Same Sex Marriage?

[guanophore]

Kevin, please take some time to learn how to use the quote features, so your readers can keep track fo the source of your contents.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19771
"someone not Kevin B:

“But it most certainly is a matter of morals. If one votes for something that directly encourages immoral behavior, then one is sinning by encouraging others to sin.”

I see your problem. You are starting from a false premise (that legalizing something is the same as encouraging it), and that is how you get your illogical conclusion,

Making something legal is NOT the same as encouraging it. It is the same as ALLOWING it. Cigarettes, for instance, are legal, but actively discouraged by the government. If the government ENCOURAGED people to enter into same-sex marriages or civil unions, it would be immoral. But it is not immoral to ALLOW others to enter into immoral behavior. They have free will, after all. We should make same-sex civil unions legal, and discourage them.

It is for Catholics, because we have a responsibility to do all in our power to prevent the propagation of evil and sin. Of course we cannot prevent anyone from engaging in immoral behavior if they choose to do so, but we have to mitigate it as much as possible. For us to support legislation and legislators in the propogation of ungodly behavior, then we are committing a sin.

 

[guanophore]

“It isn't just the word "marriage" that the Church is fighting to protect. It is the institution. Whether one calls it a civil union, romantic partnership, wedlock, huwelik, or hôn nhân doesn't matter.

It is a matter of degree. The Church will be more defensive of the institution of marriage because we consider it a holy vocation established and nurtured by God.

The civil union and other forms are problematic, but do not encroach to the same degree on teh Sacrament.
"someone not Kevin B?:

Homosexual activity is gravely disordered against natural law and a sin. Therefore, if we are at all concerned about the souls of others, we have a positive duty to oppose the normalization of homosexual unions.”

We keep marriage for the few that use it morally, so we should allow same-sex civil unions for the few that will use them morally.

But there is no circumstance in which a same sex union can be considered moral.
"guanophore:

(I happened to recognize this one!) “The Church has the authority to assist the faithful in the formation of conscience, and how to live their faith in daily life. Voting is part of our civic responsibility, and should reflect the values we claim as Catholics.”

Then everything which is immoral in the Catholic Church, including not going to Mass, over indulging, permarital sex, and being jealous. Since they do not encourage us to make all immoral acts illegal, then clearly this is not a matter of faith or morals.

This is one of the most disjointed attempts at logic I have read in a long time.

Morality is defined by the commandments of God, not the legislation of man. Of course we have tried to infuse the laws of the land with God’s laws, but the fact that something is not illegal does not equate to it not being immoral. The vast majority of immorality is between oneself and one’s creator (a violation of the first commandment) and will reside primarily within the heart of a person. There would never be sufficient laws to try to legislate the whole of the moral Law. We can see in the history of Judaism that the attempt to legislate all of morality was a disaster.
"guanophore:

 “Human beings who are Catholic can, and do, make mistakes, but the Church, because of her Divine elements, cannot.”

Actually yes, she can, just not in matters of faith or morals.

Your position on this is anti-Catholic. You have a right to it, of course but it would be prudent for you to refrain from publicly proclaiming you are Catholic on this forum, since your personal position is against that of the church founded by Christ.
"guanophore:

“Catholics are under civil law as well as canon (church ) law. In fact, it is illegal to miss Mass, and confession. But the Church law applies only to those in the Church.”

Exactly. So why should “missing Mass” just fall under canon law, but “don’t marry someone of the same sex” be under both laws? Both negatively affect your soul. Either both need to apply only to Catholics, or both need to apply to everyone. I doubt God would pick and choose what laws to enforce, this sounds more like a human decision to me.

We live in a country where there is a separation of Church and State. That separation means that the government cannot perpetrate religion on the populace. That does not mean that religious persons living under that government cannot support laws that promote human decency and morality.

God does, indeed, pick and choose which laws to enforce. Everyone will pay the price for the commandments of God they chose not to obey. But I do agree with you, the civil government is a human decision. Christians are expected to infuse the life of Christ into the polity.
"someone not Kevin B?:

“Religious and government sectors need to operate from a consistent definition of marriage that serves the best general and proven interests of society.”

They have never shared a consistent definition of marriage. The church, for instance, requires that at least one person to be married is Catholic. Should the state require this as well?

This is an incorrect statement. The Church has a much broader understanding of a valid marriage than this.

The State must reach a consensus of the people, so the definition of marriage that is shared by the society will have to be broad enough to accomodate the majority. Such a definition may not be morally acceptable to a Catholic.

 

[CMatt25]

It is particularly problematic in an environment such as this, however, when a person publicly affiliates themselves as Catholic, and yet does not espouse Catholic beliefs. That is because it causes confusion for those who do not know the Catholic faith well, and think that persons who call themselves Catholic, yet reject Catholic doctrine, are considered to be in good standing with the CC, or that their heterodox positions are perfectly acceptable to Catholicism.

It has also been pointed out above that teaching or promoting anti-catholic positions can cause a public scandal, and may present even more grave dangers to the soul of a person who can be responsible for leading others into error as well.

Certainly such a person has lost their Catholicity.

There are certain actions that trigger automatic excommunication, so that persons who engage in them may have already separated themselves from the Church, but don’t realize it.

You make a good point. There are rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff, who, though they are in rebellion, are no less subject to the one God has appointed to shepherd the flock. There are excommunicated Catholics, lapsed Catholics, apostate Catholics, heretic Catholics, etc, etc, and the most common, those who live in a state of mortal sin, so that any Catholicity they once had is of no value to them, as their last state is WORSE than the first!

It is not about whether one was once Catholic, but the public scandal caused by claiming to be Catholic while rejecting Catholic doctrine. To protect the Church, and the public, who may be unwittingly harmed, it is better for persons in that state not to advertise here they are “Catholic”.

Making this sacrifice is a way of honoring the Church, and demonstrates integrity. It communicates that a person is willing to restrain themselves from publicly claiming to espouse a faith that in fact, they do not.

We could debate this until Kingdom come which I am not going to continue to do on this thread and I understand your POV. But Catholics who deny Baptized/Confirmed Catholics from using the word, Catholic, even sometimes with an adjective in identifying themselves, misrepresent Catholic teaching too in regard to who your church considers members of the Catholic Church.

According to a Catholic bishop I corresponded with, a person becomes a member of the Catholic Church and is a Catholic by virtue of being baptized in a Catholic Church. The bishop went on to explain to me that there of course can be a distinction of practicing and non practicing. But in doing so gave the reminder that even practicing Catholics are not immune from sin in their lives.

Those Catholics you speak of with adjectives are Catholics. Not “once Catholics” as you say. Even the excommunicated ones. Excommunication means they are not to receive the Sacraments nor function in a parish role until fully reconciled.

You can not have it both ways. Any answer given in a place like this which is contrary to Catholic teaching can be problematic, misleading, and cause confusion. And when greater Catholics deny less faithful Catholics the right the Catholic Church grants them to be called members of the Catholic Church, ie, Catholics, albeit perhaps not fully faithful or practicing ones, it too is misleading.

That said I understand you seemingly confuse the degree of “Catholicity” or leaving the full practice of the faith with leaving Church membership and with who the Church Herself considers to be a Catholic. I don’t fault you however as this misconception is not uncommon.

Lastly I would strongly disagree with you that “any Catholicity they once had is of no value to them”. What may be of no value is driving them further away from the faith to the point of where they lose any interest at all. But if they maintain even a glimmer of “Catholicity”, one never knows where they may be by the moment they take their last breath and face our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In any case it is He and He alone who shall judge, know, and understand their hearts and minds.

Now may the thread return more specifically to SS marriage and God bless you along your faith journey and peace be with you and with all who walk on their journeys.

 

[Monkey1976]

“But it most certainly is a matter of morals. If one votes for something that directly encourages immoral behavior, then one is sinning by encouraging others to sin.”

I see your problem. You are starting from a false premise (that legalizing something is the same as encouraging it), and that is how you get your illogical conclusion,

Making something legal is NOT the same as encouraging it. It is the same as ALLOWING it. Cigarettes, for instance, are legal, but actively discouraged by the government. If the government ENCOURAGED people to enter into same-sex marriages or civil unions, it would be immoral. But it is not immoral to ALLOW others to enter into immoral behavior. They have free will, after all. We should make same-sex civil unions legal, and discourage them.

Minor quibble here: Cigarettes have always been legal. What the promoters of gay “marriage” want to do is take something that is illegal and make it legal. Something similar happened with abortion - can you honestly claim that making it legal didn’t encourage it?

Another faulty premise. Civil unions are not the same institution as marriage. Marriage is a sacrament, civil unions are simply a paper conferring tax breaks and other legal rights to another person. If you read one, they contain no mention of sexual activity. It is entirely possible for two heterosexual people of the same gender to enter into a civil union entirely for financial reasons. Your premise (that civil unions imply some sort of sexual or emotional bond) is flawed, and therefore your conclusion is flawed.

Can you cite a single case of a civil union - of the same type you are proposing - being asked for by two people of the opposite sex who are not romantically involved? Regarding the tax breaks and other legal rights, these are conferred on marriages by the state for a reason: Marriage - by and large - results in children. These children are necessary for the state to continue. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the state to promote marriage.

Of course, I won’t deny that many, if not most, people who get civil unions will be intimately connected with each other. But most people getting married by the state now have no plans on staying married forever, and yet we aren’t banning marriage. We keep marriage for the few that use it morally, so we should allow same-sex civil unions for the few that will use them morally.

Marriages entered into with the intention of them being temporary are indeed immoral. However, there is the possibility that the couple in question will change their minds and choose to obey God’s law regarding marriage. For a homosexual couple, this is not a possibility. The issue here isn’t those who misuse the institution of marriage, it’s those who wish to redefine it into something that it has never been.

“The Church has the authority to assist the faithful in the formation of conscience, and how to live their faith in daily life. Voting is part of our civic responsibility, and should reflect the values we claim as Catholics.”

Then everything which is immoral in the Catholic Church, including not going to Mass, over indulging, permarital sex, and being jealous. Since they do not encourage us to make all immoral acts illegal, then clearly this is not a matter of faith or morals.

Incorrect. There are certain acts which are always, and for everyone, immoral: those which go against natural law (murder, abortion, sodomy, etc). Acts such as deliberately missing Mass are immoral only for those who are aware of the obligation. As an example, a person who has never heard of the Catholic faith has no positive obligation to assist at Mass on days of obligation, because they are not aware of them. That same person does a positive obligation to not commit murder, because that is part of God’s law.

I think what you’re missing here is the difference between the law we are bound to as Catholics and natural law. Natural law is the Law of God that anyone can discover through reason alone. As Catholics, we are also bound by the laws of the Church. Murder isn’t a sin because the Church has said it is, it is a sin because it is against natural law.

“Human beings who are Catholic can, and do, make mistakes, but the Church, because of her Divine elements, cannot.”

Actually yes, she can, just not in matters of faith or morals.

No, she can’t. It is a matter of faith that the Church herself cannot err.

“Catholics are under civil law as well as canon (church ) law. In fact, it is illegal to miss Mass, and confession. But the Church law applies only to those in the Church.”

Exactly. So why should “missing Mass” just fall under canon law, but “don’t marry someone of the same sex” be under both laws? Both negatively affect your soul. Either both need to apply only to Catholics, or both need to apply to everyone. I doubt God would pick and choose what laws to enforce, this sounds more like a human decision to me.

Again, you’re missing the distinction between the law of the Church - which requires revelation - and natural law.

“Religious and government sectors need to operate from a consistent definition of marriage that serves the best general and proven interests of society.”

They have never shared a consistent definition of marriage. The church, for instance, requires that at least one person to be married is Catholic. Should the state require this as well?

Natural law != Canon law

 

[Holly3278]

Personally I do not care how much same-sex “couples” whine and cry about wanting the right to “marry”. As long as I am alive, I am going to vote and act in a way that forbids it and it is as simple as that. I don’t care if they call me “hateful” and “bigoted” for this. They can do that if they want. But the fact is, I am being loving both towards all of society for wanting to protect the fundamental unit of society and towards homosexuals. Gay “marriage” is not in their best interests, living a chaste life in accordance with God’s law is!

 

[Faithdancer]

What has that to do with my comment? I simply pointed out the inconsistency of publicly identifying as Catholic while promoting things contrary to the Church.

They are self identified. We have no proof of who is what. I was not commenting on the state of their soul. I was commenting on identifying as Catholic while supporting things contrary to the Church. That is a fact.

They don’t have a problem. It is you that are reading things into others statements.

That is a leap inconsistent with my comment.

They are self identified by their moniker. Just as I self identify as Catholic.

Well said, Fix. I would only add that one can be a Catholic, and obstinately refuse to accept Church teachings. When that happens, one is still a baptized Catholic but has become a heretic, which is not good.

 

[Kevin_B]

Sorry, I know how to use the quote feature, but I am on a smartphone and it is very hard to use it on this

“For us to support legislation and legislators in the propogation of ungodly behavior, then we are committing a sin.”

Again, this follows the flawed assumption that making something legal means more people will do it. This is not true, and in fact is often the opposite. Take marijuana for example. It is easier for a minor to obtain marijuana than alcohol, because alcohol distributers check for id while drug dealers do not. Therefore, if one wants to limit the exposure of minors to marijuana, the best bet would be to make it LEGAL, and therefore anyone underage would have a harder time getting it. So whether or not something is moral has nothing to do with whether or not it is legal.

Same sex civil unions are nothing more than tax breaks. They assume no immoral behavior. Sexual activity is not required to get one. Therefore, there is no reason they should be illegal.

"That does not mean that religious persons living under that government cannot support laws that promote human decency and morality. "

Again, you are relying on the assumption that making same-sex marriage illegal promotes moral behavior. Do tipi have any evidence to support this claim?

Requiring people to go to mass weekly promotes human morality. So why shouldn’t we do it? Because our laws say not to? Isn’t that putting the laws of man over the laws of God?
We Catholics should not be bound by the laws of man. If a law interferes with the law of God, it should be removed. That is why we oppose the laws legalizing abortion. So if God wants us to pass laws promoting morality, then we should make it illegal to not go to mass, even though that means getting rid of the ungodly separation clause. If this is incorrect, feel free to give me an outline of which of God’s laws are meant just for us and which are supposed to be forced on others without their will.

The church has admitted numerous times to making mistakes outside the realm of faith and morals. Just look at the Galileo affair. Claiming the church is right 100% of the time is saying the sun revolves around the earth. The church makes mistakes, and admits it. How is that statement out of line with church teachings?

but the fact that something is not illegal does not equate to it not being immoral. The vast majority of immorality is between oneself and one’s creator

Exactly. So let same sex civil unions be legal, and they will still be immoral. Nothing in the realm of faith or morals changes.

“But there is no circumstance in which a same sex union can be considered moral.”

Of course there are. There are thousands of examples. Same sex unions are only immoral if they include homosexual behavior. Two elderly widows who enter into a same-sex civil union for tax reasons are song nothing immoral at all, even where the church is concerned. Read the catechism, it specifically condemns " homosexual unions" not " same sex unions"

Also, as someone else pointed out, disagreeing with the church does not make you " not a catholic". Once you are baptised, you are a catholic for life. Perhaps you should not lecture others on church teaching until you educate yourself.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=722950

 

[edwest2]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Kevin_B]

“Something similar happened with abortion - can you honestly claim that making it legal didn’t encourage it?”

I don’t just claim it, it’s the truth. Study after study have down that the legality of abortion has nothing to so with its prevelance. You can cite " common sense" all you want, but the facts do not back you up. It is a fact that legalizing abortion does not make it more common. How you feel on that matter is irrelevant. (And, since I oppose abortion, this discussion is irrelevant).

“I think what you’re missing here is the difference between the law we are bound to as Catholics and natural law. Natural law is the Law of God that anyone can discover through reason alone. As Catholics, we are also bound by the laws of the Church. Murder isn’t a sin because the Church has said it is, it is a sin because it is against natural law.”

I understand the difference completely. I don’t understand how civil unions, which are nothing more than legal documents, fall under natural law. No part of them imply sodomy or any immoral act. They simply confer legal rights into another person. How is it against natural law to relay your pension to someone of the same sec? How is it against natural law to give your belongings to someone of the same sex? I think the misunderstanding is not from me, but from people who don’t know what civil unions are (including the church). If a civil union is against natural law, then please tell me how it is in natural law that one should only be allotted to get a tax break with someone of the opposite sex. I was unaware that tax breaks were in natural law.

 

[Monkey1976]

“I think what you’re missing here is the difference between the law we are bound to as Catholics and natural law. Natural law is the Law of God that anyone can discover through reason alone. As Catholics, we are also bound by the laws of the Church. Murder isn’t a sin because the Church has said it is, it is a sin because it is against natural law.”

I understand the difference completely. I don’t understand how civil unions, which are nothing more than legal documents, fall under natural law. No part of them imply sodomy or any immoral act. They simply confer legal rights into another person. How is it against natural law to relay your pension to someone of the same sec? How is it against natural law to give your belongings to someone of the same sex? I think the misunderstanding is not from me, but from people who don’t know what civil unions are (including the church). If a civil union is against natural law, then please tell me how it is in natural law that one should only be allotted to get a tax break with someone of the opposite sex. I was unaware that tax breaks were in natural law.

All of these are available without new legal definitions. Durable power of attorney, wills, head-of-household filing status…
The push for “civil unions” is about nothing more than the camel’s nose pushing toward not just tolerance, but acceptance and promotion of homosexual “marriage” as equal to or better than marriage.

Leaving aside the issue of their morality, the state confers certain benefits on marriage because most marriages result in children, which sustain the population and increase the workforce of the state. Because infertile marriages are the exception, all marriages receive these benefits. By their very nature, homosexual “marriages” or homosexual civil unions are infertile, with ZERO possibility of producing children, thus providing no benefit to the state.

What argument other than “we want it” is there for the state to confer benefits of any kind on homosexual relationships?

 

[fix]

I don’t just claim it, it’s the truth. Study after study have down that the legality of abortion has nothing to so with its prevelance. You can cite " common sense" all you want, but the facts do not back you up. It is a fact that legalizing abortion does not make it more common. How you feel on that matter is irrelevant. (And, since I oppose abortion, this discussion is irrelevant).

You can find study after study to support any point you want to make. The reality is that the law is a teacher. That is undeniable. Allowing something means that many will form their consciences incorrectly.

I understand the difference completely. I don’t understand how civil unions, which are nothing more than legal documents, fall under natural law. No part of them imply sodomy or any immoral act.

This is disingenuous. The entire point is to legitimize homosexual behavior. That legal devices are used to achieve that end does not change the essence of what it is all about.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

This is disingenuous. The entire point is to legitimize homosexual behavior. That legal devices are used to achieve that end does not change the essence of what it is all about.

That’s a very broad claim you have there, and a bit of a silly one, too. I’m sure there are many reasons one may wish to enter into a Civil Union.

 

[edwest2]

If this was a case of Bob and Jim who had been living together for years and are gay, then why was this on the ballot? In 2011, I put my friend down as the beneficiary on my IRA, and on my bank account, and will prepare a will leaving everything I own to him. No lawyer was ever required and the IRA was done over the phone in 5 minutes. And he was in the ER with me in 2011 and NO ONE asked what our relationship was - boyfriend, friend, brother - nothing.

I would like to lay the myth about hospital visitation to rest right now. Call a hospital - any hospital - and ask them if they have any restrictions for visiting patients. I worked in a hospital for nearly 10 years and had to know all the rules. I never heard of any restrictions. Even patients in ICU quarantine rooms could be visited as long as you put on gloves, a disposable garment and face mask.

If Bob and Jim could just fill out a sheet of paper for benefits, that would be one thing. But as the Marriage Equality web site will tell you, it’s about getting the label ‘marriage.’

But even if Bob and Jim could get a “marriage” label, do they just go back to the same place they were living and just do whatever it is they were already doing? No. Of course not.

Gay sex has got to be OK. Specifically, gay sex under the label “marriage.” Our little kids in school have got to be exposed to the idea that two men getting married is OK. That two gay men who are married adopting a little boy is OK. In fact, so-called gay rights groups have to show up at the Vatican and yell, “Shut up!” Or stage protests in France.

Schools are having “diversity days.” I think we all know where that is going:

amazon.com/Beyond-Diversity-Day-Curriculum-Sexualities/dp/074252034X

A prominent gay publication recently mentioned an “Inclusive Episcopal priest.” Inclusive? Sounds nice but it means “gay is OK.” The same publication is also trying to convince readers that fewer Americans think ‘homosexual behavior’ is a sin. The organization that conducted the survey was not a recognized, national survey group but a biased, atypical survey group.

And kids are being taught about gay sex as well. In school.

My point is: I don’t care if half my neighbors are gay. Gay couples can get all the benefits without the ‘marriage’ label. But they obviously don’t want that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[fix]

That’s a very broad claim you have there, and a bit of a silly one, too. I’m sure there are many reasons one may wish to enter into a Civil Union.

There may be other reasons, not the central reason is to legitimize what is illegitimate. It may be silly, but it is true.

 

[Kevin_B]

I don’t think I am explaining myself very well.

I disagree with the church on one issue: the role of government. They believe government should promote morals and family values. I think government should exist only to protect us from foreign nations, criminals, and to provide the bare necessities of life to those that cannot provide for themselves.

“What is the role of government” is not an issue of faith or morality, is it? I can’t see how it is. Therefore, the church is not infallible on this issue, and it is ok for me to disagree with them, correct?

And since I disagree on the role of government, that leads to my political stances. I think many immoral things should be legal: same sex marriages (or civil unions), drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, divorce, etc. Under my belief about the role of government, they do not exist to promote morality, and therefore have neither the right nor the responsibility to ban any of these.

My point is: I don’t care if half my neighbors are gay. Gay couples can get all the benefits without the ‘marriage’ label. But they obviously don’t want that.

So same sex civil unions are ok?

 

[Kevin_B]

What argument other than “we want it” is there for the state to confer benefits of any kind on homosexual relationships?

What argument other than “we want them” is there for the state to allow people to drive red cars? If you are suggesting that the state needs a reason to give freedoms, rather than a reason to take them away, you are suggesting a totalitarian government. The freedoms of the individual are insignificant compared to the benefit of society. Since allowing, say, red sports ca rs doesn’t improve society at all, the government should be allowed to ban them,
Since the freedom of the individual to choose is irrelevant.

 

[DrTaffy]

Gay couples can get all the benefits without the ‘marriage’ label.

But you don’t ‘own’ the marriage label. The marriage label doesn’t even come from a Christian, let alone a uniquely Catholic, background.

So what right do you have to deny them (or the Quakers, or the Government) the right ot use the ‘marriage’ label?

 

[Monkey1976]

What argument other than “we want them” is there for the state to allow people to drive red cars? If you are suggesting that the state needs a reason to give freedoms, rather than a reason to take them away, you are suggesting a totalitarian government. The freedoms of the individual are insignificant compared to the benefit of society. Since allowing, say, red sports ca rs doesn’t improve society at all, the government should be allowed to ban them,
Since the freedom of the individual to choose is irrelevant.

Allowing or disallowing red cars makes no difference to the government, because there is no benefit either way. Such an extraordinary change in the definition of something that has remained unchanged throughout human history should require extraordinary reasons and demonstrable benefits to society that have somehow been missed throughout the entire history of mankind.

“We want it” is not such a reason.

So, I ask: What are the extraordinary benefits of and reasons for formal recognition of same-sex relationships that mankind has somehow missed for the past 15,000 years?

 

[Kevin_B]

So, I ask: What are the extraordinary benefits of and reasons for formal recognition of same-sex relationships that mankind has somehow missed for the past 15,000 years?

Civil unions have not been around for thousands of years, they have only been around for decades. So why is the church opposing civil unions as well as same-sex marriages? If the logic is simply to protect something which had been around for thousands of years, then civil unions should be ok

 

[Regular_Atheist]

There may be other reasons, not the central reason is to legitimize what is illegitimate. It may be silly, but it is true.

What makes you say this?

Allowing or disallowing red cars makes no difference to the government, because there is no benefit either way. Such an extraordinary change in the definition of something that has remained unchanged throughout human history should require extraordinary reasons and demonstrable benefits to society that have somehow been missed throughout the entire history of mankind.

And, yet, the definition of marriage has changed time and time again throughout history. The ages at which people can marry, the race of those who can marry, the nationality of the people involved - many things. Yet people who make this claim about “marriage remaining the same” deny this. if it is mentioned, they will claim that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. This may be true, but that’s not what you’re claiming. Your claim is that marriage has always remained the same throughout history, and this is a claim that is, simply put, false. It bugs me a bit, because it’s a ‘fact’ that’s repeated time and time again, yet it isn’t true.

I suppose the only reason for the government to allow gay marriage would be if there was unanimous support for it from the public. I do believe you’d support other legislation that wouldn’t benefit the government, though. Interracial marriage, for example. Please keep in mind that I’m not trying to make ‘gay rights’ into a civil rights issue.

“We want it” is not such a reason.

So, I ask: What are the extraordinary benefits of and reasons for formal recognition of same-sex relationships that mankind has somehow missed for the past 15,000 years?

I guess the only people it benefits are those who want to partake in such relationships. I can’t tell you with absolute authority that homosexual unions have never existed prior to now, though. Most societies probably opposed homosexuality completely due to religious reasons, especially with the huge belief in Abrahamic religions throughout much of the world.