Same-Sex Marriage

[BillP]

luvmykids:

Why is it so difficult for some to understand that marriage has a religious foundation,

Because it doesn’t. Why is it so difficult to believe that marriage has been codified as a matter of civil law since the Code of Hammurabi roughly 1800 years before Christ?

The ancient Chinese codified marriage in civil law completely independant of ANY Judeo-Christian influence whatever, as did pre-Columbian Americans, Australian Aborigines, and Indians. In short, human societies were marrying before anyone had ever heard of Jehovah.

luvmykids:

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.

It’s not hard that we have trouble understanding, its that we reject your definintion. See?.

luvmykids:

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.

And the difference between this and civil unions is what?

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.

No, religion inserted inself into a pre-existing civil institution. See the top part of my message.

 

[BillP]

felra:

This is a bizarre statement.

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

Between consenting adults, that doesn’t directly infringe on the rights of others… no, I can’t think of anything off hand.

 

[Libero]

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.

Can there be a stop to people referring to their childrens well being in these discussions, as a general rule it just means that you cannot think of any better reason, so you have began to pick on a group of people who you know cannot contradict you. There are a minimal number of “children” on this site, and in referring to them, you are trying to claim that you know what is best for them - when ultimatley you can never be sure of this, and it is all down to interpretation, some parents may claim beating their children senseless is good for them.

Using the “think of the children” card only indicates that there is not a proper argument against the topic.

 

[Libero]

Have you ever thought this might be the problem

Not really, there would be too much discrimination if we tried to implement an “unchanged christian values” democracy.

 

[john_ennis]

BillP:

felra:

Between consenting adults, that doesn’t directly infringe on the rights of others… no, I can’t think of anything off hand.

The curiosity–sincerely–is killing me. What I asked above–you really wouldn’t feel any moral problem about your kids living in a social frame that officially sees no difference between them getting married in the traditional view, and having an ongoing sexual relationship with each other?

You don’t have a moral problem with your kids actually doing this? Or is it that you would, but wouldn’t feel that the society would then be forcing you to swim against the tide in the upbringing of your kids?

Peace.
John

 

[kaymart]

Libero:

Can there be a stop to people referring to their childrens well being in these discussions, as a general rule it just means that you cannot think of any better reason, so you have began to pick on a group of people who you know cannot contradict you. There are a minimal number of “children” on this site, and in referring to them, you are trying to claim that you know what is best for them - when ultimatley you can never be sure of this, and it is all down to interpretation, some parents may claim beating their children senseless is good for them.

Using the “think of the children” card only indicates that there is not a proper argument against the topic.

Pardon me I raised three children and have 3 grandchildren and I do what my husband and I thought was best for them, I do not claim to KNOW what is best. Children are the future of this world if we do not teach them respect for one another and show them a sense of decency (this has nothing to do with Religion so don’t you dare blast me) why do we even bother to feed or cloth them, why bother sending them to school, or anything else. BTW-there are laws against beating your children senseless for their own good. Now would you like to get back on topic.

 

[felra]

Libero:

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.

Uhmmm …I was speaking on behalf of the USA country.

 

[luvmykids]

Libero:

Can there be a stop to people referring to their childrens well being in these discussions, as a general rule it just means that you cannot think of any better reason, so you have began to pick on a group of people who you know cannot contradict you. There are a minimal number of “children” on this site, and in referring to them, you are trying to claim that you know what is best for them - when ultimatley you can never be sure of this, and it is all down to interpretation, some parents may claim beating their children senseless is good for them.

Using the “think of the children” card only indicates that there is not a proper argument against the topic.

This infuriates me, because it is NOT a “card.” What better reason could you think of? This is what our society will be, the children will make up our society. It is our responsibility to protect our children, not to make sure that we are happy no matter what the cost.

The children certainly do not know what is good for them. They are not yet at the age of reason. How is it possible for them to know what is good for them, when they have barely lived long enough to know and are not at the age of reason. If they knew what was good for them, they wouldn’t need parents at all would they? You are using the “defuse the subject by bringing up something that has no bearing on what we are talking about” card by saying that some parents may claim beating their children senseless is good for them. Did we say anything about beating our children being good for them in relationship to letting the adults in this society do whatever the heck they want. But hey, now that you mention it, the government has no say according to your philosophy. If I believe it is right to beat my children to get my point across then I should have the right to do so.

 

[BillP]

Consecrated:

Please define your perception of “basic human right”.

See the UN’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights here for a pretty good overview. un.org/Overview/rights.html

Consecrated:

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.

I reject the premise that people should be forced to conform to your understanding of morality simply so you don’t have to explain “how things are” to your kids.

Consecrated:

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.

You misunderstand. I fully believe that homosexuals are inherently disordered, I have no quarrel with the Church’s position on this matter.

However, I also recognize that not everyone chooses to be Catholic. And that people who don’t want to be Catholic shouldn’t be forced to live as if they are. In fact, I live in a society that explicitly barrs the government from forcing any particular set of religious beliefs on its citizens.

Since I am, in addition to being Catholic, American, I believe Homosexuals are entitled to equal protection of the law. And part of that equal protection is the right to combine their life with whomever they choose (subject always to consent).

Do I think the Catholic Church should marry Adam and Steve, No.

Do I think the government should recognize Adam and Steve should they choose to form a marriage/partnership,civil union?

You betcha.

 

[felra]

BillP:

felra:

This is a bizarre statement.

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

Between consenting adults, that doesn’t directly infringe on the rights of others… no, I can’t think of anything off hand.
I am left wondering why as a Catholic you do not see this as a bizarre and frankly frightening statement? What do you stand for other than to not stand against anything “that does not infringe upon the right of others”? This is is not the defining criteria as a Catholic for extending civil rights on to others.

 

[Libero]

Pardon me I raised three children and have 3 grandchildren and I do what my husband and I thought was best for them, I do not claim to KNOW what is best. Children are the future of this world if we do not teach them respect for one another and show them a sense of decency (this has nothing to do with Religion so don’t you dare blast me) why do we even bother to feed or cloth them, why bother sending them to school, or anything else. BTW-there are laws against beating your children senseless for their own good. Now would you like to get back on topic.

Whoa whoa whoa, calm down, this is not an attack on you. It is merely me saying that trying to bring the children idea into the discussion is pointless, it appears as if one is trying to use their children as an excuse, it also seems bad as the children are not their to try and argue against something they disagree with, it also seems to be a somewhat condescending attitude, as if the children are so pathetic that seeing a man and another man holding hands is going to destroy their minds for life - but of course killing and making guns seem like a friend is not at all dangerous. Whilst trying to do what is right for your children is good and admirable, using them as an excuse in a debate is somewhat unethical.

And as for “dont you dare” - I think that perhaps this has been taken out of context.

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

Because it doesn’t. Why is it so difficult to believe that marriage has been codified as a matter of civil law since the Code of Hammurabi roughly 1800 years before Christ?

The ancient Chinese codified marriage in civil law completely independant of ANY Judeo-Christian influence whatever, as did pre-Columbian Americans, Australian Aborigines, and Indians. In short, human societies were marrying before anyone had ever heard of Jehovah.

And why do you think it is that the ancient Chinese codified marriage between a man and a woman and not a man and a man or a man and a woman?

Billp:

It’s not hard that we have trouble understanding, its that we reject your definintion. See?.

What I see is that it’s hard for you to understand that it is not MY definition. This is the definition given to marriage when it was originally instituted. See?

 

[BillP]

john ennis:

The curiosity–sincerely–is killing me. What I asked above–you really wouldn’t feel any moral problem about your kids living in a social frame that officially sees no difference between them getting married in the traditional view, and having an ongoing sexual relationship with each other?

There is a world of difference between the moral code I feel acompelled to adhere to and what I’m willing to codify as a matter of law. Do you advocate laws criminalizing, fornication? masturbation? adultery? missing mass on Sunday? eating meat on Fridays?
john ennis:

You don’t have a moral problem with your kids actually doing this? Or is it that you would, but wouldn’t feel that the society would then be forcing you to swim against the tide in the upbringing of your kids?

Peace.
John

Lets just say, that if I need “everyone else does it” as an argument while inculcating Catholic moral values in my kids, I’m in trouble to begin with.

 

[john_ennis]

Those who are becoming impatient with having to think of the well-being of children: there’s probably a reason it makes you uncomfortable. The point-of-view that no sex is immoral becomes more and more difficult to believe, as you raise kids. You come to see that the sexual impulse, like other impulses, can be controlled, or allowed to control you.

There is such a thing as immoral sex–you know this when you consider how and what to teach your kids.

Peace.
John

Peace.

john

 

[kaymart]

john ennis:

Those who are becoming impatient with having to think of the well-being of children: there’s probably a reason it makes you uncomfortable.

Peace.

john

I have no personal reasons, daughter happily married, son is single and strait, youngest son severly handicap, sex not an issue. But the break down of morals has an effect on all children.

 

[Libero]

This infuriates me, because it is NOT a “card.” What better reason could you think of? This is what our society will be, the children will make up our society. It is our responsibility to protect our children, not to make sure that we are happy no matter what the cost.

The children certainly do not know what is good for them. They are not yet at the age of reason. How is it possible for them to know what is good for them, when they have barely lived long enough to know and are not at the age of reason. If they knew what was good for them, they wouldn’t need parents at all would they? You are using the “defuse the subject by bringing up something that has no bearing on what we are talking about” card by saying that some parents may claim beating their children senseless is good for them. Did we say anything about beating our children being good for them in relationship to letting the adults in this society do whatever the heck they want. But hey, now that you mention it, the government has no say according to your philosophy. If I believe it is right to beat my children to get my point across then I should have the right to do so.

This infuriates me, so quite frankly I am not that concerned that you have chosen to take offence at my words. By law I am a child, I am also not completely incompetent, underestimating the ability of a child is patronising, claiming that in some way, preventing homosexuals from having a legal status as a couple, is in some way harming your child is a bizarre insinuation, it really has very little effect, unless the child has been exposed to the topic from such an early age, in a very strange atmosphere, if that were the case, the parents ability should be in question anyway.

 

[BillP]

felra:

BillP:

I am left wondering why as a Catholic you do not see this as a bizarre and frankly frightening statement?

Because I recognize that I don’t live in a theocracy. I am not entitled to force my religious views on morality on others no matter how true those values are. Why is that so hard to understand?

felra:

What do you stand for other than to not stand against anything “that does not infringe upon the right of others”? This is is not the defining criteria as a Catholic for extending civil rights on to others.

In my opinion, there is no “Catholic criteria” for extending civil rights. I live in a secular republic governed by a constitution that specifically gives each of its citizens the right to follow whatever religion they see fit. Thus I am legally prevented from forcing my views of religion on others. That includes forcing my views of what constitutes moral and immoral behavior upon my countrymen.

In turn my right to be Catholic is legally protected. Anyone who freely chooses to love God, follow his direction adn become Catholic is free to do so.

What is the problem?

 

[luvmykids]

Libero:

This infuriates me, so quite frankly I am not that concerned that you have chosen to take offence at my words. By law I am a child, I am also not completely incompetent, underestimating the ability of a child is patronising, claiming that in some way, preventing homosexuals from having a legal status as a couple, is in some way harming your child is a bizarre insinuation, it really has very little effect, unless the child has been exposed to the topic from such an early age, in a very strange atmosphere, if that were the case, the parents ability should be in question anyway.

That very strange atmosphere you were talking about will be our society if SSM is legal and some of these children are brought up by people in SSM. And since you are a child still, you really do not see the problem it could have on our society since you obviously do not have children and do not recognise a lot of the not so obvious harms. There are things I didn’t think about at 24 when I didn’t have children.

 

[Libero]

There is such a thing as immoral sex–you know this when you consider how and what to teach your kids.

And by teaching your kids you mean what? Children do not need to be educated from a young age about sex - this strikes me as odd, why do some many people think so?

By the age that your child will or should be becoming remotely in contact with sexual subjects, they should have a significantly developed mind, and be mature, the knowledge that two men live in the same house, or hold hands would have very little impact on such a mind, other than seeing homosexual sex, there are not many circumstances where the child would be significantly affected.

Anywho, I believe that this now has very little relevance.

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

felra:

Because I recognize that I don’t live in a theocracy. I am not entitled to force my religious views on morality on others no matter how true those values are. Why is that so hard to understand?

In my opinion, there is no “Catholic criteria” for extending civil rights. I live in a secular republic governed by a constitution that specifically gives each of its citizens the right to follow whatever religion they see fit. Thus I am legally prevented from forcing my views of religion on others. That includes forcing my views of what constitutes moral and immoral behavior upon my countrymen.

In turn my right to be Catholic is legally protected. Anyone who freely chooses to love God, follow his direction adn become Catholic is free to do so.

What is the problem?

We live in a country that does live by a moral code, and there is no getting around that one unless you completely abolish all laws. We can’t kill, we can’t have sex with minors, we can’t steal, we can’t lie under oath, I’m forced to pay taxes for things that I may find immoral, unethical, or that I do not believe in or want to participate in etc… etc…