Should the state marry gay lovers?

[The_Smiter]

Why yes, I certainly can ask, particularly when such society deems it fitting to deprive the rights of, and even physically harm certain segments of that society. We just happen to live in a secularist, even an idealist (however tarnished, it remains as yet unbowed) society. If a secular society is unacceptable to you, well, there’s always Saudi Arabia, I guess.
.

Now there, we are in agreement. Bravo!

The rest of your post didn’t seem to be germaine to the topic, or much more than a clumsy appeal to emotion and what you think is the majority of your audience, so I will pass by it, since I do not find it either interesting or applicable to the subject at hand.

It might or might not interest you to know that I am also (very happily) married, and no wet-behind-the-ears mere stirrer of the, ah, poop kettle.

If you wish to claim that my post is an appeal to emotion (I disagree) then fine. But your position then can only be characterized as an appeal to pity.

Also - is that your position when it comes to people who disagree with you? Invite them to move to a totalitarian theocracy? Having a difference of opinion on this topic or any other does not mean that I am presenting any kind of tyrrany of the majority. In fact, if you read my posts, although we are in disagreement, I think that you will find that I am more than charitable.

Insofar as a “poop kettle”, I do not know what that means, but if it is an inferrence to profanity (and I am not suggesting that it is) it is against the rules.

Just because the straw man question is established at the beginning of this thread, does not mean that it is a valid question. We are debating the sides of the issue and should not be casting ad hominem attacks or suggestions as to where people whould move to if they disagree with any given position.

Lastly - a completely secular society IS unacceptable to me. Why would I (or anyone who is a believer in God) want a society that is devoid of any influence by The Creator? Your statement that secularist and idealist are synonymous terms is your own definition and probably not the position of the majority of people on this site or in America at large. I believe that there should be a separation of church and state, but it is a protection that was designed for the CHURCH’S benefit, NOT the STATE’S.

Many of your grenades in this response are related to issues that have already been discussed at length on this thread and I would respectfully suggest that you might read back a bit. If you already have, I am at a loss as to the phrase "…particularly when such society deems it fitting to deprive the rights of, and even physically harm certain segments of that society."

 

[The_Smiter]

I have no problem with only having a civil union, I can get married in several churches of my choosing anyway, they will call it a marriage, I will call it a marriage, but they state doesn’t have to unless it wants to, but the problem is that it is never equal.

My partner and I have a domestic partnership, but there’s no enforcement on anything. We do not share benefits, we do not get time off to care for them in emergencies, we do not get any of those things that the companies offer to married couples.

I have addressed this in prior posts on this thread. I am assuming that you do not live in California which has the most liberal and generous civil union legislation in the United States. I am sure (and even supportive) that other states will eventually adopt similar laws that will protect civil unions of same-sex couples and give them what you are asking for. But marriage (even if YOUR church calls it that) has NEVER been understood, by any society or religion to mean a union between members of the same sex. At least be willing to recognize this and admit that what you want IS a GOVERNMENTAL recognition of your union and NOT a SOCIETAL recognition of such. It is, I believe , and acceptable position for those who both agree and disagree, it offers what same-sex couples are looking for with respect to protection and securing of assurances within a relationship, and it does not attempt to undermine a millenias-old understanding of what marriage is.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

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 .

Yes, 80 year old male and female couples should certainly be allowed to marry…provided they are not divorced.

You claim that the only ones who should have sex are those open to life. You claim that women and men of a certain age are unable to procreate.
I bring you to Abraham and Sarah. I bring you to St. Ann and St. Joachim. I bring you to St. Elizabeth and Zachariah.
All of these women were past the age of menopause. Yet they gave birth to Issaac, the Blessed Mother Mary, and St. John the Baptist.
Now, it is highly unlikely that a couple in their 80’s will procreate. No one doubts that. What matters is that they are open to life if God sees fit to use them for that purpose.
No homosexual sex can be open to life…the same as sex between heterosexuals who use contraception.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

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.

And how do we know God but by Holy Scripture…which clearly states many times that homosexual practice is a grave sin, and tradition…which follows Christ and His teachings put forth in His Word.

You say that we should put our trust in God. That is exactly where it is. That doesn’t mean that we tell God “Look, I want to commit this act, so You need to accept it as good and not say it is sinful.” or at least, it means nothing if you do tell Him that.

It is important for the benefit of your salvation that you realize that God is our God, and we are not His God.
We are made in His image, not He in ours.

You cannot take approximately 10 thousand years of history and teachings on God and decide that they are wrong because of the interpretation of a few people who want to water down and change the meaning of the TRUTH. That is detrimental to your salvation.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

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.

And brother/sister incestuous relationships that did not plan to pro create could very easily say the same about homosexual unions. Don’t you get it? This is a very important point.
What makes it illegal? The law.
What makes it dangerous?
What makes it profoundly unhealthy?

It would become a “civil rights” argument…and just as unjustifiable as the homosexual argument is today.

 

[pathia]

I have addressed this in prior posts on this thread. I am assuming that you do not live in California which has the most liberal and generous civil union legislation in the United States. I am sure (and even supportive) that other states will eventually adopt similar laws that will protect civil unions of same-sex couples and give them what you are asking for. But marriage (even if YOUR church calls it that) has NEVER been understood, by any society or religion to mean a union between members of the same sex. At least be willing to recognize this and admit that what you want IS a GOVERNMENTAL recognition of your union and NOT a SOCIETAL recognition of such. It is, I believe , and acceptable position for those who both agree and disagree, it offers what same-sex couples are looking for with respect to protection and securing of assurances within a relationship, and it does not attempt to undermine a millenias-old understanding of what marriage is.

miamiherald.com/277/story/892447.html

Some states won’t even recognize power of attorney’s.

One of the most horrifying things, not said, in this story if you read between the lines. It looks like the hospital condemned this woman to die alone. No one was permitted to see her, until a priest was giving her last rights, at which point she was probably not conscious.

Not only did they rob her partner of visiting her loved one, but they robbed this woman of human contact while she died.

 

[pathia]

And brother/sister incestuous relationships that did not plan to pro create could very easily say the same about homosexual unions. Don’t you get it? This is a very important point.
What makes it illegal? The law.
What makes it dangerous?
What makes it profoundly unhealthy?

It would become a “civil rights” argument…and just as unjustifiable as the homosexual argument is today.

‘Don’t plan’ is completely different than ‘cannot’. The offspring in a brother/sister pairing would have an incredibly high chance of being drastically deformed and a great burden on society, thus it is illegal for reasons other than it being ‘gross’

Gays or lesbians marry do not spontaneously produce children that will be big burdens on society.

 

[The_Smiter]

miamiherald.com/277/story/892447.html

Some states won’t even recognize power of attorney’s.

One of the most horrifying things, not said, in this story if you read between the lines. It looks like the hospital condemned this woman to die alone. No one was permitted to see her, until a priest was giving her last rights, at which point she was probably not conscious.

Not only did they rob her partner of visiting her loved one, but they robbed this woman of human contact while she died.

Your response has nothing to do with my post. I have already gtranted that Florida is behind the times, and yet you post another link to a Florida incideent.

The purpose of responding to a post is to answer the claims therein, possibly give your particular understanding or spin, and then to propose another question. Your response is just another slamming blather about nothing.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

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…

What a great common sense answer: the marriage can not be consummated.Pretty simple logic.
Of course in today’s world who knows what valid marriage is supposed to consist of anymore.Everyone’s making up their own rules.
But, that’s a great answer & one I can pass along to my teenage son who’s getting beaten-up on verbally at school for defending traditional marriage.
And yes, I know there have been exceptions in Church teaching like platernal marriage.
Thanks!

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Marriage between Man and Woman is Truth thus from God.

False, so-called marriage between same sex people is Lies and thus from the Liar.

The lestate", that is legimate, resides in Truth. The “state” that is illigimate, lives in Lies.

 

[brazenarticle]

It’s up to the mayor or some other judicial official I suppose as to what they feel OK in doing as to the queer or “gay” couples looking to get hitched. I’m from an area three towns and three Catholic mayors and they refuse to perform it even though legal Gay couple unions have been approved by the Governor, not the voters by the way in a very blue state. I think it’s God’s will and the right thing to let those who can perform decide what they will or won’t do in this regard. However, let the folks vote on the ballot and I wanted it on the ballot this past election. Nothing done. Unless and until it passes as to legal marriage passing, the mayors refusing are the major deciders. Most of us will agree.
Let the states that have not ruled have a vote as to full blown legal gay marriages and in the mean time let the mayor’s decide what know is right and just in the eyes of God as to what they feel comfortable performing especially as to “unions” approved.

 

[brazenarticle]

As to in Church, it’s out of the question of course. It was difficult to even allow a man and woman of which one being a non-Catholic marry one back in the 40’s and 50’s inside the Catholic Church. Later on it happened but not with any happiness and glee and most about 50% turned up in divorce. In today’s age it’s much worse as to the divorce rate after just 10 years even married in the same faith. I’m not saying to the gays that anything has been better outside the Church, but give it a try if you are dediciated to your services and your circle as to any loyal dedicated union you desire.

 

[pathia]

Your response has nothing to do with my post. I have already gtranted that Florida is behind the times, and yet you post another link to a Florida incideent.

The purpose of responding to a post is to answer the claims therein, possibly give your particular understanding or spin, and then to propose another question. Your response is just another slamming blather about nothing.

It has personally happened to my in OH, KY and VA. It is not just Florida.

 

[brazenarticle]

Marriage = M/F
Civil Union = M/M or F/F
Gays = unnatural lifestyle

Gays can NEVER be married, unless you change the definition of marriage.

We need to be accepting of gays.
Gays need to be accepting of the fact that their lifestyle is unnatural.

Bob

True, we need to observe what has worked well over the decades. If we have a national election that says marriage is legal between same sex couple in the USA and it wins, I’ll eat a bug, but would abide by the law of the land, Until then, the same sex couples need to shut up in this regard or bring it on the ballot. If I’m lyin’ I’m dyin
Ask Obama ask Biden, ask GWB…crikey… ask the liberal congress on Capital Hill.

 

[brazenarticle]

True, we need to observe what has worked well over the decades. If we have a national election that says marriage is legal between same sex couple in the USA and it wins, I’ll eat a bug, but would abide by the law of the land, Until then, the same sex couples need to shut up in this regard or bring it on the ballot. If I’m lyin’ I’m dyin
Ask Obama ask Biden, ask GWB…crikey… ask the liberal congress on Capital Hill.

 

[The_Smiter]

It has personally happened to my in OH, KY and VA. It is not just Florida.

Once again - yopu can give all of the anecdotal evidence you want - but the fact of the matter is that MOST states are adopting laws tht favor civil unions and are beginning to offer the protections of which you speak.

You have an agenda. I have an agenda as well. The difference is that my agenda is truth and what is best for all. You are interested only in your special interests without respect for how your goals may or may not harm others or society at large.

The direction that most states seem to be going in is compromise. You are looking for an “all or nothing” solution that is in your favor.

And again your response does not clarify, advance, or redirect the topic. More appeal to emotion and pity rather than reason or logic.

 

[QuestforLiberty]

I don’t personally think that it makes sense for marriages to be sanctioned by the government at all, regardless of sexual orientation. I don’t particularly have a problem with two gays getting together in order to get the tax break etc. I don’t have any problem with our states sanctioning gay marriages because, while it makes me uncomfortable, they should have the same opportunities at pursuing happiness as I do. If the homosexual lifestyle doesn’t make them happy, then at least we will be there to provide them with a good example and a place to turn; but us getting in the way will only make them more rebellious and try harder to get what they want. We need to let them make their mistakes because, as it is widely known, gay marriages don’t work, but that doesn’t mean that we should stop them from happening, we should discourage, but not ban (at least coming from the point of view contained within our state laws, etc.)

 

[pathia]

Once again - yopu can give all of the anecdotal evidence you want - but the fact of the matter is that MOST states are adopting laws tht favor civil unions and are beginning to offer the protections of which you speak.

You have an agenda. I have an agenda as well. The difference is that my agenda is truth and what is best for all. You are interested only in your special interests without respect for how your goals may or may not harm others or society at large.

The direction that most states seem to be going in is compromise. You are looking for an “all or nothing” solution that is in your favor.

And again your response does not clarify, advance, or redirect the topic. More appeal to emotion and pity rather than reason or logic.

Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships/Anything ‘close’ to gay marriage are banned in the following states by constitutional amendment:
Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Iowa, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida

Here is the ones that have banned gay marriage, there are no talks in any of these for civil unions.
Montana, Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arizona.

That’s 26 states.

Wyoming, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and North Carolina have also banned them via laws.

That’s 35 states.

Exactly what is your ‘most’ compose itself of? Only in the last batch could Civil Unions be brought forth, the others law is all so broad as to ban those as well, most ban domestic partnerships as well.

 

[Bennie_P]

Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships/Anything ‘close’ to gay marriage are banned in the following states by constitutional amendment:
Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Iowa, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida

Here is the ones that have banned gay marriage, there are no talks in any of these for civil unions.
Montana, Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arizona.

That’s 26 states.

Wyoming, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and North Carolina have also banned them via laws.

That’s 35 states.

Exactly what is your ‘most’ compose itself of? Only in the last batch could Civil Unions be brought forth, the others law is all so broad as to ban those as well, most ban domestic partnerships as well.

You forgot Arkansas, making 36. Thank goodness he was wrong.

 

[pathia]

You forgot Arkansas, making 36. Thank goodness he was wrong.

If power of attorney is no good (and it doesn’t seem to work). Exactly what are we supposed to do to declare our wishes, when hospitals are free to ignore our legal documents with impunity?