You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
PetrusRomanus
Guest
Oh.and btw, our arguments were purposely meant to sound ridiculous in this thread because thats the kind of ridoculous logic being offered by ssm supporters.This is key right here, and it’s really what I was trying to say in the other thread:
Marriage, by law, involves consent.
A same-sex adult couple can provide consent (even thiough I personally disagree with SSM). An adult-child couple cannot (the child cannot give full consent) and a human-animal couple certainly can’t.
For that reason, there is still a big gap between what’s before the Supreme Court (adult SSM) and some of the things that people are posting about in this thread and elsewhere. It would take a big step beyond simple adult SSM to change our laws to eliminate the consent requirement. It would take another big step to extend the marriage status to non-humans.
The thing I’m concerned about, as a Catholic, is how ridiculous these arguments must sound to others. The same-sex couple in my town may not share my religious beliefs, but I’ll bet they’re not interested in marrying minors or animals, and they’d be highly offended and insulted if they heard such an argument.
There’s a SSM debate coming up on local radio, and I am really worried that Catholics are going to call in and start in about adult-child marriage or human-animal marriage, and make us look like crazy people to the rest of the world.
Yes, I caught that, regarding the three or four posts before mine, with you and the other poster. I was of course disagreeing with some of the earlier arguments in the thread.Oh.and btw, our arguments were purposely meant to sound ridiculous in this thread because thats the kind of ridoculous logic being offered by ssm supporters.
E
Erich
Guest
Actually, we already know we can expect the following:
- SSM doesn’t harm your marriage unless of course your spouse isn’t telling you something.
a) The law will teach our children and grandchildren that there is nothing special about mothers and fathers raising children together, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot.
b) Jonathan Yarbrough, part of the first couple to get a “same-sex marriage” in Provincetown, Mass, said, “I think it’s possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner… In our case, it is. We have an open marriage.” Once you rip a ship off its mooring who knows where it will drift next?
c) The statement, “Children need a mother and a father” will be deemed hate speech. The Boston Globe already said so: “Governor Romney is denigrating gay families, practicing divisive, mean-spirited politics…by insisting that every child ‘has a right to a mother and a father.’”
d) Consider an NPR story from Boston from several years ago. An eighth-grade teacher there teaches about gay sex “thoroughly and explicitly.” When asked if parents complained about their children learning such explicit material, this teacher said, “Give me a break. It’s legal now.”
And how’s that working out for the more than 150 plaintiffs challenging the HHS mandate on contraception?
- No church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or group will be require to preform SSM if it is violation of their consciounce. This is guarenteed by the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Earlier this year, President Obama marked Religious Freedom Day by framing religious liberty as “the freedom to worship as we choose.”
I for one would expect that someone who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago would know that the First Amendment of our Constitution actually reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” – and that the constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion in America extends well beyond the freedom to worship. It includes the freedom to live out our conscientiously held beliefs.
F
fix
Guest
Exactly.It took a big step to legalize SSM.
And heterosexuals should be highly offended to see gay marriage trying to be claimed as equal to traditional marriage the same way gays feel offended when their marriages are.compared to a bestialist’s marriage.
F
fix
Guest
Ha. Very good .Don’t be offended but you have identified the flaw in your own arguement.
F
fix
Guest
The consent card does not work. Consent can be redefined just like marriage. In fact, it is insulting to pretend that such a barrier cannot be overcome given that at no time in history has marriage ever include same sex persons. The argument works well. The problem is not the argument at all. The problem is that those that want to distort reality take offense at the truth.This is key right here, and it’s really what I was trying to say in the other thread:
Marriage, by law, involves consent.
A same-sex adult couple can provide consent (even thiough I personally disagree with SSM). An adult-child couple cannot (the child cannot give full consent) and a human-animal couple certainly can’t.
For that reason, there is still a big gap between what’s before the Supreme Court (adult SSM) and some of the things that people are posting about in this thread and elsewhere. It would take a big step beyond simple adult SSM to change our laws to eliminate the consent requirement. It would take another big step to extend the marriage status to non-humans.
The thing I’m concerned about, as a Catholic, is how ridiculous these arguments must sound to others. The same-sex couple in my town may not share my religious beliefs, but I’ll bet they’re not interested in marrying minors or animals, and they’d be highly offended and insulted if they heard such an argument.
There’s a SSM debate coming up on local radio, and I am really worried that Catholics are going to call in and start in about adult-child marriage or human-animal marriage, and make us look like crazy people to the rest of the world.
As was pointed out in another post heterosexuals are offended when marriage is compared to these licit unions.
M
markeverett49
Guest
No, it is not the same at all. People who enter into same-sex unions harm themselves and anyone who would encourage an alcohol to seek help could say the same, with love and concern, to a person engaging in homosexual acts. Further, to claim that same-sex “marriages” are equivalent to opposite-sex ones is to lie (-or, if one doesn’t know better) to promote a grave moral wrong, which is a public concern.If you don’t like SSM don’t marry some one of the same sex, but your disapproval doesn’t give you the right to infringe upon my rights to do so if i choose.
I would be the same as if i were to say i don’t like alcohol and try to get prohibition reintroduced without an exception for churches.
That this argument so often devolves into an individualistic cry of “I want to do what I want to do and it is no one else’s business!” shows the deep moral ignorance at work. This is how children think. (And, sadly, many childish adults.)
S
seeker5133
Guest
You don’t want to promote find don’t promote it but do not interfere with my constitutional rights. What you believe is up to you, I don’t fault you that but when you try to give your religious beliefs force of law that i take issue with.
F
Frank_Drebin
Guest
It isn’t simply religious beliefs that have had force of law for thousands of years in most societies. You act as though something is being taken away. You are the one demanding that the status quo be changed. There are numerous posts that defeat the logic behind marriage equality without even invoking religion. It doesn;t take religion to recognize a bad idea.You don’t want to promote find don’t promote it but do not interfere with my constitutional rights. What you believe is up to you, I don’t fault you that but when you try to give your religious beliefs force of law that i take issue with.
There have been societies that allowed for murder of opposing towns and tribesmen. Should we rescind the laws because they violate those beliefs?
R
RobbyS
Guest
I am reminded of a comment made by Lincoln. “How many legs does a dog have?” he asked rhetorically. “Four.” Just because you call a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.” Lincoln was a great fan of Euclid. Euclid’s geometry is grounded our experience. His axiom/postulates and undefined terms as well. Thie radical positivism of the “same-sex” movement is not well-founded at all. But how does one cope with madness? We are indeed in Alice’s world.Of course. Major distortions will follow. Poligamy is just one of many. Christianity brought to the world the holiness of Matrimony as an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. Now, two thousand years later, the world of darkness is again subject to deception by the father of lies, the spirit of antichrist that has been roaming since the days of the apostles to cause divisions and injure the dignity of redeemed man and woman. Things will get bad, and when true persecution begins - as in risking prison for the faith - we will have truly fallen back to the darkest days of Christianity…if to this we add that Christianity is the religious group subject already to the greatest degree of persecution in the world (100,000 martyrs every year, on average), more than at any time in history, and that the Catholic Church - the Church of Christ, in whom resides the fullness of the Christian teaching - is subject to constant, almost instinctive hatred and criticism, then the picture is quite clear…or, rather, quite dark…
The bishops of the US asked us last year to offer as a special sacrifice throughout the Year of Faith an extra Rosary every day and strict fast and abstinence every Friday of the year, even beyond Lent, for the holiness of marriage and for life. Clearly the Holy Spirit guided them, for things have gotten to a critical point and much prayer and sacrifice is needed.
F
Frank_Drebin
Guest
Progressives are inhertently selfish people. They want what they want, regardless of nature and reality. It all comes down to “but I want it!” They want wealth they have not earned. They want success they do not work for. They want marriage to be what it cannot…I am reminded of a comment made by Lincoln. “How many legs does a dog have?” he asked rhetorically. “Four.” Just because you call a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.” Lincoln was a great fan of Euclid. Euclid’s geometry is grounded our experience. His axiom/postulates and undefined terms as well. Thie radical positivism of the “same-sex” movement is not well-founded at all. But how does one cope with madness? We are indeed in Alice’s world.
The concept of bearing our crosses is lost on so many of them. Why should I have a cross when this guy doesn’t? I wonder if Jesus asked that when he was hanging from His? I somehow doubt it.
Very sad lot.
M
markeverett49
Guest
It hurts them in two ways. First, children are increasingly taught that having “two dads” or “two mommies” is equivalent to having a mother and a father. This is false, yet it is still taught. Further, anyone who questions this is judged to be judgmental (-ironic, that, but the irony is lost on those doing it.) Second, children raised by same-sex couples are raised away from at least one parent (-which is sub-optimal) and confused about the link between the love of a man and a woman and the birth of a child.I fail to see how SSM hurts children in any way, shape, or form. And by the way that same argument has been used before specifically in the debates about interracial marriage.
The laws against inter-racial marriage are a good argument AGAINST same-sex “marriages.” Those laws were “fiddling with something that wasn’t broke,” they were seeking to enforce through law a misguided view of what society should be like. Those laws were aberrations, not the norm of marriage law. They show how such laws can go terribly wrong. (Yet for all that error, the minds behind this were right about one thing: if a mixed-race couple wed, they WOULD be married, whereas a same-sex couple cannot make a marriage, regardless of what they call it. It is rarely mentioned that an ASSUMPTION of the argument of same-sex “marriage” is that ‘marriage is whatever people call it’ but they also say ‘anyone who doesn’t call same-sex couplings a marriage is really really really wrong because they really really really are.’ If things are only what people call them, them those who call same-sex couplings a marriage are, by their own lights, not right (-there is no right or wrong here) but simply more or less conventional.)
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
The problem with your statement is that you think marriage to anyone you want is a constitutional right. It’s not.You don’t want to promote find don’t promote it but do not interfere with my constitutional rights. What you believe is up to you, I don’t fault you that but when you try to give your religious beliefs force of law that i take issue with.
L
Lochias
Guest
Exactly, though it appears that the constitution is counting for less and less anyway, these days.The problem with your statement is that you think marriage to anyone you want is a constitutional right. It’s not.
M
markeverett49
Guest
Whether this is your Constitutional right is the issue at hand. Even if the Supreme Court rules that it is, that won’t make it a real right. (Mothers don’t have a real right to kill their unborn children, though it is legal for them to do so. Doctors and nurses don’t have a real right to let unwanted newborns die, but it is apparently legal for them to do so.)You don’t want to promote find don’t promote it but do not interfere with my constitutional rights. What you believe is up to you, I don’t fault you that but when you try to give your religious beliefs force of law that i take issue with.
S
seeker5133
Guest
There are several real differences between Abortion and SSM. Primarily the fact that the supreme court had to invent a whole new right “The Right to Privacy” to justify abortion and it did so through questionable legal means, whereas SSM is a straight application of the 14th amendment as well as the doctrine of the separation of church and state.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Pray tell us how homosexual marriage is somehow covered under the 14th Amendment, but polygamous marriages and sibling/parent-adult child marriages are not. The SC has already set the precedent that a) marriage is not a constitutional right and b) can be regulated. The 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment (see Mormonism and Islam) have no bearing on the issue. They don’t, because marriage is not a right. Never has been.There are several real differences between Abortion and SSM. Primarily the fact that the supreme court had to invent a whole new right “The Right to Privacy” to justify abortion and it did so through questionable legal means, whereas SSM is a straight application of the 14th amendment as well as the doctrine of the separation of church and state.
S
seeker5133
Guest
The Supreme Court in the Loving Case stated that marriage is a fundamental civil right. And as for incestous relationships those can be proven to be harmful to the children engendered while the same cannot be said for SSM. As for polyamorous marriages well there is ample precedent for those namely the fact that before utah could become a state they had ban bigamous marriages. Although under today’s legal ruling that would have been overturned.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
If your comment concerning the Loving Case is correct, than the SC is currently holding two opposing views on marriage being a right-The Supreme Court in the Loving Case stated that marriage is a fundamental civil right. And as for incestous relationships those can be proven to be harmful to the children engendered while the same cannot be said for SSM. As for polyamorous marriages well there is ample precedent for those namely the fact that before utah could become a state they had ban bigamous marriages. Although under today’s legal ruling that would have been overturned.
-“fundamental civil right” in the Loving Case
-laws outlawing polygamy in the US and US laws not recognizing polygamous marriages of citizens married in a country where it is legal are constitutional
Given that Loving took place several decades ago and the fact that polygamy is still illegal here in the US I’d say your conclusions about what the Loving case really means are wrong.
As for endangering the children, not applicable (though I’m sure another poster can link you scientific studies that actually disprove your contention concerning no ill impact on children in a SSM). Your contention is that marriage is a civil right. Civil rights > possible bad effects, social impact. If you doubt this, contact the ACLU and ask to talk to the lawyers who defend the racist hate groups (namely the guys who walk around in bedsheets burning stuff). Or you could contact the lawyers representing that group that pickets soldiers’ funerals.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.