Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

[rlg94086]

Another poster brought this up, and I thought I’d chime in on it.

A marriage can not exist if the marital act can not be done. This means that those who are totally incapable of sex can not be married.

Since gay couples can not have sex, they can not be validly married. Gay sex =/= sex. They are two wholly different things.

Exactly.

 

[crazzeto]

Is this true? I don’t think it is. Inability to perform the marital act is very different than unwillingness. Say for example a man lost his genitals during a war. Would the Church prohibit him from marrying? Or a woman had a hysterectomy after a battle with uterine cancer. Would the Church prohibit her from marrying?

I think the only issue is willingness, not ability.

As clarified by rlg94086, and reitereated by Whiterace_Girl this is true with regards to impotence, but not infertility. A man who loses his genitles durring war can not be validly married in the Church. Such a marriage could not be ordered to God’s plan for marriage, any more than a homosexual one could be.

 

[rlg94086]

Is this true? I don’t think it is. Inability to perform the marital act is very different than unwillingness. Say for example a man lost his genitals during a war. Would the Church prohibit him from marrying? Or a woman had a hysterectomy after a battle with uterine cancer. Would the Church prohibit her from marrying?

I think the only issue is willingness, not ability.

Actually, I believe that the man who lost his genitals would not be allowed to marry, but the woman with a hysterectomy would.

 

[bingbang]

Gay marriage may have to legalized in all fifty states whether we want it or not and for us all that oppose gay mariage, What are we to do?

Live with it or move. What else can you do?

 

[Dale_M]

I see. And, the interpretation on the part of people who wish to define marriage as “two consenting adults” is more valid because…? Do tell.

Is there any legal reason to say otherwise?

 

[crazzeto]

My grandfather died in 2005 and I am quite sure that he voted democrat in 2004. There is a lot more to politics and one’s political party than gay marriage and abortion. If you asked a European politician about abortion or the death penalty it would throw them off because no one cares about these issues in politics…other than in America that is.

Is that why the irish are busy trying to fight attempts to introduce abortion on demand into their nation?

 

[edwest2]

In response to your first paragraph, I already responded to that in a previous post.

In resposne to your second paragraph, I am soooooooooo TIRED of this slippery slope argument. I have heard it literally hundreds of times. There are LOGICAL reasons why incest and pedophile marriages are not allowed to occur (such as birth defects, children can be easily taken advantage of, rape is bad, etc.) If there is a LOGICAL reason to prohibit gay marriage, please tell me. I fail to see one. No where did I say I supported pedophiles. You know it. I know it. So let’s stop it with this slippery slope bs and give me one logical reason why gay marriages would be very harmful to society.

Here it is:

massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[rapunzel77]

Is this true? I don’t think it is. Inability to perform the marital act is very different than unwillingness. Say for example a man lost his genitals during a war. Would the Church prohibit him from marrying? Or a woman had a hysterectomy after a battle with uterine cancer. Would the Church prohibit her from marrying?

I think the only issue is willingness, not ability.

Yes, it is true. There was a question as to weather or not my husband and I could get married due to a medical condition that my husband has. It was determined, after a couple of months of heartache that we could get married but we had to sign a document that stated that I couldn’t use my husband’s condition as grounds for an annulment should that ever come up. It was understood at the time that my husband would get the problem fixed. It has been almost two years and he still has the problem (he has had it for about 8 years) and the only reason why it hasn’t been fixed is because of the insurance company and his employer

 

[vsedriver]

If prop 8 was upheld. I bet you would have seen riots in SF and LA.

I bet not.

 

[Suudy]

You can separate the two. It’s called condoms.

Not legitimately. It violates the natural end of sex. Sex exists for procreation. To use contraception is to subvert that natural end, thus violating the natural order of things. This is why the Church teaches that contraception is illicit. It isn’t a religious argument, but a philisophical one.

Sex is essential? So what if two old people who can’t have sex get married? Is their marriage invalid because it has no sex in it?

It is essential in nature, not in fact. Just because a particular defect prevents an individual from participating in sex does not change their nature.

Why is homosexuality disordered? You have not responded to that.

I have, several times. Because it is not ordered towards procreation. The natural order of sex is procreation. Homosexual acts are disordered because they are not ordered toward procreation.

And would you deny the right for an infertile women to marry, since that is not a marriage for procreation?

You don’t seem to be grasping the point. An infertile woman is still a woman. An impotent man is still a man. Men and women, together, are ordered toward procreation. A particular defect in either man or woman does not change the nature of their relationship. So an infertile woman or an impotent man is still allowed to marry, since the essential nature of their relationship is ordered toward procreation.

Don’t confuse the particular with the general. A defect does not change the nature of a thing.

But like I said, it would be disordered if an infertile woman or an impotent man were to marry with a primary reason being to avoid procreation.

If you would, you’d be sick imo, but then your argument would hold.

Thanks for your opinion. But no, the argument doesn’t hold, because that isn’t what I argued.

 

[rlg94086]

Is there any legal reason to say otherwise?

Is there any legal reason to include a same-sex relationship? Manufacturing a right that doesn’t exist doesn’t seem to be a valid reason to me. Arbitrarily changing the societal definition of marriage by judicial fiat also doesn’t seem to be legally valid.

 

[edwest2]

To quote:

This seems pretty sensible.

Obviously, if a culture assets that homosexuals are unacceptable, the individual might disagree. If a person is functioning in society without problems, why would this be considered a disorder?

You are operating with incomplete information. It was also pointed out that a pedophile could function in society without any problems. A bunch of stupid academics felt it would be more compassionate to embrace the behavior so that being gay could lose the stigma of being called a disorder. They were wrong and only did it for “political” reasons.

God bless,
ed

 

[Dale_M]

Which is why there is nothing unconstitutional about limiting it to a man and a woman. Thanks for pointing that out.

Except there is nothing in the US Constitution to support such a decision.

Honestly, I expected better of you.

 

[Corki]

Is this true? I don’t think it is. Inability to perform the marital act is very different than unwillingness. Say for example a man lost his genitals during a war. Would the Church prohibit him from marrying? Or a woman had a hysterectomy after a battle with uterine cancer. Would the Church prohibit her from marrying?

I think the only issue is willingness, not ability.

As clarified by rlg94086, and reitereated by Whiterace_Girl this is true with regards to impotence, but not infertility. A man who loses his genitles durring war can not be validly married in the Church. Such a marriage could not be ordered to God’s plan for marriage, any more than a homosexual one could be.

And the woman who had a hysterectomy is infertile, not impotent.

Inability and unwillingness are BOTH impediments to a valid marriage. While technically, only men can be impotent, a women who could not complete the act of marital sex would not be able to marry either.

 

[vsedriver]

Does this mean all the gays in a traditional one man/one woman marriage are no longer married?

 

[edwest2]

I have always supported gay marriage, but now I’ve just become more outspoken about it. I agree, logic must be present in all reasons. If my brother was a pedophile, then I would try my hardest to stop his behavior or call the police. Stop bringing up pedophiles. This is about gays, not pedophiles.

My argument for gay rights contains strong passion, but my reasons are LOGICAL. Two people really love each other. These people are both consenting adults, and they aren’t related, so their union will not hurt anyone. So that rules out incest and pedophilia and polygamy. Therefore, I support it this union.

Gay marriages have no value to society? I’m pretty sure they would benefit gays A LOT. That’s like saying black rights have no value to society, conveniently that the society you speak of does in fact contain blacks. Completely illogical.

Your second point, that marriage is for procreation. It logically follows that infertile people should not be allowed to get married, since they apparently have no value to society in your eyes, as they cannot provide children. So that is illogical as well. Marriage is about love, sometimes about children. Unless you actually would agree that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married, in which case I’d end this discussion with you now.

And hey…marriages fuel the economy. And some gays will get a divorce,which will also fuel the economy. And ofcourse, marriage has great legal benefits to gay couples. So actually it has a TON of value.

Again, please give me a LOGICAL reason on how gay marriages harm society.

Commitment?

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

God bless,
ed

 

[Dale_M]

Please show a study that supplies such a link. It sounds like you’ve been reading fantasy novels rather than science. There is no evidence that homosexuality evolved in order to supply “additional surplus” for the survival of children.

Oh, I admit that I am speculating. But so are you.

If you have evidence, beyond armchair conjecture. to support your claims that homosexuality does not have support human survival in primitive settings, please present them.

 

[rlg94086]

Except there is nothing in the US Constitution to support such a decision.

Honestly, I expected better of you.

If there the Constitution is silent about it, the Constitution isn’t needed to “support a decision.”

Honestly, I expected better of you. Don’t you have any actual argument for the supposed unconstitutionality of defining marriage as heterosexual? Can you point to me where sexual preference is a protected class?

 

[Dale_M]

. We don’t base marriage on the fertility of the individuals.

In which case, what is the secular objection to gay marriage?

 

[rlg94086]

Oh, I admit that I am speculating. But so are you.

If you have evidence, beyond armchair conjecture. to support your claims that homosexuality** does not have** support human survival in primitive settings, please present them.

So, you want me to prove a negative? No thanks.

I find it sufficient to look at basic biology and evolution to determine that a homosexual act has no value from an evolutionary standpoint and that it has no value from a societal standpoint…it just plain doesn’t have any value…at all.