D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
In the former case the was no groom so you really can’t call it a marriage, as to the second there were probably good reasons for it.
- Status
F
Faithdancer
Guest
My point is, that as long as a court declares it to be so, it is a “marriage.” I can indeed “marry” myself…or a frog…or a log, if a judge will sign off on it. And under the Constitution clauses of due process and equal protection, I have every right to do so!
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Upon further reflection- and without satire this time 
, perhaps it will be in the long term interest of those of us who believe in traditional marriage if more and more legal “redefinition” of marriage occurs. My logic is that, the more farcical the legal definition of marriage becomes, the more obvious it will be to those who are still rational that there is a real definition of marriage that is founded in Divine and natural law.
, perhaps it will be in the long term interest of those of us who believe in traditional marriage if more and more legal “redefinition” of marriage occurs. My logic is that, the more farcical the legal definition of marriage becomes, the more obvious it will be to those who are still rational that there is a real definition of marriage that is founded in Divine and natural law.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You are putting a great deal of faith(dancer) in the “rationality” of human beings. Seems that what is being contested is whether human beings will, in fact, side with sanity and natural law or give into base and irrational forces at work in the world.Upon further reflection- and without satire this time
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Agreed. And what might those forces be? I don’t know, hmmm…youtube.com/watch?v=62Qfbrc1jdo
B
Bill_7154
Guest
Actually if people got on TV and started marrying blow up dolls and their pet cats and their cactus plant and their apple tree, their x box, etc… I think that homosexual marriage would start to be looked at differently, I think less people would be strongly for it.
There is something referred to as a ‘paradoxical technique’ used to change behavior. A smoker trying to quit is told, for example: “before bed take our a full pack of cigarettes, open them, and take out all the cigarettes and place them around your bed, making sure they are all equally spaced apart”. Or someone with agoraphobia is told, for example: “drive to the edge of town/the end of your street/go outside off of your portch and then lay down making sure your head is pointed west and stay in that position for 20 minutes, then return home. Do this every other day for 2 weeks.” Or someone who is trying to stop a beavior they do is told to do that behavior every 15 minutes/for one hour before bedtime for 2 weeks, etc…
The idea being shaking up the way the person looks at and experiences the behavior they are trying to change, then with a new perspective (often now seeing the behavior they were trying to change as silly and unimportant or something like that) making it easy for them to change the behavior they were stuck with previously.
It changes the dynamic, you stop fighting or resisting the behavior and encourage it to a ridiculous degree or change it in some silly way.
God Bless,
Bill
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Well Bill, I’m starting to think that if same sex “marriage” becomes the law of the land it might indeed be a good thing if the legal definition of “marriage” keeps expanding to include anyone and everything, because sooner or later some people may indeed return to sanity and realize that if anything is “marriage,” then either nothing is marriage or else there is a fundamental marriage that is given to mankind as a gift from God, based on complementarity of man and woman and the fact that this is the only life giving union of human beings.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
Faithdancer,
I hope this comes to pass and I hope to see this in my lifetime. I think this is one thing that may actually change for the better, with people seeing marriage as you describe above once again.
God Bless,
Bill
S
sw85
Guest
Animals can’t consent to my taking their wool or killing them for meat; do you object to that, too?
And the logic of pro-gay “marriage” advocates is that marriage has no necessary connection to procreation so there’s no reason to limit to sexually complementary couples. Why the sudden unprincipled exception for close relatives? Is there any reason you won’t just abandon this unprincipled exception later on, too, like leftists always do in their never-ending game of bait-and-switch?
From the state’s perspective it has always been a legal contract between a man and a woman. That changed. So can this.
Again, this is an “unprincipled exception”: an exception to liberalism, contrary to its principles, employed in order to keep its awful logical conclusions from being realized for at least a generation. (Since the next generation is never inculcated with the virtues of the previous one, they’ll be happy to shred it and move on to the next perversion).
F
fix
Guest
I have asked that many times. I never get a direct answer.
G
guy417
Guest
I would just like to point out that it really isn’t fair to put homosexual marriage and bestiality right next to each other and say they are practically the same thing, or that its the next logical step in that line of thinking. Homosexuals aren’t insane off the wall wingnuts trying to marry their televisions. They are rational thinking feeling human beings that care deeply for their respective partners, and trivializing that to reenforce our point about same sex marriage is a way of thinking that is never actually going to solve problems.
These people aren’t just trying to pursue some political agenda, or fuel their secret conspiracy to destroy marriage or religion, they fall in love and want to spend their lives with the people they care about. Added to that is the fact that the way our legal and medical systems work, they are at a severe disadvantage in trying to live with their partners, from tax purposes to visiting them in hospitals. When you commit yourself to someone and can’t be let in to visit their hospital room on their death bed because you cannot be considered family without marriage, why shouldn’t they be upset? Its a complicated issue, and pretending otherwise is only going to make things worse.
As Catholics, we are not, should not, approach these things from such a political perspective, and with so much animosity. We are called to be a people of mercy and empathy. Of course we don’t support same sex marriage, and this is an imminent issue, btu these people are our brothers and sisters and the Church NEEDS to do a better job of understanding where they are coming from, and working with them in the fullness of love and charity to lead them to God.
I don’t mean to sound so accusatory, and I hope I don’t offend anyone, but I really think this is something we all need to think more about.
These people aren’t just trying to pursue some political agenda, or fuel their secret conspiracy to destroy marriage or religion, they fall in love and want to spend their lives with the people they care about. Added to that is the fact that the way our legal and medical systems work, they are at a severe disadvantage in trying to live with their partners, from tax purposes to visiting them in hospitals. When you commit yourself to someone and can’t be let in to visit their hospital room on their death bed because you cannot be considered family without marriage, why shouldn’t they be upset? Its a complicated issue, and pretending otherwise is only going to make things worse.
As Catholics, we are not, should not, approach these things from such a political perspective, and with so much animosity. We are called to be a people of mercy and empathy. Of course we don’t support same sex marriage, and this is an imminent issue, btu these people are our brothers and sisters and the Church NEEDS to do a better job of understanding where they are coming from, and working with them in the fullness of love and charity to lead them to God.
I don’t mean to sound so accusatory, and I hope I don’t offend anyone, but I really think this is something we all need to think more about.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
It also denies the truth of how our bodies are made. No human is born with a body that is built for homosexual activity. Every human, including people with SSA, has a body that is heterosexually oriented. To agree with same-sex “marriage” one has to deny human biology.
R
RiverTam51
Guest
The difference here is that civil marriage is a contract. Taking an animal’s wool does not require the animal to sign a contract. Creating a legal bond between two people regarding property, the raising of children, etc. does.
If an animal or a basoon were capable of comprehending the meaning of such a contract, it could give consent. But to all indications, they cannot. Because contracts must have full consent by all concerned parties in order to be legally binding, an animal cannot become legally married.
S
sw85
Guest
No one said they’re the same thing (though they are both grave moral evils). On the other hand, it is not at all unfair to say that bestiality is a logical conclusion from the arguments given for gay marriage.
The traditional argument for marriage is that it arises organically from human nature, specifically, from the complementarity of the sexes and their natural ordering toward the creation and raising of new life. Since it is logically prior to the state, the state has no authority to redefine it; it can only choose whether or not to order itself to reality by recognizing it by law.
The argument against this traditional understanding is that human nature is a fiction, sexual complementarity is a lie, marriage is an arbitrary arrangement that can be redefined by anyone at a whim, and that there is no natural meaning to sex which we are obligated to recognize. Now if this is true, then of course there’s no longer any reason to limit marriage to man and woman. But there’s also no reason to limit it to two people, hence polygamy – two’s not a magical number after all; the reason for limiting it to two people was sexual complementarity. There’s not even a reason to limit it to two humans, and no, “animals can’t consent” isn’t an argument – the need for consent has always arisen from the fact that marriage is about human procreation and therefore involves two humans with reason and free will. If it’s not about procreation, there’s no reason to require that only humans be involved and there’s no reason to require that consent be obtained from animals. We don’t ask their permission to slaughter them for meat, after all, so what’s a little buggery? For that matter, there’s no reason to limit it in any way. It’s just an arbitrary arrangement, after all. We redefined it once, we can redefine it again.
There is absolutely no argument on offer against this line of reasoning except “no one wants bestiality.” And that doesn’t hold: ten minutes ago, no one wanted sodomy, either. We’re being asked to treat unprincipled exceptions as if they were handed down on stone tablets from Mt. Sinai. They weren’t, and the people asking us to accept them as such don’t believe in stone tablets *or *Mt. Sinai. They’re just deliberately lying or else very badly deluded and not very bright.
It’s a shell game, and the dealer’s crooked. Don’t play it.
What they think is irrelevant. What’s being said is that if we accept their argument, there is literally no good reason to stop there. What would stop us? Virtue? The virtue that didn’t stop us from tolerating sodomy, then accepting it, then subsidizing it, then persecuting people who speak out against it?
I agree they aren’t “just” trying to do that. But thanks for the concession that they are, in fact, trying to do that, among other things.
No one denies this. It’s just irrelevant.
S
sw85
Guest
This is circular reasoning. What makes it a contract? The fact that it involves humans. But why must it involve humans? Because it’s a contract.
Either marriage has a normative, natural meaning or it’s just an arrangement we invented for our own convenience and can reinvent at any time. Only the former possibility excludes state-sponsored animal buggery. “Consent” is not and has never been primarily what marriage is about: it’s always been about procreation. The need for consent arises from the fact that it involves humans with reason and free will. If it’s not primarily about procreation, then there’s no reason to limit to humans and therefore no reason to exclude animals on the grounds that they can’t consent.
P
peduzzi89
Guest
This slippery slope argument is fast becoming the oldest, most perfunctory response in the book by people who are militantly against same-sex marriage. It’s exactly what people said when they legalized interracial marriage. Yes I know you say that they are two completely different situations, but they’re not. The same arguments were made back then that they are now, one of which was that if you allowed it, people would marry _________(s). Of course, since you disavow that viewpoint but espouse this one about same-sex marriage, you’re going to claim that they’re different.
The truth is, legal situations like this are handled by our legal system, not on a whim like you’re claiming. This one is no exception. I don’t know what fantasy world you’re living in, but allowing same-sex marriage would, in fact, NOT also allow people to marry what ever _____(s) they want. If someone wants to try and make a legal case for any of those types of marriage and sue the government, they can certainly do that, but it doesn’t have anything to do with this particular case. Making such a claim as an argument against same-sex marriage is really just avoiding making a real argument.
The truth is, legal situations like this are handled by our legal system, not on a whim like you’re claiming. This one is no exception. I don’t know what fantasy world you’re living in, but allowing same-sex marriage would, in fact, NOT also allow people to marry what ever _____(s) they want. If someone wants to try and make a legal case for any of those types of marriage and sue the government, they can certainly do that, but it doesn’t have anything to do with this particular case. Making such a claim as an argument against same-sex marriage is really just avoiding making a real argument.
R
RiverTam51
Guest
False. I do not deny that my body is evolved such that it can create offspring with the opposite gender. But my mind is inclined to use my body differently. This does not require a denial of biology.
I choose to use my feet to help me drive a car to work, rather than walk all the way. My feet evolved for me to use them to walk. But I am inclined to use them for a different, yet similar, purpose. It is not a denial of biology to use my feet to control the gas and brakes, it is simply a choice to use them in a different way than what they evolved for.
What I do deny is that the legal contract of marriage must be defined in the same way as the Catholic definition of marriage. I believe that there is more to marriage than the procreative act, as do people across many religions. Agreeing with civil gay marriage does not require denial of biology. It requires a different belief in how the state ought to regulate marriage contracts.
R
RiverTam51
Guest
Civil marriage has been a contract as long as the state has regulated it. It is a contract by definition. The government could create something else that is not a contract, regulate it, and call it marriage as well. This third type of marriage might not require humans or consent. But it would be distinct from civil marriage because civil marriage is a contract.
I am trying to be very clear on this- what supporters of gay marriage want is a legal contract identical to the legal contract given to straight couples whom the government considers married. Whether to call it a marriage, a civil union, or George is up for debate. It is the contracts that we want. But changing the availability of marriage contracts could not result in civil marriage to animals because contracts with animals are not legal, due to issues of consent.
S
Sky_River
Guest
I have a question. Why exactly are most christians against same-gender marriages??? Just because two people of the same gender are getting married, that doesn’t nessecarily mean that they are homosexuals. Homosexuality is a sin according to god, however, since the definition of marriage doesn’t always equate sexuality, why does same-gender marriage offend many christians??Just an observation- it’s interesting that homosexuals want to be able to freely “marry” each other, but get indignant when these “marriages” are spoken of in the general vicinity of talk of multiple-party “marriages,” or brother “marrying” sister, or someone “marrying” a pet or livestock, or someone “marrying” their imaginary friend, or? It’s as if once homosexuals are allowed into the house of matrimony they want to slam and lock the door on all of the other good folks who want to get “married” after their own fashion too. Why should they care if uncle Bob and his of-age niece get “married,” or some cat lady wants to “marry” all 36 of her feline companions. It doesn’t harm or cheapen the homosexual “marriage…” does it? I mean, how could it?
I’m coming around to the point of view that anyone who wants to “marry” any other person or persons, any other being or inanimate object, even his or her own self, should be allowed to do so. In a world gone mad, what does it matter? There will still only be one*** marriage ***recognized by God.
I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with two men or two women having a very close, life-long relationship with each other, as long as it is totally platonic. The bible does not forbid emotional closeness/commitments between two people of the same gender, as far as I know of…
T
thewanderer
Guest
This thread isn’t claiming that if we expand the paramaters of state recognized marriages to include SS couples then we will eventually expand it to include all sorts of inanimate objects etc. But moreso it is asking what reason there is to accept the one and reject the other.
I actually have a very similar complaint with those who advocate for expanding the legal contract, though I don’t go quite as far as the OP because I think it is possible to give a reason for one without necessarily including the other. Essentially, I cannot for the life of me understand why people who wish to extend the legal contract of marriage to SS couples are not also out there militantly protesting to expand it to non-romantically involved friends and siblings. I am being perfectly sincere here.
It is in no way shape or form the governments place to dictate romantic relationships. That is my starting principle and it is one that I think just about anyone would agree with if they think about it honestly for a while. That just is not something the government should be involved in, it is a private relationship between two people in which the govt has absolutely no buissness.
So, assuming this, how can we understand the special construct of a “legal marriage”? There are only two reasons I can see for the govt to be involved in a marriage-like relationship. 1 for the encouragement of the production and careful raising of future citizens. 2 for regulating the ownership of property when the shared life among people come to an end (ie via divorce or death etc).
If we accept the first criteria as the reason for the govt to be involved in this construct which we will call legal marriage then there it doesn’t make any sense to try to include those who are physically incapable of bearing children in this legal construct. (and yes, I am willing to include those who are sterile in this category)
If we do not accept the first but do accept the second criteria then there is absolutely no reason to exclude siblings or non-romantically involved friends from it. If it is a construct simply for the sake of regulating the ownership of property of those who have been living a shared life then on what grounds can you possibly exclude good friends who decide that they will always be there for each other and to share their life together in a purely platonic way? Or say, two siblings who have almost no one else left and so who wish to live together to help each other out as they get older?
The only reason one can argue for including SS marriages in the legal construct of marriage without also actively trying to extend it to non-romantically involved people is if you believe that the government has the authority and the duty to decide who may and may not enter into a romantic relationship. And that is a freaking scary line of thought. There is no way in heck that any government ought to be allowed that sort of authority. Whether or not I were to agree with SS relationships I could never, ever agree with those who wish to extend the legal construct of marriage to include SS relationships without also extending it to include anyone who wishes to share a life together whether or not they are romanitcally involved, I do not like the idea of giving the government power over such things, even implicitly. :nope:
- Status