S
Southern
Guest
May God Have Mercy on the USA!!!
- Status
D
Dawnia
Guest
Actually, in most states that is not a requirement of marriage, but can be grounds for annulment.
S
scipio337
Guest
Thank you for not addressing the question whatsoever, and dismissing a logical (with legal precedent) argument as a scare tactic.
Perhaps your friends weren’t familiar with *stare decisis *. That’s when a decision in one case is applied to another as precedent (and would likely be used regarding other “victimless” marriage applications, ie polygyny, polygamy, etc).
I take that as “No, there is no compelling state interest in denying ‘marriage’ to multiple adults”.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
May the USA repent before justice is exacted which it must be some day. And may all good Catholics continue to pray and live saintly lives in hopes of stemming the just judgment of Almighty God.
It’s all about souls. May the Church under Pope Francis’ leadership, launch out into the deep at Our Lord’s command and in the power granted to the most blessed Virgin, His Mother, by Him, bring back a record breaking catch of immortal souls for the glory of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To which we should all exclaim, “Amen!”
S
Southern
Guest
J
JimG
Guest
Perhaps my original statement should be refined a bit, since actual consummation is not an invariable requirement for marriage. What is strange is that no one has taken the position that same sex couples can’t marry because there is not even a possibility of consummation. It is impossible by nature. The couples lack the proper equipment for consummation.
In de-coupling marriage from anatomy, marriage is finally rendered meaningless.
S
seakelp
Guest
If it’s strictly based on “equipment,” what about men who are unable to produce sperm, due to a deformity?
J
JimG
Guest
The question is, are they able to engage in marital relations? Sterility or infertility does not prevent marital relations from occuring.
S
seakelp
Guest
Oh, I see - I misread your post.
But why *exactly *is there a difference between heterosexual non-reproducing couples and homosexual non-reproducing couples? I understand that certain parts go in certain parts, but if your whole argument is based on functionality, who determines what is “functional” and what is not, and by what standards?
E
epan
Guest
i decide just as anyone else does. are you suggesting that if i disagree with you, that therefore my judgement of life experience is somehow inferior to yours?
make your choices and i will make mine.
i have to say that while me initial attraction to Catholicism was for the coherency of the doctrine, I am finding Catholics as representatives of that doctrine to be more lacking than other religions.
Have any of you ever even heard the words, or understood the meaning of human fallibility, charity, humility… and so on. Can you accept that other people have valid life experiences and opinions other than your own? Sheesh. These threads become as tedious as listening to a broken record for hours.
I think I will take CAF off my bookmarks for a while. You certainly have no use for my opinion.
J
JimG
Guest
My argument doesn’t address reproduction as such. And the law traditionally does not care, because provided that couples have the capacity to engage in actual marital relations by reason of sexual complementarity, then statistically, reproduction will follow in a sufficient number of cases to ensure the continuance of the civilization. Sexual complementarity enables such a reliance on probability. If sexual complementarity is irrelevent to marriage, then marriage is irrelevent to the state, and needs no state benefits or recognition.
S
seakelp
Guest
I see. If the argument is probabilistic, why bother being against gay marriage at all? If homosexuality is an inherent trait, then allowing homosexuals to marry does nothing to increase or decrease the likelihood of procreation.
J
JimG
Guest
Actually, I think it does, because it cuts out the heart of marriage, which has already fallen on hard times. If sexual complementarity means nothing, so does marriage, and our civilization will not last long. It won’t be the fault of gay marriage, but that will be the final nail in the coffin.
S
seakelp
Guest
I don’t get it, though.
Marriage is about encouraging the probability / possibility that procreation will happen (your thesis). Gay marriage doesn’t do anything to encourage that probability / possibility any more than marriage between heterosexuals incapable of bearing children does. Why? Because the two populations remain constant - gays aren’t having kids whether or not they’re getting married, and heterosexuals continue to get married (and reproduce) regardless of whether or not gays marry.
I’m assuming this latter fact, but I think it’s valid: I have a hard time believing that someone will NOT get married because gay people can.
I just don’t see how this argument works.
J
josh987654321
Guest
hmmm, I have alot of information that I want to share with you, where do I begin.I think it should be left up to the churches. one day i would love to go through marriage and like someone said before it is inevitable. but i also think that forcing every church to do it would be disrespectful. but that is just my two cents and i know many of you disagree. plus the economy would be amazing since we (the gay community) love to go all out on weddings
I’ll start with the positives, which is Im glad that you can see that by using the law to force any person or any church to have any party or participation to a homosexual union would be wrong and disrespectful, because I also agree and this is why people are getting so passionate about this issue, unfortunatly it is already starting to happen though, as a Christian adoption agency suffered massive finacial penalties for adopting out children to hetrosexual couples in marriage, before they would homosexual unions.
You might see this as not so bad, but please consider this:
A Child needs role models, which are the parents to mimic, whether you want them to or not, they will mimic you and your lifestyle if they are homosexual or hetrosexual, because it’s all they know, there is no magical choice that they can make, because their choice is bias, with hetrosexual parents their choice will be bias towards hetrosexuality, regardless if they are homosexual or hetrosexual, same with homosexual parents, their choice will be bias towards homosexuality regardless if they are homosexual or hetrosexual, they mimic their parents in how to live their life by what they do, kids are very observant.
A) The nature of homosexuality means using your organs in a manner they are not designed to be used for (this is why we say that homosexual desires are disordered and immoral desires to act on)
B) The greatest role models or influences in a Child’s life are their parents, not what they say, but what they do. (Example when a parent say’s to their Child “Don’t Smoke” the chances of that Child smoking are greatly increased simply because the parents smoke)
You might say that A) is behind closed doors so there is nothing for them to observe and mimic, but even if you kiss your partner in a way that a hetrosexual couple would, than it’s no longer behind closed doors.
Therefore with that adoption agency, “freedom of religion” didn’t wash too well with the court.
The next issue is the word ‘marriage’ -
You Say: we shouldn’t force our beliefs of marriage onto you by saying that you can’t be recognised as a homosexual marriage.
We Say: you shouldn’t be forcing your beliefs of marriage onto us by saying that you should be recognised as a homosexual marriage.
This is the dilemma we face, because from both perspectives they are seen as correct, but a homosexual union is different from a hetrosexual one wouldn’t you agree?
So why would we give the same name to two different unions?
The main reason for all of this opposition is the word ‘marriage’, if you are okay to use another term for a homosexual union, than you will find alot less opposition, because by grouping a homosexual union and a hetrosexual union together with the same word (marriage) it will never make them the same thing, the human anatomy of a man and a women are very different, thus the two different unions are very different.
I try to see it from your perspective, but you must also try and see it from ours, why there are people getting so passionate about this, is because it’s not about homosexuals being denyed that union by law, because I don’t agree with it, but I wont force you not to do it, but when you try to be recognised as a ‘marriage’, you try to change everyone else’s definition of marriage by law, that’s why people see it as an attack on them when people are for same sex marriage, because it is.
Marriage is the union of a Man and a Women under God until death do they part, it has always meant just that and as Christians we cannot view it any other way, so if you try and force us to view it differently through recognition of same sex marriage and equality between hetrosexuality and homosexuality by law, than we will have no choice but to over throw the law or turn our back on our faith, that is why you are playing with fire with the word ‘marriage’.
Why do you want the word ‘marriage’? because no matter what you call a plant it will never smell like a rose unless it’s a rose, so why give the same name to two different plants?
Why do you want to get married? without God marriage is meaningless, it’s just a contract by law or union of choice.
Marriage is a religious word, how can you use a religious word and remove the religion from it? marriage is not a word for the law to decide because they are Ignorant of it’s meaning, people often say “separate religion from state” well to do that is foolish, it’s only stupidity to be Ignorant of religion when you make and enforce laws, don’t you know that’s how the Roman Empire fell?
I could say alot more, but this post would turn into an essay, anyway I hope you can see things from our perspective now.
And I want to emphasise in all of this, that you yourself are in no way disordered or immoral, only the desires you have for homosexuality are, that you should be trying to control, along with the rest of us including hetrosexuals who also suffer from immoral and disordered desires, so control over our desires that are immoral and disordered is not something unique to homosexuals, but as a homosexual unfortunatly it will require more strength, we will not be offended if by out of weakness you give into those disordered and immoral desires, but when you try to claim that those desires aren’t disordered and immoral through homosexual marriage, than we will be upset.
Thank you for reading
Josh
J
josh987654321
Guest
As Christ says “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and than “but don’t sin anymore” in the same way it is wrong for us to cast stones at homosexuals who out of weakness give into those desires, but it’s only right and just to oppose those desires by opposing same sex marriage, because the acts of homosexuality is not something to be proud of and encouraged, when Christ told us not to throw stones, he didn’t say that what the adulterer did was ‘right’ he said to her “I wont accuse you either, but don’t sin anymore”.
Thank you for reading
Josh
note: had to have two posts because one post only holds 6000 letters.
Thank you for reading
Josh
note: had to have two posts because one post only holds 6000 letters.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
Also, we don’t want to reinforce the lie to the practicing homosexual that homosexuality is just another life style. Homosexual marriage is one of the only times I can think of where a sinful act is legitimized by the government by law. Even Roe v. Wade was a court ruling, not a law. The other time that comes to mind is any immoral war or military action we might enter into that is not in defense of human life. The sad part about legitimizing homosexuality is that impressionable young people often mistakenly are led to believe that anything that is legal is also moral.
BTW, it may be discouraged going over 6,000 words by the forum rules, but you didn’t go that terribly much father.
J
JimG
Guest
I think that assuming that latter fact will be a wrong assumption. When marriage becomes meaningless, people refrain from marriage. I think that is inevitable. I don’t have the article at hand but I recall reading that in one nation that had legalized gay marriage, marriage itself began to decline, with fewer people getting married.
Not only that, but when a man and women pledge themselves to each other in marriage, then suddenly find that the word can encompass something the opposite of what it has always meant, their own marriage is devalued. And why will the next generation wish to enter into a meaningless, devalued institution?
Same sex ‘marriage’ is like saying that henceforth, glove manufacturers must include a certain number of gloves which are not right and left handed pairs. Some pairs will be both right handed, some will be both left handed, some will be both, and all pairings must be treated equally. Soon you will find that no one wears gloves because they don’t know what they are getting.
What are men and women for? Was that just an accident of nature? Does anatomy have a purpose? Does sexual complementarity?
- Status