The Marriage Amendment

[exnihilo]

So I know this is probably a moot point, and I realize that these may be separate issues, but I’m just curious… when divorce first became legal and common place, did Catholics come out in droves to speak out against its evils like they’re doing against same sex unions? And if not, why not?

Now, I do understand one point that has been made here, and that’s that we cannot ignore the role of children in a marriage. I agree that children belong in families, and that they deserve to be born to parents who are married to each other. This is why this issue is so complex for me. However, I don’t understand why children who have already been orphaned, abandoned, or removed from their biological parents and are in need of at least one caring, dedicated adult who will commit to their well-being, why they would not be allowed to be adopted by same-sex couples…

In order to come to a conclusion about this we first have to come to conclusions about what is best for children and what is morally good. Is having both a mother and a father a good thing or just something arbitrary? Throughout history man realized that having both was a good thing and not just arbitrary. Those who lost one parent, especially in childhood, were considered to have suffered a real ongoing loss not just suffer temporary grief. What was essential about this? Was it essential having two people as parents? Or was it essential having a member of each sex as a parent? If you think what was essential was simply numerical then why wouldn’t three, four, ten or even a hundred parents be better? If what is good in numbers then the children in the orphanage with ten parents would be far better off than the poor child with his real mother and father. You have to have a reason why two is better than one beyond just practical as in having someone to drive you to soccer practice which is a wholly modern thing.

It should be obvious that what is best about two parents is being shown love from both a male and a female, the two sexes of mankind. It is the sex and the sexual relation that is good. Children naturally come from that sexual relation. Even if they are made in a lab as we can do today they still come from the sexual function of the two sexes.

If society hands our children over to gay couples we are legitimizing and making moral the sexual relations of that gay couple. I do not doubt that in some ways gay couples could provide a good home for children. They may have great financial resources and spend quality time with children they adopt. But we can’t ignore the nature of their relationship. If the relationship is morally good then there is no issue with them adopting. If it is morally bad then who would think placing children in a home where the fundamental relationship is morally bad is good? How the parents relate to one another should be a supremely important aspect of determining whether they are likely to be good parents.

This reminded me of something. I was talking with a friend that went to her first mass one Sunday morning where they talked about same-sex parents. She told me how they were saying it was an awful and disgusting thing. Hearing this made me angry, and it hurt her personally because she was raised by two wonderful mothers. I see absolutely no reason why two same-sex couples shouldn’t have the right to raise children. There are so many heterosexual couples that would be much worse candidates for adoption than homosexual couples. But because they are not a male and female, suddenly they’re just not fit to raise kids? What about all the single parents out there who do a heck of a job when they’re spouse leaves them!? Are those single parents not fit to raise children because the kids don’t have the other parent there?

This is the problem with sanctioning gay adoption: the child will tend to see the gay relationship as good and defend it. We must first conclude whether it is in fact good. Most of history has thought it not good.

We need to take a step back. Is there any advantage to having your own biological parents raise you? If there is no advantage to having the man and the woman (and there will always be a biological man and woman for every child) raise you then why not just place all children in a pool and dole them out to the best parents by whatever standards we create. Obviously financial resources will be the most important criteria because that is what gets mentioned first by most people and we have great disdain for poor people finding unimaginable how a person lacking in material wealth could ever raise a decent child. The perversion we seek to make good seems good to people because it is not that radical. But push the ideas that must ground the perversion a bit further and far more people will realize just how bad it truly is.

 

[anilorak13ska]

exnihilo - I understand your concern, but what I was trying to point out is that if you have an abandoned child without parents, and no heterosexual couple is volunteering to adopt them, doesn’t it stand to reason that having a gay couple as parents is better than being shifted from foster home to foster home to foster home, or stuck in an orphanage where both the other kids and the staff may have a high turnover? In this situation, which would be in the best interest of the child?

Besides this, I never give thought to the sexuality of my parents, and I think most people don’t. I learned mutual respect from them, sacrifice, etc., but what happened between them behind closed doors is not something that is my business. Obviously, I know what must’ve happened for me to be here, but that doesn’t mean I consider them more moral simply because of their private sexuality.

 

[CatherineOH]

Sorry, but this is no Catholic view. The government is not simply some arbitrary organization that simply happens to be involved in our life. There is a duty for the government to protect marriage.

Perhaps I’m just not Catholic then.

I totally disagree. The only subject is actually all about the money. The duty for the government is to work FOR the people …Unfortunately the government IS getting involved in our life, and you are right. It is not arbitrarily as you put it. It is all about the money they can collect from us and not call it a TAX. It is NOT the Government’s duty to protect marriage, we need to protect our Families and our Ideals of marriage. The only interest the Government has in this whole affair is to collect MONEY. There is nothing about protection involved. It is all about the money.

The Government can STICK that piece of paper where the sun don’t shine.
There is a definite reason there is a separation of church and state.
Marriage certificates are one place were there should continue to be a separation.
Watch it, if they could figure out a reason they would demand a Baptismal certificate too just so they could collect the fee. That IS the issue, it is all about the money.

As for myself, I do guarantee one thing. I will never get married in a civil court again. If that means I’ll never have a spouse again. I’m Fine with that. I didn’t have a spouse present for the last 10 of our 15 year marriage and I’ve been doing good on my own for the last 10.

To top it off, I only make 50K a year, yet was saddled with a broken down house and all the debt from the marriage. Now he has gone through his 300K retirement in only 10 years, receives social security and is seeking through our grand government systems (court) more money from me in the form of support.
Thank God I saved all the bill reports I could to prove that the debt I’m still paying for was all incurred by him.
But my point is, I should not have to go through this. If the marriage is 50 50 in assets it should be in debt too. Just because one person is working and the other is retired should not mean the working person has to pay the debt… now it is the Government that is allowing him to come back to me financially.

BTW, So this can end on good news… I just found out this week that my friend who I mentioned before has won her court case and she gets to stay on the property and in the house and the court DID confirm that the two were married despite there not being a certificate. She is appealing the insurance companies decision and is having her lawyer retrieve her husband’s inheritance (from his dad’s estate) which will sustain her and help start the kids into college.

Praise God. There are still those in this country at the judges bench who recognize that there are still common law marriages even if a so called law was signed into act by an illiterate population. (illiterate because they had blinders on and only saw it as confirming a marriage as being between one man and one woman instead of what it actually did to take rights away from that same man and woman.)
… As you notice, I’m not even touching the same sex topic. It amazes me that folks even consider it as much as those folks jump from one bed to another…Oh, yea,… I forgot… it means more money for the government in marriage certificates and divorce proceedings and decrees. Umm… I do have a short term memory at times. It is all about the money.

 

[CatherineOH]

While I can see how that has been very trying on your friend and her common law marriage, what are you suggesting is the alternative? Voting no on the amendment and thereby legalizing same-sex marriage? I hardly think so. I am so sorry for what has happened to your friend, and I can’t imagine the grief of losing a partner like that. If the outcome of this amendment does indeed cause common law marriages to fall by the wayside, then hopefully the word will get out there for the couples that will impact.

No it would NOT have ligalized same sex marriage. That may have been so in other states depending on the law in place. I only know (or care) about Ohio
Voting no on that particular one here in Ohio would have left the then current law intact.

In my husband’s native El Salvador, it is very common for folks to have church marriages without civil marriages, precisely because of the associated costs. This is also a very poverty-stricken nation. The result is a common tradition of children’s surnames very often belonging to the mothers, when the parents are married only in the church, versus having the fathers’ surnames if married by the state.

Actually, that is very common not just due to the situation of the marriage. My friends from Spain, definitely not poverty stricken family. Can trace their entire linage back due to this tradition.

I am trying to understand why the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage is something that is supposed to be imposed on non-Catholics by way of a ban on same-sex marriage? The Catholic church is also opposed to divorce, but no one is proposing a secular ban on divorce. Of the two (divorce and same-sex unions), it’s divorce that threatens our marriages, by promoting the idea that it’s ok for us to bail out the moment things get difficult. …

AMEN!

 

[CatherineOH]

In my husband’s native El Salvador, it is very common for folks to have church marriages without civil marriages, precisely because of the associated costs. This is also a very poverty-stricken nation. The result is a common tradition of children’s surnames very often belonging to the mothers, when the parents are married only in the church, versus having the fathers’ surnames if married by the state.

Actually, that is very common not just due to the situation of the marriage. My friends from Spain, definitely not poverty stricken family. Can trace their entire linage back due to this tradition.

I am trying to understand why the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage is something that is supposed to be imposed on non-Catholics by way of a ban on same-sex marriage? The Catholic church is also opposed to divorce, but no one is proposing a secular ban on divorce. Of the two (divorce and same-sex unions), it’s divorce that threatens our marriages, by promoting the idea that it’s ok for us to bail out the moment things get difficult. …

AMEN!

 

[Stephen168]

They actually want what we want - a lifelong commitment and all that comes with it.

Is that the Catholic definition of marriage? From the beginning of mankind what was “all that come with it?”

 

[Stephen168]

Strawman? Someone’s comparing homosexuality with paedophilia and suggesting that they are changing laws in Canada to allow it. The law says a girl can be 14 - is that paedophilia?

Pedophilia is sex with a person who is prepubescent; which would not include most 14 year olds.

As for pedophilia, this is NOT in any way a “gay” thing.

No, it is a sterile sex thing, like homosexual sex.

 

[Elsa1]

Is that the Catholic definition of marriage? From the beginning of mankind what was “all that come with it?”

But the Consitution is not a Catholic document. Civil marriage therefore is a Constitutional issue, not a religious one. And, as I have said before, I personally think civil marriage has become a disgrace. It does not represent traditional marriage at all and is nothing more than a form of state sanctioned socialism and elitism disguised in an 80 dollar state marriage license. Going to the DMV for a driver’s license contains more integrity than a civil marriage in American today.

 

[CatherineOH]

But the Consitution is not a Catholic document. Civil marriage therefore is a Constitutional issue, not a religious one. And, as I have said before, I personally think civil marriage has become a disgrace. It does not represent traditional marriage at all and is nothing more than a form of state sanctioned socialism and elitism disguised in an 80 dollar state marriage license. Going to the DMV for a driver’s license contains more integrity than a civil marriage in American today.

EXACTLY Well Put! “Going to the DMV for a driver’s license contains more integrity than a civil marriage in American today” and why I say I’ll Never have another civilly issued certificate.

Lets get down to the nitty gritty.

What do you remember about the last wedding you attended?..probably the party.

What is a wedding for?

It is for all your friends, acquaintances , and loved ones to witness your promise in front of God and it asks all of them to assist you in staying to your pledge. It is more for everyone in attendance as it puts a big task on them. They are being asked to do something for the rest of their lives to assist these two newlyweds.

 

[Stephen168]

But the Consitution is not a Catholic document. Civil marriage therefore is a Constitutional issue, not a religious one.

But I was asking someone who claims to be Catholic. You are free to answer the second question.

 

[Stephen168]

And, as I have said before, I personally think civil marriage has become a disgrace. It does not represent traditional marriage at all and is nothing more than a form of state sanctioned socialism and elitism disguised in an 80 dollar state marriage license. Going to the DMV for a driver’s license contains more integrity than a civil marriage in American today.

Not always but it seems to be true too often.

 

[Stephen168]

EXACTLY Well Put! “Going to the DMV for a driver’s license contains more integrity than a civil marriage in American today” and why I say I’ll Never have another civilly issued certificate.

Lets get down to the nitty gritty.

What do you remember about the last wedding you attended?..probably the party.

What is a wedding for?

It is for all your friends, acquaintances , and loved ones to witness your promise in front of God and it asks all of them to assist you in staying to your pledge. It is more for everyone in attendance as it puts a big task on them. They are being asked to do something for the rest of their lives to assist these two newlyweds.

I agree but weddings and marriage are two different things

 

[exnihilo]

exnihilo - I understand your concern, but what I was trying to point out is that if you have an abandoned child without parents, and no heterosexual couple is volunteering to adopt them, doesn’t it stand to reason that having a gay couple as parents is better than being shifted from foster home to foster home to foster home, or stuck in an orphanage where both the other kids and the staff may have a high turnover? In this situation, which would be in the best interest of the child?

In order for it to stand to reason we have to build an argument from premises. What are the premises that make the argument that giving children to gay couples is better than an orphanage? I never encounter an argument that gay couples are a better environment to raise children in I just see that asserted as true.

Besides this, I never give thought to the sexuality of my parents, and I think most people don’t. I learned mutual respect from them, sacrifice, etc., but what happened between them behind closed doors is not something that is my business. Obviously, I know what must’ve happened for me to be here, but that doesn’t mean I consider them more moral simply because of their private sexuality.

This is exactly the problem. Most people dont give thought to most things. They just accept what they experience as true and good. If you grew up in an argumentative household you tend to think arguing is normal. If you grew up in a household where alcohol is abused you tend to think excessive drinking is normal. We have to answer whether homosexual couples are a good thing or not. If you think they are then you are in disagreement with nature and the Church.

It is NOT the Government’s duty to protect marriage, we need to protect our Families and our Ideals of marriage. The only interest the Government has in this whole affair is to collect MONEY. There is nothing about protection involved. It is all about the money.

The Government can STICK that piece of paper where the sun don’t shine.
There is a definite reason there is a separation of church and state.
Marriage certificates are one place were there should continue to be a separation.
Watch it, if they could figure out a reason they would demand a Baptismal certificate too just so they could collect the fee. That IS the issue, it is all about the money.

What is the role of government? I’m personally for very limited government. I agree a lot of government, even most, is like a criminal gang collecting ‘protection’ money. But some small part of government does exists to protect people physically and to act as an extension of the family with rules of behavior and custom. It would seem to me the beginnings of government are in protecting the family which would include coupling and producing of children. To be sure the role of government here should be minimal and its powers few. But modern governments have extensive roles and tremendous power. Modern freedom is limited to perversions.

Separation of church and state is a nice sounding idea. But it has never meant that a person can believe anything they want to believe and have any moral code they want to have. The government has always said some beliefs you can not act on. So the government always operates from some philosophy of morality which is the same as religion. Separation of church and state only meant that the government, while being Christian, would not endorse a particular church. It never meant that if your religious beliefs included human sacrifice that you could pick out a person and sacrifice them. It was certainly never the case that a man could believe that paying taxes is immoral and that belief be honored by the government. So there was always a sense of what constitutes a valid religious belief. There was always an acknowledgement by the government of some religion being true and others being false. It was never the case that a man could believe anything they wanted to and act on that.

Praise God. There are still those in this country at the judges bench who recognize that there are still common law marriages even if a so called law was signed into act by an illiterate population. (illiterate because they had blinders on and only saw it as confirming a marriage as being between one man and one woman instead of what it actually did to take rights away from that same man and woman.)

Common law marriage is an interesting doctrine since it always only recognized that marriage could be between a man and a woman. If two men lived together they could never live in a way that was marriage. They were always roommates. Even if they were sexual their relationship was never marriage. Common law marriage is an excellent proof that in nature there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’.

 

[CatherineOH]

I agree but weddings and marriage are two different things

I quite agree. and think I’ve said that with the most emphasis within my posts throughout this thread.

 

[Elsa1]

Not always but it seems to be true too often.

I am not talking about the relationships between husband and wife necessarily, although clearly, far too often, those are flimsy and ridiculous as well. My arguement is that the marriage has been destroyed by the government. The moment the government started adding all sorts of benefits under the law including the tax code and everything else to the possession of a state marriage license, traditional marriage was effectively destroyed.

A society cannot expect to have solid, decent marriages, true marriages, when the civil marriage trumps the religious or private one.

 

[Stephen168]

It is NOT the Government’s duty to protect marriage, we need to protect our Families and our Ideals of marriage.

Are you saying the government treats single and married people the same? or the Government should treat them the same?

 

[Stephen168]

My arguement is that the marriage has been destroyed by the government. The moment the government started adding all sorts of benefits under the law including the tax code and everything else to the possession of a state marriage license, traditional marriage was effectively destroyed.

Are you saying the Government should treat single and married people the same?

 

[Elsa1]

But I was asking someone who claims to be Catholic. You are free to answer the second question.

The “all that comes with it” question? Well, from a religious angle, no. But a practical one, probably, yes. Marriage is for companionship, sex and having kids, if pregnancy occurs. If it does not, so be it. But I do believe that marriage is about far more than just the mechanics of having sex and keeping a monogomous, hetero sex life intact, which is sadly what many people obsess about.

 

[Elsa1]

Are you saying the Government should treat single and married people the same?

Yes. Why shouldn’t they be treated the same? They are all Americans, are they not?

 

[Stephen168]

The “all that comes with it” question? Well, from a religious angle, no. But a practical one, probably, yes. Marriage is for companionship, sex and having kids, if pregnancy occurs. If it does not, so be it. But I do believe that marriage is about far more than just the mechanics of having sex and keeping a monogomous, hetero sex life intact, which is sadly what many people obsess about.

Yes.

So whatever marriage is, it has no effect on society? and never has?