Same-Sex Marriage

[luvmykids]

BillP:

There’s no need to get snotty with me. I’m simply pointing out that the Church permits it under ceertain circumstances. And if the Church permits it who are you or felra to claim it is “immoral”?

If you have some opbjection to the behavior, and frankly it kind of exceeds my “ick” factor under any circumstances, don’t do it. But don’t run around claiming somehting is immoral just because you don’t like it.

I don’t mean to sound like I am getting snotty, but I truly think that something is immoral if it causes harm or damage to the person that you claim you love. It sounds like something that would not be done out of love, but out of gratification of ones own selfish desires. Just because the Church has made some blanket statement about sexual acts being ok, as long as it is “finished” in the right place does not mean that anything goes. I think there needs to be some common sense here. Is it moral to view pornography during or before sex?

 

[a_cermak]

But again, you’re concentrating on male gay sexuality. What about lesbians? They don’t do anything that isn’t done by straight folks, they just stop the trip a little sooner and don’t er, um finish up quite the same way (desperately in need of a blushing emoticon). Difficult to find it distasteful.

And your complaints about the health aspects as far as infections and morality, again are talking about morals, not laws.

I just don’t see how 2 50+ women marrying in order to better provide for health insurance and survivor’s benefits and guardianship of the dog and all the other reasons the civil law gives us to get married, is a threat to anyone.

If it’s the word marriage, why not civil unions? Give everyone a civil union (gay or not) civilly, and if you want to be “married” go to a priest, imam, rabbi, pastor, person who got their ordination off the web, whatever. The civil union would be what gets you the civil benefits, and the marriage would get you the religious ones.

Pax,
Amy

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

ok, then I guess I have a point, because you must be missing the big picture here. This is setting a new standard of living.

Yes, a standard of treating each of God’s children with dignity, compassion and love. of giving homosexuals the same rights and legal protections as heterosexuals

luvmykids:

Married couples that are infertile can still adopt.

So can same sex couples. It would be funny isf it wewren’t so sad. First you say homosexuals shouldn’t be able to marry because they can’t have kids. But infertile heterosexual couple can because they can adopt. Guess what, same sex couple can adopt as well.

luvmykids:

Whether they do or not still does not confuse other children and the rest of our society in the long run about what marriage is and our gender roles within society.

So let me get this straight. we should continue to discriminate aginst homosexuals so we don’t have to explain things to our kids? What are we going to do with Blacks, disabled people, mentally ill people, foreigners, and other groups of people we have to exaplin to our kids?

luvmykids:

It devalues the relationship between a man and a woman which has the POTENTIAL (if that makes you feel more comfortable) of life giving, which in turn is detrimental to our human race.

How? Does giving legals rights and protections to homoseuals “devalue” anything?

luvmykids:

Children will start to wonder what they were meant to be…heterosexual or homosexual.

So its your posiiton that homosexuality is contagious? That kids who don’t see homosexuals won’t become homosexuals?

luvmykids:

Anyone can be attracted to the same sex if they are brought up that way.

First I’ve heard of that. Would you care to cite some actual evidence for this assertion?

luvmykids:

It is also making it seem as if it is not important for children to be brought up by a mother AND a father. .

According to CDC about 35% of children were born out of wedlock in 2003 (the most current year for which stats are available). What does that have to do with homosexual marriage?

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

Just because the Church has made some blanket statement about sexual acts being ok, as long as it is “finished” in the right place does not mean that anything goes. I think there needs to be some common sense here.

Well of course it’s not “anything goes”. The Church imposes conditions to define immorality. You have chosen to reject that definition. Ask yourself why you can’t just say, “nope, not interested, not for me” but instead have to label it “immoral”.

So in your reckoning, your “common sense” trumps the Church’s teaching?

I get very frustrated with people who want to arbitraily label things as either immoral or moral on the basis of their personal preferences.

luvmykids:

Is it moral to view pornography during or before sex?

Beats me. I’ve never bothered to check, not being inclined toward that myself

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

Yes, a standard of treating each of God’s children with dignity, compassion and love. of giving homosexuals the same rights and legal protections as heterosexuals

I said nothing about not treating them with dignity, compassion and love, they have the same rights, they just can’t get married, because marriage is between a man and a woman.

BillP:

So can same sex couples. It would be funny isf it wewren’t so sad. First you say homosexuals shouldn’t be able to marry because they can’t have kids. But infertile heterosexual couple can because they can adopt. Guess what, same sex couple can adopt as well.

I didn’t say they shouldn’t be able to marry because they can’t have kids. They shouldn’t even be ALLOWED to adopt. Again, you are missing the big picture. A child needs a mother AND a father.

BillP:

So let me get this straight. we should continue to discriminate aginst homosexuals so we don’t have to explain things to our kids? What are we going to do with Blacks, disabled people, mentally ill people, foreigners, and other groups of people we have to exaplin to our kids?

We are not discriminating against them. We are protecting the rights of everyone else in this society, mainly the children who have a right to a mother AND a father. Marriage is between a man and a woman, it has nothing to do with race, being mentally ill, being foreign…disabled. That’s the definintion. We are not taking away any human rights by not letting them do something that they cannot by difinition do. Disabled people cannot drive, have limitations as far as jobs go, and so do foreigners who have limitations in this country. Are we discriminating?

BillP:

How? Does giving legals rights and protections to homoseuals “devalue” anything?

They have legal rights and protections, just like the rest of us. They just can’t get married, because that is for a man and a woman.

continued

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

So its your posiiton that homosexuality is contagious? That kids who don’t see homosexuals won’t become homosexuals?

Contagious wasn’t the word I used. It would definitely put more confusion out there then there already is about what the child’s gender roles are and their place in this society.

BillP:

First I’ve heard of that. Would you care to cite some actual evidence for this assertion?

Would you care to cite some actual evidence for the contrary? Or would you prefer to find out by experimenting with our children?
Bill P:

According to CDC about 35% of children were born out of wedlock in 2003 (the most current year for which stats are available). What does that have to do with homosexual marriage?

It has nothing to do with same sex marriage, so why are you bringing it up?

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

So in your reckoning, your “common sense” trumps the Church’s teaching?

I get very frustrated with people who want to arbitraily label things as either immoral or moral on the basis of their personal preferences.

I didn’t say that my common sense trumps the Church’s.

I get very frustrated with people that put words in other people’s mouths and skirt around the issue. My problem with the sex act, which you neglected to see is that it causes damage to the person receiving this act, (the woman).

I did not make up the fact that something is immoral if it casuses harm to another person. I can say for sure that the Church teaches this as well.

 

[C_S_P_B]

Whatever I think is right IS RIGHT! No one can tell me that my choices are wrong. I have a right to think whatever I want, and do whatever I want.

This is relativism. My feelings and thoughts count more than anyone elses. I determine my own truth.

So if I decide that it is right for me to cheat on my wife, who can tell me that my choice is wrong. What if I think that it is OK to murder someone I don’t like. Well you might say no to the first one, but everyone certainly will say no to the second one. That is because my actions hurt someone else and a society needs rules.

A gay marriage that has the same rights as a marriage between a man and a woman will potentially hurt children if they adopt. OK so we prohibit them from adopting, this could be for the good of the child but then the gay couple would not be equal to a man-women marriage.

So I guess we should not be talking about marriage but instead civil unions. Then the argument is that governments put programs in place to encourage the good of society by encouraging a man and a woman to be married and raise their children in a secure environment. Certain tax deductions and credits are put in place for this exact reason. I submit it is not good for society to give these benefits to a gay couple because they have no potential to use them for the purpose that the government implemented them.

What is the benefit to society for allowing gay marriage? We will have the oppotunity to re-engineer society values and many parts of the legals system.

Fatherhood and motherhood become parenting. Well, I am first a father and I father my children. My wife is first a mother and mothers our children. We do not just parent them.

The law uses the terms husband and wife. With gay marriage this becomes partner. Do they have the exact same rights and obligations? Men and women in marriage do not. Just look at divorce and how things are divided… there are differences in how a man and women are treated. So in a gay marriage, do both get male partner rights or both female partner rights?

I propose we wait about 40 years before the decision on gay marriage is made. That way we can look at what the impact gay marriage has had on Canada and decide if it works in a society.

 

[Libero]

But again, you’re concentrating on male gay sexuality. What about lesbians? They don’t do anything that isn’t done by straight folks, they just stop the trip a little sooner and don’t er, um finish up quite the same way (desperately in need of a blushing emoticon). Difficult to find it distasteful.

This has always been the case though, and I think it always shall be, lebianism was not illegal in Stalins Russia, yet being a gay man was. Gay men were persecuted to a far greater extent than lesbians under Htilers rule. And even today there are differences in laws etc. In Ireland the age of consent for sexual intercourse is 17, except for lesbians, when it is 15. There clearly is an attitude in which lesbianism is not taken as seriously as male homosexuality, which is something that annoys me, many men may be very vocal in condemning homosexuality, except when it comes to lesbians of course…

Oh well, I think that this attitude will be with use for a long time yet

 

[a_cermak]

Libero:

This has always been the case though, and I think it always shall be, lebianism was not illegal in Stalins Russia, yet being a gay man was. Gay men were persecuted to a far greater extent than lesbians under Htilers rule. And even today there are differences in laws etc. In Ireland the age of consent for sexual intercourse is 17, except for lesbians, when it is 15. There clearly is an attitude in which lesbianism is not taken as seriously as male homosexuality, which is something that annoys me, many men may be very vocal in condemning homosexuality, except when it comes to lesbians of course…

Oh well, I think that this attitude will be with use for a long time yet

But may that not tell us that secular arguments against gay marriage are perhaps more likely to be based on that which is taboo then that which is a good secular reason? All (or just about) of the supposed secular arguments about gay marriage don’t quite work when you’re talking about lesbians. Don’t want pedophiles? Hire a lesbian, their rates of it are incredibly low (much lower than straight men). Worried about HIV/AIDS? The lesbians are the chosen people. Promiscuity? Lesbians come in around the same level as straight folk depending on their age (the older the lesbian the less promiscuous just like with straights).

Pax,
Amy

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

I said nothing about not treating them with dignity, compassion and love, they have the same rights, they just can’t get married, because marriage is between a man and a woman.

First of all why aren’t they entitled to the same rights under the law? I’m not saying the Catholic Church should marry them. I’m saying the secular government has the duty to treat all of its citizens equally.

luvmykids:

They shouldn’t even be ALLOWED to adopt. Again, you are missing the big picture. A child needs a mother AND a father.

I totally agree that every child should be in a traditonal nuclear family with a mommy and a daddy. But there just aren’t enough of those families to go around. Right now there are more than 100,000 adoptable children in foster care in the US. But 50% of them are minorities and their average age is nine.While there ARE married heterosexual couples who desparately want to adopt children generally they are looking for a baby that meets their particular set of specifications.

What is wrong with single parents and/or same sex couples adopting one of these 100,000 at risk kids out of the horrors of the foster care system? Is it the optimum solution? Of course not. Is it better than where they are? Yeah.

luvmykids:

We are not discriminating against them. …We are not taking away any human rights by not letting them do something that they cannot by difinition do.

Thats pretty convenient that YOU get to define marriage then say “sorry you don’t fit the definition”. The only reason they don’t fit the definition is because of how you choose to define it. Nobody “defined” marriage because everybody held the traditional view of it. Similarly, until 1849 a “Doctor” was a man who had finished his medical education and staretd practice. Then Elizabeth Blackwell graduated from Medical School. DOn’t you think there were people who said, “you can’t be a Doctor, you’re a woman”? Of course there were.

luvmykids:

Disabled people cannot drive, have limitations as far as jobs go, and so do foreigners who have limitations in this country. Are we discriminating?

Not if the person can’t meet the actual requirements of whatever situation they’re attempting. What “requirement” of marriage can’t same sex couple meet? Mind you, I’m talking about an actual requirement not a traditional view.

luvmykids:

They have legal rights and protections, just like the rest of us. They just can’t get married, because that is for a man and a woman.

So youre denying them the right to equality under the law based on your definition again right?

 

[steveandersen]

luvmykids:

… My problem with the sex act, which you neglected to see is that it causes damage to the person receiving this act, (the woman)…

not to butt in or get us further OT but (like the old joke says) if there is damage then you’re doing it wrong

 

[Libero]

What is the benefit to society for allowing gay marriage? We will have the oppotunity to re-engineer society values and many parts of the legals system.

But the problem with asking the question of how society will benefit from gay civil unions is that the answer revolves around your own opinion, there is not much that could be considered definite fact. Some would very well want the minimum rights for homosexuals, others would want the same rights as heterosexuals - that is what it boils down to.

That is also why the question must remain “Why should their not be civil unions?” - from a non religious view.

Civil unions have begun, your task is no longer to stop them from ever happening, but rather for you to try and show why they should never have happened.

 

[BillP]

C S P B:

A gay marriage that has the same rights as a marriage between a man and a woman will potentially hurt children if they adopt. OK so we prohibit them from adopting, this could be for the good of the child but then the gay couple would not be equal to a man-women marriage.

Well not every man-woman marriage would be permitted to adopt either. In fact the “good of the child” is (or should be) the controlling factor in all adoption proceedings. If there is authoitative, convincing, empirical evidence that same sex parents are bad for kids then there’s not a problem disallowing same sex couple from adopting.
C S P B:

Then the argument is that governments put programs in place to encourage the good of society by encouraging a man and a woman to be married and raise their children in a secure environment. Certain tax deductions and credits are put in place for this exact reason.

This dog won’t hunt either. The benefits such as tax deductions and credits accrue with the presence of children, not the matrimonial state of the parents. In other words a single parent, a married couple and an unmarried couple get the exact same tax deducitons and credits for the same number of children.

No benefit accrues under the tax code to couples simply because they are married. Actually, for a small percentager of couples (aerning $100K+) there is actually a small disincentive to marry.
C S P B:

What is the benefit to society for allowing gay marriage? We will have the oppotunity to re-engineer society values and many parts of the legals system.

Is whether or not society “benefits” a proper determinative factor in whether or not we recognize all citizens as equal under the law? How did society “benefit” when Blacks were freed from slavery? How did society “benefit” when woman were permitted to vote?

Additionally what about all the studies that say married people, are wealthier, healthier, live longer, are less promiscuous, suffer less mental illness and are generally more stable? Dont homsexuals deserve these benefits?
C S P B:

Do they have the exact same rights and obligations? Men and women in marriage do not. Just look at divorce and how things are divided… there are differences in how a man and women are treated. So in a gay marriage, do both get male partner rights or both female partner rights?

In what way are men and women not treated equally? I don’t know where you live, but in Georgia there aren’t any “male partner rights” or “female partner rights”. In Georgia the person that get primary custody of children gets child support. If one spouse didn’t work outside the home during the marriage that spouse (male or female) gets alimony payments from the other spouse appropriate in amount and duration to the situation. How do they do it where you live?

 

[luvmykids]

steveandersen:

not to butt in or get us further OT but (like the old joke says) if there is damage then you’re doing it wrong

I’m talking about ANAL sex.

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

Is whether or not society “benefits” a proper determinative factor in whether or not we recognize all citizens as equal under the law? How did society “benefit” when Blacks were freed from slavery? How did society “benefit” when woman were permitted to vote?

Additionally what about all the studies that say married people, are wealthier, healthier, live longer, are less promiscuous, suffer less mental illness and are generally more stable? Dont homsexuals deserve these benefits?

Society benefited when blacks were freed from slavery, because they are human beings like the rest of us and did not deserve to be treated like animals. I highly doubt you can even compare slavery to homosexuals not being able to get married. Society benefited from women being able to vote, because women contribute to society as much as men do and their vote counts. Again, don’t think you can compare this to homosexuals not being able to get married.

On your second point, if we are talking studies here, there are studies that suggest that homosexuals do not benefit from health, longer life, less promiscuouty, and less mental illlness than single people. There are studies that suggest the opposite. In fact MORE mental illness, and MORE promiscuity.

 

[a_cermak]

Oh dear, that’s plain speaking indeed! Well, lesbians don’t always practise this (though some do). Gay men probably practise it a lot more, though many prefer OS for casual hookups. What I do know is that if care is given, harm is negligible. And I know that this practise is becoming more popular amongst the heterosexual population. (Where is that blushing emoticon!?)

Pax,
Amy

 

[luvmykids]

a_cermak:

Oh dear, that’s plain speaking indeed! Well, lesbians don’t always practise this (though some do). Gay men probably practise it a lot more, though many prefer OS for casual hookups. What I do know is that if care is given, harm is negligible. And I know that this practise is becoming more popular amongst the heterosexual population. (Where is that blushing emoticon!?)

Pax,
Amy

No matter how much care is given, there is still the risk of infection due to cross contamination if it is “finished” in the correct spot.

 

[a_cermak]

But that only applies to heterosexuals. And judicious use of warm water, towels and anti-bacterial agents might fix that problem.

I don’t see how that can possibly be an argument against gay marriage?

Pax,
Amy

 

[steveandersen]

luvmykids:

I’m talking about ANAL sex.

yeah, I know what you’re talking about