Washington State makes 7th - gay marriage

[mlund]

As you completely ignored my citation from Loving v Virginia and didn’t answer my challenge, your points fall flat.

Yup, like I said: they don’t read the ruling, they just wave it around in ignorance.

Of course, their eyes might burst into flames and melt from the socket if they realized that the Supreme Court ruled that the law of the State of Virginia governing civil marriage could not prohibit a couple from creating a marriage according to Natural Law.

Running back to Judge Walker’s debunked Straw Man about how “they don’t test for fertility” is just icing on the cake. Appeal to the inverse is like the Cadillac of Straw Man Arguments.

• Marty Lund

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

That’s interesting, they must have previous language defining the word “marriage” if it’s actually used in the language of the Bill. A large number of states did not. However, it’s still a definition of a civil contract, not a Church Sacrament, as you also said, I believe.

The State of Washington had, in its laws, language describing “marriage” as recognized by the State, as that between one man and one woman. We had words that also precluded marriage between more than one man and one woman, which is polygamy. The one man and one woman, also, had to be “free to marry,” because if one of them were still married to someone else, this would be bigamy. The State of Washington, also, has laws concerning the age the one man and one woman had to be in order to be married. As recently as the 1970s the man needed to be at least 16, the woman needed to be at least 14.

What Gov. Christine Gregoire signed yesterday amends the laws to include two men or two women to legally enter into a State recognized “marriage.”

The next stops on the slippery slope: polygamy, bigamy, bestiality.

 

[mlund]

The State of Washington had, in its laws, language describing “marriage” as recognized by the State, as that between one man and one woman.

You have to hand it to them, though. Their embrace of illogic is as astounding to behold.

It’s like sincerely believing that if you just change the definition of “duck” in the dictionary to include homo sapiens humans will suddenly be able to fly and then pushing people off a cliff shouting, “Flap!”

All breeds of ducks have wings and hollow bones and can therefor naturally fly.
All humans lack wings and have dense mass so they can not naturally fly.
Gay-“marriage” logic: “If we declare that humans are a breed of duck then humans can fly!”

That “bird” doesn’t walk like a duck, doesn’t swim like a duck, and doesn’t quack like a duck, folks.

Marriage as referred to in Skinner and Loving decisions is a civil right because of the nature of that arrangement. Simply taking an arrangement of a different nature and calling it “marriage” does not make it the same civil right.

• Marty Lund

 

[rlg94086]

I’m a member of the clergy of the Pre-Nicene Gnostic Catholic Church… Not trying to deceive anyone. That’s why it just says Catholic, without any qualifiers.

“‘Catholic,’ without any qualifiers” is deceiving. You could at least put “Gnostic Catholic.” What’s wrong with that? It would seem pretty accurate, since you said you are a member of the clergy of the Pre-Nicene **Gnostic Catholic **Church. The only reason not to include Gnostic is to hide your religious identity. You are either ashamed of it or aim to deceive. You don’t seem to be ashamed of your heresy, so I would guess its the latter.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Incest is another matter entirely. There are good reasons for prohibiting incest (among them, the greater chance that the offspring will be born with birth defects). As for your “natural” and “divine” laws, as a non-Christian, I don’t honestly care. My religion doesn’t have a problem with homosexuality, and I know more that a few priests and priestesses who would be happy to marry same-sex couples. If Catholics don’t want to get married to members of the same sex, fine, no one should force them to, but you have no right to shove your particular prohibitions down our throats. As someone already said, your rights end where mine begin.

But what if all the sexual acts between the daughter and father, or the mother and son, were sodomy? There wouldn’t be any off-spring to worry about, would there?

And I’m pretty sure beastiality wouldn’t produce off-spring, either.

 

[genesius28]

“‘Catholic,’ without any qualifiers” is deceiving. You could at least put “Gnostic Catholic.” What’s wrong with that? It would seem pretty accurate, since you said you are a member of the clergy of the Pre-Nicene **Gnostic Catholic **Church. The only reason not to include Gnostic is to hide your religious identity. You are either ashamed of it or aim to deceive. You don’t seem to be ashamed of your heresy, so I would guess its the latter.

I’m not ashamed of my beliefs, because they’re not heresy. If I’d just put “Christian” instead of specifying which denomination I belong to, would you still have such a problem with it? No one owns the word “Catholic,” it simply means “universal” – and I belong to the Universal Church. And honestly, I’ve thought about adding “Gnostic” to it, but the more people complain about this issue, the more I prefer to keep it the way it is.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not ashamed of my beliefs, because they’re not heresy. If I’d just put “Christian” instead of specifying which denomination I belong to, would you still have such a problem with it? No one owns the word “Catholic,” it simply means “universal” – and I belong to the Universal Church. And honestly, I’ve thought about adding “Gnostic” to it, but the more people complain about this issue, the more I prefer to keep it the way it is.

Of course you will…you want to hide the fact that you are a Gnostic Catholic. It’s a Catholic forum, and you want people to think you are part of the Catholic Church.

 

[pepipop]

They’re already considered family to begin with, so what would be the point in getting married?

Because they ‘love’ each other in another way ‘eros’, not familial. There have been several examples of adopted siblings meeting up, getting into a sexual relationship to be told they’re actually brother and sister and by law have to stop - and/or they cannot marry. So, if homosexuals are allowed to marry (which is immoral and a sin), why shouldn’t incest, (which is also a sin in the bible) be treated similarly - considering moral values, natural law do not have anything to do with this supposed new version of ‘marriage’? Likewise, parents do not necessarily spend anytime with their children when they’re are growing up, absent fathers, mothers, and when they do meet up end up having a sexual attraction and relationhsip - as they are in ‘love’. So, if SSA marriage is ok, so is everything else.

 

[genesius28]

Of course you will…you want to hide the fact that you are a Gnostic Catholic. It’s a Catholic forum, and you want people to think you are part of the Catholic Church.

I’m pretty open about the fact that I’m Gnostic in all my posts, so there’s really nothing to hide. Now, if by “Catholic Church” you mean the “Roman Catholic Church”, well… I am a baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic, something not even excommunication could ever change.

But the Catholic Church also encompasses the Orthodox Church, the various Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome, Anglo-Catholics, Old Catholics, Liberal Catholics, Gnostic Catholics, etc. We all have apostolic succesion, we all uphold the sacraments… No single denomination has more of a claim to the word “Catholic” than they do to the word “Christian.” But if it makes you feel better to believe I’m hiding something that I clearly don’t mind talking openly about, so be it.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Because they ‘love’ each other in another way ‘eros’, not familial. There have been several examples of adopted siblings meeting up, getting into a sexual relationship to be told they’re actually brother and sister and by law have to stop - and/or they cannot marry. So, if homosexuals are allowed to marry (which is immoral and a sin), why shouldn’t incest, (which is also a sin in the bible) be treated similarly - considering moral values, natural law do not have anything to do with this supposed new version of ‘marriage’? Likewise, parents do not necessarily spend anytime with their children when they’re are growing up, absent fathers, mothers, and when they do meet up end up having a sexual attraction and relationhsip - as they are in ‘love’. So, if SSA marriage is ok, so is everything else.

The problem with this argument is that if you apply it to anything else, it just looks silly:

For example:

We eat cows and chickens, why not humans? Humans are made of meat. If you let us eat one meat, we must be allowed to eat all meats!
I’m already driving at 50 km on this road. Why not 75 or 100? They’re just numbers.

In fact, using this logic, heterosexual sex must lead to homosexual sex, which leads to bestiality, which leads to people marrying chairs.

Except that it doesn’t work that way, at all.

Society is quite capable of drawing new lines in the sand.

But, hey, if you really want to compare my (hypothetical) love for another woman to sleeping with cows, knock yourselves out. I’ll be too busy searching that special someone.

 

[genesius28]

Because they ‘love’ each other in another way ‘eros’, not familial. There have been several examples of adopted siblings meeting up, getting into a sexual relationship to be told they’re actually brother and sister and by law have to stop - and/or they cannot marry. So, if homosexuals are allowed to marry (which is immoral and a sin), why shouldn’t incest, (which is also a sin in the bible) be treated similarly - considering moral values, natural law do not have anything to do with this supposed new version of ‘marriage’? Likewise, parents do not necessarily spend anytime with their children when they’re are growing up, absent fathers, mothers, and when they do meet up end up having a sexual attraction and relationhsip - as they are in ‘love’. So, if SSA marriage is ok, so is everything else.

Honestly, if two adults love each other, I don’t really care what they do in private… even if it creeps me out to think about it. The only issue here is that if they procreate, it would most likely cause genetic damage to their offspring that would continue in their family for generations. But romantic love, sex, and procreation aren’t really what we’re talking about here… Marriage, while it is about love, is also about the legal recognition of two individuals as family, who wouldn’t have been considered such before the marriage. That’s what gay people are fighting for. Siblings and parents/children are always going to be family by blood. Yeah, you can give someone up for adoption, but you’re still related to them. By denying gay people the right to marry, the government is essentially saying, your relationship doesn’t exist and the life you’ve built together is worthless.

 

[genesius28]

The problem with this argument is that if you apply it to anything else, it just looks silly:

For example:

We eat cows and chickens, why not humans? Humans are made of meat. If you let us eat one meat, we must be allowed to eat all meats!
I’m already driving at 50 km on this road. Why not 75 or 100? They’re just numbers.

In fact, using this logic, heterosexual sex must lead to homosexual sex, which leads to bestiality, which leads to people marrying chairs.

Except that it doesn’t work that way, at all.

Society is quite capable of drawing new lines in the sand.

But, hey, if you really want to compare my (hypothetical) love for another woman to sleeping with cows, knock yourselves out. I’ll be too busy searching that special someone.

That is just about the best response I’ve ever seen.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I’m a member of the clergy of the Pre-Nicene Gnostic Catholic Church… Not trying to deceive anyone. That’s why it just says Catholic, without any qualifiers.

Gasp The nerve of me!

You are representing yourself as a Catholic, but posting views quite contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. That is scandalous.

 

[anp1215]

Shocker! We already have marriage equality in the US. People of all ethnic backgrounds are able to marry one person of the opposite sex.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

There are quite a few people here on CAF that use the name “Catholic”, and have their own definition of it’s meaning. And then I get “points” when I point it out. Let the reader beware.

Hey, there’s quite a few politicians, too, but we’re not supposed to say who. We can only take issue with their issues.

It is fair to discuss a politician’s or newsmaker’s position on the issues and their qualifications for office, it is not fair to discuss their spiritual well being. Criticisms of a anyone’s spiritual life or spirituality should be left between that person and their spiritual director or confessor. They are not allowed in the forums. If a politician or newsmaker states that they are a certain religion that is the assumed religion of the politician in this forum, please do not question it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7224667&postcount=6

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8680105&postcount=26

The bottom line: this is how we got “Catholic” politicians to be in favor of Gay marriage.

 

[Elizabeth502]

1. I note that the Supreme Court has declared that marriage is a basic civil right in US law.

Only traditional marriage. And since some people apparently need that defined in the context in which marriage was declared a “civil right,” traditional marriage means one legally unencumbered man + one legally unemcumbered woman. That was the context of the label “civil right.” It is not all “marriage,” no matter how personally, privately, defined, no matter how fluctuating its definition. Declarations (decisions) by the Supreme Court have a context, always. That context is a common understanding of terms which is contemporaneous with the decision itself, and does not redefine terms within the decision unless the Court makes that specific within its decision.

The Supreme Court has never declared an open-ended or random definition of marriage to be “a basic civil right” – except possibly in a parallel or imaginary universe.

 

[rlg94086]

Only traditional marriage. And since some people apparently need that defined in the context in which marriage was declared a “civil right,” traditional marriage means one legally unencumbered man + one legally unemcumbered woman. That was the context of the label “civil right.” It is not all “marriage,” no matter how personally, privately, defined, no matter how fluctuating its definition. Declarations (decisions) by the Supreme Court have a context, always. That context is a common understanding of terms which is contemporaneous with the decision itself, and does not redefine terms within the decision unless the Court makes that specific within its decision.

The Supreme Court has never declared an open-ended or random definition of marriage to be “a basic civil right” – except possibly in a parallel or imaginary universe.

Indeed. As I’ve pointed out by quoting the actual decision that declared marriage a “basic civil right,” the reason was because marriage is “fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Clearly, this describes the procreative nature of marriage - something that doesn’t exist in a same-sex marriage.

 

[onthisrock]

REALLY sad. My biggest issue with the gay marriage issue is that they claim it is for equality when it is actually changing everything for less than 2% of the population. the problem? they hate Catholics and other conservatives…we should respect them, but we’re free game with insults of “ignorance and intolerance” Really? It’s only a very short period of time that they will go banging on a Catholic Church’s door or an orthodox Jewish synagogue demanding their freedom to be married in a church or other place of worship that goes by God’s laws. this ENDS religious freedom AND freedom of speech…It will land a priest in jail or with a fine…they would LOVE that! If I’m against it, I’m a bigot. If they’re against me…they are “free thinkers” Lets say what it really is…to push the gay agenda down everyone’s throats. I don’t think heterosexual issues should be taught in elementary schools let alone mandatory gay history and “Harvey Milk” days. We have a demonstration against abortion or for traditional marriage and we get spit on for being “intolerant bigots” Really in the end, it’s just the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[pepipop]

The problem with this argument is that if you apply it to anything else, it just looks silly:

For example:

We eat cows and chickens, why not humans? Humans are made of meat. If you let us eat one meat, we must be allowed to eat all meats!
I’m already driving at 50 km on this road. Why not 75 or 100? They’re just numbers.

In fact, using this logic, heterosexual sex must lead to homosexual sex, which leads to bestiality, which leads to people marrying chairs.

Except that it doesn’t work that way, at all.

Society is quite capable of drawing new lines in the sand.

But, hey, if you really want to compare my (hypothetical) love for another woman to sleeping with cows, knock yourselves out. I’ll be too busy searching that special someone.

Well that’s an interesting response, considering ‘animal behaviour’ is always one of the top arguments used, to indicate that homosexuality, is ‘natural’, because animals have homosexual sex, hence if it happens in nature it must be natural. Well, using that ‘old’ chesnut of an argument, animals also commit incest - so if animals can be used to bolster the basis of homosexuality, for years, as natural, then it must also be used to bolster the case for incest.

However, as you rightly point out animals also commit fratricide, matricide, kill their offspring and so on.

Some siblings seperated at birth and then meeting up 20 years later and having a sexual relationship, are traumatised when they are told to split up, as they have fallen in ‘love’ with each other. Inbreeding, occurs in animals in the wild and also in royal families throughout the centuries, and by human design with pedigree dogs, race horses,., etc. so it has always been associated with the ‘best’ for some reason, i.e. breeding to keep the 'best ’ traits to rule countries, race horses, show dogs, etc… Obviously, it is also a sin, but so what - morality isn’t important anymore and no doubt ‘incestophobia’ will become a catch word in the next 50 or so years.

 

[rossum]

Hence, using this interpretation, there is no reason why a father/son and mother /daughter may not ‘marry’ either.

It is illegal for father/son and mother/daughter to have sex. It is not illegal for two unrelated people to have sex. You are not making a correct comparison.

rossum