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

[Suudy]

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

This has been discussed several times.

Fertility is not the issue. The nature of the relationship is. Is the relationship ordered toward procreation?

 

[crazzeto]

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.

Your speculation has been disproved by China & India… If such a mechinism existed, such over populated nations would have incredibly higher rates of homosexuality. Akin to members of a species changing sex in a single sex environment in order to facilitate the procriation of the species (scientific fact, which again flys in the face of your hypothisis).

 

[vsedriver]

Well, if gender is irrelevant, I guess homosexual couples can bear children…legally anyway. I think gender may still be relevant biologically, but I guess we will have to wait for a judge to rule on that.

“From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta…”

If gender is irrelevant than so is number and relationship. I have 3 brothers I plan to marry.

 

[rlg94086]

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

I-n-d-i-v-i-d-u-a-l-s.

Please learn the difference between the nature of a relationship versus individuals. It will really help you when attempting to follow logical arguments.

 

[bingbang]

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.

Not everyone holds that definition for marriage. And men can certainly have sex. It isn’t vaginal, but anal sex is still sex (hence “sex” in the name of it).

 

[choy]

That’s arguing on the merits of the application of the law, ie, the good will of others, rather than the law. I’m sorry that it seems we’re all heading down this slippery slope. One can’t be opposed to “gay marriage” without being labled as a “hate-monger” or “homophobic”.

i know. which is why the hands of the people here and perhaps even the Church is tied. its more of a, “don’t speak out against us and we won’t speak out against you,” kind of attitude. its not ideal, but i’d settle for it rather than an all out war where they’re trying to break the Church open to allow their agenda and may force the Church underground

 

[JimG]

Looking back over the past half century, here’s what I see, starting around 1960.

• Widespread acceptance of contraception.
• Sexual revolution
• Rise of feminist ideology
• No fault divorce
• Legalization of abortion through 9 months of pregnancy
• 1.2 million abortions per year
• 50% divorce rate
• Explosion of the incidence of STD’s
• 42% out of wedlock pregnancy rate overall
• 74% out of wedlock pregnancy rate in the African American community
• Broken families, fatherless kids, single mothers dependent on government
• Aging population, fewer young people, putting a strain on Social Security & Medicare
• Homosexual marriage
• Declining national fertility rate

With gay marriage adding to the societal pressure against fertility and children, the fertility rate will probably continue to decline, ending in depopulation and extinction.

Counteracting that, we have the rise of Islam, which stands to be heir to the fall of American culture. I’m not sure though, if same sex couples approaching the Imam for marriage will emerge with their heads.

 

[Dale_M]

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.

LOL

The issue is equal protection under the law. If a government issues legal and financial benefits to heterosexual couples, it should do the same for homosexual couples.

Nothing more is being claimed. If heterosexual couples have a right to marriage (and its governmental benefits) so do homosexual couples.

 

[Suudy]

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

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.

I admit, I’m troubled by this. As I understand things, the nature of the relationship is what is at issue. And a particular defect (such as losing genitals in an accident, war, etc), does not change that nature. It is still ordered toward procreation, even though the defect prevents it in fact.

Is there a reference to Church teaching on this? Is this canon law? Or in the Catechism?

 

[mlund]

The body of legal writings from the time the Constitution and the 14th Amendment were written make it very clear what they meant by “marriage” when it came to the law. Trying to impose a new definition of “marriage” onto those laws and legal precedents is, of course, dishonest and unfaithful to the Constitution. So, no, the “U.S. Constitution doesn’t define marriage as a man and a woman” argument is groundless at its inception.

Furthermore, the assertion that same-sex “marriage” must be institutionalized and privileged by the state because it is not provably harmful is a Straw Man. The standard is not that something be proven harmful, but rather that something be presumed beneficial to the public interest. The grounds of harm only apply if private conduct is prohibited or subject to punitive actions. That is why the Texas anti-sodomy law was struck down - it was a prohibition against private conduct. Same-sex “marriage” is a requirement of public incentive for conduct, and thus the onus rests fully upon those demanding such privileges to exhibit how such unions provide the same public benefit sought after by promoting real marriages.

• Marty Lund

 

[crazzeto]

i know. which is why the hands of the people here and perhaps even the Church is tied. its more of a, “don’t speak out against us and we won’t speak out against you,” kind of attitude. its not ideal, but i’d settle for it rather than an all out war where they’re trying to break the Church open to allow their agenda and may force the Church underground

Honestly I see option 2 as preferable to option 1… In the case of option 1, the Church becomes guilty of grave personal sin.

 

[bingbang]

Looking back over the past half century, here’s what I see, starting around 1960.

• Widespread acceptance of contraception.
• Sexual revolution
• Rise of feminist ideology
• No fault divorce
• Legalization of abortion through 9 months of pregnancy
• 1.2 million abortions per year
• 50% divorce rate
• Explosion of the incidence of STD’s
• 42% out of wedlock pregnancy rate overall
• 74% out of wedlock pregnancy rate in the African American community
• Broken families, fatherless kids, single mothers dependent on government
• Aging population, fewer young people, putting a strain on Social Security & Medicare
• Homosexual marriage
• Declining national fertility rate

With gay marriage adding to the societal pressure against fertility and children, the fertility rate will probably continue to decline, ending in depopulation and extinction.

Counteracting that, we have the rise of Islam, which stands to be heir to the fall of American culture. I’m not sure though, if same sex couples approaching the Imam for marriage will emerge with their heads.

I have to applaud your rationalism. Gay marriage will indefinitely lead to extinction of Humans. Give this man a medal for some fine detective work.

 

[Dale_M]

Dale_M;6916413:

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

I-n-d-i-v-i-d-u-a-l-s.

Please learn the difference between the nature of a relationship versus individuals. It will really help you when attempting to follow logical arguments.

Eh?

Would you be willing to explain?

 

[choy]

LOL

The issue is equal protection under the law. If a government issues legal and financial benefits to heterosexual couples, it should do the same for homosexual couples.

Nothing more is being claimed. If heterosexual couples have a right to marriage (and its governmental benefits) so do homosexual couples.

at what point do you stop protecting certain people under the law? pretty soon other immoral and/or criminal people will also be seeking protection under the law. it doesn’t make sense to extend protection to everyone who by their actions damage the moral fabric of society

 

[rlg94086]

LOL

The issue is equal protection under the law. If a government issues legal and financial benefits to heterosexual couples, it should do the same for homosexual couples.

LOL

There is “equal protection under the law.” Not all heterosexual couples receive legal and financial benefits - only those who are married. The issue is not “equal protection” it is the arbitrary redefining “marriage.” There is no value to society to redefine marriage, and there is no discrimination invovled

Dale_M:

Nothing more is being claimed. If heterosexual couples have a right to marriage (and its governmental benefits) so do homosexual couples.

Only if you arbitrarily redefine marriage. Sexual preference is not a protected class of person. It is a desire.

 

[edwest2]

Have you seen any gay couples on Divorce Court?
Do you know how Ellen Degeneres is doing with her married partner?

I knew a family of 8 siblings that were married and one of them was gay and was married to this same sex partner. As years went by there were many divorces among the siblings and the only that held its own was the gay marriage.

Does that prove my point?

Ellen Degeneres called Anne Heche her wife. Melissa Etheridge just broke up with her partner.

Gay divorce is already an issue:

cnn.com/2010/LIVING/05/03/texas.gay.divorce/index.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[rlg94086]

Eh?

Would you be willing to explain?

Okay…see if you can follow:

A man (a human with male sexuality) and a woman (a human with female sexuality) have the ability to procreate a child (a new human being) through something called a “sexual act” where the sperm from a man impregnates the ovum of a woman.

Now, this is true of men and women, by nature…iow, if you are speaking about the essence of procreation, this is how it happens.

An “individual” is only one man or woman. Marriage is not based on an individual. It is based on the very nature of humans and the procreative act.

Clear?

 

[Corki]

The body of legal writings from the time the Constitution and the 14th Amendment were written make it very clear what they meant by “marriage” when it came to the law. Trying to impose a new definition of “marriage” onto those laws and legal precedents is, of course, dishonest and unfaithful to the Constitution. So, no, the “U.S. Constitution doesn’t define marriage as a man and a woman” argument is groundless at its inception.

• Marty Lund

This is one of the best explanations presented so far.

In order to rationalize same-sex marriage, you have to redefine the very concept/word/instituation of marriage. The same cannot be said about any of the other qualities put forward as moral equivalencies. You don’t have to redefine race to have racial equality or redefine gender to have equality between the sexes.

 

[crazzeto]

I admit, I’m troubled by this. As I understand things, the nature of the relationship is what is at issue. And a particular defect (such as losing genitals in an accident, war, etc), does not change that nature. It is still ordered toward procreation, even though the defect prevents it in fact.

Is there a reference to Church teaching on this? Is this canon law? Or in the Catechism?

Code of Canon Law #1048
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

1098

Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

Code of Canon Law TOC
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

 

[Brooklyn]

Looking back over the past half century, here’s what I see, starting around 1960.

• Widespread acceptance of contraception.
• Sexual revolution
• Rise of feminist ideology
• No fault divorce
• Legalization of abortion through 9 months of pregnancy
• 1.2 million abortions per year
• 50% divorce rate
• Explosion of the incidence of STD’s
• 42% out of wedlock pregnancy rate overall
• 74% out of wedlock pregnancy rate in the African American community
• Broken families, fatherless kids, single mothers dependent on government
• Aging population, fewer young people, putting a strain on Social Security & Medicare
• Homosexual marriage
• Declining national fertility rate

With gay marriage adding to the societal pressure against fertility and children, the fertility rate will probably continue to decline, ending in depopulation and extinction.

Counteracting that, we have the rise of Islam, which stands to be heir to the fall of American culture. I’m not sure though, if same sex couples approaching the Imam for marriage will emerge with their heads.

I think you have done an excellent job of summarizing the road that has led to where we are now. And you very rightfully put “contraception” at the top of the list. When society changed sex into a toy instead of the life-giving act of love between a man and woman that it was created to be, our society was doomed.

I also believe that the turning point of our society was Woodstock 1969. When society decided that hundreds of thousands of young people rolling around in the mud, getting high on illicit drugs and having random sex was a good thing, there was no turning back. I find it fitting that so many in our immoral society look back on Woodstock as a “good” thing. Woodstock was the devil at his best. The devil’s aim is to destroy mankind. What better way to accomplish the destruction of mankind than to change the use of the means to populate the world - sex - into something that is not life giving, but destructive.