Prop. 8 and trying to defend marriage

[ERose]

You are having difficulties because the poster (the one in particular) read the case carefully and understands it. I recommend that everyone do this, Catholics included. Remember, the court challenge was based on the standards for due process and equal protection. If you simply state, “Morals matter more,” then you will lose the argument and the case. To override the constitutional challenges, the defendants (supporters of Prop 8) had to demonstrate clear harm from gay marriage or clear benefits (in material, measurable terms) from excluding gays. They could do neither, and hardly even tried (the judge referred to the paucity of witnesses and evidence presented by the defense).

Here is the problem as I understand it. One the proponents of the prop 8 where not given a fair hearing because this judge had an agenda. If anything that this shows is that our judges are the most powerful individuals in this country who has the absolute authority to overturn congressional (state & federal) law as well as the will of the people as was the case with prop 8. These judges now exercise authority to make up their own laws and interpret the constitutions (both federal and state) liberally to meet their needs. These judges do not have to answer to anyone no matter how far out there they are and that is wrong.

This ruling angers me more due to a judge feeling that he has the power to overrule the people of CA who voted on a constitutional ballet. Especially when a few years back the Supreme Court left it up to the states to define marriage. The state of CA defined marriage and a judge said that was not acceptable.

Of course everyone knew which way this judge would rule being himself a gay man and as such had skin in the game. He should not have been allowed to rule on this because obviously he was bias toward the gay side.

 

[rwoehmke]

As a farm kid I can attest to the fact that when an animal is in heat, other members of the same species and sex will go through the motions so to speak. I have never seen two male animals “trying to get it on” with each other.

As for marriage and sex being only for procreation, why than do we allow sterile and post menopausal folks to have sex? That is one question that prop 8 opponents make good use of.

 

[larkin31]

Here is the problem as I understand it. One the proponents of the prop 8 where not given a fair hearing because this judge had an agenda…

It was the defendants of Prop 8 who chose NOT to present any real evidence or witnesses. To blame the judge for this is just blind.

This ruling angers me more due to a judge feeling that he has the power to overrule the people of CA who voted on a constitutional ballet. Especially when a few years back the Supreme Court left it up to the states to define marriage. The state of CA defined marriage and a judge said that was not acceptable.

No. What is left to states is the right to regulate the licensing of marriage certificates. It is not carte blanche to define it how they please or to do whatever they please in this regard. Secondly, neither the Governor nor the Attorney General would defend the case. Sometimes the people, through referendums, make laws that politicians don’t support, and this was one. The referendum process is a murky one because lawmakers have no part in it and courts have no say until it becomes law and then someone challenges it. That is the way it is in our country. A bit mucky, but overall it works great. It is the best process in the world!

Of course everyone knew which way this judge would rule being himself a gay man and as such had skin in the game. He should not have been allowed to rule on this because obviously he was bias toward the gay side.

Another silly argument from someone who just wants to whine about the decision rather than really understand the reasons for it. Have you read the ruling?

 

[Los_Angeles]

As for marriage and sex being only for procreation, why than do we allow sterile and post menopausal folks to have sex? That is one question that prop 8 opponents make good use of.

You are correct - “Not all straight couples can or choose to have children…”

Some heterosexual couples do not/can not have/want children

but…

It is impossible for All homosexual “marriages” to produce children.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=485400

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[rossum]

No it doesn’t fail

The slippery slope argument fails. You are now proposing a different argument, the argument from reproduction. That does not prevent the slippery slope argument failing.

because of the chief function of marriage is procreating children and rearing them.

The chief function, but not the only function. Infertile people can marry. Post-menopausal women can marry. Fertile couples who do not wish to have children can marry. Marriage can have more than one purpose. Any married couple can adopt children or use a surrogate mother so all married couples can raise children.

The only marriages throughout all of recorded human history has been between men & women whether it is a monogamist or polygamist marriage it has always been between men & women.

If one man and two or more women are in a polygamous marriage then the women are also married to each other. Again your argument fails, at least for lesbians marrying.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

If opposite sex marriage is allowed then why persecute or leave out dads who want to marry their daughters or mothers wanting to marry their sons? What about people who would like to marry their chosen animal of the opposite sex. Where does it end?

The ‘slippery slope’ argument fails, and it can be seen to fail as soon as it is applied in the other direction.

False. Polygamy has been common through out history. The definition of marriage in the US changed to exclude racial criteria about fifty years ago. Marriage changes as times change.

rossum

“times change”? That is nonsense. Only people make decisions. The passage of time means nothing. Sure, you may wish to get a different hair style or different clothes or different furniture, but marriage, in the United States, should be limited to one man and one woman. This is consistent with natural and Divine law.

All this issue is about is a social engineering experiment.

If 2+2=4, for thousands of years, then how does time passing change the result? The truth is universal. Only individual people may decide if some change occurs, not the passing of time.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

“times change”? That is nonsense. Only people make decisions. The passage of time means nothing. Sure, you may wish to get a different hair style or different clothes or different furniture, but marriage, in the United States, should be limited to one man and one woman. This is consistent with natural and Divine law.

All this issue is about is a social engineering experiment.

If 2+2=4, for thousands of years, then how does time passing change the result? The truth is universal. Only individual people may decide if some change occurs, not the passing of time.

Loving v Virginia happened in 1967. That case changed marriage in America by disallowing the miscegnation laws then in force in some States.

The legal definition of marriage, which is what Proposition 8 is about, has changed in the past and no doubt it will change in the future.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Loving v Virginia happened in 1967. That case changed marriage in America by disallowing the miscegnation laws then in force in some States.

The legal definition of marriage, which is what Proposition 8 is about, has changed in the past and no doubt it will change in the future.

rossum

There is a difference between truth and ‘what I want.’ Once again, time changes nothing in regard to the proper relationship between men and women. Whenever a few people, for whatever reason, decide that the truth is whatever they think it is then it is wrong.

Predicting the future is not scientific.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ERose]

If opposite sex marriage is allowed then why persecute or leave out dads who want to marry their daughters or mothers wanting to marry their sons? What about people who would like to marry their chosen animal of the opposite sex. Where does it end?

Thanks for confirming my argument. It is a slippery slope. But I do not see how this argument above makes this argument fails. If anything you have actually provided a continuation of my argument.

The ‘slippery slope’ argument fails, and it can be seen to fail as soon as it is applied in the other direction.

I don’t see that. And you haven’t shown that either.

False. Polygamy has been common through out history. The definition of marriage in the US changed to exclude racial criteria about fifty years ago. Marriage changes as times change.

rossum

I know that we live in a relative society now where people do not want to nor want to deal with common truths. People want to do whatever they want now no matter how depraved it is. No matter what you think or feel there is an absolute truth that we must deal with one way or the other. We can ignore it as you propose or we can adhere to it.

Last time I researched Buddism there was some form of morality within its teachings. I guess that relativism has hit Budda as well.

 

[ERose]

The slippery slope argument fails. You are now proposing a different argument, the argument from reproduction. That does not prevent the slippery slope argument failing.

Yes I proposed a different argument because I was done with the other one since you provided no effective argumentation to counter it. So I moved on.

The chief function, but not the only function. Infertile people can marry. Post-menopausal women can marry. Fertile couples who do not wish to have children can marry. Marriage can have more than one purpose. Any married couple can adopt children or use a surrogate mother so all married couples can raise children.

Here is the difference. It is still possible for them to pro-create. There are exceptions to the rule. Post-menopausal women getting pregnant, infertile women as well. There are examples on this occurring. But you will not find a male/male or female/female couple procreate without involving a third party.

If one man and two or more women are in a polygamous marriage then the women are also married to each other. Again your argument fails, at least for lesbians marrying.

You are wrong. In a traditional polygamous marriage, the wives or husbands depending on the type are not married to each other nor do they have intercourse with each other. Modern times it would most probably be that way but not traditionally.

 

[theonetruth]

This is very typical of a catholic forum. There is a moral/religious issue on gay marriage. I am no religious. So that allows me to see clearly on this topic. First of all there is separation of church and state, therefore your religious view should not effect your political opinions.

Those of you who don’t like it because your holy book says it’s immoral, get over it. All the bible is a set of guidelines. More or less a religious constitution. It was never meant to be followed word for word.

 

[rossum]

Thanks for confirming my argument. It is a slippery slope. But I do not see how this argument above makes this argument fails. If anything you have actually provided a continuation of my argument.

I don’t see that. And you haven’t shown that either.

My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. The slippery slope argument against same sex marriage runs: “If we allow same sex marriage then we will have to allow fathers to marry their sons and mothers to marry their daughters.” This argument fails due to its attempt to link same sex marriage to incest. The failure lies in the absence of any real link between same sex marriage and incest. This is shown by applying exactly the same argument to opposite sex marriage: “If we allow opposite sex marriage then we will have to allow fathers to marry their daughters and mothers to marry their sons.” The sex of the marriage partners is not connected to the prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage; the two are separate. The change in the law does not make any change to the prohibited degrees of relationship, it just affects the sex of the partners.

I know that we live in a relative society now where people do not want to nor want to deal with common truths. People want to do whatever they want now no matter how depraved it is. No matter what you think or feel there is an absolute truth that we must deal with one way or the other. We can ignore it as you propose or we can adhere to it.

You do not have a right to impose your religious beliefs on other people any more than they have a right to impose their beliefs on you. Proposition 8 is about a change in the civil law on marriage, it is not about changing anyone’s religion. US civil law on marriage is already non-Catholic because it allows for divorce and remarriage after divorce.

Last time I researched Buddism there was some form of morality within its teachings. I guess that relativism has hit Budda as well.

Buddhism indeed has a morality; it is far more concerned with “You shall not kill” then with “You shall not commit adultery”. In its early years Buddhism did not even have a marriage service, Buddhist marriage services developed later after the Buddha’s death. Nowadays, as with Christianity, Buddhism has conservative sects who are against same sex marriage and more liberal sects who do not see a problem with it. Western Buddhists tend to be on the liberal side.

You are wrong. In a traditional polygamous marriage, the wives or husbands depending on the type are not married to each other nor do they have intercourse with each other. Modern times it would most probably be that way but not traditionally.

Evidence please.

rossum

 

[ERose]

This is very typical of a catholic forum. There is a moral/religious issue on gay marriage.

You are correct it is a moral and religious issue. The moral issue is should it be allowed. And the religious issue is after it is allowed, when will the government start forcing churches to accept to, including those that oppose it?

I am no religious. So that allows me to see clearly on this topic.

This I would question whether or not it gives you greater clarity.

First of all there is separation of church and state, therefore your religious view should not effect your political opinions.

This is a typical tactic of liberals who are trying to force their views down other peoples throats. Yes there is separation of church and state but ones view of life and their moral makeup is what effects their opinion. For you to tell me to throw out that facit of my life that dictates to me my morality and the way I view the world is ignorant and stupid on your part. People who do what you are suggesting have no moral compass and quite honestly not trustworthy people. In other words, I would trust that individual with a 5 dollar bill.

Those of you who don’t like it because your holy book says it’s immoral, get over it. All the bible is a set of guidelines. More or less a religious constitution. It was never meant to be followed word for word.

Wrong. The Bible is the written word of God and not just a set of guidelines which in your opinion can be changed, when you want them to change to make you feel better. The Word of God does not change and is incorruptable.

Here is what I see. You want us to throw away our religious beliefs because it makes you feel better to see others do the same that you did because you couldn’t hack it as a Christian. Luckily you are in this forum and I suggest stay with us for a little while. Maybe we can give you advice on how to make it as a Catholic.

 

[larkin31]

My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. The slippery slope argument against same sex marriage runs: “If we allow same sex marriage then we will have to allow fathers to marry their sons and mothers to marry their daughters.” This argument fails due to its attempt to link same sex marriage to incest. The failure lies in the absence of any real link between same sex marriage and incest. This is shown by applying exactly the same argument to opposite sex marriage: “If we allow opposite sex marriage then we will have to allow fathers to marry their daughters and mothers to marry their sons.” The sex of the marriage partners is not connected to the prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage; the two are separate. The change in the law does not make any change to the prohibited degrees of relationship, it just affects the sex of the partners…

Precisely.

Nor does it effect the age restrictions on marriage, nor on the species of partner (bestiality). Those arguments are merely smear attempts.

 

[larkin31]

Thanks for confirming my argument. It is a slippery slope.

It is odd for someone to label their own argument as “slippery slope”. It is a logical fallacy.

 

[portarica]

What happen today was to show that the American people don’t mean anything anymore. We have been made slaves to the judges of this country. The majority of people in CA voted to uphold the definition of marriage and this judge by his ruling said that these people are stupid and to shut their mouths. Welcome to slavery we Americans not of the ruling class.

Actually it has to do with the separation of powers and the constitution.

Speaking of slavery, it is quite conceivable that some states would have voted to allow slavery even as soon ago as the sixties or seventies.

What the judge said was that not allowing one class of people to be married diminished the people in that class. He didn’t say the people were stupid or to shut their mouthes.

Did he just make a one page brief about his position, that would be calling the people stupid, how elaborate was his paperwork on the case?

If he said not to appeal his ruling , that would be saying shut up, did he do that ?

BTW, there is a great thought from Eleanor Roosevelt about being made to feel stupid:“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”

Consider why some want others to feel that the judge was calling the voters of CA stupid.Why does an element in our political realm want to have people resent being called stupid?

What people wanted the supporters of prop 8 to feel like they were called stupid? And who are those people and groups?

Peace

 

[ERose]

My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. The slippery slope argument against same sex marriage runs: “If we allow same sex marriage then we will have to allow fathers to marry their sons and mothers to marry their daughters.” This argument fails due to its attempt to link same sex marriage to incest. The failure lies in the absence of any real link between same sex marriage and incest. This is shown by applying exactly the same argument to opposite sex marriage: “If we allow opposite sex marriage then we will have to allow fathers to marry their daughters and mothers to marry their sons.” The sex of the marriage partners is not connected to the prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage; the two are separate. The change in the law does not make any change to the prohibited degrees of relationship, it just affects the sex of the partners.

Well guess what my friend if this ruling holds in CA then incestuous marriages, polygamist, etc. No where in his ruling does it isolate out just same-sex marriages. He uses the 14th amendment as the foundation of his ruling and from his argument using the 14th amendment, for the most part anything goes. Everyone has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So why can’t the incestous, polygamists, animal-lovers, etc. be left out of the pursuit of happiness?

What you will see in the near future if this ruling stands is other types of marriages will becomes acceptable. Heck in my opinion the polygamist have a better argument than the gay couples do.

You do not have a right to impose your religious beliefs on other people any more than they have a right to impose their beliefs on you. Proposition 8 is about a change in the civil law on marriage, it is not about changing anyone’s religion. US civil law on marriage is already non-Catholic because it allows for divorce and remarriage after divorce.

No you are right I do not have the right to impose my religious beliefs on other people, but I do have the right to voice my opinion and that is what I am doing. My opinion is that I haven’t heard an argument from your side why same-sex marriage should be allowed except for the “why not” argument. That argument has no weight and is useless.

Buddhism indeed has a morality; it is far more concerned with “You shall not kill” then with “You shall not commit adultery”. In its early years Buddhism did not even have a marriage service, Buddhist marriage services developed later after the Buddha’s death. Nowadays, as with Christianity, Buddhism has conservative sects who are against same sex marriage and more liberal sects who do not see a problem with it. Western Buddhists tend to be on the liberal side.

Pretty sad. At least liberalism is not discriminating on the religions it want to destroy.

Evidence please.

Where is yours. You guys throw out these comments like they are the gospel truth but you have no evidence yourselves. You are the one that made the claim that the wives in a polygamist relationship are lesbians not me. Where is your evidence and I will show you mine.

 

[ERose]

Precisely.

Nor does it effect the age restrictions on marriage, nor on the species of partner (bestiality). Those arguments are merely smear attempts.

Have you read the ruling? The judge based his ruling exclusively on the 14th amendment. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In his ruling he said under the 14th amendment gay men and women have the right to marry because they have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness like heterosexual couples. Well don’t polygamist, animal lovers, incest crowd, etc. have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as gay couples? If not then tell me why?
Also the judge pointed out that his position has always been on the side of the same-sex marriage and that the defendants were placed into the position to defend prop 8 to the judge and for the most part the plaintiffs where not placed in a position to provide valid arguments against the ruling. The examples given by the plaintiffs for why prop 8 should be rejected where insane. "Makes going to the bank and getting a loan with my partner difficult, I do not know what to call my partner, etc.
From the ruling, it is obvious that this judge had an agenda and that is it. It didn’t matter what the defendants would have argued, this judge would have ruled the way he ruled.

 

[ERose]

It is odd for someone to label their own argument as “slippery slope”. It is a logical fallacy.

No Larkin you are not getting the point. It is a slippery slope because if you allow same-sex marriage then you are going to eventually allow all forms of marriage that humanities perverted minds can come up with.

We are going to destroy 1000s of years old definition of marriage for the sake of maybe a percent of a percent of the population? That is stupid and deranged.

Not only that this is a blatant attempt to destroy marriage by the extremist on the left. These people already have the same rights as me and my wife do except to call each other husband or wife. Ask yourself then why are they doing this? Because these people that are behind these attacks are hateful and vengeful people, that is why.

 

[Kevin42]

No Larkin you are not getting the point. It is a slippery slope because if you allow same-sex marriage then you are going to eventually allow all forms of marriage that humanities perverted minds can come up with.

We are going to destroy 1000s of years old definition of marriage for the sake of maybe a percent of a percent of the population? That is stupid and deranged.

Not only that this is a blatant attempt to destroy marriage by the extremist on the left. These people already have the same rights as me and my wife do except to call each other husband or wife. Ask yourself then why are they doing this? Because these people that are behind these attacks are hateful and vengeful people, that is why.

I am not vengeful, I just want to get married.