I agree.Since our right moral thinking is damaged from our youth its easy to be swayed in believing what is taught through the media.Our society (really all societies) tend to lean away from a God based morality.it wants to believe we are free entities with the innate ability to make the right choices.We alone are the masters of our destinies.Through medicine and science man can descover everything there is to know about ourselves and all creation.
So the argument that gay marriages are consipracies to collect welfare checks is pure nonsense.
All the more reason to not recognize their marriages so that the “rich” pay more taxes.
I am still trying to figure out why the “state” is involved in the marriage business at all.
It seems that everything that can be disliked is part of some conspiracy.
Because the state reaps a huge benefit by supporting real marriage (as opposed to “gay marriage”): the spouses raise and civilize the next generation of citizens. That is an essential task, one which the state cannnot do well by itself.
OKay, but the minute you entangle the state into the bedroom, you are authorizing the state to make stipulations as to what the boundaries of the marraige are. My marriage is between me, my wife, and God. I have no need of the state being involved in it. The secular part of my marriage is a social contract that can be handled just like any other contract. The religous part is between us and God, something I don;t want the state involved in. The state can still reap huge benefits without endorsing one type of marriage over another. In fact, it is precisely because the state is involved in marriage that all of these same sex and soon to be polyamorous lawsuits are being waged.
I think we agree that when the state attempts to do this, it oversteps its legitimate authority.
THe only legitimate role that I see the state in is dispute of the terms of a defaulted contract. That can even be handled in private courts. When two (or three or whatever) parties in a “marriage” have a falling out, then there is a breach of contract somewhere, and the courts would mediate compensation to the aggrieved. That is it. Marriage should be handled by the Churches, where they belong.
Then if I read you correctly, there is no objection, in the libertarian view, to the state conjuring up a “right” for two people of the same sex to marry. Don’t the proponents of “gay marriage” make arguments based on their understanding of marriage as civil contract?
In my libertarian view, unless there is a law against it, then any two (or more) people who want to involve themselves in a contract can do so. I wouldn’t call it “marriage”, that would be something in the purview of the Churches.
Well, at that point it wouldn’t matter what you or I would call it, becuase the state would call it “marriage”, and the state would have the power to enforce its view as a matter of law.
It would be difficult for the churches to maintain a view of marriage that is contrary to to that of the state, if the state decides that same sex “marriages” are just as valid as authenic marriages.
I wouldn’t call it marriage either. I would say that the possibility of two men joining in marriage is as possible as two dragonflies or two cantelopes joining in marriage.Well, at that point it wouldn’t matter what you or I would call it, becuase the state would call it “marriage”, and the state would have the power to enforce its view as a matter of law.
It would be difficult for the churches to maintain a view of marriage that is contrary to to that of the state, if the state decides that same sex “marriages” are just as valid as authenic marriages.
I must confess that I find it difficult to reconcile the libertarian view on the state and marriage as you have described it with that of the Catholic Church, as outlined in the *Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. *But having said that, I have to say that I am enjoying discussing this with you.
The problem is marriage is not respected by a great many so-called Christians today. Destinations Weddings, civil weddings, justice of peace, searching for the “perfect” looking Church, etc…they all are being used more often than true sacramental marriage.
Its called apostacy. Christ said it would happen. Keep the faith, its going to get rougher for us in the coming months. You are going to have to decide which world you want to be part of, this one or the one to come.
That happens to be the president’s position.
Ah! Don’t we all. Thanks for your indulgence.Never, though sometimes I do exhibit a bit of pique at some posters’s remarks.
I see your point, Birdy, but the fact that 10 million people watch Modern Family doesn’t mean 10 million people are on board with homosexual normativity. I mean, I’ve watched a bit of Modern Family, and I have some faithful Catholic friends that do the same. It’s a pretty funny show!
why do gays want a contract (public) anyway.IF they want to live together why don’t they just do.I guess they feel by making it legal they can express their feelings in public.But why is that so important.Can.t they leave their intimate feelings at home?Do they have to hold hands or kiss in public?Many married people don’t do this.Single men and single women have lived together in same apartment for centuries and no one cares for the most part.If they harassed they can report it to the police.When they get married in civil ceremony are they asking for God to bless this marriage like a normal marriage is done?How can they ask for that?That’s like a thief asking God to bless this robbery I just about ready to commit.Does anybody(except the sick thief) really believe God’s going to answer this thief’s prayer?
Seriously though. Imagine the outrage in the community of heterosexual couples put on a “straight pride” parade with all of the obscene and sexually provocative behavior that the gay community does during theirs. They don’t want acceptance, they want to shove their perversity in our face and then cry foul if we complain about it. However, this doesn’t apply to all gay people. There are some that just want to mirror a “normal” life. They want a stable, quiet home, be productive citizens, etc… The main problem that I have is when they insist on being given equal consideration for adoption services. Their unions are NOT equal to hetero unions. No matter how much of a case one makes about how much more money they make, etc… two men cannot simulate the same home environment that a man and a woman can. The best interests of the child should be the primary consideration, and that includes exposing them to as close to a normal, “as nature intended it” situation as possible. I don’t care how much time two men spend in the bedroom, they will never be able to make a baby on their own, i.e., it is not as close to “natural” as possible. (Now I have to go take a shower and watch The Bells of St. Mary’s to get that image out of my head.
)Excepting the state’s definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, the law on bigamy in another way which the state determines boundaries on marriage. I reckon, that would apply similarly to same-sex unions over there if the ban is repealed. It would be redundant though if polygamy follows same-sex unions.
