Should the state marry gay lovers?

[Arclight]

Yeah. Uh, that’s pretty much what I said, just less verbose.

But you used the word “weal” and gave no cause for snickering, which is admirable.

 

[Nepenthe]

 

[Bennie_P]

Yes, I agree. I am for equality for individuals to determine for themselves what theyfeel is best for their lives as long as it doesn’t infringe on others rights at self determination. If my religious views prohibit a certain behavior…then I will not participate in that behavior…as long as I am not forced to engage in that behavior my religious beliefs prohibit…others may do so as moved by their own convictions.

In the issue of “gay marriage” we keep hearing how “God doesn’t approve” or “God declares it disordered.”…that’s fine…but I do not wish to live under the rule of law dictated by what “You” decide “God intends”…for my beliefs in this same “God” is quite different.

Secular law is never going to be perfect…but it doesn’t have to be determined by “religious convictions” of some…especially when those religious convictions restrict whom someone may love or build a life with as long as we have two consenting adults involved in that life choice.

If gays want to live together and form legal bonds to secure certain rights they may do that with other legal means then to make pretend marriages. In truth, though I believe many gays, think this idea of being able to marry will solve the problems which being “gay” creates, this whole “gay” marriage thing is just a smoke screen to do what I indicated before, and that is the whole issue isn’t really about marriage. This push for “Gay” marriage isn’t about equal rights. It is a political ploy being used by a minute minority to silence any speech or discussion about the morality or immorality of homosexuality. To silence the voice of the Church as well the voice of God, in which many of them ignore or deny He exist.

Problems of couples sighted concerning hospital visitation rights, inheritance of property, etc. can be taken care with more efficient legal means. Powers of attorney and the writing of wills provide stronger merit in the courts then a marriage license.

The vast majority of those that identify themselves as gay could care less about getting married; it goes against the lifestyle and mindset of those that embrace the identity of “gay”. What is truly wanted is the approval of society to their lifestyle and immoral choices. But just having that “right” will not change the minds of the majority concerning those choices. So what we get for society instead of peace is more strife, resentment, conflict and pain.

Those that claim that they want acceptance and understanding would rather revile in getting back at those of faith, for wrongs they perceive people of faith as a whole have inflicted upon them.

for example

Maybe I oughtn’t say ‘amen’, Publisher, - wouldn’t want people thinking I’d converted or something like that, now would we? - so how about a resounding ‘whoo, right on!’

Bennie, I kid you not. I truly could not come up with a better poster boy for fundamentalist fanaticism than you. That anyone actually thinks that the “Gay Movement” will destroy the “First Amendment” as well as the rest of our “constitutional rights” and thereby “rape society” is a sight to behold with wonder.

Your scenario is captivating but I really wish you’d skip to the chase. When are these homo’s gonna start eatin’ our chillins?

No it is not about civil rights, its all about putting out the light and beacons of hope that truly are for a stable and life-giving society.

So Jesus said to them, "For a little while longer the Light is among you. Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes.

 

[Publisher]

If gays want to live together and form legal bonds to secure certain rights they may do that with other legal means then to make pretend marriages. In truth, though I believe many gays, think this idea of being able to marry will solve the problems which being “gay” creates, this whole “gay” marriage thing is just a smoke screen to do what I indicated before, and that is the whole issue isn’t really about marriage. This push for “Gay” marriage isn’t about equal rights. It is a political ploy being used by a minute minority to silence any speech or discussion about the morality or immorality of homosexuality. To silence the voice of the Church as well the voice of God, in which many of them ignore or deny He exist.

Problems of couples sighted concerning hospital visitation rights, inheritance of property, etc. can be taken care with more efficient legal means. Powers of attorney and the writing of wills provide stronger merit in the courts then a marriage license.

The vast majority of those that identify themselves as gay could care less about getting married; it goes against the lifestyle and mindset of those that embrace the identity of “gay”. What is truly wanted is the approval of society to their lifestyle and immoral choices. But just having that “right” will not change the minds of the majority concerning those choices. So what we get for society instead peace is more strife, resentment, conflict and pain.

Those that claim that they want acceptance and understanding would rather revile in getting back at those of faith, for wrongs they perceive people of faith as whole have inflicted upon them.

for example

The gay men and women I know disagree with you. Those gay men and women I know already are part of a faith community which supports them. They wish a life of equality under the rule of law…if your religious institution wishes to keep “marriage” as a religious term…wonderful…if the state wishes to use the same word to equate gay unions with straight unions…it will not effect the religious stand of religious institutions…just as NOW the state can declare a couple “married” even though they have had several divorces and the CC does not accept their second, third or fourth “marriage” as valid…the state does not demand the religious institutions who deny a “valid marriage” has taken place to accept it as such…so too, just because the state declares two people of the same sex “married”…it is the states definition…not the religious institutions which we are dealing with.

If two people of the same sex join in “marriage/union” through the state and pay the $50.00 “marriage license” fee instead of hundreds if not thousands of dollars to hire an attorney…fees for such services vary state to state…the gay couple I know paid approx $3000.00 to set up trusts and durable powers of attornies for each other with an attorney who specializes in such matters…but all that financial burden could be dispensed with by a “marriage liscense.”

Even if trusts and docments are drawn up, they can be challenged by surviving family members in court…again…causing the surviving parter financial cost which could be dispensed with by showing a “marriage license”…right now gay people have “separate but not equal”…under the rule of “equality under the law” such inequality should not exist…but does.

To seek to demonize gay men and women by claiming they are doing it to “the church” or to “get back at some perceived slight” is plain wrong…that simply is not the reason those gay men and women are seeking recongnition of their fomal union/marriage with the state.

Many of our religious institutions already recongnize their “unions/marriages”…

 

[cathguy]

Should the state marry gay lovers?

NO.

Why?

Because the only reason the state has to recognize and grant certain privileges to the family is because a union between a man a woman can result in offspring. The family is the institution that educates, nurtures, and rears the next generation.

Two men cannot procreate. Two women cannot procreate. The sex act is life giving between man and woman only.

The secular statist case against gay marriage is not about bigotry, its about biology.

 

[Publisher]

Should the state marry gay lovers?

NO.

Why?

Because the only reason the state has to recognize and grant certain privileges to the family is because a union between a man a woman can result in offspring. The family is the institution that educates, nurtures, and rears the next generation.

Two men cannot procreate. Two women cannot procreate. The sex act is life giving between man and woman only.

The secular statist case against gay marriage is not about bigotry, its about biology.

That may be a “Catholic” understanding of why the state should not…but the states that do recongize and soon will recognize gay unions/marriages disagree with you.

 

[Bennie_P]

The gay men and women I know disagree with you. Those gay men and women I know already are part of a faith community which supports them. They wish a life of equality under the rule of law…if your religious institution wishes to keep “marriage” as a religious term…wonderful…if the state wishes to use the same word to equate gay unions with straight unions…it will not effect the religious stand of religious institutions…just as NOW the state can declare a couple “married” even though they have had several divorces and the CC does not accept their second, third or fourth “marriage” as valid…the state does not demand the religious institutions who deny a “valid marriage” has taken place to accept it as such…so too, just because the state declares two people of the same sex “married”…it is the states definition…not the religious institutions which we are dealing with.

If two people of the same sex join in “marriage/union” through the state and pay the $50.00 “marriage license” fee instead of hundreds if not thousands of dollars to hire an attorney…fees for such services vary state to state…the gay couple I know paid approx $3000.00 to set up trusts and durable powers of attornies for each other with an attorney who specializes in such matters…but all that financial burden could be dispensed with by a “marriage liscense.”

Even if trusts and docments are drawn up, they can be challenged by surviving family members in court…again…causing the surviving parter financial cost which could be dispensed with by showing a “marriage license”…right now gay people have “separate but not equal”…under the rule of “equality under the law” such inequality should not exist…but does.

To seek to demonize gay men and women by claiming they are doing it to “the church” or to “get back at some perceived slight” is plain wrong…that simply is not the reason those gay men and women are seeking recongnition of their fomal union/marriage with the state.

Many of our religious institutions already recongnize their “unions/marriages”…

Gays have the same rights as everyone else, the marriage license will, as it has in other countries, lead to more laws aimed at curbing the rights of the majority. And in fact as those rights are curbed, those that now seek the “right” to marry will in the long run lose more rights then they will gain.

Good example is the divorce case I linked above. The true mother of the child in that relationship has lost the right to full custody of her daughter and now has to give that women whom she married a right to a child which biological isn’t hers. I just wonder how much harm is being done to that child and how many years of therapy it will take for her to ever figure out what her mother foolish done to her and why her mother put her through such an ordeal. Truly this experiment of "gay’ rights that is destroying the life of the child was well worth the sacrifice. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=308419

In truth you know that among those that revile in their gayness, one the most favorite games played is “lets us make fun the Church, or the fundies, or the Catholics, so on and so forth.” it is something we witness almost daily in movies, on television, in the media, and on this forum.

I will concide that some same-sex couples do think marriage will give them security, but IMHO I believe them to just being in denial or blinded by deception.

 

[Benadam]

I think the need for a commitment by both partners that is accepted by the community stems from the burdens placed on the community when the conjugal act results in children who have no adults committed to their survival and integration into the community.

From that need stems the states perspective on the definition of marriage.This is why allowing homosexuals to adopt is also a hot issue in the courts.

My beef with allowing homosexual unions to be called marriage is that the word ‘marriage’ is thought to encompass what the marital bond really is in the collective conscious of our culture.

** There is no longer a commonly used word attached to the marital bond as it really is.**

The limitations set by civil law places a boundary that isn’t there in the mind that becomes cemented when given visible support by allowing other unions to be recognized using the same term.

If the word marriage is attached to unions that are not able to create the environment that the marital bond requires then a new word for the marital bond needs to be put in common usage.

 

[Publisher]

I think the need for a commitment by both partners that is accepted by the community stems from the burdens placed on the community when the conjugal act results in children who have no adults committed to their survival and integration into the community.

From that need stems the states perspective on the definition of marriage.This is why allowing homosexuals to adopt is also a hot issue in the courts.

My beef with allowing homosexual unions to be called marriage is that the word ‘marriage’ is thought to encompass what the marital bond really is in the collective conscious of our culture.

** There is no longer a commonly used word attached to the marital bond as it really is.**

The limitations set by civil law places a boundary that isn’t there in the mind that becomes cemented when given visible support by allowing other unions to be recognized using the same term.

If the word marriage is attached to unions that are not able to create the environment that the marital bond requires then a new word for the marital bond needs to be put in common usage.

But by Catholic definition of “marriage”…second, third, fourth or more civil marriages do not fall within the definition…so we already have multiple definitions of “marriage”…we have “civil marriage” which the CC may or may not recongnize as a valid marriage…and we have “sacramental marriage”…which the state has no say in…a “sacramental marriage” may be a “civil marriage” but a “civil marriage” may not be a “sacramental marriage”.

If the state wishes to use the word “marriage” why should they not be able to…since “multiple definitions” of what makes a “marriage” already exist.
As long as “civil unions” and “civil marriages” are equal, I don’t know too many gay men or women who would object…there are some who wish the word “marriage” used as it implies “separateness”…but to me and those I know…it’s not a real issue.

 

[cathguy]

That may be a “Catholic” understanding of why the state should not…but the states that do recongize and soon will recognize gay unions/marriages disagree with you.

How so?

Do the people of said state disagree with me, or the judicial activists on the bench?

However, to clarify, I was not speaking of the “states,” but rather the “state” small “s.”

Speaking of the state, the state can do all sorts of evil. Just look at the German state under national socialism, or the U.S.S.R. under Stalin.

There must come a place where the authority of the state ends if we are to preserve our freedom. Because I am an American, I conclude that that “the authority of the state rests on the consent of the governed.” Modern liberalism believes in a hyper-powered authoritarian state, unchecked by democratic proclivities… hence their opposition to Prop. 8 and their support of judicial overturn of the will of the people.

By the way, you brought up the word “Catholic,” I did not. The argument I phrased is entirely secular, and rests on the firm foundation of how the founders of this nation saw marriage… and they were deistic freemasons… hardly Catholics! I would prefer to engage the enemies of the secular institution of marriage on secular grounds. My fierce public opposition to so-called “gay-marriage” has nothing to do with theology or a blind assent to the articles of faith, nor does it have to do with bigotry.

Nor I might add does it have to do with the mere definition of a word, as some evangelicals have pathetically argued.

Rather, my opposition is based on an understanding of the CORE SECULAR PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE sans the rabid narcissism of the current generation, which leads people to view the institution of marriage only through the lens of extreme individualism. Thus, to most of the youthful generation of Americans and their secularist allies, marriage constitutes an individual right which, of course, comes to us devoid of any obligations.

As a Catholic, I also have a theological understanding of all this, but I consider it outside the scope of this argument.

 

[Bennie_P]

Gays have the same rights as everyone else, the marriage license will, as it has in other countries, lead to more laws aimed at curbing the rights of the majority. And in fact as those rights are curbed, those that now seek the “right” to marry will in the long run lose more rights then they will gain.

Good example is the divorce and custody cases I linked above. In one of the cases the true mother of the child in that relationship has lost the right to full custody of her daughter and now has to give that women whom she had contracted a civil union a right to a child which biological isn’t hers. I just wonder how much harm is being done to that child and how many years of therapy it will take for her to ever figure out what her mother foolishly done to her and why her mother put her through such an ordeal. Truly this experiment of "gay’ rights that is destroying the life of the child was well worth the sacrifice. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=308419

In truth you know that among those that revile in their gayness, one the most favorite games played is “lets us make fun the Church, or the fundies, or the Catholics, so on and so forth.” it is something we witness almost daily in movies, on television, in the media, and on this forum.

I will concide that some same-sex couples do think marriage will give them security, but IMHO I believe them to just being in denial or blinded by deception.

 

[Bennie_P]

How so?

Do the people of said state disagree with me, or the judicial activists on the bench?

However, to clarify, I was not speaking of the “states,” but rather the “state” small “s.”

Speaking of the state, the state can do all sorts of evil. Just look at the German state under national socialism, or the U.S.S.R. under Stalin.

There must come a place where the authority of the state ends if we are to preserve our freedom. Because I am an American, I conclude that that “the authority of the state rests on the consent of the governed.” Modern liberalism believes in a hyper-powered authoritarian state, unchecked by democratic proclivities… hence their opposition to Prop. 8 and their support of judicial overturn of the will of the people.

By the way, you brought up the word “Catholic,” I did not. The argument I phrased is entirely secular, and rests on the firm foundation of how the founders of this nation saw marriage… and they were deistic freemasons… hardly Catholics! I would prefer to engage the enemies of the secular institution of marriage on secular grounds. My fierce public opposition to so-called “gay-marriage” has nothing to do with theology or a blind assent to the articles of faith, nor does it have to do with bigotry.

Nor I might add does it have to do with the mere definition of a word, as some evangelicals have pathetically argued.

Rather, my opposition is based on an understanding of the CORE SECULAR PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE sans the rabid narcissism of the current generation, which leads people to view the institution of marriage only through the lens of extreme individualism. Thus, to most of the youthful generation of Americans and their secularist allies, marriage constitutes an individual right which, of course, comes to us devoid of any obligations.

As a Catholic, I also have a theological understanding of all this, but I consider it outside the scope of this argument.

Braovo Here is a link you might have interst, freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals…

…The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
*Adam Kolasinski *

 

[Benadam]

But by Catholic definition of “marriage”…second, third, fourth or more civil marriages do not fall within the definition…so we already have multiple definitions of “marriage”…we have “civil marriage” which the CC may or may not recongnize as a valid marriage…and we have “sacramental marriage”…which the state has no say in…a “sacramental marriage” may be a “civil marriage” but a “civil marriage” may not be a “sacramental marriage”.

 

[Benadam]

…The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?

This is interesting since the bonds of marriage are an elevation of the pair bonding natural to all animals. They are bonds that form a safe environment for copulation and for more complex animals to rear young. Once the purposes of the bond are fulfilled the bond disappears.

 

[RobbyS]

I think the need for a commitment by both partners that is accepted by the community stems from the burdens placed on the community when the conjugal act results in children who have no adults committed to their survival and integration into the community.

From that need stems the states perspective on the definition of marriage.This is why allowing homosexuals to adopt is also a hot issue in the courts.

My beef with allowing homosexual unions to be called marriage is that the word ‘marriage’ is thought to encompass what the marital bond really is in the collective conscious of our culture.

** There is no longer a commonly used word attached to the marital bond as it really is.**

The limitations set by civil law places a boundary that isn’t there in the mind that becomes cemented when given visible support by allowing other unions to be recognized using the same term.

If the word marriage is attached to unions that are not able to create the environment that the marital bond requires then a new word for the marital bond needs to be put in common usage.

Showing the pernicious effect of propoganda. We are more subjected to the use of language as described by George Orwell.

 

[Nepenthe]

So, what I am gathering here is that in essence, many of you do not believe that an 80 year old M/F couple should be ‘allowed’ to be married, either under religious or state standards, since reproduction is simply primarily. and for some of you, the only reason for the institute of marriage.

I feel awfully sad for you, and I do not mean that in any condescending way. How bleak and blindered your mindset must be, through such filters.

My condolences, and I hope you never find yourself tortured by the pain of changing your so-entrenched ideas by the desire and need to give up those (to me, utterly ridiculous) notions. Again, a heartfelt .

 

[TraderTif]

So, what I am gathering here is that in essence, many of you do not believe that an 80 year old M/F couple should be ‘allowed’ to be married, either under religious or state standards, since reproduction is simply primarily. and for some of you, the only reason for the institute of marriage.

A M/F marriage is not, by its nature, intrinsically sterile. It may be rendered sterile by age, accident, illness, or timing. But the reproductive capacity was there, will be there, or should have been there.

A M/M or F/F marriage, on the other hand, is intrinsically sterile. By design.

 

[Bennie_P]

So, what I am gathering here is that in essence, many of you do not believe that an 80 year old M/F couple should be ‘allowed’ to be married, either under religious or state standards, since reproduction is simply primarily. and for some of you, the only reason for the institute of marriage.

I feel awfully sad for you, and I do not mean that in any condescending way. How bleak and blindered your mindset must be, through such filters.

My condolences, and I hope you never find yourself tortured by the pain of changing your so-entrenched ideas by the desire and need to give up those (to me, utterly ridiculous) notions. Again, a heartfelt .

Ridiucule does not negate truth.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. **The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met. **
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? **Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female. **

 

[goofyjim]

They don’t need the right to marriage. They do deserve legal rights such as uncontested wills when they leave their possessions to a lover or anyone, the uncontested right to have whoever they choose by their bedside when they are sick or dying, the right to share living expenses without the rest of society suspecting behavior(in other words they shouldn’t have to live alone).

 

[The_Smiter]

The gay men and women I know disagree with you. Those gay men and women I know already are part of a faith community which supports them. They wish a life of equality under the rule of law…if your religious institution wishes to keep “marriage” as a religious term…wonderful…if the state wishes to use the same word to equate gay unions with straight unions…it will not effect the religious stand of religious institutions…just as NOW the state can declare a couple “married” even though they have had several divorces and the CC does not accept their second, third or fourth “marriage” as valid…the state does not demand the religious institutions who deny a “valid marriage” has taken place to accept it as such…so too, just because the state declares two people of the same sex “married”…it is the states definition…not the religious institutions which we are dealing with.

If two people of the same sex join in “marriage/union” through the state and pay the $50.00 “marriage license” fee instead of hundreds if not thousands of dollars to hire an attorney…fees for such services vary state to state…the gay couple I know paid approx $3000.00 to set up trusts and durable powers of attornies for each other with an attorney who specializes in such matters…but all that financial burden could be dispensed with by a “marriage liscense.”

Even if trusts and docments are drawn up, they can be challenged by surviving family members in court…again…causing the surviving parter financial cost which could be dispensed with by showing a “marriage license”…right now gay people have “separate but not equal”…under the rule of “equality under the law” such inequality should not exist…but does.

To seek to demonize gay men and women by claiming they are doing it to “the church” or to “get back at some perceived slight” is plain wrong…that simply is not the reason those gay men and women are seeking recongnition of their fomal union/marriage with the state.

Many of our religious institutions already recongnize their “unions/marriages”…

This, I believe is the true underlying goal of the “gay marriage” movement - to separate a “religious” marriage from a “civil” marriage.

I can imagine the day when “gay marriage” has become a legality and two members of the same sex come to a church (any church of any sect or faith will do) and ask to be married. I do not believe that the state will force the church to marry them if it is against their beliefs. But I am sure that there will be a court case that will result in the civil authority being taken away from, priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, etc. to perform the marriage and have it be a legally binding civil marriage. In effect, I believe that we will see a point where the priest (etc.) will not be able to say “By the power vested in me by God AND the State of (Fillin the Blank)…” A couple - hetersexual or homosexual - will have to get a marriage by the state to be civilly valid and another (if desired) by a religious institution to be valid with respect to their beliefs.

This entiore issue is not about gay rights. California, for instance, has some of the most liberal legislation on civil unions, making some situations (hospitals, wills, etc.) more likely to abide by such legislation than to abide by the relationship of marriage. I recently had to visit my wife in the hospital and the fact that I was her husband carried little weight with respect to me being in the room andhaving access to medical information when she was asleep or unconscious. The Advance Directive (legal paperwork) that had been drawn up before hand actually gave me more rights than the fact that I was her husband. Without it, my standing would have been significantly reduced.

This issue is entirely about reducing the authority, power, influence, and presence of institutions of faith and making the state the new “church” that provides people with their rights. Now, in America, it is understood that our rights come from God. Take God out of the equation and our rights are no longer inalienable - they are dependent on the addy" state.

Heaven help us all.