Rebuttals for same sex marriage PLEASE!

[edwest211]

quote… “but no more mad than the decisions about marriage and family formation that gave rise to it.” end quote

Please explain how one thing gave rise to another.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It follows logically that because society holds that SSM is marriage and an equally good means of family formation, vetting of couples can place no preference on parents being mother+father vs say father+father.

I agree that that is madness. But I’m not sure what you think it follows from, in my statements.

 

[Rau]

I agree that that is madness. But I’m not sure what you think it follows from, in my statements.

Ignoring the parental mix does not follow (a society reasons it) from your statements, but from society’s conclusion that 2 men (say) can marry, and that such is an equally valid means of family formation.

 

[edwest211]

Two men cannot marry the same as one man and one woman. It is a legal fiction that is followed by ‘my family is a family just like yours.’ It can’t be. To grow up with two fathers who are, by legal fiat, married is not helpful for the child who later may, or may not, realize that the couple who raised him is not the equivalent of heterosexual parents, since these men are the product of male and female complementary.

But law-making bodies in various countries are falling to a “we want all the rights and benefits of marriage including a legal recognition that we are married as much as a man and woman are married.” That is illogical. Period. Just because something is made legal does not mean it’s right. And, as such, society, which is not a monolith, will protest such laws.

And society, especially those who disagree, will continue to be the subjects of a propaganda campaign that will continue and continue, and for those not paying attention, convince a few more members of society that something redefined is somehow the same as the actual article. God always leaves a faithful remnant in the midst of any social change caused by special interest groups working in concert on a global scale. So, in this case, I dissent.

 

[StarMapp]

As well it becomes a demonic ritual and Satan presides, as it is a mockery of God’s Sacrament, and the names “registered” in that unholy place for eternity. The vincible ignorant parties present are also noted for the influence their presence provides to the weak.

 

[josh987654321]

So what do we say to a gay couple who wants to adopt a child?

Shouldn’t we give heterosexual couples priority? so that as a far as possible that child has as close to what they unfortunately lost? Did you have a mum and dad?

God Bless You

Thank you for reading.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Shouldn’t we give heterosexual couples priority? so that as a far as possible that child has as close to what they unfortunately lost?

This seems like a very good position, and I hope that it can get more traction in secular circles.

 

[Poussin]

Sure seems like you are doing your darndest to impose your atheist beliefs on others.

 

[niceatheist]

Sure seems like you are doing your darndest to impose your atheist beliefs on others.

By suggesting that you shouldn’t be imposing your religious beliefs on others? Because that’s what “freedom of religion” seems to be around here; a bunch of angry conservative Christians that believe if society doesn’t toe their particular line, then somehow their religious freedom has been compromised.

I’ve already made it clear I think that cake bakers and sign makers and similar people should be protected from having to produce works that violate their religious consciences. But the idea that some shrinking minority of people should somehow retain the right to impose their view of what constitutes a civil marriage on everyone else, well, that’s too far for me.

 

[Poussin]

Well, if they are “shrinking” as you say, then their power to vote their own conscience (and not yours) should not be much of a threat. Freedom of religion is the freedom to form your own conscience and vote accordingly. You get to vote your conscience, and I get to vote mine. If they conflict then, well, that is call democracy in action. Why is this a threat to you other than an inability to use overused cliches?

 

[niceatheist]

Well, if they are “shrinking” as you say, then their power to vote their own conscience (and not yours) should not be much of a threat. Freedom of religion is the freedom to form your own conscience and vote accordingly. You get to vote your conscience, and I get to vote mine. If they conflict then, well, that is call democracy in action. Why is this a threat to you other than an inability to use overused cliches?

And what is it exactly you want to vote on? To remove the civil marital status from same sex partners that have been existence for a few years now? And would you really accept it if that failed?

But honestly, the idea of civil liberties being decided by a vote is pretty frightening. Catholics in the English-speaking world should be mindful of this, considering there was a time when English Catholics were penalized in England, all by votes in Parliament.

 

[Poussin]

All civil liberties are decided by vote, otherwise they would be called Constitutional rights. Marriage being a civil right, is therefore, very much subject to vote. We get to vote for other behaviors we deem deviant and we do not give them a free pass. The whole criminal code is about behaviors that the people have voted on that they find unacceptable.

As for your example of Catholics in England, well, that is precisely why we have a Constitutional right to free exercise of religion and not merely a civil right subject to popular will. When there is a threat that 2/3 of the states will agree to amend the Constitution to eliminate the 1st Amendment, then I will start to get concerned.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But honestly, the idea of civil liberties being decided by a vote is pretty frightening.

The idea of them being decided by judicial fiat is worse. I can absolutely understand the claim that same-sex marriage should be legal. But I cannot understand a court of nine judges declaring that same-sex marriage has ALWAYS BEEN legal in America, according to the Constitution. Whatever your view on same-sex marriage, doesn’t the PROCEDURE there strike you as suspect?

 

[niceatheist]

Then review the US Constitution if you’re confused.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Can you show me where, in the US Constitution, it says that I have a right to marry a man?

 

[niceatheist]

Can you show me where, in the US Constitution, it says that I have a right to marry a man?

Where in the Constitution does it say you can’t? But of course, that’s not what i’m referring to. First of all, the Bill of Rights was never intended to be exhaustive, so right from the get-go, there has been a built in notion that there could be other inferred rights. Second of all, I was referring to the Supreme Court’s role as a constitutional court, and in that capacity, the ability to both strike down laws and to expand upon the legal expansiveness of liberties.

If you have a problem with a role the Supreme Court has played over the last two centuries, then by all means, start advocating for it to be stripped of those powers. That is what you want, isn’t it? For there to be no counterbalance to the Executive and Legislative branches, for the Supreme Court to be like so many Latin American Supreme Courts, a paper tiger that does what its told.

 

[Rau]

But the idea that some shrinking minority of people should somehow retain the right to impose their view of what constitutes a civil marriage on everyone else, well, that’s too far for me.

No such imposition was proposed or would be possible. Marriage is a public matter, and the public decides the matter. Those against SSM have the same right to vote as those with a different view.

 

[Rau]

And would you really accept it if that failed?

Australia just voted to allow SSM. About 40% opposed, yet now accept the legal reality soon to be enacted. The well-behaved Australians will now move on to address potential implications of this change which may see just the kinds of imposition on persons contrary to conscience that you also reject.

 

[niceatheist]

But in a constitutional republic not everything is up for a vote. I can’t hold a plebiscite on imprisoning everyone with the monicker “Rau”. Even if the vote was for all Raus to be put in jail, it would be invalid and unenforceable.

 

[Rau]

But I cannot understand a court of nine judges declaring that same-sex marriage has ALWAYS BEEN legal in America, according to the Constitution.

Yes, that is indeed an amazing thing. An idea (SSM) that your forefathers had never imagined, and would undoubtedly never have incorporated into the meaning of marriage had that been addressed - is (hundreds of years later) found to have always been there!! This must rank as one of the most extraordinary pieces of judicial activism.