State should not deny SSX marriage? Huh

[SwizzleStick]

I don’t care if you think this entire civil rights movement is a tantrum or not, so long as the end result is that gays are legally free to marry each other and have the same rights as heterosexuals couples.

So dismiss it if you like. Keep praying. It will only smooth the path for our victory.

It is not a civil right, it is an impossibility. Two homosexuals cannot marry each other. It cannot be done. The fact that such an idea is even being discussed or taken at all seriously shows how truly lost we are as a society.

 

[CopticChristian]

Answer my question - if same-sex marriage is a logical impossibility, what do you care if the government disagrees with you? Unless you think that the government merely exists to follow the Catholic handbook?

Also, I’m not the government, which is another reason I’m not required to produce a definition that you can twist around and use to obfuscate from the real issue here.

aSIMON,

My answer is that reality is that SSX marriage is a logical impossibility. I care that the governement disagrees with me. I think. The government Exists. The OHCAC has existed longer than the government.

You are not the government. You choose not to define your terms in this discussion. You cannot expect someone to discuss with you what you can not define because the government you speak of expects a definition to be able to allow what you believe in. You have dismissed yourself from any argument that would involve the anticipation that the government would entertain and act on by your own free will.

Here is a quote from one of your posts. I believe it is relevant.

This was posted in your response and you responded to this post.

You have managed to evade not only that but the content of many posts because they apparently are not in agreement with your views.

I’m not particularly concerned whether my views are reassuring anybody. Reality rules, and sometimes the truth hurts. Asimon, post #69, RE: Do we really have free will..

…

We have free will and the will to choose that which we believe in.

You seem to have a habit of behavior in these postings that you freely choose. Your free will is in conflict with reality.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t care if you think this entire civil rights movement is a tantrum or not, so long as the end result is that gays are legally free to marry each other and have the same rights as heterosexuals couples.

So dismiss it if you like. Keep praying. It will only smooth the path for our victory.

I NEVER said the entire civil rights movement is a tantrum. I said people demanding the definition of marriage to change, but are not able to give a new reasonable definition of marriage are engaged in a tantrum. Also they scream of rights but can not engage in a reasonable discussion about them.

Your “victory” will be rendering marriage meaningless, so like most tantrums, the goal is: if I can’t have it, nobody can.

 

[ASimon]

aSIMON,

My answer is that reality is that SSX marriage is a logical impossibility. I care that the governement disagrees with me. I think. The government Exists. The OHCAC has existed longer than the government.

You are not the government. You choose not to define your terms in this discussion. You cannot expect someone to discuss with you what you can not define because the government you speak of expects a definition to be able to allow what you believe in. You have dismissed yourself from any argument that would involve the anticipation that the government would entertain and act on by your own free will.

Here is a quote from one of your posts. I believe it is relevant.

This was posted in your response and you responded to this post.

…

We have free will and the will to choose that which we believe in.

You seem to have a habit of behavior in these postings that you freely choose. Your free will is in conflict with reality.

The illusion of free will has nothing to do with this issue, so let’s stay on topic.

I want homosexuals to be able to marry each other and have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I’m sorry if this isn’t clear enough for you - if it can’t be wrapped up in a bow and entered into a dictionary, but that’s really not my problem. You want marriage to remain between a man and woman forever. And based on what? And why should I care? Because the OHCAC predates the U.S. government? This objection was dealt with already. Slavery predates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by a few thousand years - it doesn’t mean slavery is, or ever was, a good idea worth holding onto.

You call gay marriage a logical impossibility. This doesn’t answer my question - it simply re-places it. You’re basing your logic on a definition of marriage that can’t be seriously defended as immutable. At one time, equality for black people would’ve been met with the same objection - “Black people are, by definition, inferior, so equality for black people is a logical impossibility.” It’s only logically sound if the premises are logically sound. And in this case, they aren’t.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Religious reasons aside, the traditional reason for marriage is to provide stability and a home for the children who result from a sexual union. Since two homosexuals cannot even have sexual intercourse, the idea that they can marry or need to marry is illogical.

 

[CopticChristian]

The illusion of free will has nothing to do with this issue, so let’s stay on topic.

I want homosexuals to be able to marry each other and have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I’m sorry if this isn’t clear enough for you - if it can’t be wrapped up in a bow and entered into a dictionary, but that’s really not my problem. You want marriage to remain between a man and woman forever. And based on what? And why should I care? Because the OHCAC predates the U.S. government? This objection was dealt with already. Slavery predates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by a few thousand years - it doesn’t mean slavery is, or ever was, a good idea worth holding onto.

You call gay marriage a logical impossibility. This doesn’t answer my question - it simply re-places it. You’re basing your logic on a definition of marriage that can’t be seriously defended as immutable. At one time, equality for black people would’ve been met with the same objection - “Black people are, by definition, inferior, so equality for black people is a logical impossibility.” It’s only logically sound if the premises are logically sound. And in this case, they aren’t.

Black unions can reproduce. Homosexual unions can not reproduce.

 

[ASimon]

Black unions can reproduce. Homosexual unions can not reproduce.

Re-placing the question again. On what basis do you assert that reproduction is the only basis of marriage, and why should I or my government care?

SwizzleStick:

Religious reasons aside, the traditional reason for marriage is to provide stability and a home for the children who result from a sexual union. Since two homosexuals cannot even have sexual intercourse, the idea that they can marry or need to marry is illogical.

Do you honestly not realize how insulting you are when you say stuff like this?

 

[SwizzleStick]

…Do you honestly not realize how insulting you are when you say stuff like this?

I see nothing insulting with what I posted. Please explain.

Religious reasons aside, the traditional reason for marriage is to provide stability and a home for the children who result from a sexual union. Since two homosexuals cannot even have sexual intercourse, the idea that they can marry or need to marry is illogical.

 

[ASimon]

I see nothing insulting with what I posted. Please explain.

You’ve answered the question already. You have no idea how insulting you are when you say stuff like this. I don’t really care about educating you - I just wanted you to confirm that you are, in fact, as clueless as you sound. Thanks.

 

[SwizzleStick]

You’ve answered the question already. You have no idea how insulting you are when you say stuff like this. I don’t really care about educating you - I just wanted you to confirm that you are, in fact, as clueless as you sound. Thanks.

Please indicate how what I posted is insulting. Do tell.

Religious reasons aside, the traditional reason for marriage is to provide stability and a home for the children who result from a sexual union.

The above is true.

…Since two homosexuals cannot even have sexual intercourse, the idea that they can marry or need to marry is illogical.

The above is also true.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CopticChristian,

I could not agree with you more!

What really concerns me is that all we are really talking about is how people will have sex as they sodomize one another. So called ‘Gay Pride’ parades would not be allowed if the participants were alcoholics, drug abusers or pedophiles - so what make sodomy so intriguing to the point of having people think that such behavior is some kind of ‘right’. And, those who would (and have done so in the past) regulate sodomy are called names - ‘homophobes’ when in reality this is a meaningless term. Those who identify that sodomy is harmful are not ‘afraid’ of homosexuals - just pointing out the danger of homosexual behavior.

The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has given many warnings about the dangers of sodomy - not only HIV and AIDS but to essentially harming the body when a penis or some other object attempts to enter the anus and rectum.

Here are three links that clearly and graphically identify totally avoidable problems:

cdc.gov/std/chlamydia/stdfact-chlamydia.htm

cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-and-men.htm/

factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosexual-behavior/

What is noteworthy from a public health standpoint is that no such warnings are issued to married couples because they are not basically disordered. No society can prepare for a future generation to take over if the current generation is seeking legislation to legalize sodomy.

This is simply failed behavior on the part of those in authority who have betrayed the trust we have placed in them to protect society. Ultimately, we just have to look at ancient Greece and Rome to see the consequences of unrestrained sensuality. No easy answer heres - but, unless these abuses are honestly addressed, we are simply dooming ourselves by disdaining marriage between one man and one one woman focused of procreation and the rearing of children.

God bless

Too often gay advocates and those sympathetic to homosexuals do not recognize the Church teaching on Homosexuality. Often I see the attempt to impose debate on these issues.

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights.

Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right.

States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases.

Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

The OHCAC says marriage is a sacrament and that homosexuality is disordered and cannot sanction same sex marriage. There appears to be no debate on this issue.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.

What do you think?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Re-placing the question again. On what basis do you assert that reproduction is the only basis of marriage, and why should I or my government care?

Do you honestly not realize how insulting you are when you say stuff like this?

Why should the state give costly benefits to something that doesn’t benefit it? Marriage benefits the state by generally providing the best possible environment for the rearing of new citizens who will contribute to the state.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

Honest, you can chose to believe or disbelieve in whatever you wish - but, this has nothing to do with reality which exists independenly of one’s beliefs.

Throughout recorded history we see what stable families can do for a society as it progresses in the development of a civilization and culture. There is much to learn what others have said and experienced - but, there is no substitute for longevity. Societies that lasted have reasons for their success - those that implode can also be assessed for why they failed. The family unit is the basic foundation for virtually every society that survives.

While you may want to change a definition - we need to understand the reality we are trying to describe. Definitions can not depend on feelings or whims - rather objective reality.

Now, just as an aside and not intended to derail the thread - let me simply say that you are more then welcomed to believe that God does not exist - that all of these repeating patterns we see just happened, all of this order just happens and all of this predictability that we have learned to fold into our activities of daily living (e.g., like boiling water to make coffee - you always need heat and not cold). My idea is that to actually believe that all that is contained in the universe is caused by random events (that, by definition, can not necessarily repeat) requires far more faith then I have. So, if you chose to believe that all of the repeating designs we observe throughout nature comes from random events and not the Master Designer - that is your choice. There are consequences to every belief.

God bless

So this definition of marriage should never, ever change because the Creator I don’t believe in, that you can’t prove even exists, and whom my government doesn’t endorse, made it this way. Got it.

I’m saying this definition of marriage should change. The reason I win this argument is because there’s no state interest in denying gay people the right to marry members of their gender.

 

[ASimon]

Why should the state give costly benefits to something that doesn’t benefit it? Marriage benefits the state by generally providing the best possible environment for the rearing of new citizens who will contribute to the state.

Needless to say, there is no compelling evidence that a man-woman home life necessarily provides a better, more stable environment for raising children than a same-sex couple would. But it’s interesting that people who put forward this argument never follow through on that logic - wouldn’t allowing gays the option to marry increase the stability of their partnerships, and their home lives? If stability really is the problem, why couldn’t marriage be part of the solution?

But even if I accept your premise (and I don’t), what would benefit orphan children more - having a stable home life being cared for by two men or two women, or being a ward of the state until they turn 18? And wouldn’t it benefit the state to have a larger pool of potential adoptive parents? It would certainly seem to save the state and taxpayers money.

Finally, I’ll repeat the point from earlier - it’s not for the state to grant people rights based on whether it serves a state interest. Rights are presumed to exist, and the state may only deny them if they have a compelling state interest to do so. So even if there were no benefit to the state for allowing same-sex marriage, that argument would still fail, because it would not satisfy the burden of showing that granting that right would be to society’s detriment.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

One of the fundamental of a limited sample size is that wrong conclusion is often drawn. You are right, of course, the Constitution makes no mention of God. But, this country and the government that eventually developed was God centered. Let me invite you to read the Declaration of Independence - especially considering that today is the 4th of July … here is a link: archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Check this out: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

But, we can look at other documents - for example, the Mayflower Compact (mayflowerhistory.com/PrimarySources/MayflowerCompact.php/ ) places God in the first sentence!

There are really many other public documents that do recognize and call upon God for His assistance. Having found one that doesn’t do this - proves nothing except the basic problems of a inadequate sample size.

God bless

And then you can read the Constitution, and see that it makes no mention of God or religion, other than to explicitly limit their influence on the government.

The resistance that I run up against on CAF is irrelevant. I’m not trying to get you to reject your OHCAC teaching. I’m trying to get you to realize that the teachings you base your beliefs on are invalid, as they relate to the secular, American government.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

Since you hve agreed - for the sake of argument - that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman has been around for thousands of years - please tell me what improvement you think changing the existing definition will provie. Thank you

God bless

I don’t agree, though. I’m just accepting your flawed premises for the sake of the argument, to show how they don’t stand up when you apply them in the real world.

The reality is simple - I’m not obsessed with this ossified definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Even if that had been the definition for thousands of years, it’s irrelevant unless you can explain why, and on what basis that it can’t ever be changed, and why our secular government should be respectful of that.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

And for all of these years, I have thought that GeorgSantayanae ( en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana) was just being funny… you know, the guy who said, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.”

So, it would seem that by saying, ‘history is irrelevant’ Santayanae would identify your ultimate outcomes as equally irrelevant.

You are right, Common sense and logic do depend on valid premises. One of the ways to validate a premise is to see how long it lasts and what are the consequences. Your claim that marriage being defined as one man and one woman is unsound. What do you base this on?

Do you know of a society (not isolated and individual citizens in that society) that is based on legalized homosexual behavior that has lasted for thousands of years, that is self-repliating, that has advance its cvilization? Now, that would be evidence to consider. Of course, there is always the argument that unrestrained hedonism is the only valid criteria to consider in evaluating behavior - then I submit that Santayanae has already established the criteria for such an evaluation.

God bless

History is irrelevant. Many bad ideas have been defended on the basis of “we’ve always done it this way.” Common sense and logic are only as good as the premises they’re based on. And your premises are unsound.

See Exhibit A.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

I really must disagree with you on this - your definition is most certainly NOT IRRELEVANT. Your definition - is what is driving this discussion. Most of your previous posts have involved Gratuitous Criticism of the definitions that others have provided. Honest communications really depends on at least most of the cards being placed on the table.

What you claim are ‘semantic obstacles’ are really the effort to reduce to writing just what it is we are trying to describe. Stable society has all of recorded history to back up the definition of marriage you have been rejecting - but failing to provide your own. Words are merely a reflection of the logic we are employing to convey an idea to others. There are rules to the use of words so that intellegent communications can progress - and, that brings us back to the need for clearly set definitions.

If there is a disagreement - it must be more than, “I don’t agree” or else we lose the ability to discuss topics that matter.

God bless

No - my definition is irrelevant, as I’ve said before. The reason it’s irrelevant is because I’m not the one who insists that marriage has an immutable definition. You are. And because you continue to persist in throwing up semantic obstacles to try deflect attention from the real argument - “Oh, I can’t marry anyone I love and am attracted to, or I’d be married to a million guys already. Therefore, gays already have equal rights.” What nonsense.

We are not arguing from the same premise, so I am not required to satisfy the same conditions as you. You are the one who insists that your definition of marriage is eternal and unchanging. I ask again, on what basis do you assert this, and why should people be obliged to respect it?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Needless to say, there is no compelling evidence that a man-woman home life necessarily provides a better, more stable environment for raising children than a same-sex couple would. But it’s interesting that people who put forward this argument never follow through on that logic - wouldn’t allowing gays the option to marry increase the stability of their partnerships, and their home lives? If stability really is the problem, why couldn’t marriage be part of the solution?

But even if I accept your premise (and I don’t), what would benefit orphan children more - having a stable home life being cared for by two men or two women, or being a ward of the state until they turn 18? And wouldn’t it benefit the state to have a larger pool of potential adoptive parents? It would certainly seem to save the state and taxpayers money.

Finally, I’ll repeat the point from earlier - it’s not for the state to grant people rights based on whether it serves a state interest. Rights are presumed to exist, and the state may only deny them if they have a compelling state interest to do so. So even if there were no benefit to the state for allowing same-sex marriage, that argument would still fail, because it would not satisfy the burden of showing that granting that right would be to society’s detriment.

I would go one further, why shouldn’t people who have a joint household also be given some rights? If one is a wage earner and the other does household stuff why shouldn’t the former be able to cover the latter with health insurance? The latter is contributing in such a way as to enable the former to do their job better, it’s a similar situation to a working husband and housewife. While it isn’t marriage it is something to be recognized.

In the US the children trapped in the foster system are ones that the parents have not yet surrendered custody to, they can not be adopted until that happens. The current number of people looking to adopt exceeds the number children to adopt, all having gay couples able to adopt would do is increase relative scarcity.

The reason people are fighting over marriage is that it is a package of benefits. Spouses being different “races” does nothing to impair procreation thus it is unreasonable to restrict it as it is unimpaired in filling it’s role, on the other hand the couple being the same sex is a complete barrier to procreation. Filing joint incomes can actually be quite expensive for the state to extend in terms of lost revenues.

PS Tom, please use the multiquote feature, it is extremely bothersome to have four consecutive posts by one person when 1-2 could suffice.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

The entire focus of homosexual union is who can sodomize whom and to do so for such other elements as inheritance, health benefits and tax purposes.

Society is maintained by children being conceinved and then reared in a stable family environment. Homosexual behavior accomplished none of this - but, it does it best to mimic certain aspects - and then try to steal the benefits. Hardly an honorable way of presenting a particular point of view.

Ultimately, homosexual behavior in not only fundamentally disordered - it is also fundamentally unhealhy. Those who engage in homosexual behavior seriously abuse their bodies, damage organs (there is no anal/rectum transpant) are subject to more serious Sexually Transmitted Diseases and various viral attacks on the liver. Those who engage in homosexaul behavior live unhealthy lives and as a result have much greater morbidity and mortality then those men and women who live chaste lives in the married state.

Proclaiming that the way you want to have sex should be the basis for changing society is truly a self-centered approach to life and honestly will not last. Societies that embrace homosexual behavior have no real basis for discriminating against pedophiles and those who engage in beastiality. It is truly a very distorted world you are promoting as ‘fair’. As I see it, the preditor is to be priased and the victim - well he/she will just stay the victim.

There appears to me to be a monumental lack of maturity in the position you are presenting on these posts.

God bless

Re-placing the question again. On what basis do you assert that reproduction is the only basis of marriage, and why should I or my government care?

Do you honestly not realize how insulting you are when you say stuff like this?