New Jersey court ruling opens door for homosexual “marriage”

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg94086 said:
Why does anything the mainstream homosexual rights organizations is promoting or not promoting have a bearing on your argement?
Click to expand...
You, Sir, are the one who brought up the straw argument about sibling marriage. If no homosexual organization is proposing it, why do so?

That’s almost as bad as those who say that if we tolerate homosexual unions, the next thing we must tolerate is interspecies unions. Let’s just drop the scare scenarios, eh?
 
It’s not a strawman…the argument made by Gay Marriage proponents is that it is between two consenting adults…siblings are two, consenting adults.

The point is that marriage - civil or religious, and with whatever name you want to give it - has a definition and restrictions. What Gay activists are asking for is a change to those restrictions because of their desires. Why shouldn’t other people’s sexual desires also be honored?

Again, I take it you agree that we currently all have the same rights, so it’s not a civil rights issue.
Richardols said:
You, Sir, are the one who brought up the straw argument about sibling marriage. If no homosexual organization is proposing it, why do so?

That’s almost as bad as those who say that if we tolerate homosexual unions, the next thing we must tolerate is interspecies unions. Let’s just drop the scare scenarios, eh?
Click to expand...
 
Richardols said:
If it is so disordered, why are many of those unions as stable as heterosexual unions?
Click to expand...
The disordered nature of same sex attraction has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of two human beings to remain together for a period of time and/or split up after a period of time.
 
rlg94086 said:
It’s not a strawman…the argument made by Gay Marriage proponents is that it is between two consenting adults…siblings are two, consenting adults.
Click to expand...
And have any homosexual organizations proposed sibling marriage?
The point is that marriage - civil or religious, and with whatever name you want to give it - has a definition and restrictions. What Gay activists are asking for is a change to those restrictions because of their desires. Why shouldn’t other people’s sexual desires also be honored?

Again, I take it you agree that we currently all have the same rights, so it’s not a civil rights issue.
Click to expand...
But, homosexuals don’t have the same civil rights as do heterosexuals. They may not “marry.” As I’ve said, I don’t think that marriage is the appropriate relationship that should be afforded them - because of the historical implications of marriage. But, if the State wants to allow them some other legal relationship, I won’t oppose it.
 
rlg94086 said:
The disordered nature of same sex attraction has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of two human beings to remain together for a period of time and/or split up after a period of time.
Click to expand...
Then why bring it up? If some heterosexual couple has been married and divorced four times apiece in seven years, e.g., and a homosexual couple has been together in a stable relationship for 20 years, who has the disordered relationship?
 
Richardols said:
Then why bring it up? If some heterosexual couple has been married and divorced four times apiece in seven years, e.g., and a homosexual couple has been together in a stable relationship for 20 years, who has the disordered relationship?
Click to expand...
the homosexual(s)😃
 
Richardols said:
Sounds just lovely, Fix, but I’m not for sacramental marriage for same-sex couples, either. There’s too much cultural and historical baggage attached to the notion of traditional marriage to grant it to same-sexers.

If the State, however, will grant them a fixed legal relationship, call it what you want, granting them the same civil rights as those afforded opposite sex couples, I won’t fight it, though I won’t promote it either. I simply don’t have a dog in that fight.
Click to expand...
So-called civil unions are simply a way to confuse and legitimize behavior that is wrong. The fact that it will not be called a marriage, in the beginning, does not mean such unions are consistent with the public good.
 
Karin said:
the homosexual(s)😃
Click to expand...
Exactly…the other couple doesn’t have a disordered desire for the same sex, they are just sinful in their actions by divorcing. Divorce and same sex attraction are completely different.
 
Richardols said:
But, homosexuals don’t have the same civil rights as do heterosexuals. They may not “marry.” As I’ve said, I don’t think that marriage is the appropriate relationship that should be afforded them - because of the historical implications of marriage. But, if the State wants to allow them some other legal relationship, I won’t oppose it.
Click to expand...
Sure they do…a homosexual man may marry any one woman…as long as she is old enough and not his sister. And a homosexual woman may marry any one man with the same restrictions.
 
fix said:
The fact that it will not be called a marriage, in the beginning, does not mean such unions are consistent with the public good.
Click to expand...
And is heterosexual cohabitation, one parent families (where the father may not even be known), multiple divorces (even among Catholics) so consistent with the public good?

I’d say that, regardless of whether a couple is heterosexual or homosexual, a union can be disastrous or successful. It is always up to the couple.

I’m not going to beat this topic to death. The existence of civil unions isn’t going to topple the Republic, and I’m neither for nor against them. Time will tell.
 
rlg94086 said:
Sure they do…a homosexual man may marry any one woman…as long as she is old enough and not his sister. And a homosexual woman may marry any one man with the same restrictions.
Click to expand...
“Marry each other” should have been obvious. Sorry I confused you. I meant same-sex relationships.
 
Richardols said:
And is heterosexual cohabitation, one parent families (where the father may not even be known), multiple divorces (even among Catholics) so consistent with the public good?
Click to expand...
No. That’s why the government doesn’t promote those…well, except through welfare programs, but that’s another topic. 😛

What the government promotes is marriage.
 
Richardols said:
“Marry each other” should have been obvious. Sorry I confused you.
Click to expand...
You didn’t confuse me. You just think that a new class of person should be recognized by the government. I don’t. Disordered sexual desire is not something which deserves governmental sanction.
 
rlg94086 said:
No. That’s why the government doesn’t promote those…well, except through welfare programs, but that’s another topic. 😛

What the government promotes is marriage.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure about that, and that is another topic. Surely you’ve heard of the “marriage penalty” in the tax laws.
 
rlg94086 said:
You didn’t confuse me. You just think that a new class of person should be recognized by the government. I don’t. Disordered sexual desire is not something which deserves governmental sanction.
Click to expand...
👍 👍 👍
 
rlg94086 said:
Disordered sexual desire is not something which deserves governmental sanction.
Click to expand...
You are presuming that all consider it disordered sexual desire. That’s not necessarily so. Certainly some state legislatures and courts haven’t considered it to be such. So those who oppose or propose tolerance can battle it out in the legislatures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top