Pro-Homosexual Marriage Advocates - Why Can't They Answer This Question?

[PLAL]

Why is it Pro-Homosexual Marriage Advocates can never answer this question…

Why Is It Significant that “2” People Enter into Marriage?

What Is Significant about the “2”?

Why not have 3 or More People Enter into the Bond of Marriage?

Why Is It so important that society protect the Institution of Marriage?

PLAL

 

[Marie5890]

???

Catholics believe that 3 enter into the sacrament of marriage…

man, woman and God.

 

[Mandychu22]

Why is it Pro-Homosexual Marriage Advocates can never answer this question…

Why Is It Significant that “2” People Enter into Marriage?

What Is Significant about the “2”?

Why not have 3 or More People Enter into the Bond of Marriage?

Why Is It so important that society protect the Institution of Marriage?

PLAL

Most people I talk to who are pro gay marriage either a) believe polygamy should also be allowed or b) believe that what society views as marriage is not actually marriage, so let them have their civil whatever. Just like what we do with divorcees, etc.

They don`t particularly believe that the institution of marriage should be protected so much as that people should be able to have the rights of a legal spouse if all parties agree.

 

[Marie5890]

They don`t particularly believe that the institution of marriage should be protected so much as that people should be able to have the rights of a legal spouse if all parties agree.

That is pretty much what I have experienced.

People want their civil rights protected that people get when they have a legal spouse

(IE when one of them is in the hospital, health care, death rights to the living partner etc)

What I gather it’s less of a spiritual matter to them and more of a civil rights matter.

 

[Cariethra]

It all has to do with taxes, and rights within work liabilities, sick leave when a loved one is ill. They lose out on a lot of basic things.

This is honestly what the homosexual community wants. I mean they could have the party whether the state recognizes the marriage or not. But the legal stuff is a bit harder to get around.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Why is it Pro-Homosexual Marriage Advocates can never answer this question…

Why Is It Significant that “2” People Enter into Marriage?

What Is Significant about the “2”?

The majority of people in our western culture seem to gravitate towards two partner relationships. Our culture has certain ideas about possessiveness and jealousy tend to steer us towards monogamy. There are other cultures that do not have these same ideas. That is really the only significance that I can see.

Why not have 3 or More People Enter into the Bond of Marriage?

There are relationships that involve 3 or more people. If they are consenting adults, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to legally marry.

Why Is It so important that society protect the Institution of Marriage?

PLAL

I don’t see any need to protect marriage. It’s not in any danger.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

There Religion is “None” so they are not of the Body, - well put.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yes. And for many people, when they love a person they want to marry them.
.

How sweet…but brothers don’t normally marry their sisters and mother’s don’t normally marry their sons.

Loving another person is not grounds for marriage.

 

[4love2God]

**“Why Is It Significant that “2” People Enter into Marriage?”
**Because a Marriage of ONE person just leads to Masturbation.

"What Is Significant about the “2”? "
It takes 2 to Tango.
A Marriage creates a Family Unit.
From that day forward, those 2 people become One Couple.
And, that Marriage ritual was created by God, so that fact alone, makes Marriage “significant.”

**“Why not have 3 or More People Enter into the Bond of Marriage?” **
King Solomon certainly did NOT have 2 Wives.
Instead he had over 100 Wives (and 100s of concubines).
It is good to be the King.
Yes sir, MANY Old Testament heroes had a Bunch of Wives (or, at least more than One).
Personally, I prefer to just have One Wife at a time (because that’s all I can handle).

Certainly Jesus did NOT make just having One Wife a part of His teaching (nor put-down homosexuality, for that matter).
I have little-to-NO actual idea when the Catholic Church decided to set a One-Wife limit on its parishioners.
I suspect that it happened several-100 years ago.
So, for many years, it was perfectly OK for Catholics to have multiple spouses.
Then, after the Rule was changed, the Church began teaching the Beauty of having One Wife.

I digress … up until the year 1078 (or so), it was perfectly legal for a Catholic priest to get Married.
Then, the Rule was changed, and priests were banned from getting Married.
After that, the Church began teaching the Beauty of a Catholic priest to have NO Wife.

Since this Thread is actually about Homosexual Marriage, I will discuss that point directly.
Most people grow up with the desire to get Married some day.
Some people obsess about getting Married, and by the time they are 18, are ready to explode with anticipation.

Then there are some people, who have wanted to get Married, but later they find out that (for whatever reason) they are not Attracted to the Opposite sex.
At some point, those people think about “borrowing” the term Marriage, so that they can “settle down” with their so-called True Love.

It is only natural for a person to want to feel a part of Regular Society.
So, they ignore that Fact that calling a homosexual Union a Marriage will change the definition of it for the rest of us “Normies.”
Then, they proclaim** :** HEY, it’s NOT fair that I can’t call my relationship a Marriage.

This reminds me of when I was an 8-year-old, and my Uncle told me that his 2 dogs were “Married” … and having children.
It was his way of making their sexual relationship OK (in his mind).
I, frankly, winced when he said that (but, everyone has his own perspective of Reality, AND Propriety).

 

[PLAL]

Well these questions require thought and are supposed to lead to these answers…

Why Is It Significant that “2” People Enter into Marriage?

Because of “procreation”. A man and a woman are meant to be together to be open to procreate. The most effective family unit for a child is a mother and a father. No matter how much a mother loves her child, she can never be a father. No matter how much a father loves a child, he can never be a mother.

What Is Significant about the “2”?

Because it takes “2” to be able to pro-create.

Why not have 3 or More People Enter into the Bond of Marriage?

Once you take gender out of the equation of marriage, why not have 3 people in marriage? Homosexual marriage discriminates against having 3 people in a marriage. This question is meant to make Homosexual marriage proponent think.

Why Is It so important that society protect the Institution of Marriage?

Because pro-creation is a building block of society and therefore needs to be protected.

I know there are arguments for Homosexual Marriage due to different legalities in the law but laws can be changed and the traditional definition of marriage should never be changed.

PLAL

 

[4love2God]

So, PLAL created this Thread, so that we could offer-up answers.

But, PLAL ALSO planned to wait until we answer, and then give THE Answer, and a sermon about how ONLY PLAL could be right.

HEY, PLAL next time please offer up your answers, and Then ask for comments.

Because, if you would ask for comments, I would offer up how simplistic your answers are, and dissect them to prove it.

 

[Mandychu22]

Well these questions require thought and are supposed to lead to these answers…

Why Is It Significant that “2” People Enter into Marriage?

Because of “procreation”. A man and a woman are meant to be together to be open to procreate. The most effective family unit for a child is a mother and a father. No matter how much a mother loves her child, she can never be a father. No matter how much a father loves a child, he can never be a mother.

What Is Significant about the “2”?

Because it takes “2” to be able to pro-create.

Why not have 3 or More People Enter into the Bond of Marriage?

Once you take gender out of the equation of marriage, why not have 3 people in marriage? Homosexual marriage discriminates against having 3 people in a marriage. This question is meant to make Homosexual marriage proponent think.

Why Is It so important that society protect the Institution of Marriage?

Because pro-creation is a building block of society and therefore needs to be protected.

I know there are arguments for Homosexual Marriage due to different legalities in the law but laws can be changed and the traditional definition of marriage should never be changed.

PLAL

Except its already been discussed that your premise of them believing two people onlywithin amarriage is flawed. Most **dont** think that 2 people is an important factor, allowing for multiple partners within a marriage. They also don`t believe that procreation is a necessary part of marriage (a small part of the argument which the Catholic Church agrees with… sterility is not an impediment. The impediment is the lack of openness to life). Furthermore, the marital rights of a spouse are not dependent on having children, even within the Church.

If youre trying to convince anyone who doesnt already believe the way you do, your method is flawed. Its like a protestant assuming Catholics worship Mary, and using that assumption to convince them to leave the Church. Its never going to work because youre making an argument against something they dont believe in order to sway them to your thinking.

If that wasn`t your intention, I apologise and respectfully request clarification?

 

[adrift]

[BCertainly Jesus did NOT make just having One Wife a part of His teaching (nor put-down homosexuality, for that matter).

He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’
5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate
Matthew 19:3-12

Jesus doesn’t mention two men or two women. He just says the two not three become one.

I have little-to-NO actual idea when the Catholic Church decided to set a One-Wife limit on its parishioners.
I suspect that it happened several-100 years ago.

The Catholic Church from its beginning only allowed one spouse.

So, for many years, it was perfectly OK for Catholics to have multiple spouses.

Could you verify this?

Then, after the Rule was changed, the Church began teaching the Beauty of having One Wife

.
Always taught it.

I digress … up until the year 1078 (or so), it was perfectly legal for a Catholic priest to get Married.

Incorrect married men were allowed to become priest. Once a priest they could not marry.

This reminds me of when I was an 8-year-old, and my Uncle told me that his 2 dogs were “Married” … and having children.
It was his way of making their sexual relationship OK (in his mind).
I, frankly, winced when he said that (but, everyone has his own perspective of Reality, AND Propriety).

Like the woman who married her dog
[/quote]

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Let me preface this post.

1. What many people believe marriage to be vs what the church does are vastly different. Let’s just say the Civil side of it has fewer req and expectations.
2. I don’t believe the government should do “marriages”. Every marriage should be civil unions with the “marriage” distinction left to the church they belong to.

Why is it Pro-Homosexual Marriage Advocates can never answer this question…

Why Is It Significant that “2” People Enter into Marriage?

What Is Significant about the “2”?

2 is typically more stable than 3. But provided everyone agrees to the extra party I don’t see a compelling reason to push my views on others. 2 is preferred though.

Why not have 3 or More People Enter into the Bond of Marriage?

why not? With 3 there is a greater chance of having someone at home raising the children than with 2. Just my belief that it would be less stable.

Why Is It so important that society protect the Institution of Marriage?

PLAL

Marriage (civilly speaking) serves many purposes. The first is obviously a stable platform to raise kids. The 2nd is that it settles the men and encourage them to do something productive. A married man is likely to keep a job and perform well not in spite of family obligations but because of them. Even with time off to take the kid to the doctor and such married people have better job performance and a reason to achieve.

3rd, it encourages fidelity. Marriage creates up to a 75% penalty for cheating and causing it to fail. This changes the reasons not to cheat from simply an angry woman to losing most of your stuff.

The 3rd is why I support ssm. The gay community has a major issue with AIDS. The penalties that marriage (civil side that is) creates for infidelity would help to curb the rate that these viruses spread. Curbing the spread is nearly as important as the original purpose of children and order distribution of property.

In short, marriage as a civil institution is often mixed with the religious aspect, but perhaps the solution is to separate them.

 

[Mandychu22]

In short, marriage as a civil institution is often mixed with the religious aspect, but perhaps the solution is to separate them.

To be perfectly honest, Catholics already DO this. It’s the reason that people need to go through the process of annulment before getting married a second time in the Catholic Church, and why Catholics who marry legally aren’t actually recognised as married by the Church until they’ve spoken their vows.

I find it hard to understand why some people are so quick to go on the attack when the topic of gay marriage is approached, but never discuss the fact that so many people today marry outside the Church. I might be missing something here, but I don’t see much of a difference between two gay people living together in a committed relationship that they think of as marriage but we don’t, and two straight people living together in a committed relationship that they think of as marriage but we don’t. (Unpopular opinion, I know, but) I’m of the opinion that if you’re actively fighting against legal marriage for gay people, you should be actively seeking to abolish all legal marriage as both lead people to believe that marriage is something other than what it actually is. You should also be actively seeking to make divorce more difficult and it to be impossible for anyone who made the appropriate vows/etc to remarry. I don’t believe that it’s the bit of paper I signed and sent into the government that makes me married, it’s the vows we took. The bit of paper is just so that, if something happens to one of us, the other’s rights to property/make decisions/etc is upheld. And that is entirely a legal matter not a religious one.

To be honest, if my sister or best female friend and I lived together for the rest of our lives as single people I would want her to have property rights and such as well. I wouldn’t consider us to be married (obviously) but we would have made a life together and I would want her to be protected in the case of my death or extreme illness.

It’s not as though you need the bit of paper for sexual activity either… they’re doing that already even without legal marriage. I don’t see what difference it will make if gay people legally have the right to marry each other in the secular meaning of the word… the idea of marriage in the secular world is no longer tied to procreation, or even lifelong commitment to another person (as we can see from divorce rates). It’s more of a way of saying ‘I love you’ in a manner that gives you certain legal rights. Fighting gay marriage alone seems to me like fighting one perversion of what we believe to be marriage, while excusing all the others because they have become familiar to us/seem to be ‘close enough’.
Edit: For the record, I'm on the 'abolish legal marriage' side of this fence. If you want legal rights you should just draw up a contract stating that X is allowed to visit/ if Y happens X gains certain property/ write X into your will. That's waaay better, as it allows room for other relationships that people don't want classified as marriage to define each person's rights. The chances of that happening are negligible though, if not actually non-existent.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Marriage isn’t tired to procreation as much as before my time, but the attempt at a lifelong commitment is there for most normal people. The possible messiness of divorce along with the declining divorce rates bear that out a bit.

I’m in the “don’t call it marriage” camp. Sadly, the bizarre number and magnitude of benefits is a factor in deciding to pop the question though.

 

[Mulligan2]

**Most people I talk to who are pro gay marriage either a) believe polygamy should also be allowed **or b) believe that what society views as marriage is not actually marriage, so let them have their civil whatever. Just like what we do with divorcees, etc.

They don`t particularly believe that the institution of marriage should be protected so much as that people should be able to have the rights of a legal spouse if all parties agree.

I bolded the first part of your post that I specifically wanted to comment on. I don’t find this to be true at all. The overwhelming majority of people who support marriage equality are NOT in favor of polygamy.

 

[Rau]

There are relationships that involve 3 or more people. If they are consenting adults, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to legally marry.

So, if you were arguing the case for the State to construct a legal construct to cater for partnerships of any number of people, what arguments would you put? And what would motivate the State to accommodate such unions? How would the Sate benefit? After all, the State benefits from Marriage, given this is the fundamental institution through which the society builds itself.)

Would you further argue that the State accommodate all the related parental and family legal issues that would arise from multi-party marriages?

Why should the State bother with all this?

 

[Sparkythedog]

So, if you were arguing the case for the State to construct a legal construct to cater for partnerships of any number of people, what arguments would you put? And what would motivate the State to accommodate such unions? How would the Sate benefit? [After all, the State benefits from Marriage, given this is the fundamental institution through which the society builds itself.)

Would you further argue that the State accommodate all the related parental and family legal issues that would arise from multi-party marriages?

Why should the State bother with all this?

I’m not going to argue anything before the state. I’m not a lawyer. What I’m saying is that I see no reason why polygamous or polyamorous relationships should not be recognized. What difference does it make how many people are legally bound to one another. Can you provide me a reason why it should not be so?
[/quote]

 

[Rau]

I’m not going to argue anything before the state. I’m not a lawyer. What I’m saying is that I see no reason why polygamous or polyamorous relationships should not be recognized. What difference does it make how many people are legally bound to one another. Can you provide me a reason why it should not be so?

You don’t need to be a lawyer, just a citizen. What matters is whether a good reason to legally establish such relationships exist. If you can’t argue the pros, and persuade a good chunk of your fellow citizens, it won’t happen. You seek to introduce new legal constructs - the onus to define, and make the case, sits with you.