Same-Sex Marriage

[felra]

BillP:

I don’t want to hijack this thread.

Would you like me to open a new topic about Seaparation on Church and State? I’d be happy to do so.

There are threads already addressing this.

I interject my feedback because the crux of your argument hinges on what one believes constitutes a “marriage” and what is in the best interest of a society that is a majority Judeo-Christian in values and beliefs. By severing your Catholic faith to engage segments of the greater society at hand, you leave the foundation of your beliefs, and when push comes to shove, you have all but succumbed to relativism, which is the antithesis of our Catholic faith and the mission of the Church. This is why faith is entirely relevant to the discussion at hand (no matter how secular the reasons being sought).

 

[a_cermak]

My reason for either doing away with marriage as a civil institution (everyone gets civil unions) or allowing homosexuals to marry is simply as a matter of civil justice. I don’t believe that citizens should be denied rights offered to other citizens. Either everyone gets them or no one gets them. In my paradigm, 1 person would be allowed to partner (civil union, marriage whatever) with 1 person civilly (they could have as many religious spouses as wanted–they would only get the civil benefits of one partner though–this is to make the benefits issue fair) at a time.

The civil partnerships of Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve, and Eve and Lana should be identical under the law.

And that’s a completely different issue from religious matters.

Pax,
Amy

 

[felra]

a_cermak:

My reason for either doing away with marriage as a civil institution (everyone gets civil unions) or allowing homosexuals to marry is simply as a matter of civil justice. I don’t believe that citizens should be denied rights offered to other citizens. Either everyone gets them or no one gets them. In my paradigm, 1 person would be allowed to partner (civil union, marriage whatever) with 1 person civilly (they could have as many religious spouses as wanted–they would only get the civil benefits of one partner though–this is to make the benefits issue fair) at a time.

The civil partnerships of Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve, and Eve and Lana should be identical under the law.

And that’s a completely different issue from religious matters.

Pax,
Amy

Yours is a scarry proposition that left to its logical conclusion is a recipe for chaos. Persons seeking a lifestyle based solely on sexual preference and lacking in procreative capacity in and of itself, are no more deserving of “civil rights” than “anyone or everyone who feels that they have a basis for civil rights”. Your argument is lacking a coherent whole/foundation of values and beliefs (unless of course, your belief system is relativism) from which to assess and make value judgments of which claims/pleas are in need/deserving of “civil rights” protection. I would think that with all the emotional and health risks associated with SSA liasons, these individual folks are more in need of a protection from their own sexual lifestyles thasn condining them.

 

[luvmykids]

a_cermak:

My reason for either doing away with marriage as a civil institution (everyone gets civil unions) or allowing homosexuals to marry is simply as a matter of civil justice. I don’t believe that citizens should be denied rights offered to other citizens. Either everyone gets them or no one gets them. In my paradigm, 1 person would be allowed to partner (civil union, marriage whatever) with 1 person civilly (they could have as many religious spouses as wanted–they would only get the civil benefits of one partner though–this is to make the benefits issue fair) at a time.

The civil partnerships of Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve, and Eve and Lana should be identical under the law.

And that’s a completely different issue from religious matters.

Pax,
Amy

Why is it so difficult for some to understand that marriage has a religious foundation, no matter what anyone believes. It is not something that everyone as a human being has a right to, because by definition marriage is the unity of a man and a woman. That is it’s definition. Minors can’t get married, because they can’t give consent and homosexuals can’t get married because they are of the same sex. They don’t have a right to something that by definition, they are unable to do. Sorry if it’s so hard to understand. They were not made to sexually be together, whether you believe it to be God who made them or they were just made. If they want to be able to draw up some legal papers between themselves that if one of them dies the other is left with it all, or consent for medical information, or whatever it be, then so be it.

Society itself is what began to take religion out of marriage and that’s when it all started to come crashing down, and now our divorce rate is so high. The fact is that no legality is going to promote them to be committed to one another, that is not what keeps people together…isn’t that obvious? It is the very thing that marriage was founded on, the religous, spiritual part of it that keeps couples together, not the whatever makes me feel good, self serving, whatever turns me on, companionship part of it. ANYONE can be a companion to one another. ANYONE can genitally stimulate another. I can promise you that SSM is not going to correct the problems they are having with promiscuity, and risky behaviors. Homosexuality in itself is a risky behavior. This is a problem, because it is disordered. It is not something normal…if you believe it to be so, explain why only 2% of the population has this problem?

 

[john_ennis]

a_cermak:

My reason for either doing away with marriage as a civil institution (everyone gets civil unions) or allowing homosexuals to marry is simply as a matter of civil justice. I don’t believe that citizens should be denied rights offered to other citizens. Either everyone gets them or no one gets them. In my paradigm, 1 person would be allowed to partner (civil union, marriage whatever) with 1 person civilly (they could have as many religious spouses as wanted–they would only get the civil benefits of one partner though–this is to make the benefits issue fair) at a time.

The civil partnerships of Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve, and Eve and Lana should be identical under the law.

And that’s a completely different issue from religious matters.

Pax,
Amy

You wouldn’t discriminate against those who wish to enter into an incestuous marriage, would you, then?

Peace,
John

Oh, and of course, you wouldn’t deny any united couple the right to adopt, correct?
Which immediately creates an unfair situation–some children being denied their right to a father and mother, while others are given that right.

 

[kaymart]

Now that wording, a “Civil Partnership” not the word “Marriage” I could live with. I believe that any joint properties own by any two individuals should be protected, in case of death of the other. Also the custody of a child who was born to a lesbian, should not be uprooted from their home in the case of death of natural mother. But I can not go along with the Health Insurance part because there are siblings who live together, strait roomates, aging parents who live with grown children, adult children still living at home, men and women who simply live together, it would get ridiculous. They have to draw the line some where. I agree with leaving it as is. Husband, wife, Children (natural or adopted)-(that would cover child of lesbian who dies, her partner would in fact become the child’s legal guardian and under that they can get insurance for the child.) Again I think it’s the word “Marriage” or “Civil Union” that rubs people the wrong way, but a “civil partnership” (this could even be two strait people) could work if it main objective is to protect a persons property and guardianship provided for the child(ren)

 

[luvmykids]

kaymart:

Now that wording, a “Civil Partnership” not the word “Marriage” I could live with. I believe that any joint properties own by any two individuals should be protected, in case of death of the other. Also the custody of a child who was born to a lesbian, should not be uprooted from their home in the case of death of natural mother. But I can not go along with the Health Insurance part because there are siblings who live together, strait roomates, aging parents who live with grown children, adult children still living at home, men and women who simply live together, it would get ridiculous. They have to draw the line some where. I agree with leaving it as is. Husband, wife, Children (natural or adopted)-(that would cover child of lesbian who dies, her partner would in fact become the child’s legal guardian and under that they can get insurance for the child.) Again I think it’s the word “Marriage” or “Civil Union” that rubs people the wrong way, but a “civil partnership” (this could even be two strait people) could work if it main objective is to protect a persons property and guardianship provided for the child(ren)

I agree.

 

[Consecrated]

BillP:

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.

Please define your perception of “basic human right”. The founding fathers viewed basic human rights as those things that are gifts from God, and therefore NOT created by the state. (Ex: the right to life, the right to provide for self and family, the right to freely worship God…) Rather, they intended that the State should exist with the purpose of (justly) defending those rights. Now, if you would agree with this, we must ask, “Who gives two men/women the ‘right’ to a civil union? God? Or, if you don’t believe in a god/creator, the State?”

BillP:

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?

Please try to understand. It is not just the possible children of SSM that we are concerned with here. It is OUR children as well, who LIVE and are being formed in a society that sees same-sex union as NORMAL, when it is NOT. Now, in order to come to the understanding that it is not normal, one must first agree to hold to some sort of objective moral standard, and then agree that Natural Law is in fact THE moral standard. Now, if you believe that the Natural Law arguement against homosexuality is a “religous” one because it is based on the idea that there is a First Mover Who is infinite, then I’m out of ideas.

 

[a_cermak]

You know as far as incest, if the couple is of age (able to consent) and emotionally healthy (again, able to give consent) I don’t see a problem with it for civil partnerships. I actually see it as a way that a bachelor could provide benefits to his aged mother. The state really shouldn’t care whether sexual relations are part of the relationship at all.

The same goes with the comments about health insurance–that other people can’t cover other people–well there you go, enter a civil partnership. Although this point will probably be moot in a decade or so as I’ve seen a few companies lately going toward an employee and children coverage and ending or curtailing spousal coverage.

Pax,
Amy

 

[kaymart]

a_cermak:

You know as far as incest, if the couple is of age (able to consent) and emotionally healthy (again, able to give consent) I don’t see a problem with it for civil partnerships. I actually see it as a way that a bachelor could provide benefits to his aged mother. The state really shouldn’t care whether sexual relations are part of the relationship at all.

The same goes with the comments about health insurance–that other people can’t cover other people–well there you go, enter a civil partnership. Although this point will probably be moot in a decade or so as I’ve seen a few companies lately going toward an employee and children coverage and ending or curtailing spousal coverage.

Pax,
Amy

Now c’mon this is getting disgusting, even the most vocal Atheist might find this offensive. Incest is wrong period. There is no pros and cons here. Heck why don’t we marry the family dog or fluffy the cat?

 

[felra]

a_cermak:

You know as far as incest, if the couple is of age (able to consent) and emotionally healthy (again, able to give consent) I don’t see a problem with it for civil partnerships. I actually see it as a way that a bachelor could provide benefits to his aged mother. The state really shouldn’t care whether sexual relations are part of the relationship at all.

The same goes with the comments about health insurance–that other people can’t cover other people–well there you go, enter a civil partnership. Although this point will probably be moot in a decade or so as I’ve seen a few companies lately going toward an employee and children coverage and ending or curtailing spousal coverage.

Pax,
Amy

So basically you are talking about insurance coverage for individuals independent of their reasons for wanting to carry dependent coverage? This can be accomplished via routes other than civil rights (based on sexual lifestyle preference or otherwise).

 

[felra]

kaymart:

Now c’mon this is getting disgusting, even the most vocal Atheist might find this offensive. Incest is wrong period. There is no pros and cons here. Heck why don’t we marry the family dog or fluffy the cat?

Exactly as I contended in my previous post – this position is a recipe for societal chaos. Those who support rights for SSA unions keep denying the slippery slope that they want society to embark upon as they preoccupy in pursuit of immediate gains of their own self-serving agends.

 

[kaymart]

felra:

Exactly as I contended in my previous post – this position is a recipe for societal chaos. Those who support rights for SSA unions keep denying the slippery slope that they want society to embark upon in their preoccupation with the immediates gains of their own self-serving agends.

Exactly:thumbsup: let one group have their way and we can only imagine what would happen next. They can’t seem to get it, Felra, as you, I and a few others try to point out it’s a break down of decency in society. They claim we are throwing Religion around but its not, there are certain strandards people have to abide by, otherwise this would become a totally lawless world that everyone would just do what feels good and not care who or what it hurts.

 

[a_cermak]

I’m not suggesting incest as a sexual practise. I was suggesting it as a way of providing for the welfare of aged or infirm family members.

But if a 60 year old woman and her 40 year old son want to do things behind closed doors, I’m repulsed and appalled. But I don’t think laws should consider repulsion factors. And it’s a myth that such pairings result in horrific children being born. It simply increases the chance (considerably) that recessive nasties in the genetic tree of the individual will be exhibited.

How about just entirely getting rid of civil marriage period. No laws having to do with marriage. Everything to be decided by contract. Paternity to be decided by DNA. Alimony and settlement to be determined by pre-existing contract.

Pax,
Amy

 

[john_ennis]

a_cermak:

You know as far as incest, if the couple is of age (able to consent) and emotionally healthy (again, able to give consent) I don’t see a problem with it for civil partnerships. I actually see it as a way that a bachelor could provide benefits to his aged mother. The state really shouldn’t care whether sexual relations are part of the relationship at all.

The same goes with the comments about health insurance–that other people can’t cover other people–well there you go, enter a civil partnership. Although this point will probably be moot in a decade or so as I’ve seen a few companies lately going toward an employee and children coverage and ending or curtailing spousal coverage.

Pax,
Amy

You know, I think we’ve gotten to a pont here where it’s clear that two very different perspectives are trying in vain to use logic to persuade the other.

On one hand, there’s a perspective that private sexual behavior is so separate from moral questions that, were our society to formally accept incest, it would not be any danger with regard to our children’s upbringing.

On the other side, we see the laws that the society holds hered directly affecting the perceptions our children have with regard to their sexuality.

Those accepting the first view: I don’t know how we can communicate.

Peace, though;
John

 

[felra]

I’m not suggesting incest as a sexual practise. I was suggesting it as a way of providing for the welfare of aged or infirm family members.

This is a bizarre statement.

But if a 60 year old woman and her 40 year old son want to do things behind closed doors, I’m repulsed and appalled. But I don’t think laws should consider repulsion factors

. And it’s a myth that such pairings result in horrific children being born. It simply increases the chance (considerably) that recessive nasties in the genetic tree of the individual will be exhibited.
Is there anything that you would not extend “civil rights” to?

 

[kaymart]

a_cermak:

I’m not suggesting incest as a sexual practise. I was suggesting it as a way of providing for the welfare of aged or infirm family members.

But if a 60 year old woman and her 40 year old son want to do things behind closed doors, I’m repulsed and appalled. But I don’t think laws should consider repulsion factors. And it’s a myth that such pairings result in horrific children being born. It simply increases the chance (considerably) that recessive nasties in the genetic tree of the individual will be exhibited.

How about just entirely getting rid of civil marriage period. No laws having to do with marriage. Everything to be decided by contract. Paternity to be decided by DNA. Alimony and settlement to be determined by pre-existing contract.

Pax,
Amy

With this type of thinking why do we have any laws in the first place? If I can drive the Garden State Parkway doing 90 miles an hour because I need to get there now, why not who cares who I might kill, I need to get there on time. It’s what I need. Same goes with this type of thinking in respect to use what is meant as a marriage between a man and woman for you own self gain. No reguard as to morals breaking down, confusing children, having families lie to say they are having relations just to have “Marriage Rights” As with the Parkway, I am using the roadway for my own gain. Sounds a little extreme but then again no more extreme then yours.

 

[john_ennis]

felra:

This is a bizarre statement.

Is there anything that you would not extend “civil rights” to?

I’m interested, too. Regarding private sexual partnerships being condoned under “civil unions,” people supporting SSM have to be consistent. They can’t deny unions to incestual partners, or they’d be discriminating.

Yet, if they consider there own children…C’mon people–do you really say that you’d have no moral problem if you discovered that your own kids—(use your imagination)—???

And don’t you think a society that officially recognizes such behavior is failing to support you in the reasonable upbringing of your kids?

Peace.
John

 

[Libero]

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?

Because these judeo christian laws are no longer appropriate, the majority of the civilians of this society do not follow them, thus it is stupid to try and impose them. Further more, many of the views are out dated and impractical, there would be outcry if it became illegal to shave yourself or to eat shellfish.

Further more, it is not christianity that founded our modern day democratic attitudes.

 

[kaymart]

Libero:

Because these judeo christian laws are no longer appropriate, the majority of the civilians of this society do not follow them

Have you ever thought this might be the problem