Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[josh987654321]

Then we are moving out of civil law and into religion. Adultery is “disordered and immoral” yet there are no civil laws against it. In the secular arena, you will have to come up with non-religious reasons to justify the law you want.

Adultery isn’t disordered, however you are right to say that it’s immoral.

You missed my point, there are no laws that encourage Adultery is there? there are no laws that say Adultery is no longer immoral is there? there are no laws that require us to encourage Adulterers to commit Adultery is there? there are no laws that say Adultery is equal to faithfulness is there?

If they passed a law that required us to encourage Adultery, or view Adultery as equal to faithfulness, we would be up in arms just as much as we are over same sex marriage, it’s not there because everyone can see that Adultery is Immoral, yet they can’t seem to see that the acts of homosexuality are also immoral and that they are disordered aswell.

The very nature of homosexuality means using your organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for, why on earth are people encouraging that kind of disordered and immoral behaviour? why on earth are people claiming that such acts are no longer disordered or immoral? why on earth are people even discussing same sex marriage? that’s why I say it’s madness!, because it is, what are you thinking?

How can the miss use of the body through homosexuality be okay with you? how can it be equal to the appropriate use of the body?

What is your definition of ‘marriage’ Rossum? Id really like to know.

Yet in many areas of the law both men and women are treated equally, it’s madness. Would you repeal the 19th Amendment?

rossum

Are you serious? they are not treated equally when it comes to their physical make up are they? because that would be madness.

Why do you think toilets are separated by gender? is that discrimination? why don’t we give women ‘urinals’ isn’t it unfair to treat men and women differently?

Man and Women are treated equally when it is in regards to an equality, however homosexuality and hetrosexuality in regards to ‘marriage’ is not an equality is it?

How can you see a homosexual union as equal to a hetrosexual union? to see that as an equality is madness!

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[kelvinf]

Conceded, now these children you have to concede that to sustain life they would have to procreate. So why not get to plan A procreate first? Whats the fundamental issue?

Is this helping the procreation plan?

Is it part of it?

Abortion, Gay Marriage, I would say procreate not deviate. Missing the mark twofold now. How does that make it easier to get back to procreate?

I’m not seeing rossum, whats your thoughts?

Actually this whole adoption thing clearly shows how gays and heterosexuals are naturally not equal. Gays ultimately rely on other people’s children whereas heterosexuals generally do not. Not everybody is into adoption. Most people want to have their own children – same blood. Gays can’t and they will never be able to.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Happier citizens. More couples available to adopt orphaned children. More efficient use of available housing.

Happier citizens-- so we should give tax benefits to candy manufacturers? Hey, some NY politician is messing up big time with his ban on 16 oz sugary drinks!

More couples available to adopt orphaned children-- Better these children be adopted by heterosexual couples as God and nature intended. No telling what detriments such adoptions might entail, for example, role modeling a negative life style that is not open to life and that is considered immoral by most people in Western civilization. Not to mention, going against nature’s wise choice of a man and a woman fathering and mothering a child. Don’t worry, Rossum, there is a waiting line for adopting new children already to the point that wannabe parents are going to foreign countries to find them. Let.s not create solutions where there are no problems.

More efficient use of available housing-- There is currently no law against persons of the same sex sharing a house or apartment. Many college students do so, many poorer people do so, many people of all sorts of relationships, friends, family members, relatives, etc. do so to ease the financial crunch. Besides, these people are already living together without the cloak of civil union-- there’s nothing to encourage in terms of housing. .

 

[_Abyssinia]

PUNCHES fly as gay marriage advocates and opponents clash outside Supreme Court while landmark case is heard inside

Gay marriage advocate Sergei Kostin punched opponent in the FACE

 

[rossum]

What is your definition of ‘marriage’ Rossum? Id really like to know.

I do not have a single definition because there is not one single form of marriage. The word “marriage” refers to a number of different legal and religious institutions which differ among themselves. It is a bit like the word “mammal”, which refers to a number of different species ranging from whales to mice. No single description suffices for all of them.

In this case we are discussing civil marriage, which is marriage as defined by the relevant civil laws. Even within the USA that definition varies as different states have different details, as with first cousin marriage.

Man and Women are treated equally when it is in regards to an equality, however homosexuality and hetrosexuality in regards to ‘marriage’ is not an equality is it?

We disagree. For external things, like taxes, health benefits etc. there is no difference that justifies discrimination.

How can you see a homosexual union as equal to a hetrosexual union? to see that as an equality is madness!

There are a great many different forms of union that are called marriage:

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

I suspect that part of our disagreement is that you think of marriage as a single thing which can only allow of one definition. I see marriage as a group of different things with multiple definitions. Same sex marriage fits within the boundary of my wider definition but outside the boundary of your narrower definition.

rossum

 

[Crescentinus]

So, you would withdraw all marriage benefits from heterosexual couples with no children, or all of whose children are adults? If it is children which generate the benefit to the state, then childless couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should not get any state benefits. The benefits can be restored if the couple adopts a child.

rossum

Strawman sighted.
There is a clear difference between infertile heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.
Infertile heterosexual couples are accidentally sterile. This is proven by the fact that there are fertile heterosexual couples.
Homosexuality is essentially sterile since it does not lead to procreation.

 

[_Abyssinia]

There are a great many different forms of union that are called marriage:

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

I suspect that part of our disagreement is that you think of marriage as a single thing which can only allow of one definition. I see marriage as a group of different things with multiple definitions. Same sex marriage fits within the boundary of my wider definition but outside the boundary of your narrower definition.

rossum

You continually bring this up. All those marriages take place between men and women not between men and men or women and women. Even in pro homosexual societies like Ancient Rome and Greece, they did not think to recognise in law marriage between two men or two women, even though homosexuals among themselves had ceremonies

 

[_Abyssinia]

Polygamy is “next logical step”, says Dutch same-sex marriage campaigner

A former Dutch MP has admitted that polygamous marriage is the “next logical step” following the introduction of same-sex marriages in the Netherlands.

Speaking to the French online magazine, Yagg, Boris Dittrich said there was now a movement in the Netherlands to introduce multi-partner marriages.

Campaign

Mr Dittrich, who led the campaign that resulted in the introduction of same-sex ‘marriages’ in the Netherlands in 2001, explained how he had pushed for a change in the law.

He admitted that he had started by campaigning for civil partnerships to get members of the public “used to the idea” that same-sex relationships were recognised by the law.
“We thought it might be psychologically better to first introduce registered partnerships”, he said.

“It appeared to be a good decision because people got used to the idea that two men or two women had their relationships recognised by the law and people called it a gay marriage”.

He said that the next logical step was to introduce full same-sex ‘marriages’, and that there was now a “discussion in the Netherlands that sometimes people want to marry with three people and maybe even more”.

Fears

The Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, has expressed fears that politicians would redefine marriage to include “multiple partners” after same-sex ‘marriages’ were introduced in the state in 2011.

Writing in his blog, Archbishop Dolan said: “The Church has always stood-up for marriage — one man and one woman, united in lifelong and faithful love, leading to new life in children – whenever and wherever it was in danger….And now we ring the steeple bell again at this latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage, worried that the next step will be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity.”

Criticism

Last year, a public notary in Brazil attracted criticism after permitting a civil union between one man and two women.

The youth wing of the Finnish Green Party also proposed the legalisation of polygamy in the country in July 2011, whilst the Toronto District School Board in Canada came under fire after releasing a poster in schools promoting polygamous marriages.
Comment

Andrea Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, said: "The situation in Holland should act as a stark warning to the UK that once marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, pressure will grow for further redefinitions.

“After all, if marriage is reduced by the state to a contract between two people who love each other, there will no longer be any logical reason for prohibiting marriages between three or more people. Where would we draw the line?”

Sources:

Iona Institute

English manif

The Blaze

 

[rossum]

You continually bring this up. All those marriages take place between men and women not between men and men or women and women.

False. Didn’t you see:

• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.

I could have cited other states or countries as well. If you are going to make a point, then you really need to read what the other side is saying.

rossum

 

[MarcoPolo]

I know. Didn’t CNN used to be a known as a more objective news organisation? They have become the new MSNBC. CNN put one pro traditional marriage advocate against the host and his female guest and most of the audience and then CNN put Anderson in the audience, while the host and other gay marriage proponent sit in the middle of the stage on a platform, giving the view that Anderson’s views on marriage are lesser then theirs and he does not deserve equal status in the debate

You mean they treated others with inequality? Oh the irony!!!
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[rossum]

Strawman sighted.
There is a clear difference between infertile heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.
Infertile heterosexual couples are accidentally sterile. This is proven by the fact that there are fertile heterosexual couples.
I disagree. Some childless heterosexual couples are so by choice. They are fertile but choose not to have children. Would you disallow their marriages?

rossum

 

[Mark121359]

I think one of the most troubling aspects about this is that even Catholics support SSM in large numbers. If you can’t even get the faithful onboard with Church teachings…you’re on a sinking ship! The following is from a Gallup Poll done in 2008. The number next to each reflects the percentage of Catholics that think it’s morally acceptable. The number next to the first number is regular churchgoing Catholics (defined as those who attend church weekly or almost every week)

Abortion 40% 24%
Sex between unmarried man and woman 67% 53%
Divorce 71% 63%
Stem Cell Research 63% 53%
Having Babies outside of marriage 61% 48%
Homosexual relations 54% 44%

Those numbers are appalling! And I heard Fr. Wade Menezes cite a similar poll, so I have no reason to doubt it. I don’t have an answer for it. Until this trend is reversed, this kind of junk is going to be the norm I’m afraid. I admit that I sound pessimistic, and there’s probably some truth to that. But boy when I see a poll like that…it’s awfully deflating! But there’s one quote that always keeps coming back to me and keeps me grounded…"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

Peace, Mark

 

[Crescentinus]

I disagree. Some childless heterosexual couples are so by choice. They are fertile but choose not to have children. Would you disallow their marriages?

rossum

But, they are fertile, as you had pointed out. I am referring (and I know that you are also doing it earlier) to those who cannot conceive.
Your strawman had been passed over.

 

[Monkey1976]

False. Didn’t you see:

• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.

I could have cited other states or countries as well. If you are going to make a point, then you really need to read what the other side is saying.

rossum

The point is that all civilizations (for which we have any kind of record) prior to AD2000 saw marriage as something that could only occur between male and female. That’s over 15,000 years - pretty good track record. In everything else - slavery, women as chattel, the definition of ‘citizen’, the place of religion - societies have differed throughout history. Marriage as an institution that can only exist between male and female is one of the only constants. Even things that we see as obviously immoral - such as murder - had cultures which permitted or even encouraged it. Look up how Helots were treated by boys graduating from the agoge, or the history of human sacrifice.

Even Sparta, where homosexual behavior was so ingrained within their culture that women had to cut their hair and appear male on their wedding night so as to “ease” the groom into heterosexual intercourse, never saw marriage as anything but male and female.

 

[JimG]

The point is that all civilizations (for which we have any kind of record) prior to AD2000 saw marriage as something that could only occur between male and female. That’s over 15,000 years - pretty good track record. In everything else - slavery, women as chattel, the definition of ‘citizen’, the place of religion - societies have differed throughout history. Marriage as an institution that can only exist between male and female is one of the only constants. Even things that we see as obviously immoral - such as murder - had cultures which permitted or even encouraged it. Look up how Helots were treated by boys graduating from the agoge, or the history of human sacrifice.

Even Sparta, where homosexual behavior was so ingrained within their culture that women had to cut their hair and appear male on their wedding night so as to “ease” the groom into heterosexual intercourse, never saw marriage as anything but male and female.

So, for 15,000 years, marriage was between men and women. But now in our enlightened age, we know better.

Not.

 

[Dawnia]

I do not have a single definition because there is not one single form of marriage. The word “marriage” refers to a number of different legal and religious institutions which differ among themselves. It is a bit like the word “mammal”, which refers to a number of different species ranging from whales to mice. No single description suffices for all of them.

Yet all mammals have the same identifying characteristics…fur, vertibra, milk production, warm blooded, etc. Classification has a definition by nature. If they didn’t, they would be a classification. Because a bird, no matter that they fit some of those characteristics will never be a mammal.

Just because a pair of homosexuals fit some of the characteristics marriage, does not mean they have a marriage.

In this case we are discussing civil marriage, which is marriage as defined by the relevant civil laws. Even within the USA that definition varies as different states have different details, as with first cousin marriage.

We disagree. For external things, like taxes, health benefits etc. there is no difference that justifies discrimination.

There are a great many different forms of union that are called marriage:

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

I suspect that part of our disagreement is that you think of marriage as a single thing which can only allow of one definition. I see marriage as a group of different things with multiple definitions. Same sex marriage fits within the boundary of my wider definition but outside the boundary of your narrower definition.

rossum

Marriage is a single thing with minor variations. Mulitple marriages does not change the definition of marriage, only the number of marriage a person enters into. Solomon was married to many women, yet each of the women was only married to Solomon.

And what’s with all of the religious definitions in your example? I thought this was only about civil marriage?

 

[ephesians4]

I disagree. Some childless heterosexual couples are so by choice. They are fertile but choose not to have children. Would you disallow their marriages?

rossum

What happens in a marriage, and how well they observe the teachings of the church is between the husband and wife and the church and God.

This does not affect whether a man can in fact marry another man, or a sheep, or his mother, or an aqueduct.

None of this of course matters, because while they can introduce a civil arrange cruelly mocks a sacrament - and they will, a government has no jurisdiction over what God has joined.

What may be of more concern to individual Catholics and other Christians is that since this ceremony constitutes a vow to lifelong impenitent commission of a sin, it potentially constitutes the commission of the unforgivable sin by individuals involved, unless (and we should pray that people do) people repent, seek God’s forgiveness before they die.

Each soul that, as a result of this “ceremony”, goes to the next life having kept that vow and dies impenitently is a grave matter indeed. These are casualties, in a sense they are lost souls.

If in many years, you are to be a Christian who contributed to the flattery and encouragement of that impenitence until death in this life, who has helped strike down those casualties in the war for souls, I would seriously look to yourself and think about what that entails.

 

[rossum]

But, they are fertile, as you had pointed out. I am referring (and I know that you are also doing it earlier) to those who cannot conceive.
Your strawman had been passed over.

Most homosexulas are fertile, but choose not to have children. How do they differ from heterosexuals who are fertile but choose not to have children. In particular, what legal reasons are there to distinguish between the two in civil law.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The point is that all civilizations (for which we have any kind of record) prior to AD2000 saw marriage as something that could only occur between male and female.

The point is that civilisations for thousands of years never used aircraft. They saw flight as something that only birds could do.

Attitudes change. I mean, they’ll be giving women and non-property owners the vote next.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Marriage is a single thing with minor variations.

If it has variations, then it is not a single thing, but multiple things. Each individual variation is different.

We differ on how much variation is allowed within the boundary and where it steps outside. The Catholic variation does not allow remarriage after divorce; the civil law version does. That is a difference, so they cannot be the same thing.

rossum