Should the state marry gay lovers?

[Nepenthe]

On of those things is not like the other! One of those things just isn’t the same…

Changing the ‘opposite sex’ bit would not in any way affect the overall spirit of the law, as opposed to matters of consent, bigamy, and humanity (which still fall under consent, the same way such a contract with a legal minor or an even more so an animal or other creatures unable to communicate clearly and rationally and understand the concepts of US LAW work to the best of our knowledge in the case of other species, even if they’re incredibly sophisticated members of a civilization from Xarxox 8 of the Cosmos of the Concrete Flapjack), but just to be clear).

So, seeing as same sex marriage is not a matter of any violation of citizens’ rights, out it goes!

Oh, perhaps you may not know this, but of the legal gay marriages in the US, the divorce rate is a small fraction of that among straights? I have no idea if such will last of course, since many disorders and problems that were one associated with men have become pretty prevalent in women once we entered the work place far more…but there’s not a big enough sample or a long enough time period to show how that might go yet, at all.

Time just keeps on slipping into the future, and all we can do is sing as we go, really.

 

[The_Smiter]

Dude, your analogy does not work. Just because you expand the definition of marriage to include those of the same sex does not mean the floodgates just swing wide open. Can an incestuous marriage occur now? No. Why? Because it’s illegal, dangerous, and profoundly unhealthy. Could an incestuous marriage occur if the law was changed to include same-sex unions? No, because it would be illegal, dangerous, and profoundly unhealthy.

I appreciate your efforts to address me colloquially, but “Dude” is rather derisive. I am sure that you did not mean it that way, but not all people engage in debate at the level of slang. Just my preference.

At any rate - the analogy DOES stand, because you want to change something to mean something different from what it has perennially meant. That is definitionally “opening the floodgates”, as you stated.

The case that you are making against incestuous marriages is the same defense that has been made against homosexual unions.

You want to eliminate the perceived prejudice against homosexual unions. Fine. But you have to be willing to consider the rights of other aggreived parties, who feel tht society has been perennially bigoted toward them as well. If not, then you simply replace yourself in the role of the perceived bigot you seem to have ousted.

 

[Sair]

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…

Wow…

There are so many prejudices inherent in this post. I’ll address a few.

Sexual intimacy is possible for any couple - it doesn’t have to be penetrative, penile/vaginal sex to qualify as intimacy, and thus an act of bonding.

Marriage ought to be a recognition of a couple’s commitment to stay loyal to each other for life - it’s an acknowlegement of their love for each other, and that alone is the force that binds them, whether man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man.

And we have already ‘filled the earth’ - almost to the point of bursting. How do the ‘fruitful’ marriage advocates propose to support all those offspring?

 

[pathia]

You want to eliminate the perceived prejudice against homosexual unions. Fine. But you have to be willing to consider the rights of other aggrieved parties, who feel tht society has been perennially bigoted toward them as well. If not, then you simply replace yourself in the role of the perceived bigot you seem to have ousted.

Incestuous marriages lead to genetic defects. It is not appropriate to condone them, because it will harm an external party DIRECTLY (Any children produced). Even if one considered homosexuality harmful, two men, or two women, having a document at hand will cause no direct harm to anyone else.

Underage marriages are similarly silly to mention, because a child cannot legally obligate her/himself to a contract, period. They are not of the age to understand the seriousness and it cannot stand, because as far as legal marriage is, that’s what it is LEGAL agreements.

Comparisons to marrying an animal are invalid for the same reason. An animal cannot consent, cannot sign a contract, cannot give utterance to any verbal agreement.

Comparisons to plural marriages are silly, because the entire point of the benefits are to extend the benefits to two individuals, period. It is a contract between two parties, not three. The point of the breaks/incentives is between two individuals, not three or four, or more. If someone wants to live in a triad, by all means go about it, but you have to pick one person to be your spouse.

Marriage has been ‘redefined’ many times. Until the 1960’s, it was illegal to marry interracial in many states. Go back 100years and girls as young as 12 were married to 40+ year old men, and it was considered ‘good and proper’. Marriages around that time and earlier were often arranged, they did not involve love. They involved parents marrying off their children to tie families together, or work property agreements.

It has been redefined many times, even during the time of Christianity.

 

[The_Smiter]

No, that’s what adoption is for. I was referring to when you said “Faith is what we should have our trust in - not the conventions of man and his understanding of biology and other aspects of nature.” Your conventions and enslavement to biology and nature (over theology) is precisely what you should not put your trust in. Put your trust in God.

Again - you and I have different ideas about what adoptionb is for. It is not for the same-sex coupole - it is for the child who needs a family.

And before you go off saying that there are not enough families to adopt all of the children who need adopting - you are wrong.

There are enough heterosexual couples both with and without children who are willing to adopt children of all ages and special needs to accommodate all of the children needing adoption today. The problem is that social services and well-meaning types have swooped in and made adoption about those who are desirous of adopting and what they want as opposed to what is in the best interest of the child needing to be adopted. ll children desreve the IDEAL - which is a man and a woman providing a family for a chils as husband and wife and mother and father. That’s the way it is in nature and that’s the way society has gone along with it for millennia.

Again I state - if you want to change the meaning of the term - go ahead - but at least admit that’s what you are doing.

In terms of being a slave to nature and biology as you claim - God reve3als to us his will in many ways. The first way was in His Creation. Creation is ordered in a particular way and we have ordered our society in such a way as to model it and then also by His Word (scripture) and by His teachings given to us by Christ.

I welcome your comments, as I am sure you have them!

 

[pathia]

In terms of being a slave to nature and biology as you claim - God reve3als to us his will in many ways. The first way was in His Creation. Creation is ordered in a particular way and we have ordered our society in such a way as to model it and then also by His Word (scripture) and by His teachings given to us by Christ.

I welcome your comments, as I am sure you have them!

If it is entirely to his way and ordered perfectly, how do you explain people like myself? I cannot biologically or medically be classified as male or female.

As mentioned earlier due to the quirks of laws, in some states I can legally marry men, in some women, and in the few with gay marriage, of course, both.

The federal law will recognize any of the marriages that the state does, as long as it isn’t qualified as a gay marriage in one of those states.

Literally, I can get married in, say, Ohio to a woman, but that marriage would be invalid in many states. I could get married to a man in Washington State, yet it would be invalid in Ohio and others that have the same rules it does.

 

[The_Smiter]

Gee, here I was thinking it was you that was saying that the “gay movement” is the catalyst for the decline of our society, that they are destroying all our constitutional rights, sexually abusing our children, spreading disease, etc. These are my friends you speak about. So don’t ask me to pitch a pity party for you when your ideas defame and disrespect my friends. I have no respect for ideas that are not intended to do anything other than hurt people. I have said nothing of any sort to hurt anyone here. I might playfully jab and joust with you on a forum but there’s a huge difference between that and spreading hateful and destructive ideas. I can respect people who disagree with me on the issues but are able to think through the issues in a responsible and rational fashion (e.g., mulepadre), but I do not respect libel.

And thanks, my lunch was great.

Walrus,

What kind of response is this?

I haven’t read anything, either overtly or by inferrence, in his posts that even comes close to the vile words you are putting in his mouth. You =just can’t slam someopne because they disagree with you.

And again I will say, just because you posed and Original Post (OP) as intending to be “secular” and only referencing legal issues, you cannot expect responses on a CATHOLIC ANSWERS site to be devoid of Catholic response.

 

[thewalrus]

I appreciate your efforts to address me colloquially, but “Dude” is rather derisive. I am sure that you did not mean it that way, but not all people engage in debate at the level of slang. Just my preference.

At any rate - the analogy DOES stand, because you want to change something to mean something different from what it has perennially meant. That is definitionally “opening the floodgates”, as you stated.

The case that you are making against incestuous marriages is the same defense that has been made against homosexual unions.

You want to eliminate the perceived prejudice against homosexual unions. Fine. But you have to be willing to consider the rights of other aggreived parties, who feel tht society has been perennially bigoted toward them as well. If not, then you simply replace yourself in the role of the perceived bigot you seem to have ousted.

You just might be the first person ever to consider the word “dude” derisive. But I’ll be here for ya and keep from hurting your feelings.

Sorry, but I just don’t consider the “well, it’s always been defined this way” a valid argument. I seem to remember that being used to justify things such as slavery. Giving them equal rights did wonders for our society. Hopefully, eventually we can learn from our past.

Who are these other “aggrieved parties”? Is this Bennie’s infamous “moral majority” that you speak of?

There is simply no comparison between incestuous relationships and same-sex relationships. In the former, there is great physical and psychological harm that can occur. That’s a scientific fact. In the latter, there is not. So feel free to keep using your same arguments. In fact, I encourage it, because they don’t work.

 

[The_Smiter]

If it is entirely to his way and ordered perfectly, how do you explain people like myself? I cannot biologically or medically be classified as male or female.

As mentioned earlier due to the quirks of laws, in some states I can legally marry men, in some women, and in the few with gay marriage, of course, both.

The federal law will recognize any of the marriages that the state does, as long as it isn’t qualified as a gay marriage in one of those states.

Literally, I can get married in, say, Ohio to a woman, but that marriage would be invalid in many states. I could get married to a man in Washington State, yet it would be invalid in Ohio and others that have the same rules it does.

Not knowing what you mean when you say “people like yourself”, pathia, I can’t responsibly respond to your post. If I have missed something in a previous post,please direct me and I will get up to speed. Thanks!

 

[Publisher]

Again - you and I have different ideas about what adoptionb is for. It is not for the same-sex coupole - it is for the child who needs a family.

And the same sex couple offers a stable environment…as stable as tow people can anyway. It is not beyond a gay couples desire to offer a child a loving family…to offer that child a life of love and comfort it would not have otherwise…wanting to adopt for the sake of the child is not a “straight” monopoly.

And before you go off saying that there are not enough families to adopt all of the children who need adopting - you are wrong.

True…but in some cases…as with the couples I know who have exercised their perogative to adopt…no “straight” families wanted them…the two men I know have adopted a “cast away” child…no straight couple wanted her…she would have remained institutionalized…and had been up for adoption for more than six years…she had special needs…and these two men were moved by love to offer her a life she could only have dreamed of. They embraced her medical expenses…knowing they would never be relieved of them as this child would never leave her wheelchair…nor would she ever go to college as she did not have the mental faculties to do so…it was a life long commitment these two dads made to their daughter of their heart.

There are enough heterosexual couples both with and without children who are willing to adopt children of all ages and special needs to accommodate all of the children needing adoption today.

Perhaps…but no heterosexual couple did so. It was a heterosexual couple that discarded their child.

The problem is that social services and well-meaning types have swooped in and made adoption about those who are desirous of adopting and what they want as opposed to what is in the best interest of the child needing to be adopted.

The best interest??? She is loved and cared for as she never was before.

ll children desreve the IDEAL - which is a man and a woman providing a family for a chils as husband and wife and mother and father. That’s the way it is in nature and that’s the way society has gone along with it for millennia.

Yes…the IDEAL would have been for her biological parents to love her…to raise her…but she lives in a less than ideal world where children like her are discarded…so two men…who had been “discarded” themselves understood this child’s needs as no one else could.

Again I state - if you want to change the meaning of the term - go ahead - but at least admit that’s what you are doing.

Change the meaning of “marriage” or 'adopt"? Not change…expand…the word “family” has expanded to include three “cast offs” that love one another sacrificially…I wouldn’t mind being in a family like that…to be loved and nurtured…not the “normal” definition to be sure…but they are a “family” none the less.

In terms of being a slave to nature and biology as you claim - God reve3als to us his will in many ways. The first way was in His Creation. Creation is ordered in a particular way and we have ordered our society in such a way as to model it and then also by His Word (scripture) and by His teachings given to us by Christ.

God’s creation is diverse and human sexuality is diverse…we only now in the last century are understanding just how diverse human sexuality is…and this is just one more natural variation of it…just as humanity built civilization around a concept they understood…so now we are co-workers with God to establish an expanded understanding of His diverse creation that is humanity.

I welcome your comments, as I am sure you have them!

 

[thewalrus]

Walrus,

What kind of response is this?

I haven’t read anything, either overtly or by inferrence, in his posts that even comes close to the vile words you are putting in his mouth. You =just can’t slam someopne because they disagree with you.

And again I will say, just because you posed and Original Post (OP) as intending to be “secular” and only referencing legal issues, you cannot expect responses on a CATHOLIC ANSWERS site to be devoid of Catholic response.

He spoke about these things in the “Gay Marriage OK…” thread that is currently closed for editing. And I have no idea what your last paragraph even means. I posed? Where have I said anything about “secular”?

 

[The_Smiter]

You just might be the first person ever to consider the word “dude” derisive. But I’ll be here for ya and keep from hurting your feelings.

Sorry, but I just don’t consider the “well, it’s always been defined this way” a valid argument. I seem to remember that being used to justify things such as slavery. Giving them equal rights did wonders for our society. Hopefully, eventually we can learn from our past.

Who are these other “aggrieved parties”? Is this Bennie’s infamous “moral majority” that you speak of?

There is simply no comparison between incestuous relationships and same-sex relationships. In the former, there is great physical and psychological harm that can occur. That’s a scientific fact. In the latter, there is not. So feel free to keep using your same arguments. In fact, I encourage it, because they don’t work.

The origins of the word “dude” are derisive in nature. Your use of the term may be intended without offense, but nto all people have the same understanding of words - as is evidenced by this forum.

They do work, as anyone who views it from outside the fishbowl would see - but no matter. When people debate, the sures way to failure is to never decide on a common frame of reference or vocabulary. The gay community keeps coming up with comparisons to slavery and racial restrictions on marriage which just do mot apply. Racial restrictions on marriage were exactly that - restrictiohns. They were wrong and they were changed. But the definition of what marriage itself was did not change.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are stating that incest is harmful because of the potential for genetic dysfunction with offspring. So are you saying that two biological brothers who are gay could marry under your rules? (I am not trying to be silly, just trying to understand the underlying reason for you being against or permissive of incest in either a different-sex or same-sex uonin).

 

[Nepenthe]

That’s funny - I see Catholics ‘slamming people for disagreeing with them’ around here all the time, even if they mouth off flat in the face of the standard catechism.

And they get a huge amount of latitude to do so, as opposed to those who do not proclain our differing faths or lack of faiths particularly strongly. I will say such dedication to equal rights-to-speak, so long as the forms of politeness and consederation are observed, have, sllloooooowwwllly improved matters, but it’s of the two steps forward, one sterp (or 15 steps back) variety sometimes.

Well, so long as we keep working towards a common goal of both civility, and even warm friendship, that’s okay. I’ll stay and be patient, even though I’ll probably get roughed up in the process, no matter how kindly and civil I can be (admittedly, my bent towards satire may chap a few people around here, but that’s really their lookout in my own opinion ). I never mean any ill, nor am I dishonest.

Just an aside, in some CA dialects, EVERYone is ‘dude’ in a friendly way, regardless of sexuality. Just a regionalism!

 

[pathia]

Not knowing what you mean when you say “people like yourself”, pathia, I can’t responsibly respond to your post. If I have missed something in a previous post,please direct me and I will get up to speed. Thanks!

I am an intersexed (The older word, now considered insulting for this is hermaphrodite). I am also a transsexual. Doctors ‘pick’ a sex when someone like me is born. I then rejected it.

This creates rather bizarre legal situations, needless to say. My chromosomes are XX, XY and XXY. Sample some cells you get one of those patterns. There is no way to solidly identify my body as male or female.

 

[thewalrus]

Again - you and I have different ideas about what adoptionb is for. It is not for the same-sex coupole - it is for the child who needs a family.

And before you go off saying that there are not enough families to adopt all of the children who need adopting - you are wrong.

There are enough heterosexual couples both with and without children who are willing to adopt children of all ages and special needs to accommodate all of the children needing adoption today. The problem is that social services and well-meaning types have swooped in and made adoption about those who are desirous of adopting and what they want as opposed to what is in the best interest of the child needing to be adopted. ll children desreve the IDEAL - which is a man and a woman providing a family for a chils as husband and wife and mother and father. That’s the way it is in nature and that’s the way society has gone along with it for millennia.

Again I state - if you want to change the meaning of the term - go ahead - but at least admit that’s what you are doing.

In terms of being a slave to nature and biology as you claim - God reve3als to us his will in many ways. The first way was in His Creation. Creation is ordered in a particular way and we have ordered our society in such a way as to model it and then also by His Word (scripture) and by His teachings given to us by Christ.

I welcome your comments, as I am sure you have them!

Publisher and pathia have handled this thoroughly already but I’ll add some. Your “nature” argument simply does not work theologically. Are you a Gentile? If so, be thankful God worked “against nature” to graft you into the tree.

Regarding “changing the meaning of the term,” I just answered that in another post.

 

[The_Smiter]

Publisher:
You are simply wrong. If all traditional couples and families were allowed to adopt children needing adoption before single persons and same-sex couples were offered children, ther eowuld be none left for adoption.

I know of no samesex couple personally who has ever been denied adoption. I know dozens of traditional families and couples who have been turned away because same-sex couples were placed ahead of them.

I agree with you - if no one else were willing to take in a choild who needed a home, then same-sex adoption would be fine. It would not be the ideal, but a child does deserve a home where he is loved and cared for unconditionally in stead of foster care. However, this is just not the case in America today, because of the vanity of - as you put it - “desiring” children when there is ntoa a mother and a father being able to care for a child in an adoptive home.

 

[The_Smiter]

He spoke about these things in the “Gay Marriage OK…” thread that is currently closed for editing. And I have no idea what your last paragraph even means. I posed? Where have I said anything about “secular”?

Sorry walrus. I thought that you had been the Original Poster on this site that referecnced wanting only legal issues addressed. My error. Too much flying around!

I can’t be held responsible for knowing what a particular poster said on another forum, especially if it is closed and I cannot read it.

I can only know what is here and so far I have seen nothing in his posts that merits the vitrion of your response.

If he cares to clarify, and adjust prior misconceptions, either through forum posting or PM, that would be welcome. Soemtimes things are said that we regret (has this ever happened to you??) and sometimes thisng we say are misinterreted and taken the worng way. But at least respect the fact that I am not a mindreader and can’t see the things you are referecning about his prior posts.

I welcome and clarification he might provide however!

 

[Publisher]

You are simply wrong. If all traditional couples and families were allowed to adopt children needing adoption before single persons and same-sex couples were offered children, ther eowuld be none left for adoption.

I know of no samesex couple personally who has ever been denied adoption. I know dozens of traditional families and couples who have been turned away because same-sex couples were placed ahead of them.

I** agree with you - if no one else were willing to take in a choild who needed a home, then same-sex adoption would be fine. It would not be the ideal, but a child does deserve a home where he is loved and cared for unconditionally in stead of foster care. H**owever, this is just not the case in America today, because of the vanity of - as you put it - “desiring” children when there is ntoa a mother and a father being able to care for a child in an adoptive home.

Good…you understand your beliefs in the matter are not absolute…there are circumstances where same sex adoption is allowed…and since you are ascenting to the same sex adoption…are you also agreeing that this same sex couple also has the right to be together to raise this special needs child…you were speaking from your heart…and not your religious beliefs at the time… That was meant not as a slight by the way…but to acknowledge your statement…it was one of compassion and I commend you…to make such an admission took courage.

 

[The_Smiter]

Just an aside, in some CA dialects, EVERYone is ‘dude’ in a friendly way, regardless of sexuality. Just a regionalism!

If I am not careful, we are going to get sidetracked on this “dude” thing - but here it is-

The use of slang and colloquialism - simply because it is regional, cultural, generational, or otherwise - is probably something that should be avoided in online discussions - mostly because our emotions and winks of eye’s (despite the uyse of emoticons) is difficlut to convey!

Just MY aside and observation - but I do see your point, Nepenthe.

 

[pathia]

Publisher and pathia have handled this thoroughly already but I’ll add some. Your “nature” argument simply does not work theologically. Are you a Gentile? If so, be thankful God worked “against nature” to graft you into the tree.

Regarding “changing the meaning of the term,” I just answered that in another post.

Legal marriage has nothing to do with Theology. It has to do with the State.

I do not consider myself of any religion. Christian, Christianity and in particular the Catholic Church have caused me so much harm, misery, despair, suicide attempts, shunning, assaults, vicious verbal attacks, firings, lack of food, shelter (I’ve been kicked out of christian run homeless shelters, because they don’t want me to use either bathroom).

I simply don’t trust the religion anymore. I believe in a God, yes, but I pray with all my heart that he isn’t the God that ‘Christians’ claim him to be, because I have felt almost nothing but cruelty and punishment from so called Christians my entire life. That is why I am here, and not in church in reality. The scars run so deep, literally stepping into a Catholic Church will make me have a nervous breakdown.

The pain runs so deep that I cannot reasonably discuss or be around Christians in person, because literally I have psychotic breakdowns. My personality falls away, I pull into myself and hide from the world. Even if they a perfectly reasonable people, it’s what you might call ‘flashbacks’ though that term is somewhat misleading thanks to Hollywood.

People here seem much more reasonable than the ‘real world’