Question about Gay Marriage

[LittleDeb]

Why are there two, and only two people, in marriage? I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me what you want to say instead of playing games? I can understand you better when you are simply straightforward and honest.

I am saying exactly what I want to say. I am being very straightforward. I have asked “Why are there only 2 people in marriage?”

You have answered that you don’t know. Fine, then you don’t know. Yet you are saying that we are “denying a right” by saying that people of the same sex are incapable of marriage. Your stance of 2 men or 2 women is an arbitrary line. You really don’t know why there are 2 and only 2 people in a marriage? WOW.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Why are there two, and only two people, in marriage? I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me what you want to say instead of playing games? I can understand you better when you are simply straightforward and honest.

The question has been asked, if two people, a couple, love each other why can’t they be married?

Okay, but why limit marriage to just two people? Why not three people if they love one another? Or four? That is what is meant.

I think it is a valid question. Why can’t marriage involve more than two people? After all, if they love one another…

 

[mackbrislawn]

Marriage is a civil right.
In the Catholic teachings, marriage is a sacrament.

In the United States, we are supposed to separate our churches from our government in order to protect each from the influence of the other.

If your argument is about religion, it has no place in our government. Just like our government shouldn’t come into your Church and dictate what ceremonies it can or cannot perform.

Our State Constitution (as I am also Californian) expressly states that you cannot discriminate against a group based on sexual orientation. So, access to public institutions such as marriage cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation alone. Prop 8 had to amend the State Constitution to take this specific right away from a small, formerly protected, minority. Nobody wanted to force Catholics to perform gay weddings. So, why did Catholics have to force the rest of us from performing gay weddings in our City Halls? No matter how weird or offensive or troubling Catholic weddings or marriages might seem to them- nobody was trying to take them away from you. So, why eliminate this right for others?

I’ve been paying close attention to this debate… still haven’t heard ONE GOOD REASON why same sex couples shouldn’t have the right to civil marriage. The actual teaching of the Catholic church (which you can see easily at the FAQ on dignity usa’s web site) says we should respect the rights of all people. It’s time to start practicing what is preached.

Actually, marriage is a privilege, not a right. If it were a right, a license to marry would not be needed. Compare it to a driver’s license–we are told driving is a privilege, and hence we can be granted the privilege, be given a license to drive, if certain conditions are met.

The same with marriage–we are granted the privilege of marrying via a license if certain conditions are met. Some of the conditions are that the persons not be already married, not too closely related, of the right age, etc. One of the conditions has also always been that the prospective partners be of the opposite sex. Perhaps that condition should be removed, I don’t know. But at least when expressed in this way, we are now framing the question properly, and eliminating red herrings that confuse the issue.

Actually, access to marriage is not denied, and never has been, on the basis of sexual orientation. A person’s sexual orientation is not one of the conditions to be met to be granted a marriage license.

As far as religion not having a place in government, and in regard to the number of persons involved in marriage, the limitation to two people is in reality an influence of Christianity. So the fact that the government restricts marriage to two persons is itself religion in government. Heck, in the history of the world strict monogamy, and monogamy only, has been less common than polygamy. This is the answer to the question of, why two people in marriage?

 

[sedonaman]

“…Is marriage definable as a ‘human right’?”

The backdrop we are working against in our society seems to be that everyone must be treated exactly the same in all respects all the time; and anything someone wants to do but is kept from doing, suddenly becomes a right.

If marriage is a right and I want to marry, but no woman will marry me, does the government have to guarantee that right by forcing one to marry me?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The question has been asked, if two people, a couple, love each other why can’t they be married?

Okay, but why limit marriage to just two people? Why not three people if they love one another? Or four? That is what is meant.

I think it is a valid question. Why can’t marriage involve more than two people? After all, if they love one another…

That is the next item on the homosexual agenda.

 

[Ailina]

"That is the next item on the homosexual agenda."

I’m not sure that is the next item on the homosexual agenda. Rather, it is the next item on the agenda of morally relativistic people, who don’t understand the real meaning of sacramental marriage, people who think sex outside of marriage is okay, people who think the ultimate virtue is tolerance, meaning avert your eyes and keep your mouth shut and never question any of the current unravelling of our society.

 

[holy_wood]

Religious answers to this question are good when dealing with Christians but for the people who are not here are some resources for my fellow Catholics.

If you wish to read scholarly peer-reviewed findings related to the issue of gay-marriage, parenting, relationships, ect. I suggest marriagedebate.com, familyfacts.org, as well as heritage.org

The link below directs you to a 39 page argument from the University of St. Thomas Law Journal which argues for why gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage. I HIGHLY suggest reading it.

marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf

The above is actually critiquing the majority opinion in the Massachusetts case that allowed same-sex marriage; for something that gets to the point try…

What is Marriage For? The Public Purpose of Marriage Law

For all you people out their who believe that gay and lesbian relationships are no different than heterosexual relationships I suggest reading…http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/353528.pdf

**“Relationship Outcomes and Their Predictors: Longitudinal Evidence from Heterosexual Married, Gay Cohabiting, and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples” **

Source:** Kurdek, Lawrence A. Journal of Marriage and the Family Vol. 60, Number . August, 1998. Page(s) 553-568.**

Findings: Compared with heterosexual cohabiting or married couples, male homosexual couples and lesbian couples were more likely to experience the dissolution of a cohabiting relationship.
Sample or Data Description: 236 married, 66 gay cohabiting, and 51 lesbian cohabiting couples from two separate longitudinal studies.
**
Gay Parenting?**

I suggest reading **“Do Mothers and Fathers Matter?”
**
The Html link is located Here for copy and paste.

As well as** “No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting”

Can you trust the Studies relating to gay parenting?
**
** Report on Homosexual Parenting Shown to be Biased
**
The link to Dr. Quick’s analyses in the article is broken **here **is the proper link.
I understand its a lot of reading but this is what separates the educated from the ignorant. Its your choice but if you support or oppose gay marriage you will benefit greatly from reading the links I have posted.

If you want specific studies for a particular concern just PM me and I’ll see if I have it saved on my computer somewhere. And if the links don’t work PM me your e-mail and I’ll attach the file for you to read.

This might also interest you…

**[Divorce-Risk Patterns in Same-Sex „Marriages“ in Norway and Sweden](http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22Divorce-Risk+Patterns+in+Same-Sex+Marriages+in+Norway+and+Sweden%22Andersson%2C+Gunnar&fr=ffds1&u=www.uni-koeln.de/wiso-)**

Based on data from legally registered same-sex partnerships in Sweden, homosexual male couples were 1.5 times as likely (50 percent more likely) to “divorce” as married opposite-sex couples. Lesbian couples were 2.67 times as likely (167 percent more likely) to “divorce” as heterosexual married couples over a similar period of time. When controls for demographic characteristics associated with increased risk of divorce were added to the analysis, male homosexual couples were 1.35 times as likely (35 percent more likely) to divorce, and lesbian couples were three times as likely (200 percent more likely) to divorce as heterosexual married couples were.
**
Sample or Data Description:** Longitudinal information from population registers in Norway and Sweden
**
Source: **Andersson, Gunnar, Noack, Turid, Seierstad, Ane, and Weedon-Fekjaer, Harald Working Paper Vol. Presented at Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Number . April 1-3, 2004. Page(s) 1-28.

 

[apromisemade]

Here’s how I think of it. If it was printed in a newspaper one day that in some city there were two buses that were of the same quality and each went the same route at pretty much the same time, but one was restricted to only married couples and one was intended for the single people simply because whoever owned the buses thought the two should not be allowed to ride on the same bus, it would spark outrage (you would think).

It’s not about having “the same rights that are granted to a married couple.” The right to marry is the topic, the issue is **equal treatment. ** It wouldn’t matter if the buses were of the same size and quality, the simple fact the two groups of people were seperated because someone favored one over the other is, to quote the famous court case, “inherently unequal.”

What I think you need to understand that a lot of your friends are probably thinking along the lines of “why does it hurt anybody if gay people are allowed to marry.” I have no problem with the Catholic Church teaching against homosexuality, that’s their right. But here in America it’s not the job of the state to uphold the Bible but rather the U.S constitution.

I say, if it is legal for the KKK to publicly assemble in a public space and preach their beliefs of hate and intolerance with a loud microphone in broad daylight on Martin Luther King day, then it should be legal for gay people to marry.

But that’s just me.

 

[GreenLantern]

Here’s how I think of it. If it was printed in a newspaper one day that in some city there were two buses that were of the same quality and each went the same route at pretty much the same time, but one was restricted to only married couples and one was intended for the single people simply because whoever owned the buses thought the two should not be allowed to ride on the same bus, it would spark outrage (you would think).

It’s not about having “the same rights that are granted to a married couple.” The right to marry is the topic, the issue is **equal treatment. ** It wouldn’t matter if the buses were of the same size and quality, the simple fact the two groups of people were seperated because someone favored one over the other is, to quote the famous court case, “inherently unequal.”

What is your viewpoint on close family members marrying?

If two men can get married because of the issue of equality, then why can not two siblings? Would they not be treated differently under the law? Patrick and Susan Stübing, a brother and sister from Germany, certainly think they are being unfairly discriminated against under the law.

The issue can’t be the risk of disorders resulting from inbreeding since no one would argue that two diabetics can’t marry because of how they will pass on their disorder to their child. There is also of course the option of an incestual marriage among members of the same sex which would render this issue moot.

Whenever I ask people that support gay marriage but not incestual marriage this, their responses run from “It’s completely different” to “that’s disgusting” to “It’s just… wrong”. Comments which are almost identical to some of the negative gut reactions to gay marriage which I have heard.

I’m just really trying to wrap my around the concept that if marriage is an institution based on egalitarian principles, then why is an incestual marriage different from a gay marriage? I’d appreciate it if someone could really just explain this to me and without brushing me off as a bigot.

 

[sedonaman]

… the issue is **equal treatment. **

The issue is NOTequal treatment.

Consider this:

"We all love and appreciate honesty, and it’s finally coming from the most unlikely of sources—the homosexual agenda. …

"You see, back in August, my jaw hit the floor when I read a column 365gay.com/features/082908-corvino Corvino wrote that was breathtakingly honest. You see, for many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of ‘equality,’ ‘benefits,’ and ‘fairness.’ Yet Corvino provided a breath of fresh air, telling us what those who engage in homosexual behavior really want: moral approval.
Of course, many of us have known this all along, but it’s nice to finally hear about it from the other side. This groundbreaking concession now provides an opportunity for an honest public discourse on what homosexual advocates are really after. They want your heart and soul. It’s not enough to just be tolerant.

…"

“Finally, ‘Straight Talk’ From the Homosexual Agenda”
by Austin Nimocks
townhall.com/columnists/AustinNimocks/2008/10/20/finally,_straight_talk_from_the_homosexual_agenda

Do they have a right to demand your very soul?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

It’s not about having “the same rights that are granted to a married couple.” The right to marry is the topic, the issue is **equal treatment. ** It wouldn’t matter if the buses were of the same size and quality, the simple fact the two groups of people were seperated because someone favored one over the other is, to quote the famous court case, “inherently unequal.”

From the beginning of time until the Massachusetts case (Goodridge v. Public Health) marriage has always been the union of men and women and homosexuals have always had identical right with everyone else in society, i.e., the opportunity to marry anyone of the opposite sex who would have them. Thats equal treatment under the law. Homosexuals chose not to avail themselves of that opportunity. That was a decision they made. However, instead of accepting the consequenses of their decision, homosexuals decided to overturn the laws of our society and deprive the majority of the right to decide what their society should look like.

‘Equal rights’ is the legal trick the homosexual lobby found, along with a corrupt judge, to ‘end run’ the law and the traditional mores of society. Now we have the entirely absurd practice of men ‘marrying’ men and children 5 years old being brainwashed with another absurdity, that Heather has two mommies.

But the whole thing is really a tragic farce. See message #164 above for the real reason homosexuals want to marry. As I have said for years, they want moral approval for their sex acts. They want the rest of us to tell them ‘It’s okay. What you do is not degraded and disordered.’ No sale. Even if we ended up telling them (you) that, they will still feel guilt because they know what they do is degraded and disordered.

 

[apromisemade]

What is your viewpoint on close family members marrying?

If you want my viewpoint, I will sum it up by citing a scenario I saw on TV. It was a situation in which two people living in the same town met, fell in love, and married. Only to discover aferward that they were half brother and sister. They were of course devestated and went through a lot of confusion before deciding that the bond that comes from growing up together in the same home and/or family is what really makes a brother and sister.

In normal circumstances, growing up in the same family creates a mental taboo against marrying and having kids. But there are always going to be unique circumstances. And one must bear in mind that there are multiple cultures and religions in which marrying within your blood family is not unnacceptable even today. In that sense I suppose you could sort of compare the two types of marriage in that they are a) in the minority, and b) bothersome to us mostly just because we are a christian nation and it is offensive to our sensibilities.

 

[apromisemade]

The issue is NOTequal treatment.

Consider this:

"We all love and appreciate honesty, and it’s finally coming from the most unlikely of sources—the homosexual agenda. …

"You see, back in August, my jaw hit the floor when I read a column 365gay.com/features/082908-corvino Corvino wrote that was breathtakingly honest. You see, for many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of ‘equality,’ ‘benefits,’ and ‘fairness.’ Yet Corvino provided a breath of fresh air, telling us what those who engage in homosexual behavior really want: moral approval.
Of course, many of us have known this all along, but it’s nice to finally hear about it from the other side. This groundbreaking concession now provides an opportunity for an honest public discourse on what homosexual advocates are really after. They want your heart and soul. It’s not enough to just be tolerant.

…"

“Finally, ‘Straight Talk’ From the Homosexual Agenda”
by Austin Nimocks
townhall.com/columnists/AustinNimocks/2008/10/20/finally,_straight_talk_from_the_homosexual_agenda

Do they have a right to demand your very soul?

I just read this article you posted, and I honestly can’t understand what you’re so up in arms about. The person writing this article didn’t get up on some soap box and say it was his “agenda” to make Americans believe a certain way. He specfically states that people ought to be able to think the way they want, but that it would be nice if they accepted it as morally acceptable. Think about, he is not demanding anybody do anything. He is simply wishing gay people could hold eachothers hand while walking down the sidewalk without the fear of being lynched the next day by someone who saw. He is not vying for anyones “heart and soul.”

If people saw it as morally acceptable, think of it, Matthew Shepard might still be alive today.

 

[apromisemade]

Even if we ended up telling them (you) that, they will still feel guilt because they know what they do is degraded and disordered.

Okay, first off, I don’t know what you mean by “you” as I am not gay. And secondly, how do you know what gay people “know.” How do you know that they feel what they do is degrading. Or more importantly, what to you is degrading about it. And I totally don’t get your argument about how they ought to all just go to Massachusetts and not let people decide what they want their society to “look like.” If a divorced woman was able to get a job in one state and not the other, I assume that would upset you?

 

[AndyF]

randomguy:

In the eyes of God there is no such thing has a marriage between homosexuals. So what they are doing is a cult ritual and it honors Satan who presides over it. He’s quite thrilled over the idea I might add and he hopes more insult God’s Sacrament in this way.

AndyF

 

[jean8]

Pleasure shared by two people loving each other.

Why can we not simply admit that the #1 reason to oppose this all is because of what the Church teaches?

Still, I stand by my position that it is not the Church’s prerogative to control other people’s lives through the state-apparatus against their free will.

How about God? Does he control your life? Do you have a pesonal relationship with your Savior?
God gave us free will, but he also gave us the Ten Commandments.
Homosexuality, isn’t the only sin listed, See 1 Cor.6:9-10,
Lev.18:22, 20:13 Rom.1:26

God bless,
jean8

 

[sedonaman]

Think about, he is not demanding anybody do anything. He is simply wishing gay people could hold each others hand while walking down the sidewalk without the fear of being lynched …"

Here all along I thought it was so they could visit each other in the hospital.

If people saw it as morally acceptable, think of it, Matthew Shepard might still be alive today.

“If” is the biggest word in the English language. By asking me to “see it as morally acceptable”, you are asking me to alter my moral beliefs. This is asking for my soul. No one has a right to do that, no matter how trivial it is made to sound. [That is why I think we should call them what they are, sodomites, not gays. There is nothing “gay” about a sodomite lifestyle. [Even the word “lifestyle” carries a connotation of approval.]

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Pleasure shared by two people loving each other.

You can put child abusers in that category. How do like your logic now? Once you start making major moral decisions based on pleasure, you have doomed your society to extinction.

Why can we not simply admit that the #1 reason to oppose this all is because of what the Church teaches?

Because it’s not true. The morals and mores of a society, many of which have been in place for many centuries, are there for a reason. Society has a compelling interest in keeping marriage between a man and a woman.

Still, I stand by my position that it is not the Church’s prerogative to control other people’s lives through the state-apparatus against their free will.

Do you think it’s prerogative of the courts to control the lives of the majority against their will? That’s what’s happening now and I notice you have no complaint about that.

EVERY! SINGLE! TIME! the matter of homosexual marriage has been put before the voters, it has failed and the homosexual lobby has gone straight to the courthouse to get half a dozen judges to subvert our democracy and overrule the will of the people in violation of constitutional law. Homosexual marriage has become the contentious issue it is precisely because the homosexual lobby is in court in every state in the country trying, through the laws, to normalize homosexuality.

The Church teaches what she has always taught, has every right to teach and will continue to teach no matter how much you want to silence her. Get used to it.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

If you want my viewpoint, I will sum it up by citing a scenario I saw on TV. It was a situation in which two people living in the same town met, fell in love, and married. Only to discover aferward that they were half brother and sister. They were of course devestated and went through a lot of confusion before deciding that the bond that comes from growing up together in the same home and/or family is what really makes a brother and sister.

You saw it on television. Wow. Hollywood is a major pusher of the homosexual agenda. It brainwashes people by doing exactly what it did to you with that ‘cute’ little film you saw: create a bleeding-heart story about true and innocent love and oppose the lovers with the moral values of society, thereby making morality evil and bestiality the victim. That greases the slippery slope you and millions of others are on and causes you to believe lies. If it wasn’t so pathetic, it’d be a joke.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

He specfically states that people ought to be able to think the way they want, but that it would be nice if they accepted it as morally acceptable.

“It would be nice.”??? How nice. That was the opening shot. The demand that it be morally acceptable is already in place and there’s nothing ‘nice’ about it.