O
Ortho
Guest
Where? I don’t know. Depends on the individual situation.
- Status
O
Ortho
Guest
OK. Glad it isn’t wrong. How many families are optimal in all respects?
O
Ortho
Guest
I’m not nearly as concerned with the confusion of kids as you seem to be. I really don’t see why society should be limited by kids confusion. The job of parents is to explain things so they aren’t confused. Some parents can do it; the rest should have avoided kids.
There may be 70-year-olds with kids. But there seems to be no objection from anyone to two seventy-year-olds with no family getting married. They do it for companionship. That’s a reason you claim to be invalid.
O
Ortho
Guest
Who cares what the Catholic Church thinks? This is civil marriage. The Church can have any rules it wants for its members getting married in the Church.
Millions of couples get married and are not open to life. Most Catholics use artificial BC, and they are not open to life. Is civil marriage to follow Catholic rules that even Catholics have overwhelmingly rejected?
If Marriage=man+woman>>>children, then two 70-year-olds with no families don’t qualify.
K
kaymart
Guest
Who cares what the Catholic Church thinks? I DO!!!, as many posters here do too. :banghead: If you don’t care then leave thank you. Most Catholics I know are open to life, maybe its the people you know that are not. If a man and a woman of 70 years of age and are free to marry in the Catholic Church they are permitted to do so, who the heck are you to rewrite Church Doctrine??? As I stated before it also goes for infertile couples, they can be Married. SSM’s break down the morals of Society, it doesn’t matter if you are Catholic, Jewish, Lutheran, Muslim or whatever. It is not as God intended. As the old saying goes God created Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve. (or Annie and Eve)
K
kaymart
Guest
People who have children are. By your profile you are only 21 the same age as my middle child. Talk to us after you have a few children and sit with a curious 5 year old who asks one question after another and you have to explain why Jimmy has 2 mommies? Where is Suzy’s Daddy? or Why those two men are kissing? Or try Telling your teen daughter to keep herself for marriage, while the media and people living around her are living immorallly. At the same time with all this going on you try as you might, to instill the values you want you child to have. Parenting is a hard job. Trust me I been doing it for 28 years. Again how do you know the seventy year old couple is sexually active or not? They are permitted to marry even if she is past menopause. I did not know YOU decided there is an age limit for sex. I better warn my husband, he only has 9 years and 7 months to go.
A
a_cermak
Guest
Well of course you care what the Catholic Church teaches, but the subject of the thread is a plea for SECULAR reasons, not religious ones. With None of the Above being the fastest growing religious category in this country (according to the Barna group), secular reasons must be proffered for the way the state operates.
Pax,
Amy
Pax,
Amy
L
luvmykids
Guest
If you want some good secular reasons as to why SSM is a threat to society, take some time and read these articles.
Here is an article describing why ssm is not discrimination:
regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF
Here is an article that says,
“Affirming gay relationships becomes not a legislative proposal to address a social need, nor a mere expression of formal equality, but a substantive governing, constitutional principle: It will be open season on the Catholic Church and other religious groups and organizations that sustain a different vision of human sexual ethics. Hate-speech codes, yanking of broadcasting licenses, and termination of the tax-exempt status of traditional organizations — just a few of the legal threats looming. Far-fetched? In Europe and Canada it is already happening.”
nationalreview.com/comment/gallagher200403010854.asp
In this article it says-
"The Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. There is a real problem of distributive justice here. How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn’t citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children? "
opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735
“If marriage were based solely on one’s affections, the need for companionship, the desire for genital stimulation or a wish for increased benefits, the possible arrangements would be endless. The redefinition of marriage would reduce it to a commitment between any two individuals or entities and there are many relationships in society that would meet the new criteria.”
Read this article,meridianmagazine.com/familywatch/040119love.html
“Contrary to the court’s opinion, marriage is not “an evolving paradigm.” It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.” opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004647
“a wealth of social science data, much too voluminous to even summarize in this article, demonstrates that dual-gender parenting is essential to the successful social, emotional and civic development of children.” defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/recentarticles/modernattack.cfm
Our children are the MOST important factor to consider when thinking about why SSM is a bad idea. They are the future of this country, our society, and they will be the ones who really suffer the consequeces of this.
Here is an article describing why ssm is not discrimination:
regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF
Here is an article that says,
“Affirming gay relationships becomes not a legislative proposal to address a social need, nor a mere expression of formal equality, but a substantive governing, constitutional principle: It will be open season on the Catholic Church and other religious groups and organizations that sustain a different vision of human sexual ethics. Hate-speech codes, yanking of broadcasting licenses, and termination of the tax-exempt status of traditional organizations — just a few of the legal threats looming. Far-fetched? In Europe and Canada it is already happening.”
nationalreview.com/comment/gallagher200403010854.asp
In this article it says-
"The Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. There is a real problem of distributive justice here. How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn’t citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children? "
opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735
“If marriage were based solely on one’s affections, the need for companionship, the desire for genital stimulation or a wish for increased benefits, the possible arrangements would be endless. The redefinition of marriage would reduce it to a commitment between any two individuals or entities and there are many relationships in society that would meet the new criteria.”
Read this article,meridianmagazine.com/familywatch/040119love.html
“Contrary to the court’s opinion, marriage is not “an evolving paradigm.” It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.” opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004647
“a wealth of social science data, much too voluminous to even summarize in this article, demonstrates that dual-gender parenting is essential to the successful social, emotional and civic development of children.” defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/recentarticles/modernattack.cfm
Our children are the MOST important factor to consider when thinking about why SSM is a bad idea. They are the future of this country, our society, and they will be the ones who really suffer the consequeces of this.
K
kaymart
Guest
Very Good:thumbsup:
K
kaymart
Guest
Ok, Let’s put all the moral stuff behind, pretend we live in a totally Godless world. The same sex couple if they have joint property or if a Lesbian has a child the natural way (with a man)—then go to a lawyer, draw up a partnership to protect the surving person. If you want custody to go to the partner, that’s fine, a mother must make sure for her child’s future if she dies. Joint property will be given to the person named in the will. The need for Mariage is not there. About Health Insurance, that’s too bad, but heterosexual couples can not put their aging parents on a policy, You can’t cover young adult children or grandchildren that You don’t have custody of. The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise abuses of the system will be more out of control then it is already.
B
BillP
Guest
The OP asked for secular reasons to prohibit SSM. By the way,I what the Church thinks too, but we live in s society that is 76% non-Catholic. Therefore we can’t expect our religious mores to determine the practice of society. If YOU dont like that then leave. By the way do you get a special price by buying exclamation points in bulk?
Most Catholics I know are open to life, maybe its the people you know that are not.
Well since 80%+ of married Catholics are practicing ABC I’d say you knew a very special group.
kaymart:
Pay attention. No one in this entire thread said the Church should permit SSM. Each and every post has been in defense of secular civil partnership type marriages.
kaymart:
This is a totally unsupported assertion that many have made and no one has proved. I’ve seen a lot of inflammatory predjudicial rhetoric conflating homosexuals with child molesters and citing their increased incidence of STDs. There has also beeen a lot of trend data about the breakdown of the nuclear family and how only two in five kids live in traditional nuclear families, but I can’t for the life of me see how homosexuals in committed relationships factor in to this.
By the way, lesbians have an even lower incidence of STDs and child molestation that the general hetersexual public. How come they can’t marry?
As far as I can see these people should be encouraged as much as possible to stop the deplorable promiscuity and other risky behaviors that contribute the their shorter life expectancy and generally poorer mental and physical health. One of the ways we, as a society, can do this is giving them an alternative. Same sex civil unions are one alternative.
kaymart:
How long oh Lord, how long, is it going to take people to realize that the United States is NOT a Christian (much less a Catholic!) theocracy? Of course if you’d like to discuss whether or not that fact should pertain I’d be happy to do but we should probably start another topic.
L
luvmykids
Guest
I think someone above, pointed this out to her in a more charitable manner, so your response really isn’t necessary.
I don’t know what country you’re from, but in this country, marriage never stopped anyone who already has a history of promiscuity and other risky behaviors from doing these things, I’m sure SSM is not going to do it for these people. Sorry, not a relevent argument with that one.
K
kaymart
Guest
OK I got it, Read my lastest post #150 I state only secular reasons and offer an alternative. The breakdown of the nuclear family is the cause of many problems today, whether it be Homosexual couples, divorce, out of wedlock children and so forth. This has nothing to do with Religion, it has to do with the way people are living today. I know there has been homosexuals since the beginning of time, but Tell me why do 2 persons of the same sex DESERVE the same rights as a married man and woman, when marriage, be it a Civil or not is only intended for a man and a woman? Can you give us a valid reason why? Can you tell me why a legal paper drawn up by a lawyer would not protect the “couple” in case of death of one of the parnters as stated in post #150?
S
steveandersen
Guest
Well… I’m not sure what country you’re from
BUT it appears to be fairly common for some people (regardless sexual of preference) to have a more or less “wild” youth or single adulthood that is ended when they settle down and get married.Are some people incorrigible hedonists? Sure. Does that mean that every homosexual will be trolling the tenderloin district for his entire life? I doubt it.
B
BillP
Guest
You’ve got to be kidding. None of these give actual reasons. Did you bother to read them?
So what? We shouldn.t permit SSM because it will cause people to ridicule the Catholic Church? Please. The Catholic Church has done enough to subject itself to ridicule. Besides, it’s not the job of the United States government to mediate between different religious groups and their perceptions of human ethics. It is the job of the United States government to provide its citizens whe equal protection under the law.
Another argument denying homosexuals basic human rights because of social expediency, in this case whining about how expensive it is. And it’s a specious whine at that. To my knowledge no one has applied for retroactive benefits in Canada.
Very ingeniously phrased question here. Problem is “all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives” have the option of arranging their affairs so that they can claim those people as dependents. Then they could get the tax deducitons, credits etc. Homosexuals don’t have that option. Why shouldn’t they?
No, people should have a chance to marry who they want, but not to vote on who other people can marry.
Don’t see a problem here. I don’t have a problem with government permitting “commitment between any two individuals” providing they were both adult and consenting. Not sure what “entities” means here, but requiring consent should just about cover it.
Come on, this is just Milt Romney whining because things didn’t go his way.
Look this is getting tiresome. SSM has NOTHING to do with children. Homosexuals are ALREADY adopting children without SSM. If you think there’s something wrong with that, I’d be happy to open another topic to discuss that. I’m sorry but it’s simply not germain to this discussion. SSM will not change the status of children. To continue saying that it will is not true and obviously not a reason for denying them the many benefits or marriage.
Let’s try a little thought experiment. You say
. Okay. Let’s say we permit SSM if both parties sign away their right to adopt or hold custody of children. Are you now in favor? Why not?
F
felra
Guest
B
BillP
Guest
First of all, another poster though my response to you was uncharitable. If you took it that way, I am sorry. I didn’t intend to come across that way. If I did, please accept my apologies.
kaymart:
In a larger sense, I don’t think the government should be abiding by religious restrictions on marriage. I’d be perfectly happy seeing the government abolish marriage and treat all citizens equally regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race creed, color etc. Then if two people wanted to get married they could find a church that suited them or not.
kaymart:
The government on the other hand, I do have a dog in that hunt. Every time the government abrogates the rights of even one person my rights are abrogated just a little bit. Including, maybe my right to be Catholic.
kaymart:
I was horrified and looked into the matter, talked to lawyers etc. She was right. There are certain ironclad protections married couples receive that simply can’t be replicated by other legal documents. That’s when I changed my mind and became a proponent of SSM if they take the form of Civil Unions.
Because I see the right to marriage as a basic human right. And human rights derive from our status as “humans” rather than anything we’ve done to “deserve” them. Secularly, everyone should have the right to marry anyone who consents to marry them. For the purposes of that statement I stipulate that minors are per se eliminated because of their legal inability to give consent.
In a larger sense, I don’t think the government should be abiding by religious restrictions on marriage. I’d be perfectly happy seeing the government abolish marriage and treat all citizens equally regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race creed, color etc. Then if two people wanted to get married they could find a church that suited them or not.
Well, the Church tells me that God intended the Sacrament of Marriage for one man and one woman. Okay, fair enough. I don’t understand why God did that, but God has certainly never told me he didn’t, the Church is pretty reliable and I don’t really have dog in this hunt anyway, so I’m okay with it.
The government on the other hand, I do have a dog in that hunt. Every time the government abrogates the rights of even one person my rights are abrogated just a little bit. Including, maybe my right to be Catholic.
I thought the same thing until recently. A woman I worked with is a lesbian, her partner was diagnosed with cancer, the woman had a durable power of attorney for heathcare decisions specifying certain end of life measures (basically she wanted whatever measures were available to prolong her life). The partner’s family successfully overrode both the durable power of attorney and thus the victims own specifically stated wishes and pulled the plug on her. The family even barred my co-worker from the hospital. Couldn’t have happened if they had been married.
I was horrified and looked into the matter, talked to lawyers etc. She was right. There are certain ironclad protections married couples receive that simply can’t be replicated by other legal documents. That’s when I changed my mind and became a proponent of SSM if they take the form of Civil Unions.
K
kaymart
Guest
The only reason I started with the Religious tone was because as a Catholic I was responding to a person who attacked my Faith by saying “Who cares what the Catholic Church thinks?” I am not ignorant and understood the question. What it seems to be the problem here is people are trying to rewrite nature. If you belief is their is no God, Allah, or whatever and we came from Apes or whatever, nature somehow created Male and Female in the world to reproduce. Somebody somewhere created it that the bodies “fit” together and are “NORMALLY” drawn to the opposite sex, to create new life, now the arguement of old people or infertile couples that can not reproduce so should not marry, holds no merit because no matter what they are a man and a woman. Now you might say Homosexuals are drawn to each other so they should marry, well that arguement is just as silly as I am drawn to my dog, so why not marry. Or I feel like living in the nicer home next door instead of my old home, maybe I’ll have laws drawn up so I can have what they have. It goes against common sense. Period!!!(yes, I get a discount for exclaimation points!!!)
B
BillP
Guest
I don’t want to hijack this thread.
Would you like me to open a new topic about Separation of Church and State? I’d be happy to do so.
K
kaymart
Guest
About your co-workers I am sorry to hear that, the dying woman’s wishes should have not been overidden by the families, but after Teri we know unfortunately what happens. There are married couples who also had wishes overidden be it money or other family. I’m sorry I get so heated ----Peace.
- Status