Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[bisco1]

I am not taking a position either way. I think it absolutely should be legal according to Civil law as I do not believe that morality and legality need coincide. I think the criteria for civil law should be based upon the Libertarian principle of harm as beautifully articulated by John Stuart Mill. The Church is of course free to teach whatever it wants about homosexual marriage and it is free to not ever officiate a homosexual wedding. Again, if I was gay I would certainly want to have the same civil rights and be free of discrimination that heterosexual people naturally expect and even take for granted. I don’t believe in a Gay agenda and have several gay friends and they have never pushed any agenda that I know of, other than desiring to not have to live as second class citizens. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Again I am not worried about homosexuality because there is no amount of indoctrination that could ever convince me to be gay and I am absolutely of the firm belief that our sexuality is innate and not culturally conditioned. I think we are all somewhere on a spectrum of sexuality from being almost completely or totally heterosexual, to being primarily or totally homosexual.

so how do you feel about someone who is charged, prosecuted and convicted, because they wouldn’t make a wedding cake or photograph a homosexual wedding?

 

[Rau]

You can’t argue about homosexuality in a vacuum and pretend that other topics which demonstrate a change in how Christians or Jews understand morality are not relevant.

What has changed that might have a bearing on the morality of sex outside Marriage?

 

[edwest2]

i just get tired of people who have ‘catholic’ posted in their info, but spend all their time on these boards arguing against church teaching.

The reasons are obvious. The primary one boils down to “the Church is wrong,” which Catholics know is not true.

Ed

 

[Rau]

First of all it is well understood in U.S. law that in First Amendment jurisprudence the mere fact that a civil law harmonizes or agrees with religious beliefs is not grounds for finding an Establishment Clause violation. Certainly, if the civil law granted recognition only to sacramental marriages as defined in the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, this would violate the Establishment Clause. But no law purports to do so.

The Catholic Church did not invent marriage…neither did the state.

Marriage grows out of a natural affinity and complementarity of male and female – in other words, the ways in which one gender completes the other emotionally, spiritually and physically.

This institution of marriage serves first the interests of the persons in the marriage and secondarily the interests of the other participants… children and society at large.

Unions which are essentially different from marriage (one man and one woman permanently committed to each other) will not become marriage simply by taking on the institutional guise. Those involved in same-sex relationships are looking for social validity and legal approval. All of this is understandable, but that simply doesn’t make it possible.

Well said Zoltan!

 

[Catholic13]

The reasons are obvious. The primary one boils down to “the Church is wrong,” which Catholics know is not true.

Ed

:yup:

 

[tomberg]

Surely as a Catholic, you would see Marriage as the wrong institution for 2 men seeking the set of rights associated with Marriage? I have no problems with 2 persons wishing to share assets, provide mutual care, file joint tax returns, and so forth, and there may well be good grounds for the State to accommodate that. But how does that get us to marriage?

One can see some sense in State recognition of the sexual Union of man+woman, in light of it’s special and fundamental significance for the State. But the sexual Union of man+man (for if it is called “marriage”, we undestand it is sexual) - why is this to be treated as though it were the former

Fine, call it a Civil Union.

 

[tomberg]

so how do you feel about someone who is charged, prosecuted and convicted, because they wouldn’t make a wedding cake or photograph a homosexual wedding?

I honestly think it depends on what type of business it is. If it is a sole proprietorship than they absolutely should have the right to refuse to serve or perform service to anyone they want. I think however if they seek to organize as a corporation or an LLC and seek other state benefits under civil law then they should indeed be subject to laws against discrimination. It all depends on the legal nature of the business.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Surely as a Catholic, you would see Marriage as the wrong institution for 2 men seeking the set of rights associated with Marriage? I have no problems with 2 persons wishing to share assets, provide mutual care, file joint tax returns, and so forth, and there may well be good grounds for the State to accommodate that. But how does that get us to marriage?

One can see some sense in State recognition of the sexual Union of man+woman, in light of it’s special and fundamental significance for the State. But the sexual Union of man+man (for if it is called “marriage”, we undestand it is sexual) - why is this to be treated as though it were the former

I agree that the state should recognize a homosexual union and I would support all endeavors to provide the same rights and benefits allowed to married couples to a recognized homosexual union. (Yes…Zoltan (homophobe) Cobalt said that)

I would just like to see it called something other than marriage. Maybe something catchy…like a “Rainbow Connection” or whatever.

 

[cena]

I agree that the state should recognize a homosexual union and I would support all endeavors to provide the same rights and benefits allowed to married couples to a recognized homosexual union. (Yes…Zoltan (homophobe) Cobalt said that)

I would just like to see it called something other than marriage. Maybe something catchy…like a “Rainbow Connection” or whatever.

Why would you support civil unions

 

[Rau]

Fine, call it a Civil Union.

And I am perfectly fine with that. Just as there is no merit I can see in making sodomy illegal, there is no merit In the State recognising sexual unions other than Marriage.

Of course, the modern slogan is “marriage equality”, so as you see, it is not really about access to “rights and privileges”. The “justice” issue that concerned you Tomberg was won long ago.

 

[Rau]

Why would you support civil unions

Through Civil Unions, the State is providing a legal arrangement to suit utilitarian aims. It is not recognising a sexual Union. What is the problem with that?

 

[tomberg]

And I am perfectly fine with that. Just as there is no merit I can see in making sodomy illegal, there is no merit In the State recognising sexual unions other than Marriage.

Of course, the modern slogan is “marriage equality”, so as you see, it is not really about access to “rights and privileges”. The “justice” issue that concerned you Tomberg was won long ago.

I would be perfectly fine simply calling it a Civil Union and being done with all the arguing back in forth. I think it is a totally satisfactory compromise.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Why would you support civil unions

Why not?

I always have. I only became a homophobe when the institution of marriage was attacked.

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 would be a totalitarian abuse of raw power and would not change the reality of the nature of marriage.

Rather than see my state or federal government sink to such a low…I would support civil unions…or Rainbow Connections.

I really cannot understand why our homosexual brothers and sisters would not accept this concept that would provide equal rights and benefits and not agitate the Christian world.

Unless that is their intention…

 

[edwest2]

And I am perfectly fine with that. Just as there is no merit I can see in making sodomy illegal, there is no merit In the State recognising sexual unions other than Marriage.

Of course, the modern slogan is “marriage equality”, so as you see, it is not really about access to “rights and privileges”. The “justice” issue that concerned you Tomberg was won long ago.

A gay marriage, by definition, is not equal to a heterosexual marriage. First, it is not ordered biologically. Second, two men or two women is not the same as one man and one woman who are biologically complementary and ordered toward bringing the next generation of human beings into the world.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rau]

A gay marriage, by definition, is not equal to a heterosexual marriage. First, it is not ordered biologically. Second, two men or two women is not the same as one man and one woman who are biologically complementary and ordered toward bringing the next generation of human beings into the world.

Peace,
Ed

Agreed. But why are you addressing these comments to me?

 

[edwest2]

Why not?

I always have. I only became a homophobe when the institution of marriage was attacked.

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 would be a totalitarian abuse of raw power and would not change the reality of the nature of marriage.

Rather than see my state or federal government sink to such a low…I would support civil unions…or Rainbow Connections.

I really cannot understand why our homosexual brothers and sisters would not accept this concept that would provide equal rights and benefits and not agitate the Christian world.

Unless that is their intention…

According to a few things I’ve read on sites I cannot link to, civil unions, even though all the benefits could be added in, create a “separate but equal status” for gay couples, turning them into second-class citizens. They must be approved, accepted and regarded as any married heterosexual couple. Again, if benefits are all that are being asked for, then it need not be called marriage, and is, in fact, not what marriage is recognized as biologically appropriate across cultures. It’s enshrining gay sex as the equivalent of the biological complementary of the man and woman. A contradiction that should be obvious to the religious and non-religious.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Agreed. But why are you addressing these comments to me?

I know my comments are read by everyone.

Ed

 

[Rau]

I know my comments are read by everyone.
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I agree that the state should recognize a homosexual union and I would support all endeavors to provide the same rights and benefits allowed to married couples to a recognized homosexual union. (Yes…Zoltan (homophobe) Cobalt said that)

I would just like to see it called something other than marriage. Maybe something catchy…like a “Rainbow Connection” or whatever.

Why? It is, by definition, a disordered situation, especially sexually. What’s next? Brothers and sisters getting married or those claiming to be gay getting that benefits package when both are actually heterosexual? I was on a stretcher in an emergency room and my male friend sat by me for some hours. Nobody asked about our relationship. Gay lover? Brother? Cousin? Nothing. Nobody needs to sign a piece of paper proving they are gay. Two straight male roommates could sign up, get the benefits and no one would have to know.

Ed

 

[Rau]

I agree that the state should recognize a homosexual union and I would support all endeavors to provide the same rights and benefits allowed to married couples to a recognized homosexual union. (Yes…Zoltan (homophobe) Cobalt said that)

I would just like to see it called something other than marriage. Maybe something catchy…like a “Rainbow Connection” or whatever.

The homosexual Union element is not relevant to what the State should recognize. Persons wishing to share assets, provide mutual care, file joint tax returns and so forth might have a reasonable case for appropriate State recognition and enabling legal arrangements. Sexuality is not relevant to this; it is not relevant to civil unions.