calgary Bishop Fred Henry was asked by Liberal MP Anita Neville for suggestions on possible action by government on the issue.

Neville, who has voted in support of homosexual marriage asked, “how do you see some potential reconciliation of the government’s desire to honour the individual human rights of all Canadians with your own faith-based beliefs?”

Bishop Henry, a man very attuned to human suffering proposed a solution which, while being consistent with Catholic teaching, would also accommodate the basic needs of any adults in interdependent relationships. Thus homosexual couples would fall under this category of interdependent relationships along with, for instance, two adult siblings who live together with one looking after another with a disability. His basic message: no gay ‘marriage’, no civil unions, but adult interdependent relationships.

Bishop Henry responded, “Well, I think there are a number of things that could be done. One, I would hope that the government would decide to define the traditional understanding of marriage as a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others and not go in the direction of talking about some kind of analogous marriage such as civil unions, but look for those social rights deemed to be denied to members of the gay and lesbian community under an umbrella such as adult-interdependent relationships.”

The Bishop explained, “I think that desexualizes it and it puts it within a context where it also take into account, say, my niece who is currently committed to sacrificing her own life to look after grandma. Inheritance rights ought to be accorded to her, visiting rights when she goes to the hospital and so on ought to be acknowledged, and she shouldn’t be barred from doing so.”

Neville responded curtly rejecting the Bishop’s proposal: “Basically I hear that as no reconciliation between . . .” Sensing her gist, Bishop Henry cut in saying, “You’re right. If you’re asking me to accept a watered-down understanding of the institution of marriage, that’s not going to happen.”

The laws concerning adult dependent relationships are byzantine. They desperately needed to be rationalized. But because of the sexualization of the question, they were not. All the legal aspects of ‘marriage’ could have been addressed by enacting an adult dependent relationship bill. That was all that was required. The question of sexual relations would then be irrelevant.

The real question is going to be gay divorce.

 

[Karin]

Just wondering how people should deal with this statement:

Although the churches might have one time held the process, we cannot deny that the process today is largely a legal arrangement, with the church only playing a small part (inlcuding the signing of the legal documents). Marriage then is no longer an exclusive practice of the Church and then a religious exemption under the constitution is no longer valid.

They have a point…with seperation of Church and State the churches teaching/doctirine etc. does not hold ground legally…it holds ground morally and religiously…but as we have seen that is not so important in this day and age…it is all about legality.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Marriage is a sacrament. As such it is the exclusive domain of religious institutions, in particular the Catholic Church who is the guardian of marriage.

The legal provisions fall under the civil authorities. The civil authorities have no business in the bedrooms of the Church. (Ha! Pierre Elliott Trudeau! You are turning over in your grave!)

Sufficient alternatives were given to Paul Martin. He chose ‘marriage’ as his terminology. He is Catholic. He is accountable for his decision.

 

[Karin]

Ani Ibi:

Marriage is a sacrament. As such it is the exclusive domain of religious institutions, in particular the Catholic Church who is the guardian of marriage.

The legal provisions fall under the civil authorities. The civil authorities have no business in the bedrooms of the Church. (Ha! Pierre Elliott Trudeau! You are turning over in your grave!)

Sufficient alternatives were given to Paul Martin. He chose ‘marriage’ as his terminology. He is Catholic. He is accountable for his decision.

So is it just the use of the term “marriage” that has people upset…if it was called a “civil union” or a “commitment” they would be ok with it???
sorry silly me I did not see a thread that had already been started about this topic…forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=58350

 

[Aureole]

Oh wow, I hadn’t thought in that direction. Clearly I’ve still got a lot of work ahead of me, but I’m looking forward to it.

Surprisingly I haven’t got many backed up replies over the evening, perhaps this is a good sign? I’ll be sure to pass on the wonderful arguments you have given me thus far.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Karin:

So is it just the use of the term “marriage” that has people upset…if it was called a “civil union” or a “commitment” they would be ok with it???
sorry silly me I did not see a thread that had already been started about this topic…forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=58350

No. it is not ok.

Recently (and perhaps always) the Church has had much to say about marriage. What about the vocation of singlehood?

The Church has never been against unmarried people caring for those in need. In fact it is part of the social gospel of the Church. This could look like a neighbour giving supportive care to another (disabled neighbour); a sister caring for a disabled brother; a son caring for a disabled father, and so on. The act of sexual love, however, the Church has reserved for the life-giving convenant of marriage.

By sexualizing the bid for legally protected relationship amongst gay couples, a whole category of non-sexual relationships has been short-changed.

Our Church community is broken. Our society is broken. Africa is broken. The work ahead of us is conversion and world revolution. Who can we send on the missions? Married couples cannot afford to go. Funds would have to be found for husband, wife, and children. Whereas sending singles would involve finding funds for single people only.

D-uh!

Because the Church left a huge hole in its vision for single people, the gay lobby filled it. Paul Martin, dimwit that he is, has bought into the parody of convenant relationship which the SSM Act is.

 

[Aureole]

Thanks for your help everyone, I really appreciate it. I think that I’ve managed fairly well so far, but alas this week I’m gone away from home and I’ll not be able to argue for traditional marriage whilst gone. If you all wanted to join in the discussion, perhaps read it only, here’s the link:

forumsdurhamregion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=454

Thanks again for your help, I really appreciate it.

Talk to you all in a week.

God bless.

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

Aureole:

I’m not sure if this is the right thread or not, but it seemed like the best one for the topic.

Currently I’m in a discussion elsewhere defending the traditional definition of marriage, so far the arguments for it I have been able to fairly thoroughly refute. However I have come across a post that I need some help with. Either I’m really tired or I’m actually stumped, anyhow onto the post:

Can anyone help me out? I’d need completely secular arguments for this. My main problem is with the first paragraph, pretty much everything else I can deal with easily. So far my argument against the first paragraph consists of the Supreme Court of Canada not ruling that same-sex “marriage” is law, though that’s flimsy at best.

I’d much appreciate any help you all could offer.

God bless.

I’m not sure if it’s available in Canada (it may be considered “hate speech” since it argues against same-sex “marriage” ) but if you can get a copy of Marriage Under Fire by Dr. James Dobson, it would be very helpful for you. I borrowed the book from a public library and it was a short, informative read. Here’s some info from and about the book: family.org/topics/A0032396.cfm

God Bless!

 

[Aureole]

JMJ_Pinoy:

I’m not sure if it’s available in Canada (it may be considered “hate speech” since it argues against same-sex “marriage” ) but if you can get a copy of Marriage Under Fire by Dr. James Dobson, it would be very helpful for you. I borrowed the book from a public library and it was a short, informative read. Here’s some info from and about the book: family.org/topics/A0032396.cfm

God Bless!

Oh, thanks for the link. I’ll check out my library if it has it, which it probably won’t but it’s still worth a shot. If it’s not even in Canada then I’ll get it shipped here.

God bless.