Poll: California Catholics strongly support homosexual unions

[rlg94086]

My goodness, Sedona, you sound as if you’re going to be the one marrying them! Re reassured, you won’t have to.

When the Supreme Court struck down state laws against interracial marriage, they affirmed that marriage between consenting adults is a civil right. That is settled law.

Therefore, a mother and son can marry? Two brothers can marry? A brother, sister and mother can all three marry?

The Supreme Court didn’t affirm anything to change the basic definition of “marriage” - only that race is not something to be considered when determining whether two people can be married. The non-mention of gender does not mean that two (or more) people of the same gender have a right to marry.

 

[StAnastasia]

Ah, the old homophobia claim. Of course, those with the loudest voices in opposition to racism are racists. Those whose voices are loudest in opposition to war are warmongers. Etcetera.

I recommend you take a course in logic.

 

[larkin31]

Therefore, a mother and son can marry? Two brothers can marry? A brother, sister and mother can all three marry?

No. Current law in every state requires non-familial relations. I would not ask to change that stipulation. Because one changes one stipulation (gender) does not mean that one has to change ALL stipulations. That is a fallacy of logic to suggest that changing any is the same as changing all. That is nonsense. Every change has its own justification (or not).

Sex (and marriage) with children is also covered by other criminal law, which I would also not attempt to have changed. That argument, too, is based in different considerations than those around gender.

gender, blood relation, and age are each different considerations

by the way, several states have already dropped adult incest from their criminal statutes

 

[rlg94086]

I recommend you take a course in logic.

Already done. Considering the lack of quality in your arguments, perhaps you should go back and take one yourself.

 

[rlg94086]

No. Current law in every state requires non-familial relations. I would not ask to change that stipulation. Because one changes one stipulation (gender) does not mean that one has to change ALL stipulations. That is a fallacy of logic to suggest that changing any is the same as changing all. That is nonsense. Every change has its own justification (or not).

Sex (and marriage) with children is also covered by other criminal law, which I would also not attempt to have changed. That argument, too, is based in different considerations than those around gender.

gender, blood relation, and age are each different considerations

by the way, several states have already dropped adult incest from their criminal statutes

Thank you for making my argument! That is exactly what I have been getting at. Loving v Virginia was about race, and therefore did not change the definition regarding gender and marriage. The rule that a marriage is confined to a male-female union is no different than the rules for blood relation.

 

[StAnastasia]

Already done. .

I doubt that, considering how you completely misunderstood (or misrepresented?) my point in post # 297.

 

[Phil_Stone]

Schools have a responsibility to protect all of their students from bullying and being treated disrespectfully. The simplest way to do that is to encourage children to consider the perspective of another, and to expose them to people who are different from themselves but whom they can recognize and identify with as other people, whom they are to treat with respect. We do this for all sorts of differences.

As for whether the lesson is age appropriate, I am reminded of a bishop in Colorado who had some preshoolers thhrown out because their parents were lesbians. THe bishop said he could not imagine why the parents would want to have their children exposed to the CHurches’ teaching (on lesbianism), and I figured that the Church had changed a lot, since I went through a lot of grades of Catholic School without the subject of lesbianism ever arising. I am not sure how it comes up in preschool, except through ommision. ANd that is presumably the part of point of the book, to not omit some parents and imply that all are like another type.

 

[larkin31]

… The rule that a marriage is confined to a male-female union is no different than the rules for blood relation.

Yes, they ARE different. As are our laws for sexual activity in adulthood. Incest is not the equivalent of homosexuality, and we have different laws addressing the two separate practices. Even the Bible addresses them separately. Age, also, is addressed separately and is a separate matter.

To argue that to change the gender rules means that one must ALSO change either or both of the other two rules is logically unsound.

 

[cara1]

Thank you for making my argument! That is exactly what I have been getting at. Loving v Virginia was about race, and therefore did not change the definition regarding gender and marriage. The rule that a marriage is confined to a male-female union is no different than the rules for blood relation.

There’s the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment which guarantees that all citizens are treated equally under the federal law in contrast to state’s law. This is going to come into play if the Supreme Court accepts a challenge to prop 8 or any state’s law infringing on gay marriage. It will be Loving v. Virginia v the Equal Protection Clause.

Incest is interpreted differently in different states, apparently. In many states, it’s legal for first cousins to marry. Also in many countries, including England and Iraq.

 

[1234]

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment will come into play as well as Loving v. Virginia. The Clause provides for equal protection under the law for all citizens with the emphasis that the federal law provides protection against incursion by the states. Between Loving v Virginia and the EPC, I think that there is strong constitutional support for civil same-sex marriage.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, they ARE different. As are our laws for sexual activity in adulthood. Incest is not the equivalent of homosexuality, and we have different laws addressing the two separate practices. Even the Bible addresses them separately. Age, also, is addressed separately and is a separate matter.

To argue that to change the gender rules means that one must ALSO change either or both of the other two rules is logically unsound.

You are totally missing the point…must have taken classes w/StAnastasia as teacher.

1234 stated that the Supreme Court “affirmed that marriage between consenting adults is a civil right” (indirectly referring to Loving v Virginia).

As you have correctly pointed out, gender, race, blood relations, etc are all different rules of marriage. Therefore, Loving v Virginia, which changed the rules regarding race, did not change the rules regarding gender (i.e. heterosexual-only unions).

I’m not claiming that changing gender laws will change blood relation laws. I’m claiming, and it appears you are agreeing, that claiming Constitutional protection of same-sex unions based on Loving v Virginia would be just as ridiculous as claiming Constitutional protection for incestuous unions.

 

[1234]

Ah, the old homophobia claim. Of course, those with the loudest voices in opposition to racism are racists. Those whose voices are loudest in opposition to war are warmongers. Etcetera.

I assure you I am secure in my heterosexuality and have no fear of the BLT people. Then again, I don’t “gay bash” either. Rather, I just state Church teaching and discuss the value of a homosexual relationship to society (zero). I suppose those with weak arguments would refer to that as homophobic gay bashing. It’s easier to do that then to counter the Truth.

And why, pray tell, are homosexual relationships of zero value to society? Is it because they can’t procreate with each other (merely adopt difficult-to-adopt minority, handicapped and older children)? So is the *sole *value of ‘relationships’ to society that of procreation? Then the infertile should not be permitted to marry. Everyone should have to undergo fertility tests and PROVE they are having unprotected sex–only during their fertile periods, mind you!–to ‘prove’ that their ‘relationships’ are of value to society!

 

[rlg94086]

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment will come into play as well as Loving v. Virginia. The Clause provides for equal protection under the law for all citizens with the emphasis that the federal law provides protection against incursion by the states. Between Loving v Virginia and the EPC, I think that there is strong constitutional support for civil same-sex marriage.

Apparently, the Supreme Court didn’t agree with your assessment when they dismissed Baker v Nelson “for want of a substantial federal question.”

So much for your “settled law” comment earlier…you’ve now backed off to “I think…”

 

[rlg94086]

And why, pray tell, are homosexual relationships of zero value to society? Is it because they can’t procreate with each other (merely adopt difficult-to-adopt minority, handicapped and older children)? So is the *sole *value of ‘relationships’ to society that of procreation? Then the infertile should not be permitted to marry. Everyone should have to undergo fertility tests and PROVE they are having unprotected sex–only during their fertile periods, mind you!–to ‘prove’ that their ‘relationships’ are of value to society!

:yawn:

Your non-logical brethren have attempted the same argument many times. It falls flat on its face because marriage’s procreative element is not based on the individual case. It is based on the fundamental nature of the relationship. There is not, and should not be, a fertility test. Heterosexual relationships have an intrinsic value to society that homosexual relationships, by nature, can never have - regardless of the individual homosexual case.

 

[1234]

Apparently, the Supreme Court didn’t agree with your assessment when they dismissed Baker v Nelson “for want of a substantial federal question.”

So much for your “settled law” comment earlier…you’ve now backed off to “I think…”

c
NO, I say “I think” because I’m not on the Supreme Court, and I’m not an expert in constitutional law (nor are you, I suspect). I am not familiar w/ Baker v Nelson, but if the Sc dismissed it ‘for want of a substantial federal question’–there is no ‘want of a substantial federal question’ here, unless the SC feels that same-sex marriage should remain an issue for the states to decide. They may decide this.

 

[rlg94086]

c
NO, I say “I think” because I’m not on the Supreme Court, and I’m not an expert in constitutional law (nor are you, I suspect). I am not familiar w/ Baker v Nelson, but if the Sc dismissed it ‘for want of a substantial federal question’–there is no ‘want of a substantial federal question’ here, unless the SC feels that same-sex marriage should remain an issue for the states to decide. They may decide this.

Indeed, they may, in which case the California voters (and the rest of the country) may actually win the day by having Prop 8 upheld.

And, again, you are agreeing that it isn’t “settled law,” so you have backed off your earlier assertion.

 

[larkin31]

You are totally missing the point…must have taken classes w/StAnastasia as teacher.

1234 stated that the Supreme Court “affirmed that marriage between consenting adults is a civil right” (indirectly referring to Loving v Virginia).

As you have correctly pointed out, gender, race, blood relations, etc are all different rules of marriage. Therefore, Loving v Virginia, which changed the rules regarding race, did not change the rules regarding gender (i.e. heterosexual-only unions).

I’m not claiming that changing gender laws will change blood relation laws. I’m claiming, and it appears you are agreeing, that claiming Constitutional protection of same-sex unions based on Loving v Virginia would be just as ridiculous as claiming Constitutional protection for incestuous unions.

Despite your little slam at the start of this post, I agree with it.

But so you know, you should not be so absolute on whether Loving could provide any support for a case. It is a prior case of the broadening of access to marriage, and if the grounds were the 14th Amend, well then, it sounds familiar, does it not? Of course, the situations are not identical. But they are parallel.

 

[rlg94086]

But so you know, you should not be so absolute on whether Loving could provide any support for a case. It is a prior case of the broadening of access to marriage, and if the grounds were the 14th Amend, well then, it sounds familiar, does it not? Of course, the situations are not identical. But they are parallel.

That is only true if you believe that race and gender are equivalent when it comes to distinctions between human beings. I know some people believe it to be the case, but most people recognize that equal treatment does not mean that gender is irrelevant - unlike skin tone. Declaring that any woman (of age, not closely related) can marry any man (of age, not closely related) is very equal. There is no woman or man who is excluded. I can’t think of any constitutional protections based on sexual desire.

 

[larkin31]

That is only true if you believe that race and gender are equivalent when it comes to distinctions between human beings. I know some people believe it to be the case, but most people recognize that equal treatment does not mean that gender is irrelevant - unlike skin tone. Declaring that any woman (of age, not closely related) can marry any man (of age, not closely related) is very equal. There is no woman or man who is excluded. I can’t think of any constitutional protections based on sexual desire.

Not “equivalent” (no such thing, literally), but shades of parallel.

The protection is not about desire. Have you read the judge’s opinion? Start on page 110 where he gives his findings and goes over the Constitutional aspects. He writes clearly, and I don’t have time or inclination to write a summary…

here is the link: glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/perry-decision-8-4-10.pdf

 

[StAnastasia]

And why, pray tell, are homosexual relationships of zero value to society?

They are no more of zero value to society than rlg is of no value to society. That is merely ignorant bigotry.

Is it because they can’t procreate with each other (merely adopt difficult-to-adopt minority, handicapped and older children)? So is the *sole *value of ‘relationships’ to society that of procreation? Then the infertile should not be permitted to marry.

That does seem to be the message: ability to breed is the foundational justification for marriage. This means that infertile couples who adopt and raise children are not in marriages of any value to society.

Everyone should have to undergo fertility tests and PROVE they are having unprotected sex–only during their fertile periods, mind you!–to ‘prove’ that their ‘relationships’ are of value to society!

I see your point, but I doubt the Church would go for this.