Solution to "same-sex marriage"?

[Bill_Martin]

Whether you realize it or not your position is basically
the homosexualist position. Both want the government
to make marriage plastic and be seem as simply
a religious ritual. Yours is not a Catholic understanding
of marriage. Marriage is a natural institution that
predates the Church and governments.

No, you misunderstand me. Nothing that I propose tries to change what marriage is. It only prevents the government from trying to redefine it to be whatever they want. Same sex couples who would call themselves married are still wrong; marriage does not change just because they apply its name to something it isn’t. However, people should be legally allowed to be wrong.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Bill, one purpose of government is to regulate and define. Without spoken and accepted categories (not just abstract philosophical categories), anarchy would result. Government depends on commonly understood definitions, on a structure within society, and on the categories that both imply. Such is important for legal reasons as well as ensuring some order in society. It is not practical nor desirable to just let everybody define their own private worlds, assigning whatever status to relationships they choose. Legal chaos would ensue.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Bill, one purpose of government is to regulate and define. Without spoken and accepted categories (not just abstract philosophical categories), anarchy would result. Government depends on commonly understood definitions, on a structure within society, and on the categories that both imply. Such is important for legal reasons as well as ensuring some order in society. It is not practical nor desirable to just let everybody define their own private worlds, assigning whatever status to relationships they choose. Legal chaos would ensue.

Legal chaos would not ensue because the terms of the contract would determine how legal issues are handled regarding the parties involved.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I would eliminate the mention of marriage from the government entirely. In the cases of two people getting married, the only role I want the government to play is to record the contract that they signed for legal purposes. No marriage license, no federal or state definition of marriage, and no requirements to obtain such a status; just a record of the contract that the parties signed and enforcement of its terms during legal proceedings, taxes, etc.

Okay, that’s exactly what Lydia’s article is about and I completely disagree with it. MArriage is one of society’s most important institutions and it desrves to have a special status in the government.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Okay, that’s exactly what Lydia’s article is about and I completely disagree with it. MArriage is one of society’s most important institutions and it desrves to have a special status in the government.

Her article may be about it, but she totally ignores the fact that supporters of this idea still think the government should recognize contracts, just not dictate what kinds of contracts can be made.

As to marriage being one of our most important institutions, I agree. That’s why I don’t trust the government with it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Legal chaos would not ensue because the terms of the contract would determine how legal issues are handled regarding the parties involved.

Except that, again, we are a country with certain common purposes, outlined in Founding Documents and reinforced in court decisions and in legislation throughout our history. We are not a mere collection of private contracts. Your model is ill-suited to both the concepts in the founding documents and the practicing workings of the United States of America.

Definitions are important to the broader workings of society, and those definitions have legal impact outside of private contracts between individuals.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Her article may be about it, but she totally ignores the fact that supporters of this idea still think the government should recognize contracts, just not dictate what kinds of contracts can be made.

But wouldn’t that mean me and my hypothetical friend Bob can sign what we call a “marriage” contract where we agree to call each other “husbands”, set out rights for any adopted children, et cetera, et cetera?

And it would be the same as the contract that my buddy Stan sets up with his wife Jane where they call agree to call themselves “husband” and “wife” and set up rights to see children, hospital rights, living rights, et cetera, et cetera?

Because if they’re both considered “marriage” contracts then society is essentially forced to accept same-sex marriage. Which I, at least, don’t want to do.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But wouldn’t that mean me and my hypothetical friend Bob can sign what we call a “marriage” contract where we agree to call each other “husbands”, set out rights for any adopted children, et cetera, et cetera?

And it would be the same as the contract that my buddy Stan sets up with his wife Jane where they call agree to call themselves “husband” and “wife” and set up rights to see children, hospital rights, living rights, et cetera, et cetera?

Because if they’re both considered “marriage” contracts then society is essentially forced to accept same-sex marriage. Which I, at least, don’t want to do.

And that was my point, to Bill, Marc. The U.S. government, or the several States, are not about to allow private individuals to define marriage for their private purposes. Marriage is a social institution with broad implications in this country. If citizens do not take part in the process of that definition, the government will listen to the loudest voices regarding that deifnition, which right now is the Gay Lobby.

 

[Bill_Martin]

But wouldn’t that mean me and my hypothetical friend Bob can sign what we call a “marriage” contract where we agree to call each other “husbands”, set out rights for any adopted children, et cetera, et cetera?

And it would be the same as the contract that my buddy Stan sets up with his wife Jane where they call agree to call themselves “husband” and “wife” and set up rights to see children, hospital rights, living rights, et cetera, et cetera?

Because if they’re both considered “marriage” contracts then society is essentially forced to accept same-sex marriage. Which I, at least, don’t want to do.

They wouldn’t be considered “marriage” contracts. They wouldn’t have any specific designation or term.

Rather than forcing us to accept same sex marriage, this would permit the Church or anyone else to reject these as marriages because the government has no definition that they can impose on us. As it stands now, if the definition of marriage is changed to include same sex couples, then they can require us to accept them. If there simply is no government definition of marriage, then there is nothing for them to impose and we can reject gay unions as marriages.

 

[Bill_Martin]

And that was my point, to Bill, Marc. The U.S. government, or the several States, are not about to allow private individuals to define marriage for their private purposes. Marriage is a social institution with broad implications in this country. If citizens do not take part in the process of that definition, the government will listen to the loudest voices regarding that deifnition, which right now is the Gay Lobby.

Why should we allow the government to tell us what marriage is? What happens when they change it and force us to accept gay marriage?

You want the citizens to take part in the process of that definition. I do too. There is no better way to do this than to give society, not the government, the purview to define it.

 

[EviPolevhia]

As it stands now, if the definition of marriage is changed to include same sex couples, then they can require us to accept them.

Untrue. There are plenty of groups and denominations that, for example, do not respect civil divorces. Person A and B get a divorce, then A wants to go marry C. A did not get a divorce through his denomination, so that group won’t marry him. And the Government’s acceptance of the divorce has zero effect on that religion.

Likewise, two Males wish to get married. The Government if it accepted gay marriage would recognize this. But Catholicism, and other religions, are under -no- obligation to marry those individuals. For the exact same reason that someone who gets a divorce without their religion’s approval could not be married again in that religion.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Untrue. There are plenty of groups and denominations that, for example, do not respect civil divorces. Person A and B get a divorce, then A wants to go marry C. A did not get a divorce through his denomination, so that group won’t marry him. And the Government’s acceptance of the divorce has zero effect on that religion.

Likewise, two Males wish to get married. The Government if it accepted gay marriage would recognize this. But Catholicism, and other religions, are under -no- obligation to marry those individuals. For the exact same reason that someone who gets a divorce without their religion’s approval could not be married again in that religion.

It has already happened to Catholic adoption agencies that have been forced to accept gay couples as equally viable candidates for children, even though it violates their beliefs.

blog.heritage.org/2011/07/11/crushing-the-nations-venerable-adoption-agencies%E2%80%94and-religious-liberty/

 

[EviPolevhia]

It has already happened to Catholic adoption agencies that have been forced to accept gay couples as equally viable candidates for children, even though it violates their beliefs.

blog.heritage.org/2011/07/11/crushing-the-nations-venerable-adoption-agencies%E2%80%94and-religious-liberty/

False comparison. First off, Marriage is not Adoption. Second, Catholic Marriage is not the same as the governmental process of Marriage. Third, Adoption is a governmental process that the Church participates in. It’s not the sole property of the Church, rather the Church is allowed to assist in what is a civil, -not- religious, matter. When the Church’s views contradict the Governments in what is a civil matter, the Church is excused from the business.

Edit: Question, should the Church of Scientology have equal say as the Catholic Church in adoption? Why or why not?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

They wouldn’t be considered “marriage” contracts. They wouldn’t have any specific designation or term.

Rather than forcing us to accept same sex marriage, this would permit the Church or anyone else to reject these as marriages because the government has no definition that they can impose on us.

The problem is that these contracts will function for the people who make them the exact same way a marriage functions now, and the people who make the contracts will consider their union marriage. Which is exactly what Catholics don’t want.

Right now there are states that recognize homosexual marriage. The Catholic Church is not required to marry homosexuals in those states. And yet they still oppose “homosexual marriage”. Why?

Because marriage is a special institution that deserves SPECIAL significance. Making homosexual unions on par with real marriages is exactly what Catholics want to prevent.

 

[Bill_Martin]

The problem is that these contracts will function for the people who make them the exact same way a marriage functions now, and the people who make the contracts will consider their union marriage. Which is exactly what Catholics don’t want.

Right now there are states that recognize homosexual marriage. The Catholic Church is not required to marry homosexuals in those states. And yet they still oppose “homosexual marriage”. Why?

Because marriage is a special institution that deserves SPECIAL significance. Making homosexual unions on par with real marriages is exactly what Catholics want to prevent.

I don’t care if somebody considers their homosexual union to be a marriage. What people think of their relationships is their business, however wrong they might be.

 

[MacBP]

I’ve had this concept in my head for quite a while now, and I’m curious as to the thoughts of others. I know there is the concept of “civil union” for same-sex couples, but they claim it isn’t entirely legally the same as marriage, which got me to thinking the following:

1. If people keep advocating for the separation of church (religion) and state (government)
2. If it is primarily people of religious background that are against said “marriages”
3. If same-sex couples want legal equality under a union for dedicated individuals

Then why not give everyone what they want. I believe we already have the systems in play to make this happen smoothly, because it essentially already is this way, with a few exceptions, and mostly a game of semantics and words.

Would a good solution to the issue to separate church and state and make marriage purely a religious matter so that each religion can define what it constitutes marriage, and then give the state the power over civil unions (legal “marriage”, but the term marriage will be kept to be used by religious). Then, anyone could get a civil union by the state to get the legal benefits of a dedicated relationship. This would mean, though, for those that are religious who are married by their church would also have to register for a civil union (which is essentially already done).

The idea is not completely thought out, but would this work? Why or why not? I’d like different perspectives, from Catholics, non-Catholics, non-Christians, and non-religious people.

I’ve heard this idea passed around before. I think its one of those ideas that try to please everyone and ultimately pleases no one.

Those in favor of same-sex marriage will not settle for this compromise because the compromise fails to achieve their primary objective. While legal recognition is an aspect of the push for same-sex marriage, the primary purpose is to legitimatize and enshrine homosexuality. Consequently, some aspects of the GLBT movement will not settle for anything less than a marriage.

The issue on the side of religious organizations is more complex than their slogans might indicate. The battle over same-sex marriage is not about the definition of marriage but its identity. The Church believes that marriage is an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman, formed by God, for the purposes of a romantic union which is oriented around the creation and education of life. The culture believes that marriage is semi-permanent commitment between two adults who are in love that brings with it tax breaks. Enshrining same-sex marriage supports the culture’s definition of marriage instead of the Church’s; it is seen by the Church as a step in the wrong direction. Calling it a marriage or a civil union doesn’t change the fact that people have a very messed up idea of what it means to be in a committed relationship.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t care if somebody considers their homosexual union to be a marriage. What people think of their relationships is their business, however wrong they might be.

Again, you do not understand. Government has an interest in these relationships, and allowing others to define them for the government, without government oversight, is first of all not going to happen, no matter how much you desire it, and second, will result in courts recognizing illegitimate marriages without an authority (the government) to correct that illegitimacy.

Marriage is a recognized social institution; therefore, the government cares and wants (name removed by moderator)ut. Same for education. One can declare one’s own household to be a school (avoiding governmental regulation), but the very fact that one needs a regulation for that, and needs to file for that exemption, means that education, as an institution, is of interest to the government and subject to its control.

 

[TracerBullet]

Why should we allow the government to tell us what marriage is? What happens when they change it and force us to accept gay marriage?

You want the citizens to take part in the process of that definition. I do too. There is no better way to do this than to give society, not the government, the purview to define it.

What happened when they changed it and forced people to recognize interracial marriage?

 

[TracerBullet]

It has already happened to Catholic adoption agencies that have been forced to accept gay couples as equally viable candidates for children, even though it violates their beliefs.

blog.heritage.org/2011/07/11/crushing-the-nations-venerable-adoption-agencies%E2%80%94and-religious-liberty/

If a religious organization is going to contract with the government to provide adoption services then they must adhere to the laws that prohibit discrimination. If they want to discriminate then they need to get out of the adoption business.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Again, you do not understand. Government has an interest in these relationships, and allowing others to define them for the government, without government oversight, is first of all not going to happen, no matter how much you desire it, and second, will result in courts recognizing illegitimate marriages without an authority (the government) to correct that illegitimacy.

The courts would not be recognizing illegitimate marriages; they would be recognizing contracts. The term “marriage” wouldn’t even come up. What people call their relationship wouldn’t matter because it would have no basis in the proceedings.

The last thing I want is the government, the same entity that has decided you can murder your unborn kids; the same people who just decided that only churches, not individuals, have freedom of religion; and the same people who have been threatening to ignore the Constitution and evict private companies from cities because of the political and religious views of its owner, to be the “authority” to decide what marriage is.