State should not deny SSX marriage? Huh

[nagyszakall]

Heterosexuals are permitted to marry any single, adult, non-relative they love

Really? I am heterosexual (I experience sexual attraction to some persons of the opposite sex), still I can’t contract a valid marriage with any of my male friends who are single, adult and non-relative and whom I love dearly.

 

[fix]

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.

No, because marriage, by definition, precludes same sex persons regardless of so called consent.

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.

There is no right to marry some person of the same sex. It is absurd.

 

[ASimon]

No, because marriage, by definition, precludes same sex persons regardless of so called consent.

No matter how you define it, and no matter how many terms and conditions you wish to layer on this word, the question remains, who’s definition is it, and why can’t it change? See, this is something that religious folks can’t seem to agree on. Does this definition of “marriage” predate religion, or was it created by religion?

 

[ASimon]

Really? I am heterosexual (I experience sexual attraction to some persons of the opposite sex), still I can’t contract a valid marriage with any of my male friends who are single, adult and non-relative and whom I love dearly.

If you can’t respond with anything other than silly word games, you should consider not responding at all.

 

[CopticChristian]

No matter how you define it, and no matter how many terms and conditions you wish to layer on this word, the question remains, who’s definition is it, and why can’t it change? See, this is something that religious folks can’t seem to agree on. Does this definition of “marriage” predate religion, or was it created by religion?

Asimon,

define your notion of religion that you point to as creating or not creating, what religion?

 

[ASimon]

Asimon,

define your notion of religion that you point to as creating or not creating, what religion?

My definition is irrelevant here. If there was a religion which predated Christianity that held to this idea that marriage can only be a union of one man and one woman, then my question remains exactly as it was before. Did this concept of marriage predate that religion, or did that religion (or one before it) invent the concept?

And as I said, neither answer leaves you on particularly firm ground in its implications.

 

[fix]

No matter how you define it, and no matter how many terms and conditions you wish to layer on this word, the question remains, who’s definition is it, and why can’t it change? See, this is something that religious folks can’t seem to agree on. Does this definition of “marriage” predate religion, or was it created by religion?

It is a natural institution that predates the Church. Can you show us when in history that the state ever codifed marriage between two same sex persons?

 

[CopticChristian]

My definition is irrelevant here. If there was a religion which predated Christianity that held to this idea that marriage can only be a union of one man and one woman, then my question remains exactly as it was before. Did this concept of marriage predate that religion, or did that religion (or one before it) invent the concept?

And as I said, neither answer leaves you on particularly firm ground in its implications.

A,

Glad you pointed out your notion of Christianity as the religion. Here is my understanding and I assume you won’t like it…

Christianity is Judaism seen through a repentant mind. A repentant mind is a mind that is changed. All St. Paul did was explain the OT covenants in light of a new understanding. Christianity is based on Christ.

Christ is the means by which Christians believe we are made children of God to inherit the Kindgom as fellow heirs.

The Church is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the pillar and foundation of truth, the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known and this teaching of marriage is part of that manifold wisdom hidden for all ages.

Paul pointed out to the Judaizing Christians that they were not descendants of Abraham…for don’t you know he said…that through one man sin entered the world and by one man we were made righteous…therefore we are descendants of Adam, we believe…

Matthew 18, as Christians we read Jesus speaking of Divorce…and remarriage…

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

So marriage commenced with Creation…so if you have a problem then take it up with the Creator…

hope this helps…

 

[ASimon]

It is a natural institution that predates the Church. Can you show us when in history that the state ever codifed marriage between two same sex persons?

Yes, I can. Per wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages date back to the Roman Empire and the Ming Dynasty.[2][3] In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, although Denmark legally recognized same-sex unions in 1989.

As of 2012, eleven countries allow same-sex couples to marry nationwide: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. Same-sex marriages are also performed and recognized in Mexico City, Quintana Roo, and parts of the United States. Some jurisdictions that do not perform same-sex marriages recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere: Israel, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, parts of the United States, Mexico, and Uruguay.

And Coptic, no - that doesn’t help. My question stands.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, I can. Per wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

And Coptic, no - that doesn’t help. My question stands.

One of the references you provided suggests its premise as…

**Same-sex unions in premodern Europe

John Boswell**

Both highly praised and intensely controversial, this brilliant book produces dramatic evidence that at one time the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches not only sanctioned unions between partners of the same sex, but sanctified them–in ceremonies strikingly similar to heterosexual

I have not read the book however I wonder what Historical scholars and those versed in what this book refers to would say. I would imagine some Orthodox may take issue with this notion.

So the path you have chosen is that it has existed, why don’t we get on track with what was and accept it as it is. No.:nope:

 

[ASimon]

So the path you have chosen is that it has existed, why don’t we get on track with what was and accept it as it is. No.:nope:

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.

 

[meltzerboy]

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.

Only state and legal concerns regarding taxes, trusts, custody battles, adoption, and so on. Of course, those can also change, and have to a certain degree. The adoption issue regarding Catholic adoption agencies, for example, is a thorny problem. My own belief is that religious institutions should not be forced to allow gay couples to adopt if this violates their moral principles; but it is already a contentious situation. Changing the law is never easy, especially as it often involves a conflict between parties and social, as well as religious, concerns. In other words, allowing gay couples to marry (which I support) has social and legal consequences influencing the larger society. It’s not only a moral issue.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

A,

So this is where you want to go. Good. This is Catholic Answers and you only meet resistance from Catholics that adhere to teachings of the OHCAC. Check your pockets, take out some coins and money…you will find that the Government you want to have change things has imprinted on the money that you use with “In God we Trust”…good luck…

 

[nagyszakall]

If you can’t respond with anything other than silly word games, you should consider not responding at all.

I did not intend a “word game”, I was totally serious. So, please do me the favor of pointing out what seemed to you silly about my comment.

 

[ASimon]

A,

So this is where you want to go. Good. This is Catholic Answers and you only meet resistance from Catholics that adhere to teachings of the OHCAC. Check your pockets, take out some coins and money…you will find that the Government you want to have change things has imprinted on the money that you use with “In God we Trust”…good luck…

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.

 

[nagyszakall]

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.

If you want the definition of marriage changed, than you agree that gay “marriage” is not what we’ve called marriage up to now. You only need to go one step further: why don’t you just give up wanting to call it “marriage”, since you yourself acknowledged that it is not the same thing?

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

Assimon,

Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

US Constitution

Attest William Jackson Secretary

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the **Year of our Lord **one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and year of Our Lord…was that Lord Baltimore or what Lord were they talking about?

 

[Holly3278]

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.

I agree with you CopticChristian. Homosexuals do not need sympathy except for sympathy for the fact that they have a difficult cross to carry. What they need is encouragement to remain chaste.

That said, they do not need sympathy for being “discriminated against”. They are not discriminated against. They already have the same rights as heterosexuals. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex if they choose to do so. If they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex then they shouldn’t marry at all.

 

[ASimon]

If you want the definition of marriage changed, than you agree that gay “marriage” is not what we’ve called marriage up to now. You only need to go one step further: why don’t you just give up wanting to call it “marriage”, since you yourself acknowledged that it is not the same thing?

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.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

As,

Ossified is good. I am all for ossified, fixed, unchanging, stable, firm ideas that I can count on.

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.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

We should not recognize gay marriage because there is no benefit to the state in propagating society.