R
Rau
Guest
I’m sure you do know.
I find the analogy quite elegant.
- Status
I find the analogy quite elegant.
R
Rau
Guest
I am. I point out that the debate ought not be about marriage, but about the provision of those benefits and obligations reasonably requested by those seeking them.
R
Rau
Guest
In respect of post 8, please see post 10.
Your post above, and mine to which yours was a response, are about different things.
G
grannymh
Guest
The crucial question is – Whether we are denying equal protection to homosexuals who desire the civil institution of marriage.
When we review the Preamble, it becomes clear that there is no basis for the same-sex claim to civil marriage because same sex-marriage is obviously not in the same category as heterosexual marriage. It is solely heterosexual marriage that can create the posterity (biological descendants) who will enjoy the blessings of liberty into the future.
We do need to consider the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment. However, post 8, “U.S. CONSTITUTION OFFERS EXCLUSIVE BASIS FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE” is against the improper use of the Federal Constitution in order to promote same-sex marriage – which is now before SCOTUS asking them to impose it on the states. Thus, the citation from the Preamble is relevant to showing that SCOTUS should not sanction same sex marriage for the entire nation, imposing it unjustly on the states in the name of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. Same-sex marriage is not a part of the legislative intent.
Please note that post 8 is offering an additional essential view of the “legislative intent” in regard to the future of America. That is why careful reading, especially of the firsr seven paragraphs, is necessary.
The first paragraph names the issue which is “our posterity.” Which happens to be us! If we are interested in America’s posterity, the biological descendants, then we need to recognize that proper biological intercourse is necessary to have posterity.
Quote from fifth and sixth paragraphs, “U.S. Constitution Offers Exclusive Basis For Traditional Marriage” in post 8.
"That is to say, while anyone can contribute to the blessings of liberty which may be bestowed upon posterity, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the only civil institution naturally able to create the very object which is to receive those blessings, namely, posterity itself – the biological descendants of the present citizenry.
“Anyone can make contributions to posterity, but the sexual union of male and female alone actually makes posterity itself. Marriage is the civil institution that regulates that union in civil society.”
Conclusion.
The Preamble is not endorsing same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage was not proposed as a civil institution bringing future posterity into being. There are not grounds for a new, totally unique, civil instituion of a same-sex marriage. Obviously, a same-sex union can come under “freedom of sexual choice.” It cannot be considered as established as a legislative intent under the Constitution. And in this it is clearly distinguished from heterosexual marriage.
E
estesbob
Guest
This is not discrimination against homosexuals . This is discrimination against single people . The truth is is there can be many benefits to being single when filing especially if one has a child or two .
C
clem456
Guest
The issue of gay “marriage” is not about “beliefs”. The Church does not invent a belief structure here. There are beliefs surrounding it, but the beliefs are based in observation of revealed nature.
One is not required to believe in God to make the observation that a man and woman are required to create a child.
And they are not -just- required… a man and woman are uniquely required to create a child. Without this unique relationship, there is no such thing as human existence.
DUH.To proclaim otherwise is the worst kind of irrational deception. Why is it the worst kind? Because the issue affects the very existence and flourishing of human beings. This issue is not really about the sex or the money.
It is no different than proclaiming that my neighbor is not hungry, because his bloated stomach is meaningless to me. If I can turn my eyes and deny what I see, then just maybe his stomach is not really bloated. It is the exact same perverse denial of observation and reason.
When I then tell others that his stomach is not really bloated, maybe I can redefine what it means to be hungry.
No one can expect to have a just society while at the same time ignoring reason. Can’t happen. The just society that gay marriage advocates give lip service to will be destroyed by the very irrationality they propose. Humanity cannot deceive itself and expect good results.
All one has to do is look at the last century to see, when we deny common sense observation of how we are, the results are always tragic.
For example, if I look at a human being and observe that he has two arms and legs and a brain, and can walk and talk and work, he is probably a human being, right? Oh wait, he’s Jewish? Wait a sec, let’s redefine what it means to be a human being. I know, we’ll call him “under-mensch”…maybe if we call him less-than-human, no one will notice the truth.
It’s sickening.
That is the problem. It’s not just that men and women have sex with each other, that’s just a symptom.
The real problem is deception.
A
AyJSimon
Guest
For all intents and purposes, the law, as written, forces gay people to remain single, and ineligible for these benefits.
(Cue stock punchline about how gay people have all the same rights to marry straight people as straight people do.)
C
clem456
Guest
So for you benefits of various types are a concern. Understandable.
If we allow any two people to come together to have the same benefits as married people without recognizing it as a marriage, would that be a satisfactory solution?
My brothers are single. Can they come together and enjoy the benefits due a couple?
My divorced sister in law and my wife’s best friend have been close for many years. They can also come together for these benefit then?
R
Rau
Guest
Some of the benefits attached to marriage may make sense in the context of other relationships. It’s just that people now confuse the benefits with marriage itself, as the expression “civil marriage” demonstrates.
C
clem456
Guest
I’m curious how this poster conceives of the issue.
I have asked several people this same question and I get a negative reaction to the extension of benefits to any two people. But they aren’t able to explain why they object to two brothers having these benefits. I suspect the problem is, their conception of relationship requires a romantic or sexual aspect, and they do not want to admit this. So, the question gets brushed aside.
I am just curious what this poster’s reasoning is.
R
Rau
Guest
One may have to go “benefit by benefit” to fully analyse what makes sense in various kinds of relationship. For example, I have no difficulty with the State facilitating 2 persons wishing to share assets, including a home, with the intention of living as an economic unit, mutually caring for each other as they age, giving each other their inheritance, etc. It’s not marriage, not inherently sexual, but the State accommodation may be similar in several areas.
I’ve never seen SSM as being about “benefits”, but rather a deep need for validation and justification.
A
AyJSimon
Guest
No, in the same way that “separate, but equal” never really worked in practice. However, if the government decided to get out of the business of calling all such unions “marriages,” that would be satisfactory.
Assuming they actually want to, I honestly don’t care if they chose to do it or not.
R
Rau
Guest
Does this demonstrate the need for validation - to assert that all unions are the same?
R
Rau
Guest
C
clem456
Guest
From my point of view, it is not about prevention, it is about promotion of what is good and true in marriage.
I simply recognize that the union of a man and woman is unique. This union is not the same thing as the union of two same-sex people.
It’s not about preventing same sex acts per se, it’s about recognizing reality.
Without even considering moral or value judgments, is it true that the union of man/woman is unique in comparison to the union of same sex couples?
If the union of man/woman is unique, is it common sense that the language should reflect that uniqueness?
For instance, I would not claim a basketball is a football, right? There are similarities, but both are unique. If I claimed a basketball was a football you would call me deceptive, right?
Do you agree with that?
A
AyJSimon
Guest
I agree that a man-woman unions are “unique” - I simply disagree that they are, in principle, better. Some unions are, in practice, better than others, but that depends entirely on the behavior of the people involved. I’m sure you’ve undoubtedly met gay couples who manage their relationships far better than some straight couples. (If you haven’t, I would suggest you get out more). Being “unique” carries no weight in this conversation, regardless - not if we’re using that word to mean what it actually means. A homosexual union is “unique” in all the same ways that heterosexual union is.
The fact is, when the government denies a right or a privilege to a group of people without an objectively good reason, it implies (if not outright states), that this group of people is “less than” others who do receive the right or privilege. This is why “civil unions” never sold as carrying equal status to “marriages.” You could’ve legalized civil unions and granted gay couples all the benefits given to married couples - but it would not have removed the stink that comes with cordoning off a minority from the majority - even while telling them that they’re all “equal.”
Again, “separate, but equal” doesn’t work, and it never has - not even in principle. Even when you grant truly equal rights, across the board, just the act of segregating people has the affect of telling one group of people they aren’t as good, while reinforcing to the other side that they are inherently superior. This is a bad thing - and shouldn’t be encouraged.
- Status