T
TCEL
Guest
I think striking “man” and “woman” from the legal code is a big deal, and one we don’t know all the consequences of. I do think sex matters. But, I’ve made my point.
What does the "gay" lobby plan to do about the fact that "gay marriage" currently discriminates against bisexuals?
- Status
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Sex only matters if children are part of the institution and they are no longer part of the civil institution of marriage.
Oh, and by the way, many of these amendments banning gay marriage are actually defining marriage as between a man and a woman because it wasn’t de jure in many cases.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
It’s something that is a sensitive issue to those for which see this as violating a moral boundary, but the implementation of it isn’t complex. For example, Washington state implemented the bill in SB 6239 (the text of which is available online).
The emphasis here is not my own, but how things are notated in the bill. I think the underlines sections are new.
"SB 6239:
They also addressed the concerns of religious leaders that don’t want to perform such ceremonies and a few other things. The entire bill is only 10 pages long (note: that’s not ten pages of new content, the actual edits are less than 10 pages).
Thus far there’s not been any proposals for legal group marriages in the USA (though there are religious groups that have their own form implemented without making use of USA marriage licenses).
Among heterosexuals and homosexuals it appears that the absence of a marriage license doesn’t prevent sex. IOW. The laws that I’ve seen implemented in the USA on sex have largely been revoked as 4th amendment violations.
C
Catolico65
Guest
Statistics do not support your claim. On the contrary, many studies have shown homosexuals as a group don’t even agree with fidelity.
The real issue is that a homosexual relationship can never become spiritually fulfilling like a normal one, on the contrary it provokes spiritual desolation and defilement.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
define “homosexual relationship”
V
VanSensei
Guest
Well…er…I imagine it’s just that. A homosexual relationship. 2 men or 2 women romantically involved. Do we really need more explanation?
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Does said relationship involve sex as per it’s definition?
V
VanSensei
Guest
Some could.
E
epan
Guest
Actually, it is a minor change. The major changes took place incrementally over the past century. Gender distinction no longer exists legally in marriage. Therefore, it makes no legal sense to distinguish between genders as to who cn marry. The heavy lifting was done by the women’s “equality” movement which sought to eliminate all legal gender distinctions. The Catholic Church is facing a similar movement in the effort to ordain females as priests. Either there are gender differences, legally, or not. In the case of civil law in the “developed” world, gender equality is considered a social justice issue. Same sex marriage is merely a small and predictable incremental step in the larger historic context. I say it is a small step because gay people are a small minority. It is obviously logical.
Try to swim against the current of social progress. This is known as conservatism. A synonym to “conservatism” is “failure” when viewed through the lens of history. Conservative thinking is generally viewed as immoral when viewed in retrospect.
Jesus, of course, was a radical liberal. This fact seems to be lost with many Christians.
T
TCEL
Guest
Don’t get me wrong. I think this is the logical outcome of what society has been doing for decades. Does that make it right? Since this has been brought up a couple of times, perhaps I should clarify that I was thinking more about what it means for biological children. I particularly had IVF and such in mind. Now, of course that’s not only related to SSM, but it further complicates the matter.
I’m editing this to add that Jesus was “liberal” in many ways, and “conservative” in many others. In the context of divorce, He tightened restrictions on marriage when he recalled God’s original plan for marriage between man and woman.
J
JimG
Guest
Elimination of all gender distinctions? Was this the goal of the feminist movement? If so, I can understand how they might desire to eliminate marriage entirely. Will they also desire to eliminate childbirth entirely?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
As far as the changes over the past several decades go the motivation for the changes become more clear when you look at media that has survived the last several decades. For example when I look at advertisements from the 1950s in some of the advertisements it seems that women were at time viewed as intellectually inferior. There were laws and traditions that put women at a disadvantage too. I have copies of some of the print ads but dare not post them here because of their potential offensiveness (and it would be off topic in this thread). But when the women’s right movement is juxtaposed to indications of the climate of the culture in which it was born it makes a lot more sense.
Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
J
JimG
Guest
Hmm. I’ve been watching TV ads, movies and other media, and I don’t see any particular evidence that the media is promoting a unisex outlook. The opposite seems to be the case. And who’s buying all those copies of “50 Shades of Gray,” not to mention the vast market for romance novels?
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Look fifty years earlier then that and wives were property of their husbands.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Women’s right isn’t the same thing as unisex. If I drew out a Venn diagram there’s but some overlap, but not 100%. Fifth shades of Gray and modern advertisements are not the ones that have survived the decades. They are more recent. I think there are far worst advertisements than this but take a look at some of these print ads from the 1950s and ask yourself what type of impression that it gives of women (these are not the ones I think are the worst, but it seems visual aids may be needed to better communicate).
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie speaks on it much better than I could. Her perspective seems to cross more continents than mine does too.
M
Maso
Guest
If you’re gonna legitimize homosexuality…
then why not legitimize other forms of sexual deviancy like pedophilia, having sex with animals, having sex with corpses…? Why not legitimize cannibalism while you’re at it…? Why stop at 'bi-sexual"…?
Where do you draw the line…?
I draw it where natural law contradicts natural law and so did the writers of our Constitution.
“Same Sex Marriage” is a term that is about as legitimate as would be a “Square Circle”.
The logic fails.
And… when laws are codified on the basis of a falacy… there will be bad laws, and that is detremental.
Consider… If I were to press the law makers for a definition of the term “sexual orientation”… eventually it would come down to homosexuality ( among other things ) is a “sexual orientation”.
Hummm…
But isn’t homosexuality inherently and by definition in fact a sexual dis-orientation…???
If these lawmakers can explain to me how a sexual orientation can be a sexual dis-orientation… then I will explain to you how one ( 1 ) can equal zero ( 0 ).
then why not legitimize other forms of sexual deviancy like pedophilia, having sex with animals, having sex with corpses…? Why not legitimize cannibalism while you’re at it…? Why stop at 'bi-sexual"…?
Where do you draw the line…?
I draw it where natural law contradicts natural law and so did the writers of our Constitution.
“Same Sex Marriage” is a term that is about as legitimate as would be a “Square Circle”.
The logic fails.
And… when laws are codified on the basis of a falacy… there will be bad laws, and that is detremental.
Consider… If I were to press the law makers for a definition of the term “sexual orientation”… eventually it would come down to homosexuality ( among other things ) is a “sexual orientation”.
Hummm…
But isn’t homosexuality inherently and by definition in fact a sexual dis-orientation…???
If these lawmakers can explain to me how a sexual orientation can be a sexual dis-orientation… then I will explain to you how one ( 1 ) can equal zero ( 0 ).
Code:
1 = 0 ...?!
Go figure..
S
SMGS127
Guest
I have to hand it to you. I’ve never heard someone compare homosexuality to necrophilia or cannibalism before; you took the course on “illegitimate ways to defend the Catholic faith” to a whole new level with this post.
Of course, what you probably don’t realize is that posts like these only serve to cause more people to LEAVE the Church, not join it, as they think that people only oppose homosexuality out of completely irrational, rambling arguments.
Oppose homosexuality publicly for the reasons the Church opposes it or don’t talk about it publicly. Those of us who try to evangelize to those with a gay sexual orientation could do without posts like these littering Catholic forums.
Edit: I see you aren’t listed as Catholic. If you aren’t Catholic, then I apologize for assuming so and I retract the part of this post specifically dealing with the Catholic faith, though I still extremely strongly request that you hold yourself back when you want to make a super-long post about how crazy gay people are.
J
JimG
Guest
Ah yes, the 1950’s were the root of all evil. And yet, many who lived through that era do not recall it as particularly odious. Suzanne Venker gives a more balanced view in the book “The Flip Side of Feminism.”
E
EasterJoy
Guest
How can you know that, since gay couples were not allowed to adopt children 40 years ago?
If you read homosexual blogs on gay marriage, you will find warnings that if gay marriage becomes a right, then the expectation to marry will become the norm. This is not something that all homosexuals greet with equal enthusiasm. Of all the disadvantages of being homosexual, never having your lover pressure you to marry is considered by some to be among its advantages. Right now, gay marriage includes people who are on fire to get married. Let us see what happens when it starts to include more and more people who are pressured into making a commitment.
I know that when gays go through marriage ceremonies, they rent tuxes and buy white dresses and spend too much on a big stylized reception modeled after “traditional” marriage rites, but I don’t know why anybody is presuming that gay unions aren’t a horse of an entirely different color than heterosexual ones. I think it very possible that gays are going through a phase where they have over-romanticized being thought the same as heterosexuals. I do not expect that phase to last the course of my lifetime. The “we are unique, not like you” phase is coming, just as surely as it did when women discovered that being treated as if you were the same as a man and being expected to act as if you were a man is not the freedom to “be yourself.” I think the same is going to happen to transsexuals going through surgeries to approximate a sex change. The truth that you can’t change the truth is going to come home to roost, and that one may not take that long to come about…maybe within 10 or 20 years.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
If you’re gonna legitimize fornication…
then why not legitimize other forms of intrinsically disordered actions like child molestation, rape, genocide, having sex with animals, having sex with corpses…? Why not legitimize cannibalism while you’re at it…?
Where do you draw the line…?
That’s nothing, I once witnessed someone who claimed to only want to help gay people claim they were worse than Hitler.
And people wonder why gay people don’t care for religious people.
- Status