Should the state marry gay lovers?

[Mulepadre]

This question came up in a different thread on the “Social Justice” Forum. I think it worth its own thread if nobody minds…

---

“The point is legal marriage, here…upon which religious points of view don’t have bearing. No one’s pushing for the catholic church to hold gay marriages…so where are the reasons that gays shouldn’t be able to marry in the eyes of the state? Anyone?”***

And this was my answer:
*
I’ll grant to lleave the Church out of it for the sake of argument (though you really cannot for I would argue that one can only fully separate the Church from the State by holding to no belief in God and His creation.) Thus we acknowledge the State as having her own authority to establish and regulate juridical entities, such as marriage, which she ought to and does.

So homosexual marriage would then be held to be a ‘juridical’ or legal entity with its own rights, norms and privileges in society. That is fine to a certain point for we do need to distinguish carefully between such possible legal entities. Let me start with just a few (the list could be endless and all signs seem to show that it will be) such as marriage between a single man and a single woman as verses marriage between a man and several women or between two women, or between a woman and a dog (don’t laugh) or between a man and a boy, etc… Thus we seem to have a possible chaos only revealing the failure of the state to adequately protect and insure the temporal life and happiness of her constituents (and I mean here particularly children who are either the natural product of such unions or the ‘artificial’ product of gay marriage.)
*

Fr. Mike

 

[Teen4Christ]

Yes, yes they should. I can’t think of one good reason why they shouldn’t.

 

[Spire]

It is impossible for a homosexual couple to be married though, so…

 

[peduzzi89]

I guess my point, Fr., was that I don’t see how the other types of marriage that you mentioned belong in the same argument…people said the same things when blacks were allowed to marry…that people would want 8 wives next. But the point was about discrimination…against blacks and now against sexual orientation…polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

Spire, why do you say it’s impossible for homosexuals to get married.

 

[Teen4Christ]

How is it impossible?

 

[Spire]

Spire, why do you say it’s impossible for homosexuals to get married.

Because you need to be male and female.

Also you consummate this union through sexual intercourse(hence is compliant with “no sex out of marriage”, etc.) something which homosexual persons are incapable of.

Lastly, this gives way to, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth.” Something again homosexual persons are incapable of.

I can’t believe I had to actually explain this…

 

[peduzzi89]

It’s sort of funny how you are assuming that we are the daft ones when you are clearly missing the entire point of this thread…so let’s see…LEGAL reasons why gay shouldn’t be married in the eyes of the STATE. Where are they?

 

[Spire]

It’s sort of funny how you are assuming that we are the daft ones when you are clearly missing the entire point of this thread…so let’s see…LEGAL reasons why gay shouldn’t be married in the eyes of the STATE. Where are they?

They shouldn’t be married because they can’t and its impossible.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Certain civil rights are afforded married couples, denied to others. Medical visitation/authority, inheritence, benefit distribution, taxes…

I doubt many would argue witholding these rights from gay couples is a moral thing. Adoption, invitro, multiple spouses…fall into a different category for most as it regards ‘homosexual rights’.

Rational adults should be allowed to form what ever association they want with each other. I don’t care if the state recognizes my marriage to my wife. I married before God.

I think society should promote the traditional family and not alternative lifestyles, but our civil law allows for the expression of free will and in some things government should not restrict that. That also includes religious faith which the 1st Amendment protects and does not hinder, so my answer is government should get out of marriage all together and allow societry to express itself as it is; not contrained.

The mythical ‘seperation of church and state’ exists no where but a letter- not law. It has come to mean what it does not, which forces people to be intellectually dishonest and deny their faith in public life rather than color it with its influence.

The Church would always stand for the traditional marriage in any society and so too hopefully those that marry in her. That is the best example and more effective than government approval. Civil law does not forbid the Protestants from ordaining a woman or homosexual as a priest or bishop in their order. It does not forbid the Baptist or Mormon minister from marrying as Catholic law does the priest. Who are Christians to deny the Atheist full civil rights? Similarly, who are the Atheists to deny Christians the freedom to pray in school?

The 1st Amendment says 'Congress shall make no law…" They have made many. Too many.

 

[peduzzi89]

Ok, Spire…I’m going to try to explain this to you…you still didn’t give any LEGAL REASONS. Ok, I’ll say it one more time LEGAL REASONS. Is this unclear?

Verisimilitude…I found your answer to be somewhat ambiguous

 

[Verisimilitude]

Verisimilitude…I found your answer to be somewhat ambiguous

Civil marriage carries with it civil rights. Religious marriage doesn’t. Some legitimate civil rights are withheld from humans that have are traveling a different path by practicing the gay lifestyle for whatever reason.

The rain falls on the guilty as well as the just.

 

[Spire]

Ok, Spire…I’m going to try to explain this to you…you still didn’t give any LEGAL REASONS. Ok, I’ll say it one more time LEGAL REASONS. Is this unclear?

The legal reason is that marriage and civil unions are two different things, words, ideas, etc.

Your problem is your failure to understand the word “marriage.”

Understand?

 

[peduzzi89]

Spire, marriage in the eyes of the state is not necessarily what you are saying marriage is. The reason the state even takes an interest in marriage is because of the civil rights therein. So if, as several states have done now, gays can get married, then they can get married. Perhaps not in your eyes, but in the eyes of the state, yes.

Verisimilitude, so are you saying that gays should be able to get married in the eyes of the state but not necessarily the church?

 

[Spire]

Spire, marriage in the eyes of the state is not necessarily what you are saying marriage is. The reason the state even takes an interest in marriage is because of the civil rights therein. So if, as several states have done now, gays can get married, then they can get married. Perhaps not in your eyes, but in the eyes of the state, yes.

It is though. That is the definition. So were you aware of Prop 8 or…?

 

[Mike_Dye]

I guess my point, Fr., was that I don’t see how the other types of marriage that you mentioned belong in the same argument…people said the same things when blacks were allowed to marry…that people would want 8 wives next. But the point was about discrimination…against blacks and now against sexual orientation…polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

Spire, why do you say it’s impossible for homosexuals to get married.

I believe you misunderstood Fr. Mikes question. If I understand correctly he was asking that if the State is in charge of determining what constitutes a legal marriage they could then count anything as being legal if they were the sole authority.
The reasoning behind this question is because when the State is the only authority, God has been left out.
The same Judeo-Christian ethic that our society is founded on cannot accept a disordered and unnatural so called marriage. Two people of the same sex should be allowed to do anything that they want together in private (God never interferes in our free will). But the Church or State should never condone Godless unions.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Verisimilitude, so are you saying that gays should be able to get married in the eyes of the state but not necessarily the church?

No, I said

so my answer is government should get out of marriage all together and allow society to express itself as it is; not contrained.

The state has legalized abortion, restricted free speech by threat of tax, and wages undeclared wars. None of those were voted on by the people but legislated by deception. Despite this the Church will not change. The state can’t force the Church to accept gay marriage.

I am against illegal immigration as much as gay marriage. I vote my conscious as required of me. I am not for denying food or shelter to the poor- illegal or immigrant, just as I am not for denying civil rights to gays- married or not. I still vote to close the border and I would vote against homosexual adoption.

 

[Arclight]

Civil marriage is nothing more than an ordering of mostly economic/property rights between the couple and between the couple and the rest of the world. Gays can already achieve most of the the rights of civil marriage, but instead of doing this through the default “package” of community property rights that come with civil marriage, they have to go a roundabout way of hiring an attorney to draft deeds, wills, contracts, etc, to mimic community property.

Either deny all of these economic and property rights to gays or deny none of them.

 

[Mike_Dye]

Civil marriage is nothing more than an ordering of mostly economic/property rights between the couple and between the couple and the rest of the world. Gays can already achieve most of the the rights of civil marriage, but instead of doing this through the default “package” of community property rights that come with civil marriage, they have to go a roundabout way of hiring an attorney to draft deeds, wills, contracts, etc, to mimic community property.

Either deny all of these economic and property rights to gays or deny none of them.

OK if that is the only alternative:thumbsup:

 

[Spire]

OK if that is the only alternative:thumbsup:

Lol

 

[Arclight]

OK if that is the only alternative:thumbsup:

Yeah, its the only alternative, because the state, unlike we fine Catholics, is not supposed to differentiate between its citizens without a very good reason.