State should not deny SSX marriage? Huh

[CopticChristian]

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?

 

[Holly3278]

Homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want. What they are actually wanting is special rights, not equal rights.

 

[triumphguy]

SSPX marriage?

Ooops: I misread that!

 

[JimG]

Homosexual couples are unable to engage in marital relations, consequently the concept is itself an oxymoron. Marriage involves conjugal relations. For same sex couples, conjugal relations are inherently impossible, rendering same sex ‘marriage’ as no marriage at all.

It is also true that same sex relationships provide no benefit to the state, while true marriage enables the continuance of society. No small matter.

Even sterile heterosexual couples can consummate the marital act. Same sex couples cannot. There can be no marriage between non-complementary sexes. It is an ontological impossibility.

 

[CopticChristian]

Homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want. What they are actually wanting is special rights, not equal rights.

Holly,

As you have seen the mentality is to attempt to debate and erode to cause sympathy and empathy for a situation that requires none.

 

[CopticChristian]

SSPX marriage?

Ooops: I misread that!

Tri,

Glad you brought that up. I am not sure what the situation with the SSPX and marriage is however the SSX marriage issue is as you see it:thumbsup:

 

[CopticChristian]

Homosexual couples are unable to engage in marital relations, consequently the concept is itself an oxymoron. Marriage involves conjugal relations. For same sex couples, conjugal relations are inherently impossible, rendering same sex ‘marriage’ as no marriage at all.

It is also true that same sex relationships provide no benefit to the state, while true marriage enables the continuance of society. No small matter.

Even sterile heterosexual couples can consummate the marital act. Same sex couples cannot. There can be no marriage between non-complementary sexes. It is an ontological impossibility.

Jim,

As you know and have seen the homosexual sterile union is trying to remove the notion of procreation out of the equation and as has been pointed out have to fight with the legal stuff like Skinner vs Oklahoma that states the right is to “marry AND procreate”…not right to marry. They somehow believe by convincing everyone that what they experience, sterile unions, that others will agree that procreation is not part of marriage. If you can’t experience it then you can’t empathize it and are asking for special consideration for what you don’t have to create “equality” when in fact it is disequality by choice.

 

[meltzerboy]

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?

CopticChristian, do you seriously want debate or discussion on this issue, or do you want everyone to agree with and validate what you’ve said?

If you do want discussion, I would say the state has no legal authority to impose restrictions on the right of two consenting, non-related, adult humans who claim to love one another to marry, although there is some truth to the “six-degrees-of-separation” theory, whereby married couples may unknowingly be related to one another if their genealogy is traced back many generations. I’m not talking here about marriage between brothers and sisters, brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters, parents and children, humans and animals, humans and non-animate objects, humans marrying themselves, threesomes, and so on. I’m not referring to slippery-slope arguments either. I do not agree with the utilitarian model of marriage which states, as you pointed out, that homosexual couples do not contribute anything to society because they do not procreate. If you would like a slippery-slope argument, how about heterosexual couples who cannot procreate or choose not to: should the state restrict them from marrying each other as well? Your response will no doubt be that at least these couples have the theoretical possibility of procreation, whereas gay couples do not. But so what? Not all straight couples can or desire to have children, and if they are not required to be able to or want to have children when they marry, why should gay couples be required to? Why should the state be in the position of deciding which couples, based on the criteria I previously specified, should or should not be allowed to marry? If these couples can adopt children and are gainfully employed, tax-paying citizens, surely they are not an undue burden on the rest of society. Marriage should not be dictated by the State (again, according to my criteria); it is a personal decision, which, one might think, the party of privacy and governmental non-interference, that is the GOP, would be the first to cheer. I’ve always found it odd therefore that the Republican Party, which always complains about too much government regulation in business, is perfectly willing for government to decide the most personal issues in people’s lives.

From the Catholic perspective, I agree with you. Although liberal Catholics, who I’m sure are much more knowledgeable than I about their own religion, have made arguments supporting homosexual marriage, as far as I know the Church is quite clear about forbidding it. However, from the perspective of other religions (Quakerism, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Native American religions, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist), the issue of gay marriage is either unresolved or resolved in its favor. The justification differs from one religious group to another, and it is beyond the scope of this thread to discuss the reasons for religious support of gay marriage in detail. With respect to Reform Judaism, I have already discussed the issue on other threads.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian, do you seriously want debate or discussion on this issue, or do you want everyone to agree with and validate what you’ve said?

If you do want discussion, I would say the state has no legal authority to impose restrictions on the right of two consenting, non-related, adult humans who claim to love one another to marry, although there is some truth to the “six-degrees-of-separation” theory, whereby married couples may unknowingly be related to one another if their genealogy is traced back many generations. I’m not talking here about marriage between brothers and sisters, brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters, parents and children, humans and animals, humans and non-animate objects, humans marrying themselves, threesomes, and so on. I’m not referring to slippery-slope arguments either. I do not agree with the utilitarian model of marriage which states, as you pointed out, that homosexual couples do not contribute anything to society because they do not procreate. If you would like a slippery-slope argument, how about heterosexual couples who cannot procreate or choose not to: should the state restrict them from marrying each other as well? Your response will no doubt be that at least these couples have the theoretical possibility of procreation, whereas gay couples do not. But so what? Not all straight couples can or desire to have children, and if they are not required to be able to or want to have children when they marry, why should gay couples be required to? Why should the state be in the position of deciding which couples, based on the criteria I previously specified, should or should not be allowed to marry? If these couples can adopt children and are gainfully employed, tax-paying citizens, surely they are not an undue burden on the rest of society. Marriage should not be dictated by the State (again, according to my criteria); it is a personal decision, which, one might think, the party of privacy and governmental non-interference, that is the GOP, would be the first to cheer. I’ve always found it odd therefore that the Republican Party, which always complains about too much government regulation in business, is perfectly willing for government to decide the most personal issues in people’s lives.

From the Catholic perspective, I agree with you. Although liberal Catholics, who I’m sure are much more knowledgeable than I about their own religion, have made arguments supporting homosexual marriage, as far as I know the Church is quite clear about forbidding it. However, from the perspective of other religions (Quakerism, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Native American religions, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist), the issue of gay marriage is either unresolved or resolved in its favor. The justification differs from one religious group to another, and it is beyond the scope of this thread to discuss the reasons for religious support of gay marriage in detail. With respect to Reform Judaism, I have already discussed the issue on other threads.

Meltzerboy,

As you know there are activists that start threads asking Catholics to reason why they cannot see things their way. I have learned from these threads. I hosted a small group of young Catholics in their 20’s and asked them what they thought about the issue of gay marriage. I received the usual questions about race etc and thought that I would bring about secular arguments against gay marriage that coincided with Catholic teachings. The secular argument here is not Catholic but coincides with Catholic teaching.

TheTrueCentrist has posted that argument strengthens the ability to debate. I am not in the business of debate and favor discussion. You have pointed out a point of view that have validity and I see that here is a friendly venue for learning and expressing thoughts. I plan to post other secular arguments that align with Catholic teaching for conversation, discussion, erudition and whatever happens.

Thank you for taking the time to post.

 

[meltzerboy]

Meltzerboy,

As you know there are activists that start threads asking Catholics to reason why they cannot see things their way. I have learned from these threads. I hosted a small group of young Catholics in their 20’s and asked them what they thought about the issue of gay marriage. I received the usual questions about race etc and thought that I would bring about secular arguments against gay marriage that coincided with Catholic teachings. The secular argument here is not Catholic but coincides with Catholic teaching.

TheTrueCentrist has posted that argument strengthens the ability to debate. I am not in the business of debate and favor discussion. You have pointed out a point of view that have validity and I see that here is a friendly venue for learning and expressing thoughts. I plan to post other secular arguments that align with Catholic teaching for conversation, discussion, erudition and whatever happens.

Thank you for taking the time to post.

Coptic, I apologize if I sounded too harsh in my opening remark. After posting, I realized it may have come across that way. I’m always appreciative of your threads.

 

[nagyszakall]

Too often gay advocates and those sympathetic to homosexuals…

We should all be sympathetic to homosexuals. Actually, we should love and respect them. I know a few, who are obedient to the Church and struggle with their disordered attractions. They are not to be confused with sodomites and advocates of sodomite lifestyle (whom we also should love and respect, but we should know and shouldn’t fail to say that they are wrong). I always ask for a clarification of terminology before I engage in a debate about this issue…

 

[epan]

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?

The main problem with your argument is the end where you talk about “state interest”. There is a legal theory of “compelling interest”, which is used to deny rights to a “suspect class”, or to otherwise deny civil rights. This may be where you got that interesting word combination.

The theory goes, that rights are presumed to exist, unless the State has a compelling interest to deny those rights. So, to make your case, you would have to show that the state has a compelling interest in denying gay rights.

I believe this issue has already been litigated up to the state supreme court level, and the appellate court level. In all cases, the courts have ruled that the state has no compelling interest. Though, I would expect that when the DOMA and Prop 8 arguments get to the US Supreme Court, then a compelling interest argument may be revisited

 

[ASimon]

Homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want. What they are actually wanting is special rights, not equal rights.

If we accept this premise, then allowing same-sex marriage would change nothing on that score. Heterosexuals would then have the same right to marry someone of the same gender as homosexuals would. So the result would still be an equal rights situation.

Now obviously, the premise is complete nonsense in the first place, as the current situation grants nothing like equal rights to all. Heterosexuals are permitted to marry any single, adult, non-relative they love, while homosexuals aren’t. But at least we can drop this pretense that gay people are asking for special treatment.

 

[Robertanthony]

Coptic, I apologize if I sounded too harsh in my opening remark. After posting, I realized it may have come across that way. I’m always appreciative of your threads.

Your being here adds to these forums. i appreciate your unique contribution and willingness to debate in the calm and classy way I’ve come to expect from you. Don’t worry, there is no “but”!

 

[kellahjr]

The main problem with your argument is the end where you talk about “state interest”. There is a legal theory of “compelling interest”, which is used to deny rights to a “suspect class”, or to otherwise deny civil rights. This may be where you got that interesting word combination.

The theory goes, that rights are presumed to exist, unless the State has a compelling interest to deny those rights. So, to make your case, you would have to show that the state has a compelling interest in denying gay rights.

I believe this issue has already been litigated up to the state supreme court level, and the appellate court level. In all cases, the courts have ruled that the state has no compelling interest. Though, I would expect that when the DOMA and Prop 8 arguments get to the US Supreme Court, then a compelling interest argument may be revisited

In the issue of gay marriage the point is that up till now it has not been a right. What it comes down to is if not having it is a violation of equal protection or not. Since the very institution of marriage was originally created as a union of one man and one woman, I would venture it is not a violation of equal protection to not have it but that the right can be granted through legislation. The issue in California I believe was that gay marriage was legalized by the state then taken away by an initiative, therefore the court ruled that since the right had been granted the taking away of it was a violation of equal protection because there was no compelling interest to take it away other than to deny gay people a right because they are gay. As to if having gay marriage would serve a state interest, marriage is designed to be a strong stabilizing economic force because of joint incomes. For that reason it may be generally beneficial for the economy but I don’t think its a valid enough reason to open the moral Pandora’s box

 

[JimG]

Jim,

As you know and have seen the homosexual sterile union is trying to remove the notion of procreation out of the equation and as has been pointed out have to fight with the legal stuff like Skinner vs Oklahoma that states the right is to “marry AND procreate”…not right to marry. They somehow believe by convincing everyone that what they experience, sterile unions, that others will agree that procreation is not part of marriage. If you can’t experience it then you can’t empathize it and are asking for special consideration for what you don’t have to create “equality” when in fact it is disequality by choice.

I agree. But it’s more than just about procreation. Same sex couples do not have the capability to engage in marital relations, thereby making any such attempted union non-marital from the outset. There can be no right to a natural impossibility.

 

[CopticChristian]

The main problem with your argument is the end where you talk about “state interest”. There is a legal theory of “compelling interest”, which is used to deny rights to a “suspect class”, or to otherwise deny civil rights. This may be where you got that interesting word combination.

The theory goes, that rights are presumed to exist, unless the State has a compelling interest to deny those rights. So, to make your case, you would have to show that the state has a compelling interest in denying gay rights.

I believe this issue has already been litigated up to the state supreme court level, and the appellate court level. In all cases, the courts have ruled that the state has no compelling interest. Though, I would expect that when the DOMA and Prop 8 arguments get to the US Supreme Court, then a compelling interest argument may be revisited

Epan,

I am not making any case. I am presenting information. You have provided more information that is useful to look into. Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic, I apologize if I sounded too harsh in my opening remark. After posting, I realized it may have come across that way. I’m always appreciative of your threads.

Meltz,

You da man…I don’t accept apologizes. I ask people to ask for forgiveness. I ask for forgiveness. You need not apologize nor should you ask for forgiveness. I realize that you posted and that is all I realized…Ok…

 

[CopticChristian]

I agree. But it’s more than just about procreation. Same sex couples do not have the capability to engage in marital relations, thereby making any such attempted union non-marital from the outset. There can be no right to a natural impossibility.

Jim,

I am wit ya…there are many secular arguments against gay marriage and this is one of them. I believe that the activists are selectively posting their propositions and the result is not discussion, agreement, disagreement but a rile against “why can’t you see it my way”…and it gets old. This format is what I would call a Meta approach…in other words at a higher level order of thinking…

 

[meltzerboy]

Your being here adds to these forums. i appreciate your unique contribution and willingness to debate in the calm and classy way I’ve come to expect from you. Don’t worry, there is no “but”!

Thank you, Robertanthony, for the compliment.