B
buffalo
Guest
These things can be done now legally between parties of the same sex or of different sex.
This is not, I repeat, not a civil rights issue. Homosexuals, gays and straight American all have equal civil rights now.
- Status
This is not, I repeat, not a civil rights issue. Homosexuals, gays and straight American all have equal civil rights now.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
That’s because the state has allowed clergy to act as the state’s agent in this matter. This is not how it works in all parts of the world
H
Holly3278
Guest
No offense but how can you call yourself a Catholic and be for gay marriage?
You do realize that the Catholic Church is against gay marriage right?
J
John_Hiner
Guest
Laudatur Iesus Christus.
True marriages provide benefits to society that justify the privileges accorded to them, namely well-reared children. The notion that arrangements that do not and cannot provide these benefits are entitled to “equal treatment” is simply unjust.
The confluence of two fundamental social “spirits” favor the “gay agenda” at present: the hate of children and the totalitarian impulse for state control.
Children are hated in popular culture; school children are taught to regard babies as “burdens,” “risks,” “costs,” and “un-necessary elements of over-population.” “Teenagers” are treated as presumptive criminals to be confined in restrictive facilities where they are denied the dignity of doing productive work. This hate of children is sociologically manifest in the desire to divorce the concept of “sex” from the very concept of “children;” this is expressed in the assertion of a “right” to promiscuous, infertile “recreational sex,” and in a rabid fear of the exposure of children to sexual ideas. Both of these approaches disclose a psychological drive to divorce the ideas of “sex” and “children;” both are carried to unhealthy extremes almost immediately when they are taken up or become one’s focus.
All of this offers opportunities for the immemorial drive of temporal powers to make themselves absolute, by piercing the privacy of families, violating the modesty of students who are taught publicly about their “sexual identities,” alienating fathers from their wives and children, and eventually by claiming the right and ability to simultaneously define the family itself and to restrict the teaching of religious truth about the family as “hate speech” or merely “unenlightened and old-fashioned bigotry.”
Sadly, these trends are already very far advanced, because “fake marriages,” the result of “divorce and re-marriage,” have poisoned society’s understanding of marriage and family at its roots. “Heterosexuals” have falsely equated temporary unions with true marriage for so long that one can hardly find the terms to distinguish between a true marriage and any “couple” which circumstances might present for consideration.
To answer the claims pressed for “gay marriage,” society must ultimately reject the idea of “divorce,” so that true marriages, the permanent and un-reserved joining of a man and wife, can re-emerge as the basis of society and the natural right of every child.
At root, however, one cannot address the issue of “equality” or “discrimination” until one acknowledges that true marriages are entitled to special privileges, precisely because they provide a special and indispensable benefit to society, namely well-reared children.
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
True marriages provide benefits to society that justify the privileges accorded to them, namely well-reared children. The notion that arrangements that do not and cannot provide these benefits are entitled to “equal treatment” is simply unjust.
The confluence of two fundamental social “spirits” favor the “gay agenda” at present: the hate of children and the totalitarian impulse for state control.
Children are hated in popular culture; school children are taught to regard babies as “burdens,” “risks,” “costs,” and “un-necessary elements of over-population.” “Teenagers” are treated as presumptive criminals to be confined in restrictive facilities where they are denied the dignity of doing productive work. This hate of children is sociologically manifest in the desire to divorce the concept of “sex” from the very concept of “children;” this is expressed in the assertion of a “right” to promiscuous, infertile “recreational sex,” and in a rabid fear of the exposure of children to sexual ideas. Both of these approaches disclose a psychological drive to divorce the ideas of “sex” and “children;” both are carried to unhealthy extremes almost immediately when they are taken up or become one’s focus.
All of this offers opportunities for the immemorial drive of temporal powers to make themselves absolute, by piercing the privacy of families, violating the modesty of students who are taught publicly about their “sexual identities,” alienating fathers from their wives and children, and eventually by claiming the right and ability to simultaneously define the family itself and to restrict the teaching of religious truth about the family as “hate speech” or merely “unenlightened and old-fashioned bigotry.”
Sadly, these trends are already very far advanced, because “fake marriages,” the result of “divorce and re-marriage,” have poisoned society’s understanding of marriage and family at its roots. “Heterosexuals” have falsely equated temporary unions with true marriage for so long that one can hardly find the terms to distinguish between a true marriage and any “couple” which circumstances might present for consideration.
To answer the claims pressed for “gay marriage,” society must ultimately reject the idea of “divorce,” so that true marriages, the permanent and un-reserved joining of a man and wife, can re-emerge as the basis of society and the natural right of every child.
At root, however, one cannot address the issue of “equality” or “discrimination” until one acknowledges that true marriages are entitled to special privileges, precisely because they provide a special and indispensable benefit to society, namely well-reared children.
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
S
stevekrok8
Guest
When I was a kid my mom would always say “You always have to get the last word. Even when you are wrong you still insist on having the last word. Are you to proud to admit to the humility of silence and use the opportunity to think about what you did?” Thanks mom!!
P
Penny_Plain
Guest
Yes, I do realize that. But thanks!No offense but how can you call yourself a Catholic and be for gay marriage?
C
CapaxDei
Guest
Your posts in this thread lead me to suspect that you’re Canadian. (Although, I thought Canadians were “nicer.”)
There is no such thing as “gay marriage.” It is physically and ontologically impossible. You can flounce and stomp your feet all you want, but that’s how it is.
There is no such thing as “gay marriage.” It is physically and ontologically impossible. You can flounce and stomp your feet all you want, but that’s how it is.
C
chewchoo
Guest
civil ceremony - no
civil license - yes, even if you marry in the church you have to apply for a license from “city hall”
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
Yes, even in the current system, you still need the “blessing” from the state.
However, my original question goes unanswered: Under the current system, what prevents two or more people, regardless of sex or orientation from drawing up a legal contracts (which straight people should have anyways) that provides similar benefits to that of marriage?
P
pathia
Guest
Because many of the states that have banned it include a clause along the lines of ‘or anything resembling marriage’. If you duplicated marriage in contract, then it would be banned just the same as same-sex marriage. They didn’t just ban marriage, they banned anything similar to it in any way shape or form.
C
chewchoo
Guest
here’s a sample marriage application
trentonnj.org/Documents/Vital%20Statistics/reg-15.pdf
it has a male column and a female column.
anything other than that doesn’t fit the form.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
Pathia, first off, hope you are feeling better?
Ok - but what’s to stop me from signing a will to say all my property will go to person X (not related or civilly married to) upon my death. Or that person X will have power of attorney in case of accident?
N
Newbie2
Guest
I agree.
I was wondering if different states had different laws regarding such things, at least as far as what’s legally required to obtain such authorizations.
E
estesbob
Guest
Anyone who depends on their being married to confer all of the above is a fool. All of the above should be covered in wills and durable power of attorneys-something that is available to anyone regardless of sexual behavior.
A company should be allowed to provide benefits in any manner they desire. The compromise worked out in Californa was a farce and forces the Church to use charitable contributions(money donated specifically to help ther poor and needy)to fund sinful behavior. They should have done what the Diocese of Boston did when the State tried to force them to place children in dysfunctional househholds-they refused.
The agenda is quite clear-they want deviant sex to be confered the same protected status a race, gender and coutnry of national origin. They also want this confered without the approval of the people. ie-homosexual marriage has been confered in two States based soley on the dictates of 10 people despite the explicit wishes of the people to not do so.
E
estesbob
Guest
Simply not true-there is nothing in any states laws that prohibits anyone from confering on another all the legal rights available to ones spouse via the legal system. Employer benefits, BTW, are NOT a legal right.
C
Carjack1
Guest
I guess every Catholic agrees with EVERYTHING that the church states. You are brave and are probably going to get questioned on how you practice your faith alot.
G
GratefulDad
Guest
What Estesbob, said.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land.
And I didn’t say anything about goats.
You totally missed my point. If the only restrictions about marriage are the ones you gave–1) being in love, and 2) being sexually attracted–then what’s to prevent polygamy, child marriage, and incest? Should there be more restrictions on marriage than the ones you gave?
That’s obvious.
G
GratefulDad
Guest
If that is the case why not go to the gay and lesbian forums and spend your time evangelizing them? As a true and fully believing Catholic you would not want to spend your time trolling here would you?
E
Etonite
Guest
There is currently a cause celebre here in England. Two Church of England clergy have been “married” by another Anglican clergyman. This despite instruction against this from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and against current rules.
The current rule is based on the premise that it is the Churches view that marriage is for, amongst other things, procreation and this is obviously not a goer.
This poses a wider question than “gay rights”. It raises the question of whether clergy can ignore the rules and instructions from their superiors in order to use current legislation.
Perhaps they should resign?
The current rule is based on the premise that it is the Churches view that marriage is for, amongst other things, procreation and this is obviously not a goer.
This poses a wider question than “gay rights”. It raises the question of whether clergy can ignore the rules and instructions from their superiors in order to use current legislation.
Perhaps they should resign?
- Status