Same-Sex Marriage

[BillP]

luvmykids:

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.

So are Homosexuals.

luvmykids:

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.

My point is that it it not necessary for society to benefit to justify giving ALL people basic human rights. It is the right thing to do.

luvmykids:

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.

Yes they do. And at least part of the reason for these distressing facts is precisely that our society doesn’t permit same sex couples to benefit from the accountability and stability that marriage (or civil unions) provide.

 

[Consecrated]

Libero:

Absolutes as in “you’re either with me or against me” in that case no, I would probably say that in the majority of cases I do not believe in absolutes, however there shall be some instances where I do.

Ha… you’re consistent anyway.

BillP:

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.

As for the point of the OP, I think that, in America at least (and, it appears, throughout the world), there has developed an unhealthy and almost fanatical obsession about the separation of Church and State. And so that makes it really easy for some people to say with some degree of logic that “the Church can do what she wants regarding allowing/not allowing SSM, but the State has no right to limit the rights of its individuals, as long as they’re not hurting anyone.” For that reason, I believe it will be very hard to find a secular reason against SSM, or “civil unions” if you will, simply because there aren’t any… especially if you consider preserving the traditional definition of family a religious reason.

The best thing: pray for the conversion of hearts, that all people will realize morality is based on God who is Truth, and not on our own experiences (praise be to Jesus!). And that’s as unsecular as it gets.

 

[Ortho]

luvmykids:

I brought up that notion because that’s what we are talking about. That’s what this thread is about. Same-Sex Marriage. Not Roman Catholic Clergy and whether or not they should be allowed to be Roman Catholic Clergy. Homosexuals should not have a LEGAL right to be married. They as persons individually can contribute to society. They have the same value as individuals as any of the rest of us do and they deserve the same respect in any other way. They should not however, be seen as a marital equal to heterosexuals. The heterosexual marriage is life giving. It is nurturing to the lives and upbringing of the human race. You CANNOT say that about the homosexual union. It has no purpose other than for the 2 of them to be companions to each other. Their homosexuality in itself is not a contributing factor in society. That’s fine, but they should not be able to be considered equal to the life giving environment that the marital couple provides. Children need a mother AND a father. No matter what way you look at it. I came from a divorced family and it was horrible to grow up without a father. Another woman in my life would not have filled the void that not having a father caused. You are deluding yourself if you think differently. What about the rights of children? This country protects children from all other harm, abuse, neglect, etc… and tries to only provide the best environment for them to live in. Well this would just be another step in the direction of condoning something that is not healthy for children. It would cause further confusion, not only on the part of the children that were being raised by these same sex couples and what their roles as males and females are, but also on the children that were exposed to these families. One of the arguments given by homosexuals is that if they could change it they would. Well why would you want to plant doubt in the growing minds of children as to what their gender identities are? That is inflicting the same pain on them. This isn’t just something that is in their bedroom and doesn’t effect any of us. This effects ALL of us in one way or another.

Does the the marriage of two 70-year-olds have any purpose beyond companionship?

Homosexuals are not the marital equal of heterosexuals. One couple is a man and a woman. The other is either two men or two women. Two men does not equal a man and a woman. Two women does not equal a man and a woman. Who says it does?

Are the children of single Catholics being harmed? What about their rights? Is this healthy for children? What of the children exposed to the single Catholic parent and kids?

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

So are Homosexuals.

I’d hardly call not allowing homosexuals to get married as treating them like animals. Again, you cannot compare slavery to this.

BillP:

My point is that it it not necessary for society to benefit to justify giving ALL people basic human rights. It is the right thing to do.

It is not a basic human right to get married. If you want to take marriage, which was originally instituted for the good of the family and to be between a man and a woman and twist it to now include same sex, let’s just say I wanted to be married to, civilly united, whatever, to more than one person, because I love them both and that is MY right as a human being. It’s not hurting anyone right?

BillP:

Yes they do. And at least part of the reason for these distressing facts is precisely that our society doesn’t permit same sex couples to benefit from the accountability and stability that marriage (or civil unions) provide.

What exactly is it that gives married people the stability that prevents these distressing facts? Do you think being civilly united will give homosexuals any more stability as far as their relationship goes? Will it ensure that they will always be together? It doesn’t work that way with marriage. What would it change about the relationship itself? I highly doubt that it would change much about their stability, unless they don’t trust each other. I don’t really get the point. What is it going to do, other than if one leaves the other they owe the other money, does that make a marriage happy? Is that what causes these feel good emotions and health in a marriage? To know that “if we get divorced I can at least get half of what we have.”

 

[luvmykids]

Ortho:

Does the the marriage of two 70-year-olds have any purpose beyond companionship?

Homosexuals are not the marital equal of heterosexuals. One couple is a man and a woman. The other is either two men or two women. Two men does not equal a man and a woman. Two women does not equal a man and a woman. Who says it does?

Are the children of single Catholics being harmed? What about their rights? Is this healthy for children? What of the children exposed to the single Catholic parent and kids?

These things are all things that are not good. Of course it is better for a child not to grow up in single parent household, but 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Why make things worse? Doesn’t make any sense.

 

[luvmykids]

As far as the two 70 year olds, yes there is a purpose beyond companionship, the same as it was when they were 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60. For the stability of the family.

 

[Ortho]

One hundred posts and still no non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage.

Here’s a test. List three particular and specific damages to heterosexual civil marriage from gay civil marriage.

This test has been around for a while. But don’t be discouraged. Give it a try.

 

[Ortho]

luvmykids:

These things are all things that are not good. Of course it is better for a child not to grow up in single parent household, but 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Why make things worse? Doesn’t make any sense.

The marriage of two 70-year-olds is not good? Why?

A family headed by a single Catholic parent is not good? Why?

 

[Ortho]

luvmykids:

As far as the two 70 year olds, yes there is a purpose beyond companionship, the same as it was when they were 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60. For the stability of the family.

Stability of what family? If two 70-year-olds get married, what is the purpose other than companionship?

Didn’t you tell us earlier that marriage was for procreation? Won’t children be confused if Martha is walking up the aisle with a walker?

 

[Consecrated]

luvmykids:

What exactly is it that gives married people the stability that prevents these distressing facts? Do you think being civilly united will give homosexuals any more stability as far as their relationship goes? Will it ensure that they will always be together? It doesn’t work that way with marriage. What would it change about the relationship itself? I highly doubt that it would change much about their stability, unless they don’t trust each other. I don’t really get the point. What is it going to do, other than if one leaves the other they owe the other money, does that make a marriage happy? Is that what causes these feel good emotions and health in a marriage? To know that “if we get divorced I can at least get half of what we have.”

You have a point. Stability and accountability are mostly provided by the SACRAMENT of marriage. Which is why civil heteroxsexual unions don’t have a great reputation of success. Fallen humans aren’t stable and accountable in and of themselves. Again, though, this isn’t a secular arguement.

ortho:

One hundred posts and still no non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage.

Here’s a test. List three particular and specific damages to heterosexual civil marriage from gay civil marriage.

This test has been around for a while. But don’t be discouraged. Give it a try.

Are you going to give it a try? I’m rather interested in seeing what you might consider to be a “non-religious” reason to oppose SSM, since you have rejected all so far.

 

[felra]

BillP:

My point is that it it not necessary for society to benefit to justify giving ALL people basic human rights. It is the right thing to do.

Yes they do. And at least part of the reason for these distressing facts is precisely that our society doesn’t permit same sex couples to benefit from the accountability and stability that marriage (or civil unions) provide.

Why should a society founded and based on judeo-christian values and beliefs feel it “necessary” to legally sanction and afford rights, privileges and benefits to unions and living arrangements based solely on sexual lifestyle preference? All those rights desired are accessible through existing legal means that require no legistation. Why is sexual lifestyle preference a special “class” in need of special rights reserved for heterosexual unions that can potentially generate offspring?

“Beyond Conjugality” contains three basic recommendations. First, judges are directed to concentrate on whether the individuals before are “functionally interdependent,” regardless of their actual marital status. On that theory, a household consisting of an adult child still living with his mother might be treated as the functional equivalent of a married couple. In so disregarding marital status, “Beyond Conjugality” is clearly drawing on the work of Minow, whose writings are listed in the bibliography.

“Beyond Conjugality”'s second key recommendation is that a legal structure be established allowing people to register their personal relationships with the government. Not only could heterosexual couples register as official partners, so could gay couples, adult children living with parents, and siblings or friends sharing a house. Although the authors of “Beyond Conjugality” are politic enough to relegate the point to footnotes, they state that they see no reason, in principle, to limit registered partnerships to two people.

The final recommendation of “Beyond Conjugality”–legalization of same-sex marriage–drew the most publicity when the report was released. Yet for the Law Commission of Canada, same-sex marriage is clearly just one part of the larger project of doing away with marriage itself. “Beyond Conjugality” stops short of recommending the abolition of legal marriage. The authors glumly note that, for the moment, the public is unlikely to accept such a step.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?pg=2

 

[BillP]

Consecrated:

You have a point. Stability and accountability are mostly provided by the SACRAMENT of marriage. Which is why civil heteroxsexual unions don’t have a great reputation of success.

Nope. The studies don’t make a distinction between civil and religious marriage. Pretty much all marriage is beneficial for its participants.

 

[luvmykids]

Ortho:

The marriage of two 70-year-olds is not good? Why?

A family headed by a single Catholic parent is not good? Why?

I did not say that the marriage of two 70 year olds is not good, I’m sorry if I confused you, I addressed the two 70 year olds situation in the post below my first one. Maybe you didn’t read that far. A family headed by a single person is not AS GOOD as one that would be headed by a stable married couple so that the child could have a mother and a father. A mother and a father, even if you are just considering natural law in and of itself without religion, dictates that a man and a woman raise a child. We are not asexual as humans. Human beings were meant to be raised by a male and a female. Each having it’s own roles.

 

[luvmykids]

Ortho:

Stability of what family? If two 70-year-olds get married, what is the purpose other than companionship?

Didn’t you tell us earlier that marriage was for procreation? Won’t children be confused if Martha is walking up the aisle with a walker?

It won’t really be confusing for them to see Martha walking up the aisle with a walker, because they know that a man and a woman are suppose to be together. By the way, how many 70 year olds do you know that have gotten married at 70?

I did not say that marriage was only for procreation. It is also for the stability of the family unit and for companionship. Stability of ALL families. I’m perplexed as to how you can be so unsure as to why it is important for children to see men and women together and how it would be confusing for them to see otherwise.

 

[Ortho]

Consecrated:

You have a point. Stability and accountability are mostly provided by the SACRAMENT of marriage. Which is why civil heteroxsexual unions don’t have a great reputation of success. Fallen humans aren’t stable and accountable in and of themselves. Again, though, this isn’t a secular arguement.

Are you going to give it a try? I’m rather interested in seeing what you might consider to be a “non-religious” reason to oppose SSM, since you have rejected all so far.

I have tried the test, and I failed miserably. I can’t think of any harm done to heterosexual civil marriage by homosexual civil marriage. Maybe you can do better?

 

[Ortho]

luvmykids:

I did not say that the marriage of two 70 year olds is not good, I’m sorry if I confused you, I addressed the two 70 year olds situation in the post below my first one. Maybe you didn’t read that far. A family headed by a single person is not AS GOOD as one that would be headed by a stable married couple so that the child could have a mother and a father. A mother and a father, even if you are just considering natural law in and of itself without religion, dictates that a man and a woman raise a child. We are not asexual as humans. Human beings were meant to be raised by a male and a female. Each having it’s own roles.

Even if one believes natural law dictates that a man and a woman raise a child, we observe many single parents doing a very good job.

 

[luvmykids]

Ortho:

Even if one believes natural law dictates that a man and a woman raise a child, we observe many single parents doing a very good job.

Really? Where? And what is the evidence that suggests this?

 

[Ortho]

luvmykids:

It won’t really be confusing for them to see Martha walking up the aisle with a walker, because they know that a man and a woman are suppose to be together. By the way, how many 70 year olds do you know that have gotten married at 70?

I did not say that marriage was only for procreation. It is also for the stability of the family unit and for companionship. Stability of ALL families. I’m perplexed as to how you can be so unsure as to why it is important for children to see men and women together and how it would be confusing for them to see otherwise.

There are a surprising number of seniors getting married. They do it for companionship and economic stability.

However, you criticized SSM because it is only for companionship. So is the marriage of the 70-year-olds.

How does the marriage of 70-year-olds reinforce the stability of all families?

Why wouldn’t SSM reinforce the stability of all families?

I bring up confusion of children because you have used it as a major objection to SSM.

I am perplexed about why it is important for children to se men and women together. Why?

 

[Ortho]

luvmykids:

Really? Where? And what is the evidence that suggests this?

My next door neighbor did a very good job raising her kids after her husband died. All are well adjusted, contributing members of society. That’s antecdotal, but that’s what you asked for.

Do you contend Catholic single parents are doing a poor job raising their kids? Why?

 

[luvmykids]

I worked with a lesbian woman about 5 years ago who was with a so called stable partner and they were trying to get pregnant using donor sperm. The partner would inseminate this woman during their sex act with a syringe or whatever you would call it. Basically trying to mimic the heterosexual way of bringing forth life. Well, the woman failed to get pregnant after many unsuccessful attempts. Needless to say, this so called stable, loving relationship ended about a year or so later. How would this have been good for a child if one would have been procreated this way? Doesn’t sound like it was a very stable union. They must not have been happy enough together to have had a child? Why must we continue to play with the lives of children this way?