Rights homosexuals miss out on

[frobert]

Wow so just as abortion illegalization revolves around the fact you’re killing somebody whether or not they are inside the womb. The same applies for gay marriage, what revolves around this is pretty much that it isn’t a marriage because it isn’t with a true man and true woman, I say true because of the possibility of a transvestite. But yea is this the case for gay marriage ? After this I may want to ask a few more questions, so I can settle down on a final conclusion

I would not be so fast and loose with analogies. Abortion and gay marriages are entirely different things with the only overlap being that some religions consider both sins.

On the other hand there are both similarities and differences between SS marriage and OS marriage. The problem arises when right wing politicians and some religions want to deny civil marriage to a particular class of individuals an/or demand the exclusive use of a word whose meaning has has changed throughout time and among cultures and continues to change. In the US the term marriage has been defined and/or changed in state civil law within a contractual agreement between the parties and the state. Religions of course are free to add their own additional requirements and obligations for their followers. What remains identical for all marriages are the state requirements, responsibilities, obligations and benefits. SSM is before the Supreme Court where it will be decided on the merits of marriage as a civil right.

 

[WilliamOK]

I would not be so fast and loose with analogies. Abortion and gay marriages are entirely different things with the only overlap being that some religions consider both sins.

On the other hand there are both similarities and differences between SS marriage and OS marriage. The problem arises when right wing politicians and some religions want to deny civil marriage to a particular class of individuals an/or demand the exclusive use of a word whose meaning has has changed throughout time and among cultures and continues to change. In the US the term marriage has been defined and/or changed in state civil law within a contractual agreement between the parties and the state. Religions of course are free to add their own additional requirements and obligations for their followers. What remains identical for all marriages are the state requirements, responsibilities, obligations and benefits. SSM is before the Supreme Court where it will be decided on the merits of marriage as a civil right.

Exactly the same way that murdering your own son or daughter through abortion was decided on the legal merits. What once was a universally condemned practice in America, suddenly, the legal wizards told us, was found to actually be a “right” that was right there in the constitution all along! Ever read Animal Farm? We’re in it now.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

I would not be so fast and loose with analogies. Abortion and gay marriages are entirely different things with the only overlap being that some religions consider both sins.

On the other hand there are both similarities and differences between SS marriage and OS marriage. The problem arises when right wing politicians and some religions want to deny civil marriage to a particular class of individuals an/or demand the exclusive use of a word whose meaning has has changed throughout time and among cultures and continues to change. In the US the term marriage has been defined and/or changed in state civil law within a contractual agreement between the parties and the state. Religions of course are free to add their own additional requirements and obligations for their followers. What remains identical for all marriages are the state requirements, responsibilities, obligations and benefits. SSM is before the Supreme Court where it will be decided on the merits of marriage as a civil right.

That doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do, weed legalization isn’t the right thing to do and yet a drug that messes up reason is being legalized for stupid reasons. Why do we need pot heads walking around everywhere? I am only sorta new to this but I will give you what I noticed to be right, no matter what box you put it in, gay marriage will always be wrong, you can say it is their right, but no matter what I won’t allow it because marriage is between a man and a woman. That is why marriage was invented, strictly for those 2 people male and female. If you change it, it just allows others to redefine the original marriage of it.

One question I have for the forums is that if two male and females get married but can’t have kids does that destruct the meaning of marriage, since a lot of people here said it was for procreation? What would be the meaning of it in this case? Please respond to this. I don’t like arguing.

 

[WilliamOK]

One question I have for the forums is that if two male and females get married but can’t have kids does that destruct the meaning of marriage, since a lot of people here said it was for procreation? What would be the meaning of it in this case? Please respond to this. I don’t like arguing.

The most basic idea about marriage is that marriage means “the two become one flesh”, as Jesus put it in Mark 10 and Matthew 19. If all you remember is that, you’ll be able to stay clear headed most of the time on the marriage issue. That is kind of the key.

When the two become one flesh, procreation can happen. And that’s actually the ONLY way procreation can happen. It doesn’t ALWAYS happen, but since it’s the only way that new life can happen, it’s a unique type of relationship.

The thing about people who don’t have children is, you don’t know whether they’re going to be having children until AFTER they’re married. You have to see what happens. Many women who thought they were infertile, end up having babies later as a surprise. So if we were to wait until they had the baby before we said it was a valid marriage … well, you can see that just wouldn’t work. So the key is that you have to have the “one flesh” union first. Then after that, you hope for the best that procreation will follow, and sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t.

With 2 men who are together there are not going to be any surprise pregnancies. That I can guarantee. So that is the difference in a nutshell.

 

[AyJSimon]

The most basic idea about marriage is that marriage means “the two become one flesh”, as Jesus put it in Mark 10 and Matthew 19. If all you remember is that, you’ll be able to stay clear headed most of the time on the marriage issue. That is kind of the key.

When the two become one flesh, procreation can happen. And that’s actually the ONLY way procreation can happen. It doesn’t ALWAYS happen, but since it’s the only way that new life can happen, it’s a unique type of relationship.

The thing about people who don’t have children is, you don’t know whether they’re going to be having children until AFTER they’re married. You have to see what happens. Many women who thought they were infertile, end up having babies later as a surprise. So if we were to wait until they had the baby before we said it was a valid marriage … well, you can see that just wouldn’t work. So the key is that you have to have the “one flesh” union first. Then after that, you hope for the best that procreation will follow, and sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t.

With 2 men who are together there are not going to be any surprise pregnancies. That I can guarantee. So that is the difference in a nutshell.

Whenever someone points out that an elderly couple who gets married has no more chance of conceiving than a gay couple, this is when we hear talk about the possibility of “miracles.” Yet, nobody seems to want to grant the possibility of a miracle in the case of the gay couple.

 

[Rau]

Whenever someone points out that an elderly couple who gets married has no more chance of conceiving than a gay couple, this is when we hear talk about the possibility of “miracles.” Yet, nobody seems to want to grant the possibility of a miracle in the case of the gay couple.

The possibility of miracles is irrelevant to whether a couple is able to marry.

 

[AyJSimon]

The possibility of miracles is irrelevant to whether a couple is able to marry.

Correct - the secular definition of marriage doesn’t give one wit about a couple’s ability to procreate. The Catholic definition only claims to - unless two people in their 80s want to tie the knot - then suddenly it doesn’t matter.

 

[WilliamOK]

The possibility of miracles is irrelevant to whether a couple is able to marry.

I’m just glad he finally stopped talking about The Prostate.

 

[vsedriver]

I would dispute the word “small”. A reasonably large number of marriages include a woman past her menopause, and so such unions are unable to be generative.

Given that such a percentage exists, then it is clear that the ability to be generative is not a requirement for marriage. Non-generative couples may form a valid marriage. Hence you need to find a different argument to counter the move to allowing same sex marriage. Using the non-generative argument is too easily countered.

rossum

you are missing the point of the difference. A man and a woman can always be a father and a mother. Even if they can no longer procreate, they can be adoptive parents. 2 men or 2 woman can never be a father and a mother. Even if a gay couple adopt, they are depriving the child of a natural right to both a mother and a father.

 

[AyJSimon]

I’m just glad he finally stopped talking about The Prostate.

I know. Isn’t sexual anatomy gross? I can definitely see the appeal of just talking about it as though one were an expert. I had to make the poor guy go to WebMD to learn something about it - can you imagine how that must’ve felt?

 

[Rau]

Correct - the secular definition of marriage doesn’t give one wit about a couple’s ability to procreate. The Catholic definition only claims to - unless two people in their 80s want to tie the knot - then suddenly it doesn’t matter.

There is only 1 definition of marriage. All the rest is supporting framework. It’s just that nowadays, some folks think that the supporting framework has subsumed the marriage!

Capacity to procreate is not a prerequisite to any explanation of marriage I’ve heard. I think this has been said to you many times on this thread.

 

[Rau]

I’m just glad he finally stopped talking about The Prostate.

Yeah. Reminds me of my last checkup - I shiver at the thought!

 

[AyJSimon]

There is only 1 definition of marriage. All the rest is supporting framework. It’s just that nowadays, some folks think that the supporting framework has subsumed the marriage!

Capacity to procreate is not a prerequisite to any explanation of marriage I’ve heard. I think this has been said to you many times on this thread.

Nonsense. It’s something I hear from Catholics at every opportunity, then it’s conveniently forgotten or riddled with technicalities whenever the plain exceptions to the rule are mentioned.

There are many definitions of marriage. Some Christian denominations are already sanctioning gay marriages. A conservative rabbi in Los Angeles has already announced he’ll be doing the same in his synagogue. The secular government will soon be following suit. The Catholic Church can hold to any definition it likes - but apparently, that’s not good enough. It wants the secular government’s definition of civil marriage to conform as well.

 

[vsedriver]

The secular government will soon be following suit. The Catholic Church can hold to any definition it likes - but apparently, that’s not good enough. It wants the secular government’s definition of civil marriage to conform as well.

then I can count on your help to overturn the anti incest laws so I can marry my mother. After all, why should be discriminated against based on our biological relationship?

 

[WilliamOK]

There is only 1 definition of marriage. All the rest is supporting framework. It’s just that nowadays, some folks think that the supporting framework has subsumed the marriage!

Capacity to procreate is not a prerequisite to any explanation of marriage I’ve heard.

That’s why I think it is simpler to use the “one flesh” explanation. It emphasizes the simple reality that marriage means husband and wife, and it also uses the same wording Jesus used in the Gospel when He talked about marriage. So it combines the religious with the observable reality that even an atheist can see, the uniqueness of the male-female union and the fact that two people of the same sex are a different kind relationship.

 

[AyJSimon]

then I can count on your help to overturn the anti incest laws so I can marry my mother. After all, why should be discriminated against based on our biological relationship?

You’ll receive the exact same amount of material support as I’ve given to the SSM movement.

For the record, issues of informed consent aside, it doesn’t matter to me, in the slightest, who anyone wants to marry. I realized a long time ago that it doesn’t affect me. I’m worried about real moral issues - not cosmetic ones.

 

[WilliamOK]

Nonsense. It’s something I hear from Catholics at every opportunity, then it’s conveniently forgotten or riddled with technicalities whenever the plain exceptions to the rule are mentioned.

There are many definitions of marriage. Some Christian denominations are already sanctioning gay marriages. A conservative rabbi in Los Angeles has already announced he’ll be doing the same in his synagogue. The secular government will soon be following suit. The Catholic Church can hold to any definition it likes - but apparently, that’s not good enough. It wants the secular government’s definition of civil marriage to conform as well.

I guess I can’t understand why you keep complaining. The law is already forcing people to call homosexual unions “marriage” in many states and it seems like the dominoes are falling in your favor. I’m honestly not clear why you are still here.

 

[Rau]

Nonsense. It’s something I hear from Catholics at every opportunity, then it’s conveniently forgotten or riddled with technicalities whenever the plain exceptions to the rule are mentioned.

There are many definitions of marriage. Some Christian denominations are already sanctioning gay marriages. A conservative rabbi in Los Angeles has already announced he’ll be doing the same in his synagogue. The secular government will soon be following suit. The Catholic Church can hold to any definition it likes - but apparently, that’s not good enough. It wants the secular government’s definition of civil marriage to conform as well.

There is no such rule at all. Two permanently infertile persons, a man and a woman, are fully capable of marrying. If you believe otherwise, present evidence, but don’t provide hearsay.

 

[AyJSimon]

I guess I can’t understand why you keep complaining. The law is already forcing people to call homosexual unions “marriage” in many states and it seems like the dominoes are falling in your favor. I’m honestly not clear why you are still here.

Because your side is still fighting with fog. The secular definition of marriage has not a single thing to do with the Catholic definition of marriage. The law explicitly allows you, personally, the freedom to define marriage however you like (as a matter of speech and thought), and your Church to do so as well. Yet, you still carry on as though the secular re-definition of marriage has some effect on you. There’s an implied arrogance to your position - that somehow the government is obligated to maintain a definition of marriage that conforms to the Catholic Church. There’s no such arrogance in my position. I’m saying that I’m fine with what the Catholic Church calls marriage, and despite my objections to the principle that religions be allowed to discriminate in such ways, I would actually fight to defend your right to do it.

 

[AyJSimon]

There is no such rule at all. Two permanently infertile persons, a man and a woman, are fully capable of marrying. If you believe otherwise, present evidence, but don’t provide hearsay.

You’re missing the point. I’m aware that the Catholic Church has no problem, in practice, sanctioning marriages between heterosexual couples incapable of procreation. What I’m saying is that Catholics here and elsewhere frequently ignore this fact and invoke the “capable of procreation” standard for defending what a valid marriage can be. And when my side reminds them of the elderly couple and the infertile couple, I hear talk about the possibility of “miracles” - God can apparently Will a woman with no uterus to conceive and give birth. I say that’s fine - so why can’t he do the same for a man with no uterus?