Rights homosexuals miss out on

[WilliamOK]

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.

You are following the issue you’re commenting on, yes? People who’ve already lost jobs and even businesses because they felt that endorsing SSM was a betrayal of the moral terms Christians are obliged to observe. If you want to sleep with a man, I can’t stop you. But I’m not going to call it marriage, that would be witnessing against my own conscience and beliefs and God. At work, when I deal with women who say they are married to each other, if they object to me not using the word “wife” for their partner, I can get in trouble if they complain. Hasn’t happened yet, but I deal with marital insurance benefits every day. Do you not see that redefining marriage in the law pressures me to speak in a way that contradicts my religion? And potentially threatens my job if I don’t. Pretending 2 women are a marriage is a direct contradiction to an important central tenet of Christianity. This is the problem. When you redefine marriage in the law, it affects EVERYBODY. Most people are already slack about morality, but I am not. With the minimal definition of “husband and wife”, everybody, even gays, could agree that was a marriage. This new extension should be optional, not mandatory for all people to endorse. I don’t mind if you don’t agree. But you do not even seem to understand the disagreement that exists. Or perhaps you just don’t take it seriously. And that is why you will continue to be irrelevant to the conversation here. Irritating, but ultimately irrelevant, because you do not even seem to be hearing us.

 

[WilliamOK]

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?

Because the standard is not procreation. The standard is Man and Woman. Old people’s marriages do not disintegrate when they lose the ability to procreate. Can you really not get this or are you just not wanting to?

 

[AyJSimon]

You are following the issue you’re commenting on, yes? People who’ve already lost jobs and even businesses because they felt that endorsing SSM was a betrayal of the moral terms Christians are obliged to observe. If you want to sleep with a man, I can’t stop you. But I’m not going to call it marriage, that would be witnessing against my own conscience and beliefs and God. At work, when I deal with women who say they are married to each other, if they object to me not using the word “wife” for their partner, I can get in trouble if they complain. Hasn’t happened yet, but I deal with marital insurance benefits every day. Do you not see that redefining marriage in the law pressures me to speak in a way that contradicts my religion? And potentially threatens my job if I don’t. Pretending 2 women are a marriage is a direct contradiction to an important central tenet of Christianity. This is the problem. When you redefine marriage in the law, it affects EVERYBODY. Most people are already slack about morality, but I am not. With the minimal definition of “husband and wife”, everybody, even gays, could agree that was a marriage. This new extension should be optional, not mandatory for all people to endorse. I don’t mind if you don’t agree. But you do not even seem to understand the disagreement that exists. Or perhaps you just don’t take it seriously. And that is why you will continue to be irrelevant to the conversation here. Irritating, but ultimately irrelevant, because you do not even seem to be hearing us.

I do agree that, as a matter of thought and speech, you shouldn’t be obliged to endorse the government’s definition of marriage. Though, quite frankly, I think the root of your problem is a God who evidently won’t draw a distinction between a genuine endorsement of SSM, and the words you have to use in professional conversations to keep your job. If I were your boss, I would certainly not fire you for having a principled objection to SSM (even if I thought your principle was silly). And I would actually respect you all the more if I knew you were behaving professionally in the face of what I knew were your conscientious objections. Why does your God cut you less slack than I would?

 

[Rau]

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?

We can both agree that is nonsense.

The Church will not sanction a marriage between persons not capable of a marital embrace, what another poster describes as the coming together as one flesh. That is the fundamental meaning of marriage, and it flows from the very nature of man. All else is supporting framework, but for some, the framework has entirely obscured the whole and all discussion is about right of access to the framework. That latter issue is a matter quite separate from the matter of marriage.

It is thus clear why two men cannot marry, for it is not in accord with their nature to join sexually.

 

[AyJSimon]

Because the standard is not procreation. The standard is Man and Woman. Old people’s marriages do not disintegrate when they lose the ability to procreate. Can you really not get this or are you just not wanting to?

It’s not about what I “get.” You telling me this today won’t stop one of your Catholic brethren from doubling back to the “capable of procreation” standard tomorrow. It’s not my problem - I’m just pointing it out. I’ve not heard a single standard for marriage under Catholicism that wasn’t specious or spurious.

 

[WilliamOK]

I do agree that, as a matter of thought and speech, you shouldn’t be obliged to endorse the government’s definition of marriage. Though, quite frankly, I think the root of your problem is a God who evidently won’t draw a distinction between a genuine endorsement of SSM, and the words you have to use in professional conversations to keep your job. If I were your boss, I would certainly not fire you for having a principled objection to SSM (even if I thought your principle was silly). And I would actually respect you all the more if I knew you were behaving professionally in the face of what I knew were your conscientious objections. Why does your God cut you less slack than I would?

Ha ha. My God is not the one potentially firing me. My boss is. You know that. But thank you for acknowledging my point. Now I know you see it.

 

[WilliamOK]

It’s not about what I “get.” You telling me this today won’t stop one of your Catholic brethren from doubling back to the “capable of procreation” standard tomorrow. It’s not my problem - I’m just pointing it out. I’ve not heard a single standard for marriage under Catholicism that wasn’t specious or spurious.

I just gave you one, the official one: Man and Woman. That’s the standard.

It’s odd that you’re so angry at Catholics who imprecisely state that “capable of procreation” is the standard, but if they say that they are not exactly correct. An understandable inaccuracy, since procreation is obviously in the mix, but that is inaccurate. The standard is Man and Woman who are not already married and are able and free to marry each other.

The standard is Man and Woman. Makes perfect sense. Not specious or spurious.

 

[Rau]

It’s not about what I “get.” You telling me this today won’t stop one of your Catholic brethren from doubling back to the “capable of procreation” standard tomorrow. It’s not my problem - I’m just pointing it out. I’ve not heard a single standard for marriage under Catholicism that wasn’t specious or spurious.

That’s because you think of marriage as the framework, not the substance. On that basis, all reasons to deny marriage to any arbitrary adult persons, not already married, are specious.

 

[AyJSimon]

That’s because you think of marriage as the framework, not the substance. On that basis, all reasons to deny marriage to any arbitrary adult persons, not already married, are specious.

I think the defined substance of marriage varies (and can be redefined) according to different religions and the government as well.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

Why are you guys fighting, please stop. It is pointless.

 

[Rau]

I think the defined substance of marriage varies (and can be redefined) according to different religions and the government as well.

That’s the issue. And that view permits you freedom in deciding who may marry. Whomever “they” decide!

 

[Rau]

Why are you guys fighting, please stop. It is pointless.

Who is fighting? It is called “debate”, a particular kind of conversation.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

Yes but debates are not supposed to be forceful but gentle. Goodnight I will see you all tomorrow, hopefully we will come to a conclusion then, I advise you all to do the same mainly for church tomorrow.

 

[Rau]

Yes but debates are not supposed to be forceful but gentle. Goodnight I will see you all tomorrow, hopefully we will come to a conclusion then, I advise you all to do the same mainly for church tomorrow.

Debates are often passionate affairs. People speak from the heart with conviction!

Forceful arguments are perfectly in order. What is out of place is to attack the debater.

 

[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.

I was unaware that the Catholic Church forced widow(er)s with children to remarry within a short time. Perhaps you could indicate to me where in scripture, or in Church Law, this is stated.

Such a provision is not present in civil law in either England or the US (?Utah?). It seems to me that this is yet another very weak argument, since an equivalent provision is not enforced in a similar heterosexual situation.

rossum

 

[rossum]

There is only 1 definition of marriage.

I disagree. There are many different definitions of marriage in the Bible alone, and even more outside the Bible.

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.

Agreed.

rossum

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

Ok can we get on topic, I just want to finish this and get on with my life …

My question is that :

I get that gay marriage should be illegal because marriage is between male and female, but why do we need to go as far as to make it illegal. I think redefining marriage is bad, as it is doing here, by allowing gay marriage to be legal mainly because, again it is a redefinition from normal to abnormal. With gays it is immoral to kiss, have sex, or be attracted to one another. They can be in love but that is about it. I accept the church teaching I just want to understand why I should accept it and stuff and why it should be illegal.

Just don’t be pushy, I would prefer that if you are passionate, you would hold it back, just out of respect because I will get kind of worked up if it happens. Let us just be calm, respectful and be less pushy…

 

[pensmama87]

Ok can we get on topic, I just want to finish this and get on with my life …

My question is that :

I get that gay marriage should be illegal because marriage is between male and female, but why do we need to go as far as to make it illegal. I think redefining marriage is bad, as it is doing here, by allowing gay marriage to be legal mainly because, again it is a redefinition from normal to abnormal. With gays it is immoral to kiss, have sex, or be attracted to one another. They can be in love but that is about it. I accept the church teaching I just want to understand why I should accept it and stuff and why it should be illegal.

Just don’t be pushy, I would prefer that if you are passionate, you would hold it back, just out of respect because I will get kind of worked up if it happens. Let us just be calm, respectful and be less pushy…

This seems contradictory to me.

To say we need to make “gay marriage illegal” is to misspeak. I don’t think we should bring back sodomy laws. If two men or two women want to walk around and call themselves married, of course they can. Such is not illegal.

The issue is extending the rights of benefits to same-sex couples that have been traditionally reserved to male/female couples. I have same-sex friends, but government does not recognize my relationships with those people. That doesn’t change that they are my friends. My relationships with my friends are not “illegal” because they are not recognized by the government. The government has no interest in knowing who my friends are and who I associate with (well…at least I don’t think so. )

Marriage, from a legal standpoint, is about the conferring of specific benefits to a man and a woman who come together to form a family. Same-sex couples cannot do this. This doesn’t mean they can’t live together or have sexual relations, though of course we would say this is disordered (and it is, though many disagree with us). What they are doing is not illegal - the government just has no reason to recognize it. In places where the government has decided to extend those benefits, if they rescinded them, it’s not making those living arrangements illegal, it’s just no longer offering legal recognition to the relationships. It doesn’t make the relationships themselves criminal.

 

[rossum]

Marriage, from a legal standpoint, is about the conferring of specific benefits to a man and a woman who come together to form a family. Same-sex couples cannot do this.

Nor can some opposite sex couples, for example when the woman is past her menopause. Are you proposing that the legal benefits of marriage be withdrawn from all infertile couples? What about couples who decide not to have children? How long a grace period do they get before the benefits are withdrawn?

This is not a good argument. Fertility is not a requirement for obtaining a marriage licence.

rossum

 

[epan]

Marriage, from a legal standpoint, is about the conferring of specific benefits to a man and a woman who come together to form a family.

A slight correction is in order, marriage from a legal standpoint in about 13 US states is about conferring specific benefits to a man and a woman…

In 37 US states, the same statement could be made for same gender couples, and for opposite sex couples.