Same-sex marriage: where does my objection go wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

spencelo

Guest
In this thread, I wish to have a civil debate about my core objection to one of the most frequently cited rationales for prohibiting same-sex marriage. I (and others) must have had this debate over a thousand times, and I can’t for the life of me understand why opponents don’t realize that my objection is fatal to their argument. Maybe someone here can (civilly) show me why I’m wrong.

Opponents of SSM often adopt the following argumentative strategy: point to something that same-sex couples can’t do (i.e., procreate), and then assert that it is rational to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying on that basis. Essentially, because same-sex couples (unlike opposite-sex couples) can’t procreate, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

My objection: The inability to procreate has never been a requirement for a marriage license, so whether same-sex couples can meet it shouldn’t matter. We don’t prohibit people from entering into legal contracts – and civil marriage is a legal contract – because they can’t meet NON-requirements, which is precisely what the “inability to procreate” criterion is. **So why should the right for same-sex couples to marry turn on whether or not they can meet a non-existent requirement? ** That is the key question for me.
 
Our definition of marriage is very different than your own. I think conversations like this have limited productivity because it’s like two people speaking foreign languages at each other.

Marriage for us is not a ‘contract’ but rather a union of two persons. The law doesn’t create marriages, but we should remember that the law is the great teacher. If the law says gay ‘marriages’ are ok then people will begin to define marriage the way the law does and not the way natural law does.

To put it another way, the objection is that the government is beginning to define things that are not theirs to define. My own feelings on the matter is that by defining marriage from the beginning the state was respecting an establishment of religion. This was never a problem because the nature of marriage was universally accepted. But now that it is not, the fact that the state is trying to redefine something that is a deeply held religious institution is why there is such discontent from the religious community.

I personally don’t care about contracts.
 
sllhouette said:
Marriage for us is not a ‘contract’
Click to expand...
But this is precisely what the SSM debate is about: whether or not same-sex couples can enter into same legal relationship that is available to opposite-sex couples. If opposite-sex couples have the legal right to marry, why shouldn’t same-sex couples have that same legal right as well? The asymmetry smacks of blatant discrimination (in violation of the equal protection clause.) The debate about “civil marriage” is about our marriage laws – not some other (religious) notion of marriage.
 
sllhouette said:
But now that it is not, the fact that the state is trying to redefine something that is a deeply held religious institution
Click to expand...
This is the problem: religious institutions don’t own the concept of “marriage,” and the SSM debate isn’t about whether same-sex couples can get married in Catholic churches. You must separate “civil marriage” from “religious marriage.”
 
spencelo said:
But this is precisely what the SSM debate is about: whether or not same-sex couples can enter to same legal relationship that is available to opposite-sex couples. If opposite-sex couples have the legal right to marry, why shouldn’t same-sex couples have that same legal right as well? The asymmetry smacks of blatant discrimination (in violation of the equal protection clause.) The debate about “civil marriage” is about our marriage laws – not some other (religious) notion of marriage.
Click to expand...
These endless discussions of homosexuality are just stupid. Yes, I know you can pervert biology, but does that make it right? No. It makes it perverted.

You can swallow gum but chew your food til it turns into spit. You can drive down the wrong side of the road out in the country. You can stand on your head til you turn purple in the face. All weird stuff. Do you want to start 1000 big discussions over any of that too? NO. Because those things are not about SEX, POLITICS and TOO MUCH SUGAR, which is all Americans really care about.
 
Your objection goes wrong among Christians because you are trying to redefine something that to them is God given.

For Catholics - marriage is a God-given sacrament. To ask them to redefine it to something it’s not, is quite frankly suspect.

If you are a proponent of government enforced same-sex unions, at least have the courtesy using your own term for this novelty.
 
benjohnson said:
Your objection goes wrong among Christians because you are trying to redefine something that to them is God given.

For Catholics - marriage is a God-given sacrament. To ask them to redefine it to something it’s not, is quite frankly suspect.

If you are a proponent of government enforced same-sex unions, at least have the courtesy using your own term for this novelty.
Click to expand...
I thought it was fairly obvious that my post was about the SSM debate, which is about civil marriage (not religious marriage).
 
spencelo said:
I thought it was fairly obvious that my post was about the SSM debate, which is about civil marriage (not religious marriage).
Click to expand...
It is like you are saying you want to talk about little dogs (not big dogs) without first defining a dog.

What is marriage?
 
To the OP… to get a marriage license has never required the ability to have children, but rather that it be two people whose bodies are ordered toward procreation. That may sound like semantics, but you can take those phrases and research them some more.

An example: My car is ordered toward driving on roads. I am not required to drive it on roads.
Similarly, a marriage is ordered toward procreation, but a couple doesn’t not have to have children to be validly married. However, if two men try to get “marrred,” it’s akin to a “car” that doesn’t have an engine, or wheels, or a frame, or seats, or… you get the idea.
 
One other angle you could try: let’s consider why governments even got into the business of handing out marriage licenses in the first place. After all, why should a gov’t have to certify love??

It’s because a man and a woman is the only type of love that can result in new people – new citizens that a gov’t wishes to protect.

Anyone who defends a definition of “marriage” that completely shuns the procreation angle will be completely unable to state why such a “marriage” should be limited to just two people – think about it!
 
spencelo said:
In this thread, I wish to have a civil debate about my core objection to one of the most frequently cited rationales for prohibiting same-sex marriage. I (and others) must have had this debate over a thousand times, and I can’t for the life of me understand why opponents don’t realize that my objection is fatal to their argument. Maybe someone here can (civilly) show me why I’m wrong.

Opponents of SSM often adopt the following argumentative strategy: point to something that same-sex couples can’t do (i.e., procreate), and then assert that it is rational to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying on that basis. Essentially, because same-sex couples (unlike opposite-sex couples) can’t procreate, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

My objection: The inability to procreate has never been a requirement for a marriage license, so whether same-sex couples can meet it shouldn’t matter. We don’t prohibit people from entering into legal contracts – and civil marriage is a legal contract – because they can’t meet NON-requirements, which is precisely what the “inability to procreate” criterion is. **So why should the right for same-sex couples to marry turn on whether or not they can meet a non-existent requirement? ** That is the key question for me.
Click to expand...
Same Sex couples cannot marry. As you rightly stated, ssm cannot biologically create children. The “Marriage” Wouldnt be open to life. Of course, there are Couples, who through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, cannot procreate, eg. sterile Man or Woman. However, the possibility of life is open even then, with same sex marriage, you’ve automatically shut the door to future and possible life, one of the two ends of sex. Sex wasnt made for fun, it was given for us human Beings, Male and Female (Biologically complimentary) to be with the LORD and be given the awesome creative power to bring more souls onto this earth and to consumate the marriage. SSM barrs the door to both. Also, another thing i’ve noticed about the homosexual agenda. Since homosexuality is unfortunatley legal in a lot of places already, why the parades? why the active militant pushing of the agenda through propoganda such as pride day? Are the homosexuals trying to prove that their “lifestyle” is ok, I honestly think that the agenda on the homosexual part is that they desperatley try to prove and ok something in the EYES OF THE LORD, as most human beings in the western world, unfrotunatley, see homosexuality as alright.
 
spencelo said:
This is the problem: religious institutions don’t own the concept of “marriage,” and the SSM debate isn’t about whether same-sex couples can get married in Catholic churches. You must separate “civil marriage” from “religious marriage.”
Click to expand...
No can do, Our Blessed LORD made marriage, intending it for Man and Woman, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Molly and Polly. Civil folks, took the concept from us, as they did with the judicial system etc. So, sorry, I cannot seperate civil marriage from Religious Marriage, as only one is valid, and made by OUR LORD, the other by weak and fallible men.
 
spencelo said:
But this is precisely what the SSM debate is about: whether or not same-sex couples can enter into same legal relationship that is available to opposite-sex couples. If opposite-sex couples have the legal right to marry, why shouldn’t same-sex couples have that same legal right as well? The asymmetry smacks of blatant discrimination (in violation of the equal protection clause.) The debate about “civil marriage” is about our marriage laws – not some other (religious) notion of marriage.
Click to expand...
Why are you caring so much about legal rights when you already have half the world up in arms and sympathy over the “purple folks” and the Pride Parades, and the day of silence, What more do you want from the legal system? Rewrite the law books specifically for LGBT? i’ve noticed that the active and practicing homosexuals get more sympathy and respect than the normal, married couple with Children, anyone else seen this trend?
 
spencelo said:
This is the problem: religious institutions don’t own the concept of “marriage,” and the SSM debate isn’t about whether same-sex couples can get married in Catholic churches. You must separate “civil marriage” from “religious marriage.”
Click to expand...
Yes, in fact, the Catholic Church owns the concept of marriage.
 
surritter said:
To the OP… to get a marriage license has never required the ability to have children, but rather that it be two people whose bodies are ordered toward procreation. That may sound like semantics, but you can take those phrases and research them some more.

An example: My car is ordered toward driving on roads. I am not required to drive it on roads.
Similarly, a marriage is ordered toward procreation, but a couple doesn’t not have to have children to be validly married. However, if two men try to get “marrred,” it’s akin to a “car” that doesn’t have an engine, or wheels, or a frame, or seats, or… you get the idea.
Click to expand...
To run with your analogy a little more: Same-sex marriage is not marriage because it would be like a car with two engines and no transmission, eight wheels and no brakes, two radiators and no seat… No problem if you don’t have any idea what a car is.
And I don’t think the pro same-sex marriage folks have any idea what marriage is.
 
spencelo said:
This is the problem: religious institutions don’t own the concept of “marriage,” and the SSM debate isn’t about whether same-sex couples can get married in Catholic churches. You must separate “civil marriage” from “religious marriage.”
Click to expand...
We actually DO own the concept of sacramental marriage.

We don’t own the concept of filling out civil paperwork for the purpose of making sure that your insurance will pay to have your tonsils out if need be. No. That’s political, and I believe that’s what’s really at issue in discussions with the LGUBYRH or whatever your acronym is.

If you’re asserting that we don’t own the physical act of mammalian sex, no we don’t own that. Even dogs can do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top