Washington State makes 7th - gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter gam197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mudgely said:
… How sad is it that Benedict has called the practice of “moral relativism” a danger, while in fact, it has been the cornerstone of the maturation and continued relevance of the Church, in a changing world. …
Click to expand...
If morality is relative, why should we accept yours?
 
Mudgely said:
I’m no expert, but the essay I read which pointed that out was written by one of the advisers to Vatican II, and who is a noted theological writer. It was published by the department of religious studies, I think by a Catholic university.

This statement proves you do not know the difference between dogma and doctrine. If you get involved in these types of debate, try to come prepared and informed. God teach you.🙂
Click to expand...
 
Julia_Mae said:
Sacramental marriage is. Everyone isn’t Catholic. Or Christian. Or even a theist. We don’t get to decide based on our religion what contracts people can enter into with the government. I don’t think anyone made “gay marriage” legal. I think they probably defined what a civil union is to include any two consenting adults (probably) not related in the 1st or 2nd degree.

When we enter into a sacramental union, the government has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Because we live in this country, that union also provides us with certain rights and responsibilities in civil law. Sacramental marriage was ALWAYS seperate from civil union. They are simply canonizing what was always a fact.
Click to expand...
Actually, the very definition of marriage originates from the Catholic Church. See my earlier reply above on the definition of marriage from Humanae Vitae. Of course, not everyone has faith, God help them, but for those who would push their way into a Catholic Church for a marriage to be conducted, better be cogniscent about the meaning of marriage. New laws to be enacted both here in UK and across the United States are meant to force priests to conduct same-sex ‘marriages’ which makes a mockery of the whole institution of marriage, not to mention the fact that it pits government forces against the Catholic Church. Try to understand what exactly is happening here, for God’s sake!
 
Publisher said:
Here’s 25 that typically are not “protected” by civil unions/domestic partnerships that are protected under “marriage.”…they may vary from state to state that allows domestic partnerships/civil unions…I’m sure you can find “one”…right"?..Since you asked.

1.Joint parental rights of children
2.Joint adoption
3.Status as “next-of-kin” for hospital visits and medical decisions
4.Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5.Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6.Crime victims recovery benefits
7.Domestic violence protection orders
8.Judicial protections and immunity
9.Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10.Public safety officers death benefits
11.Spousal veterans benefits
12.Social Security
13.Medicare
14.Joint filing of tax returns
15.Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16.Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17.Child support
18.Joint Insurance Plans
19.Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20.Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21.Estate and gift tax benefits
22.Welfare and public assistance
23.Joint housing for elderly
24.Credit protection
25.Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
Click to expand...
I don’t believe this is correct. Source, please?
 
Julia_Mae said:
Unless you believe same-gender unions are in the Public Interest.
Click to expand...
Just “believing” that isn’t sufficient. Under our Constitutionally limited system of government you have to establish a Rational Basis under which you explain the relationship how that Private Conduct fulfills that Public Interest in a unique and valuable way. Then you must submit that basis along with the particulars of the privileges being awards to the representative democratic process in the form of legislation to see if the consent of the governed concurs with the argument.

Simply taking two things that are proven distinct on an ontological basis and giving them the same name does not suddenly make them fungible.
  • Marty Lund
 
Jerome_Fan said:
This is a Catholic Answers website. The Catholic dogma on homosexuality being an intrinsic evil will never change -
Click to expand...
Well, except it’s not dogma. It’s not even a suggestion.

Sexual congress outside of Sacramental marriage is as in. No matter who does it with whom. “Homosexuality” isn’t even considered … well… anything. There’s a single paragraph and here it is:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Click to expand...
ACTS. Not being gay, but behaving unchastely. Not “evil” but “disordered.” Like masturbation.
 
Jerome_Fan said:
New laws to be enacted both here in UK and across the United States are meant to force priests to conduct same-sex ‘marriages’ …
Click to expand...
Source? They can’t even force a priest to perform a marriage between two Catholics of opposite genders, if he doesn’t like what happened in marriage rep or if they refuse to go, so … what? Evidence of any such law in either country?
 
pepipop said:
Does that include father and adult daughter and mother and adult son relationships? As, if the morality of homosexual acts is not an important factor,nor the fact that it is against natural and divine laws, then it follows that incest should also be allowed. Both were seen as sin in the bible, but as sins stated in the bible and natural law do not count then sure anything goes.
Click to expand...
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.
 
mlund said:
Just “believing” that isn’t sufficient. Under our Constitutionally limited system of government you have to establish a Rational Basis …
Click to expand...
You do? Which Amendment is the “Rational Basis” one, again? Pretending that could actually be factual, YOUR idea of what constitutes a “rational basis” and everyone else’s - not necessarily the same. This is not the Catholic States of America. OUR rational beliefs are based on an Invisible God a rather large number of people don’t believe exists. And which is subject to personal misunderstanding.
 
Julia_Mae said:
I don’t believe this is correct. Source, please?
Click to expand...
As I mentioned to the friend who asked I provide “at least one”…you have the resources to check them out yourself…if you don’t think any of these are correct…look them up. Any search engine should be able to yield you some sites that will list the differences between “marriage” and “civil unions/dometic partnerships”.🙂
 
Julia_Mae said:
I’m sorry, what? The cultural phenomenon of marriage precedes the Incarnation by about 5000 yrs.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the specific institution of marriage that Western Jurisprudence is based upon models of marriage from the era of Christendom and the Reformation.

Practices such as bigamy, bride-raiding, and right-of-conquest were very common to other times and cultures but have no standing in our institutional definition of what is or is not a marriage.
  • Marty Lund
 
Julia_Mae said:
You do? Which Amendment is the “Rational Basis” one, again? Pretending that could actually be factual, YOUR idea of what constitutes a “rational basis” and everyone else’s - not necessarily the same.
Click to expand...
Wait. Hold on. You’re trying to conduct an argument about legal discrimination in marriage and you’ve never heard of the Rational Basis Test? Seriously? :confused:

The Rational Basis is set forward by the legislators proposing the law. Such legislation is subject to Judicial Review on 14th Amendment grounds. The level of scrutiny that must be met depends on the nature of the privileges and the criteria to qualify for the privilege.

It’s the Constitutional safeguard that makes it completely Unconstitutional to overtly confer awards to, say, your relatives or political supporters or people named “Dave” who were born on a Tuesday.
  • Marty Lund
 
Publisher said:
As I mentioned to the friend who asked I provide “at least one”…you have the resources to check them out yourself…if you don’t think any of these are correct…look them up. Any search engine should be able to yield you some sites that will list the differences between “marriage” and “civil unions/dometic partnerships”.🙂
Click to expand...
And as I later pointed out (with actual links to the laws), those priveledges WERE provided, in the CA case, and the 9th Circuit specifically stated that domestic partnerships provided “all the rights of opposite couples”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8960027&postcount=128

If you’re resorting to the “federal benefits” argument (I guess the source of the "1,100 rights?), NO state gay marriage provides those, either, due to DOMA.
 
Publisher said:
As I mentioned to the friend who asked I provide “at least one”…you have the resources to check them out yourself…
Click to expand...
It is always the burden of the person making the assertions to provide the source or evidence. Obviously, you have no resources whatsoever for your bald assertions which we will now disregard.
 
Lokabrenna said:
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.
Click to expand...
Now that’s irony!

“My religion doesn’t have a problem with same sex marriage, so don’t try to shove the tenets of your faith down my throat, while I am busy shoving mine down yours”.
 
Publisher said:
Not “mistranslated”…but misunderstood in it’s cultural and historical setting. In Lev the prohibitions against same sex relations was to separate Israel from it’s pagan neighbors which practiced ritual same sex rites…and those conquering armies “feminized” their male captives by sexual victimization.

The same is understood in Romans chapter 1…Paul contrasts the pagan religious practices which included same sex temple prostitution. In Corinthians Paul decrys pedastry…a common practice in ancient times.

That the scriptures in no way addresses loving same sex reltaionships is no big surprise since the complexities of human sexuality would not be addressed for better than 19 centuries AFTER these passages were written.
Click to expand...
• In youth and beauty wisdom is but rare! Alexander Pope 🙂
 
scipio337 said:
And as I later pointed out (with actual links to the laws), those priveledges WERE provided, in the CA case, and the 9th Circuit specifically stated that domestic partnerships provided “all the rights of opposite couples”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8960027&postcount=128

If you’re resorting to the “federal benefits” argument (I guess the source of the "1,100 rights?), NO state gay marriage provides those, either, due to DOMA.
Click to expand...
I should have clarified…here in Oregon those in civil union/domestic partnerships do not have the same rights provided by the State as those in marriages…those rights are battled out in our courts. Such as when same sex couples in legal unions seek to “divorce” and children are involved…such was a case in 2010 when two women in dometic partnership disolved their arrangement and one partner sued and won for visitation rights of their daughter…if they were married, she would not have had to sue to exercise her parental rights.

In those states that have same sex marriage, all the rights and priveleges affored to married couples provided by the state in which they reside and allow same sex marriage have equality…you are of course correct…dometic partnerships/civil unions are not afforded those federal rights and priveleges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top