Should the state marry gay lovers?

[The_Smiter]

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.

Please list the “states” (people, not courts) that approve of gay marriage.

 

[Arclight]

Please list the “states” (people, not courts) that approve of gay marriage.

Mass. and Ct. Your claim that there is a distinction between “people not courts” is artificial, bogus, contrary to law and a typical hand wave argument for those who cannot accept the legal system. There is much wishful thinking on this forum.

 

[Corki]

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 .

You have been on these forums long enough to know that that isn’t what we mean at all. :tsktsk:

For the umpteenth time, marriage is supposed to be unitive AND procreative. Procreative does not mean the reproduction is guaranteed or even possible. It means open to life. Unitive does not just mean companionship. It also means complementary. “Gay” marriage has no procreative aspect and only a simulated unitive aspect.

 

[Nepenthe]

I did not ridicule anyone, in any way in that post, nor had any glimmer of an intention to do so. I was expressing profound and genuine sorrow and sympathy at my perception of your pain and limitude. It is both painful to me as well, and rather telling, that your reaction to such was…well, what it was.

Your rejection of my sincerity does cast me down in heart, but I will recover, all the faster if you could see your way clear to some understanding that I am not your enemy and am capable of being more than a shallow fool bent on mockery for it’s own sake.

And no, very often on this forum I haven’t the slightest idea what some people in CAF are on about, generally not necessarily in this particular section at for the most part (and may it remain so). While it may well be in the very near future that and 80 year old couple ,may be able to produce a viable child, at least with a great deal of medical help and innovation, but I am quite sure it is not possible at this point in time and won’t be for the forseeable future.

So, the purpose of their marriage would have nothing whatsoever to do with reproduction.

 

[pathia]

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.

Over 1000 rights, privileges and responsibilities come with ‘Marriage’. Less than 20 involve children.

Many things cannot be duplicated by legal contracts. If I am sick, and I am very often. My partner has no recourse to stay home and take care of me, or visit me in the hospital. There is no choice but to take unpaid leave, yet the same company offers 2weeks of ‘emergency time’ for married couples.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher;4772346:

A civil marriage may or may not be sacramental in that the environment that it is founded in makes sacramental grace possible.

What makes grace possible or impossible remained invisible untill gay marriage is included in the definition of marriage. The environment created by the union of same sex persons makes visible an environment incapable of forming a marital bond.

As far as the law is concerned concepts of “grace” and “sacrament” are not issues they deal with. The state does not ‘validate’ the “marital bond” by which I’m assuming you mean procreation…since it recognizes infertile couples as “married” with no possiblility of procreation…it would appear the law does not draw your distinction. The law is not concerned with “sacraments” and “grace”.

 

[Publisher]

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.

These “judicial activists” interpret the “equality under the law” clauses and “interpret” it to included ALL PEOPLE…not just “most of them”.

 

[Corki]

So, the purpose of their marriage would have nothing whatsoever to do with reproduction.

Marriage has two aspects procreation and unity.

One of the fruits of marriage is children. So, yes, reproduction is part of the purpose of marriage but not a defining purpose.

Procreation does not equal reproduction.

 

[Publisher]

You have been on these forums long enough to know that that isn’t what we mean at all. :tsktsk:

For the umpteenth time, marriage is supposed to be unitive AND procreative. Procreative does not mean the reproduction is guaranteed or even possible. It means open to life. Unitive does not just mean companionship. It also means complementary. “Gay” marriage has no procreative aspect and only a simulated unitive aspect.

While that may be the Catholic understanding of “marriage”, the law does not draw that distinction of being “open to life.” The very fact that the state recongnizes that gay men and women can raise children in a “family”, not within your definition" but willing to offer a child a stable loving environment to grow and to be nurtured to be whole people allows them to be “open to life”.

Lesbian couples can and do have children through legal means, means not accepted by the Catholic church…but legal none the less…civil unions/marriage for same gender couples is recongnition of that…not defined by religious beliefs but equality under the rule of law.

 

[Bennie_P]

Over 1000 rights, privileges and responsibilities come with ‘Marriage’. Less than 20 involve children.

Many things cannot be duplicated by legal contracts. If I am sick, and I am very often. My partner has no recourse to stay home and take care of me, or visit me in the hospital. There is no choice but to take unpaid leave, yet the same company offers 2weeks of ‘emergency time’ for married couples.

Do you have a list of those 1000 “rights”, “Privileges” and “resposibilties” (whose responsbilties? the couples or the state?).

Many companies do not give nothig other the unpaid family leave which is required by law to married couples, but there are a lot of companies that do give same-sex couples the same benefits as anyone else. The last two corporations I work for when I was still in retail management had very liberal same-sex partner benefits. One has gone bankrupt and is no longer in business, one the issues that sunk it was the the very liberal benefit packages it had for its employees. The other is now planning to close two of it’s divisions and closing another third of its main-line stores. It too has had to cut back on some of its liberal (gay freindly) benefits. What is happening now is this companies in which a lot of gays flocked to for their liberal benefits are now unemployed.

When looking for a job it is the individual’s responsibilty to negotiate their benefit packages. We do not need the government interfering with individual company mandates in which will burden them. What might seem like a good idea in principle usually burdens the small business owner the most, which by the way is the the biggest creator of jobs, and thus stunts job growth. And it is small businees owners which creates jobs that may benefit same-sex couples **and **traditional families the most, more so then large corporations. But when we start mandating too many regulations and laws concerning employment rights as it comes to mandated benefits, fewer benefit if there are fewer jobs to choose from, leaving more people unemployed.

Many great small businesses in the community are ran by “gays”, I dislike that word, and putting more regulations on employment rights just by the act of making “gay” marriage the law of land could and would most likley put many of the “gay” small business owners out of business. Otherwise you throw the baby out with the bath water or, you shoot yourself in the foot…

Yea, it seems like the compassionate thing to do, but many times what seems good in the long run is not.

 

[Bennie_P]

While that may be the Catholic understanding of “marriage”, the law does not draw that distinction of being “open to life.” The very fact that the state recongnizes that gay men and women can raise children in a “family”, not within your definition" but willing to offer a child a stable loving environment to grow and to be nurtured to be whole people allows them to be “open to life”.

Lesbian couples can and do have children through legal means, means not accepted by the Catholic church…but legal none the less…civil unions/marriage for same gender couples is recongnition of that…not defined by religious beliefs but equality under the rule of law.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

We as a society need to reverse the trend, not contiune to make things … worse.

 

[Publisher]

Somehow, I doubt the problems caused by 1% or so of the 3-5% of the population which happen to be gay, will cause any detriment to society where 95% of the “straight” population has not been stellar in raising children and keeping their marriages intact.

I have no doubt that gay people will fare no better…and perhaps worse than their straight counterparts…but that is one of the prices of equality…equality for the benefits as well as equality for the pitfalls.

Refusing equal rights to same sex couples because “what might happen” is not the solution. Perhaps if straight couples took their responsibilities more seriously such arguements as those above would carry weight…but they do not…and the fact that “gay marriage” will be law eventually prove this out…the benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well as the pitfalls and “dangers” must be shared equally in a free society where we have “equal rights” clauses intended for everyone…not just the majority.

 

[The_Smiter]

Mass. and Ct. Your claim that there is a distinction between “people not courts” is artificial, bogus, contrary to law and a typical hand wave argument for those who cannot accept the legal system. There is much wishful thinking on this forum.

Well, I( think that constitutional lawyers would disagree with you. It was YOUR claim that the PEOPLE want such things. The judicial system has been corrupted (I admit that it has from both ends of the political spectrum) to propone POLITICAL views rather than simply making decisions about the constitutionality of laws.

But look, I am not interested in debating the LEGAL issues. You are because it is the only way to justify your desire of gay marriage. There are no religious trraditions that promote this. Are their religious groups who file for tax exemption that want to promote the practice of gay marriage? Sure. But there is no long-standing religious or faith tradition that accepts it as part of their history or practice. At least agree that you see the distinction there. I agree that groups can do what they want with respect to what they assent to. But at least we have to have a common vocabulary and understanding of our concepts without misrepresenting what our worldviews are.

 

[The_Smiter]

You have been on these forums long enough to know that that isn’t what we mean at all. :tsktsk:

For the umpteenth time, marriage is supposed to be unitive AND procreative. Procreative does not mean the reproduction is guaranteed or even possible. It means open to life. Unitive does not just mean companionship. It also means complementary. “Gay” marriage has no procreative aspect and only a simulated unitive aspect.

Sarah was well past child bearing years and God gave her and Abraham a child. Faith is what we should have our trust in - not the conventions of man and his understanding of biology and other aspects of nature.

 

[Bennie_P]

Perhaps if straight couples took their responsibilities more seriously…

That is our point, we need to raise the bar of responsibilty, not lower it…

You are not promoting equality but less responsibilty, a license to do more harm.

 

[thewalrus]

Somehow, I doubt the problems caused by 1% or so of the 3-5% of the population which happen to be gay, will cause any detriment to society where 95% of the “straight” population has not been stellar in raising children and keeping their marriages intact.

If you’re surprised Bennie believes that, you haven’t read enough of his posts. He’s convinced gays will single-handedly destroy civilization as we know it.

Perhaps if straight couples took their responsibilities more seriously such arguements as those above would carry weight…but they do not…and the fact that “gay marriage” will be law eventually prove this out…

When I was young, I was conservative myself and felt homosexuality was a sin, etc. As I got older and wiser and my views changed on the matter, I began to see people differently. I think one of the most compelling arguments for same-sex marriage is that there are so many faithful and loving gay and lesbian couples out there. That alone stands against any argument such as “If you’re gay, you are psychologically diseased.” It disturbs me to even write that.

 

[thewalrus]

Sarah was well past child bearing years and God gave her and Abraham a child. Faith is what we should have our trust in - not the conventions of man and his understanding of biology and other aspects of nature.

Actually, this works against your argument! Thanks!

 

[thewalrus]

That is our point, we need to raise the bar of responsibilty, not lower it…

You are not promoting equality but less responsibilty, a license to do more harm.

Bennie, only in your mind is promoting equality considered “less responsible” or “a license to do harm.”

 

[goofyjim]

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.

Actually they do not have all the same rights. While I will not call it marriage, gays can be prevented by family members from having a loved one visit in the hospital. They constantly have their wills contested by said family members. And they are viewed at as sinners no matter who they share living expenses with(ie, they can’t cohabitate with a woman and if they are out they can’t live with a man). Does it really seem fair to make these people find expensive solo living arangements? These three things need to change. They shouldn’t live with a woman but men should feel free to share lving exenses with each other. Wills should go uncontested by law and if someone requests that another be by their bedside in the hospital the family should have to abide by that request.

 

[fix]

When I was young, I was conservative myself and felt homosexuality was a sin, etc. As I got older and wiser and my views changed on the matter, I began to see people differently. I think one of the most compelling arguments for same-sex marriage is that there are so many faithful and loving gay and lesbian couples out there. That alone stands against any argument such as “If you’re gay, you are psychologically diseased.” It disturbs me to even write that.

If this is your reasoning then anything goes.