Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

[Elizabeth502]

That wouldn’t hold up in court nowadays. As I said previously, You can believe what you want but it’s wrong to force everyone to follow your beliefs.
I’m pretty sure that if you tried to ban anal sex, no matter what faith or lack of, there would be a big debate about that too.

Again, no one is being “forced” to follow Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim or any beliefs. Catholics, like Mormons, Jews, Muslims and atheists have the same equal constitutional rights (First Amendment) to persuade society at large – believers and non-believers alike – to enact various laws and to disallow other laws, based on what each person or group believes is best for a society’s present and future. Believers are not restricted to a lesser voice (than agnostics, atheists, or the non-affiliated) because they adhere to a religion. They are guaranteed as much public exposure as non-believers are.

Have a nice day, and in the meantime, it would be a good idea to learn Constitutional principles.

 

[tgrath]

In principle, you are right: the world is going to dogs anyway, let everyone go to hell the way he likes.

On the other hand, the position of gays is not exactly the above mentioned. They insist on defining their unions as nothing less than exactly the same institution as bisexual marriage which existed millenniums before. They do not accept any other definition like “civil pact” which would give them exactly the same rights.

So, all of a sudden I and my wife find ourselves in the very same kind of union the gays are! But we did not mean this! That is sheer violence which is unacceptable. In other words, they don’t just want go peacefully their own way, they insist on us accompanying them.

But we can do nothing about this my friend - the world is doomed and the things only will go worse. The only thing we might ask now is to define our marriage as some special kind (like “traditional family”) but forget about this as well - gay pressure groups will destroy such project as human rights violation.

I don’t understand how what other people do affects your marriage. Your union is yours. Theirs is theirs, in the example you give. Neither affects the other in any way.

 

[tgrath]

religio

**"Violent hate crimes against LGBT people tend to be especially brutal,even comparedtoother hate crimes: “an intense rage is present in nearly all homicide cases involving gaymale victims”.Itis rare for a victimtojustbe shot;he is more likelytobe stabbed multiple times, mutilated, and strangled. “They frequently involved torture, cutting, mutilation… showingthe absolute intent to rub out the human being because of his (sexual) preference”.

• wikipedia violence against lgbt people**

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor George Washington were Catholics. Some would even argue they weren’t particularly religious. They certainly weren’t trying to force their religion on others.

From The Writings of George Washington From The Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799; John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor:
Quote:
Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose. [Emphasis in the original]
memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/…+@lit(gw110081)

Thomas Jefferson, from a A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments
1778Papers 2:492–504

“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.”

Didn’t they find some love letters between Washington and one of his officers? It was in the news a few years back.

 

[tgrath]

Again, no one is being “forced” to follow Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim or any beliefs. Catholics, like Mormons, Jews, Muslims and atheists have the same equal constitutional rights (First Amendment) to persuade society at large – believers and non-believers alike – to enact various laws and to disallow other laws, based on what each person or group believes is best for a society’s present and future. Believers are not restricted to a lesser voice (than agnostics, atheists, or the non-affiliated) because they adhere to a religion. They are guaranteed as much public exposure as non-believers are.

Have a nice day, and in the meantime, it would be a good idea to learn Constitutional principles.

The overturning of DADT, and of DOMA, have been on Constutional grounds. I’m just guessing that the justices of the relevant state supreme courts do understand the Constitution. Call me crazy. Just a guess on my part. Has someone in this discussion reached the same level of accomplishment in constitutional matters?

 

[religioismorals]

Again, no one is being “forced” to follow Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim or any beliefs. Catholics, like Mormons, Jews, Muslims and atheists have the same equal constitutional rights (First Amendment) to persuade society at large – believers and non-believers alike – to enact various laws and to disallow other laws, based on what each person or group believes is best for a society’s present and future. Believers are not restricted to a lesser voice (than agnostics, atheists, or the non-affiliated) because they adhere to a religion. They are guaranteed as much public exposure as non-believers are.

Have a nice day, and in the meantime, it would be a good idea to learn Constitutional principles.

I’m trying to persuade you that gay/lesbian marriage should be allowed though it might be futile. chartsbin.com/view/3nr
I guess my anti-social nature works against me in persuasion(and grammar ). I guess I should stick to petitions.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think that’s wrong too and i’ve signed petitions too. I sign any petetion I find that limits the rights of people.

What you “find” would not hold up in court. (And has not, so far.) You need a serious education in constitutional law, which clearly you lack.

Elizabeth502
If that doesn’t bother you why sould marriage(not a christian creation) bother you?
You don’t have to attend the wedding or see them in their bedroom and if you don’t like what you see you can look away or just tell them you think it’s wrong.

Catholic Answers has a Q&A explaining why we should oppose same-sex marriage:

catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage

Interracial marriage was banned before, that was wrong, why is something like that happening again?

Off-topic. It’s not “something like this.” The two are not analogous. Interracial heterosexual marriage was unconstitutionally removed and then restored to its previous and permanent status through due legal review. There is no inherent right to homosexual “marriage.” None. It is an artifice created by activists in the Gay Lobby.

 

[Biblepoe]

The fact that a baby is created by sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is – to you – injecting a “religious definition.”

Saying that a man and woman are needed for procreation is not religion, but going from:

“A man and a woman are needed for procreation,”

to:

“Therefore, a union that does not consist of a man and a woman should not be permitted the same recognition under the law as a married couple,”

is injecting your religion, especially once we establish that being able to procreate is not a requirement for marriage. Get the difference?

The “standardized protections/privileges under the law” such as hospital visitation rights can easily be handled by other legal means.

Would you be in favor of same-sex couples having all the same standardized protections/privileges under the law as a married couple, just under a different name? If yes, that is practically indistinguishable from the state considering them married, if no, you would be in favor of denying them the same protection under the law as straight couples for religious reasons in violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution (which is why the courts ruled that prop 8 from California was unconstitutional).

If those protections are what marriage is BASED on, then you obviously have no problem with a “marriage” between 4 people, if I so choose.

Non sequitur. We can permit same-sex couples to have the same rights as heterosexuals who are married without giving those same rights and responsibilities to more than two people. I suggest you review the rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States to find potential practical problems with recognizing 4 persons as married.

Again, why did governments even begin to start certifying love relationships of any kind?

It’s funny that you should appeal to history after saying that my view should incorporate polygamy. Lets rewind to the Bible to see what was considered marriage then. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 King 11:3). In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Yahweh ordered single women who are raped to marry their rapist! The rapist did have to pay the father of the girl (not the girl) fifty shekels of silver (after all, he damaged the women, which was considered the father’s property at that time!).

At some later points in history, governments certified marriages because they were contracts between the families of the spouses, while the spouses had no say. Do you really think we should limit ourselves by what earlier societies did?

Ultimately, why governments certified marriages in the past has little or no impact on the practical reasons we have to permit standardized protections/privileges under the law to those who live as a permanent couple who love each other.

Glad to address the other concerns once we iron out these foundational things: You say that marriage is limited to two people, but that it has nothing to do with sex.

I never said it had “Nothing to do with sex,” I say being able to reproduce is not a requirement (and you agreed).

But why only two people?

See earlier in this post.

Have have not discussed any practical reasons to deny same-sex couples civil marriage.

You also have not address the fact that there’s nothing in biology that suggests that it makes sense to allow a couple known to be infertile to marry if the purpose is procreation, but to deny it to gay couples. Both are just as “disordered” if your criteria is to procreate. If your criteria is that one partner must have male genitalia and the other female genitalia, then that is a religious definition of marriage, not one determined by practical or biological reasons.

Also, given your ‘food is ordered to eating’ analogy earlier, you have not told me whether a taste-tester who is working for a major ice cream company is doing anything wrong by sampling milk from a truck for contaminants only to spit it out?

Ultimately, it seems to me that you are just forcing your religious beliefs into public policy which aught to be decided based on real-world consequences.

 

[religioismorals]

What you “find” would not hold up in court. (And has not, so far.) You need a serious education in constitutional law, which clearly you lack.

Off-topic. It’s not “something like this.” The two are not analogous. Interracial heterosexual marriage was unconstitutionally removed and then restored to its previous and permanent status through due legal review. There is no inherent right to homosexual “marriage.” None. It is an artifice created by activists in the Gay Lobby.

This will be my last post here.

" Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture ordemographic of the time."
-wikipedia

If god created it then it should be the same everywhere and same origin.

" The requirementfora marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. "
-wikipedia -u.s. part

To me it’s just denying certain people from marrying other certain people.

As for the petitions, Due to heath problems I have a difficult time going places.
I can’t go and protest and the only thing I can really do for these causes is e-mail, sign a petition and make phonecalls.
Had the problem since childhood and praying for help never helped and years later after many procedures, tests, medicines and doctors(one was really mean) my doctor now prescribed some medicine that helps some. Just writing this so you know where my feelings are coming from about god.

Bye and thanks for not telling me to go to hell like many others have. I really appreciate it.

 

[surritter]

Saying that a man and woman are needed for procreation is not religion, but going from:
“A man and a woman are needed for procreation,” to:
“Therefore, a union that does not consist of a man and a woman should not be permitted the same recognition under the law as a married couple,”

is injecting your religion, especially once we establish that being able to procreate is not a requirement for marriage.

You keep going to this “religion” thing, which I have never injected into the debate. And why did you make up a quote that I never wrote? ("Therefore, a union that does not consist…)

If you’d like to put words in my mouth, here is what I would have said:
A union that does not consist of a man and a woman is NOT even a union, other than in some made-up legal lexicon. Apparently I have a “union” with my insurance agent, since I bought a policy from him. But guess what, he has unions with lots of people; there is no logical reason to limit his union to just me.

Would you be in favor of same-sex couples having all the same standardized protections/privileges under the law as a married couple, just under a different name? If yes, that is practically indistinguishable from the state considering them married, if no, you would be in favor of denying them the same protection under the law as straight couples for religious reasons in violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution (which is why the courts ruled that prop 8 from California was unconstitutional).

Yes, I would be in favor of same-sex couples having all the same standardized protections/privileges under the law as a married couple, under a different name, if their relationship was one that was objectively ordered to produce children. Since it’s not, most of those benefits fall by the wayside. Take them one by one, if you wish. Sure there are some that could apply to any couple, but those are the very benefits that you could never reasonably say must be limited to two people.
Kids = certain benefits which are inherently necessary to a couple. No kids = benefits which may be helpful but not inherent to the relationship. See the difference?

 

[surritter]

It’s funny that you should appeal to history after saying that my view should incorporate polygamy. Lets rewind to the Bible to see what was considered marriage then…

I have no concern with what the Bible says about this.

My appeal to history was merely to get you to answer why a government hands out these marriage licenses. (And you did…)

At some later points in history, governments certified marriages because they were contracts between the families of the spouses, while the spouses had no say. Do you really think we should limit ourselves by what earlier societies did?

Ultimately, why governments certified marriages in the past has little or no impact on the practical reasons we have to permit standardized protections/privileges under the law to those who live as a permanent couple who love each other.

Thank you for answering the question. I guess I’ll buy that – they could be seen as contracts between the families of spouses. Now, let’s take one step at a time: why did two people come together to become spouses?

I never said it had “Nothing to do with sex,” I say being able to reproduce is not a requirement (and you agreed).

Cripe. I said being unable to reproduce in an individual couple is not an impediment to marriage. But I said that the two people must have biological bodies that are ordered to reproduction.

Suppose I buy a new car and decide to simply store it in the garage, never driving it. Maybe I wish to keep it for 40 years as an investment and then sell it for a profit. The care is still ordered toward driving, although I may have removed the battery. Notice the the difference.

[You] have not discussed any practical reasons to deny same-sex couples civil marriage.

I am not trying to propose any reasons to deny them something that is rightfully theirs. Instead, I am pointing out that there is no such thing as same-sex “marriage.” It’s like saying that I’ve just drawn a square circle. I know, I know, you think this is a religious view…

You also have not address the fact that there’s nothing in biology that suggests that it makes sense to allow a couple known to be infertile to marry if the purpose is procreation, but to deny it to gay couples. Both are just as “disordered” if your criteria is to procreate. If your criteria is that one partner must have male genitalia and the other female genitalia, then that is a religious definition of marriage, not one determined by practical or biological reasons.

See above, regarding the car in the garage. Design/ordered is indeed different than the ability to use the design. You apparently think that I can buy a toaster and call it a car.

Also, given your ‘food is ordered to eating’ analogy earlier, you have not told me whether a taste-tester who is working for a major ice cream company is doing anything wrong by sampling milk from a truck for contaminants only to spit it out?

No, nothing wrong with that. How does that relate to sex? He is performing the test, although not ingesting it. The ice cream is still designed to go into people. This is not equivalent to bulimia.
No matter what spin we put on it, sex is biologically linked to procreation. Two guys having anal sex is equivalent to the ice cream taste tester taking a break and going outside to taste-test the fern leaves. It is not in any way ordered to what his task is.

Ultimately, it seems to me that you are just forcing your religious beliefs into public policy which aught to be decided based on real-world consequences.

It might seem like that to you, but I’m trying to open your eyes to what a marriage really is. I don’t mean this in a snarky way, honest. But if we go with your revised definition of marriage, then it really is just a contract between two people for arbitrary reasons, not natural reasons.

 

[surritter]

I say that because christians are trying to ban it despite other cultures allowing same-sex marriages.
Marriage is not a creation of christianity so why should they decide who can marry?
Most of the anti-same-sex messages I have read contain “against my religion”, if that isn’t a group trying to claim authority on marriage then what is?

Hmmm… so if my city council passes an ordinance that the new speed limit on residential streets is 20 mph, does that mean they are the authority on whether safe driving is a good idea?
No. Safe driving is by definition a good idea. Every culture on every continent would agree with this. That’s what we’re saying about marriage. You shouldn’t think of it as a Christian idea. Instead, it is something based on reason and natural law.

Now if the council said that the only safe way to drive is to limit the speed to 2 mph, then they would be overstepping their bounds. This is similar to what you mentioned about racist practices. I agree those were awful, and wrong. But we are discussing the definition of a concept, not its improper application.

 

[Biblepoe]

You keep going to this “religion” thing, which I have never injected into the debate.

You haven’t admitted to doing it, but you haven’t explained how you can go from the premise:

A man and a woman are needed for procreation

to the conclusion:

therefore, a same sex couple should be denied the same protection under the law as a married heterosexual couple,

without injecting your religious beliefs. So it certainly seems like you are injecting your religious beliefs.

And why did you make up a quote that I never wrote?

The quotes were not meant to be marking a statement you made, but rather meant to mark the essence of the premise and conclusion of an argument you seem to be implicitly making.

If you’d like to put words in my mouth, here is what I would have said:
A union that does not consist of a man and a woman is NOT even a union, other than in some made-up legal lexicon. Apparently I have a “union” with my insurance agent, since I bought a policy from him. But guess what, he has unions with lots of people; there is no logical reason to limit his union to just me.

Of course words often have multiple meanings. Feel free to use the word ‘union’ with regard to marriage how you want, just don’t deny same-sex couples the same protection under the law as married heterosexual couples without an extremely good reason.

Yes, I would be in favor of same-sex couples having all the same standardized protections/privileges under the law as a married couple, under a different name, if their relationship was one that was objectively ordered to produce children.

Since you have earlier indicated that “objectively ordered to produce children” excludes gay couples but includes known infertile heterosexual couples, it is clear that you do not mean ‘able to produce children’ and are injecting your belief that couples who don’t have both male and female genitalia should be denied civil marriage rights without consideration of whether they can have children. Can you come up with any non-religious reason why to do this?

Kids = certain benefits which are inherently necessary to a couple. No kids = benefits which may be helpful but not inherent to the relationship. See the difference?

Then heterosexual couples without children should have the exact some protection under the law as a same-sex couple without children (including the eligibility for adoption), and a straight couple who adopts should have the exact some protection under the law as a same-sex couple who adopts.

I guess I’ll buy that – they could be seen as contracts between the families of spouses.

This was done largely to gain or maintain social status and/or wealth. Good thing we don’t have to confine ourselves to that approach today!

Now, let’s take one step at a time: why did two people come together to become spouses?

It depends on which two people you’re talking about. Many times people married because they were forced to (as noted above). Other times (more recently) some people have done it because they love each other and want to live a fulfilling life as a recognized couple.

Cripe. I said being unable to reproduce in an individual couple is not an impediment to marriage. But I said that the two people must have biological bodies that are ordered to reproduction.

Exactly! By “ordered to reproduction” you mean something other than ‘able to procreate’. It’s your stealth way of justifying, without any practical reasons, denying marriage rights to same-sex couples while giving them to heterosexual couples.

Suppose I buy a new car and decide to simply store it in the garage, never driving it. Maybe I wish to keep it for 40 years as an investment and then sell it for a profit. The care is still ordered toward driving, although I may have removed the battery. Notice the the difference.

Another terrible analogy. The car has value, which is subjective, because it can be drivable with the investment of a new part. A relationship is not necessarily valued because the couple could – in theory – be capable of procreation if a body part was replaced. There are a lot of reasons other than that to value a relationship, including a sexual and romantic relationship.

If you value a relationship based on that, it is probably for religious reasons, and your are free to not have a relationship with the wrong parts for having children. However, you don’t have the right to deny someone else equal protection under the law because you disvalue it for religious reasons.

 

[Biblepoe]

No, nothing wrong with that. How does that relate to sex?

In post 41, you said, “Wouldn’t you say that food is “ordered” toward helping our bodies grow? Thus, sexual intercourse is ordered toward helping the human race grow. ”

Sex may be linked to procreation in a similar way that you linked eating and “helping our bodies grow” in post 41. It’s obvious that one is needed for the other, but it’s also obvious that doing one without the other (or the possibility of the other) isn’t necessarily immoral, much less some ground to treat the different behaviors differently under the law.

You seemed to be implicitly saying that using something in a way other than what it was ordered to do is immoral, citing the fact that food as an example by saying, “food is “ordered” toward the biological function of helping our bodies grow,” with bulimia being the disorder akin to same-sex couples. I suppose you can cop out by getting rid of, “helping our bodies grow,” and instead saying, “enter your body, even if you spit it out.” Besides the fact that this doesn’t account for my oral chemotherapy counter, what you are doing is expanding what food can permissively be used for beyond nourishment. Maybe the same can be done with homosexuality.

But if we go with your revised definition of marriage, then it really is just a contract between two people for arbitrary reasons, not natural reasons.

Or it would be a for practical reasons, like most other laws in civilized society.

 

[surritter]

Of course words often have multiple meanings. Feel free to use the word ‘union’ with regard to marriage how you want, just don’t deny same-sex couples the same protection under the law as married heterosexual couples without an extremely good reason.

But notice I also threw in the insurance agent example. His union is not limited to me. So why should your so-called “marriage” examples be limited to two people? You are trying to take a legal vehicle that is based on something that only two people can do (hmm…what is it that requires two people and is important to society…?) and redefine it into something that has no natural basis for stopping at two people.

Since you have earlier indicated that “objectively ordered to produce children” excludes gay couples but includes known infertile heterosexual couples, it is clear that you do not mean ‘able to produce children’ and are injecting your belief that couples who don’t have both male and female genitalia should be denied civil marriage rights without consideration of whether they can have children. Can you come up with any non-religious reason why to do this?

You got this partially correct – I indeed did not mean two people “able to produce children.” I meant two people “whose bodies are the type designed to produce children.”
And, once again, this is a “non-religious reason why to do this.” It’s called science.

This was done largely to gain or maintain social status and/or wealth.

Wrong. if that were true, then two men getting “married” wouldn’t have caused anyone to bat an eye, even centuries ago. So there must be something about a man and a woman that naturally led societies to certify their relationship. Gee… what could it be that a man and a woman can do that impacts society?
(You really stick to your guns when you refuse to admit that procreation has a foundational role in the definition of marriage!)

Exactly! By “ordered to reproduction” you mean something other than ‘able to procreate’. It’s your stealth way of justifying, without any practical reasons, denying marriage rights to same-sex couples while giving them to heterosexual couples.

It’s not stealth. It’s science. In case you didn’t know, a man’s sexual organ is designed to fit with female genitalia. While it is pleasurable, and allows them to physically express love, the act is meant to also allow fertilization of the egg. This blueprint is the basis for allowing two people to go forth with the new relationship. Alas, sometimes they then find out that there is a medical impediment.

Now switch gears to your scenario: Two men feel in love and wish to perform some type of sex act, even though it is not the blueprint which could allow fertilization of an egg. Ergo, they have no marital rights to begin with. It’s not “denying” them anything.

(An aside: If we were to turn the tables, some on my side could accuse your stance as a stealth way of hijacking a relationship based on science and twisting it to justify unnatural and sinful behavior. But since you prefer to leave religion and morality out of the discussion, I’ve chosen to center it around science and natural law.)

There are a lot of reasons other than that to value a relationship, including a sexual and romantic relationship.

True, but then those relationships don’t need a marriage certificate. I love many people, but the government doesn’t need to get its nose into those relationships. Yet suddenly, when two people decide that they want to have sex, you claim that the government needs to certify that. What is so special about sex that a government needs to get involved? The possibility of kiddies!
See how this keeps coming full circle? And yet I’m religious for pointing this out?

 

[Biblepoe]

But notice I also threw in the insurance agent example. His union is not limited to me.

Like I said, words tend to have different meanings. If you want to compare a business relationship and a sexual and romantic relationship, that’s an obvious equivocation.

So why should your so-called “marriage” examples be limited to two people?

For pragmatic reasons. Seriously, have you looked at the the rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States as I have recommended multiple times to address this issue already?

I meant two people “whose bodies are the type designed to produce children.”
And, once again, this is a “non-religious reason why to do this.” It’s called science.

No. Saying something is “designed” is to say that it was intended to be a certain way. In other words, it’s a way to invoke either a god or another designer. That’s religion, not science.

Wrong. if that were true, then two men getting “married” wouldn’t have caused anyone to bat an eye, even centuries ago.

No, theocratic prohibitions against gay relationships are compatible with forcing children to marry for social status and/or wealth.

It’s not stealth. It’s science. In case you didn’t know, a man’s sexual organ is designed to fit with female genitalia. While it is pleasurable, and allows them to physically express love, the act is meant to also allow fertilization of the egg.

The fact that you use the word “meant” after “designed” confirms what I said about “designed” above and that your use of that word was not an accident. You are inserting the will of whoever “meant” it that way.

It seems to me that unconsciously, the will of whoever “meant” and “designed” sex to be a certain way (aka, god) is how you go from, “[Two men having sex] is not the blueprint which could allow fertilization of an egg,” to, “Ergo, they have no marital rights to begin with.”

It’s not “denying” them anything.

Have you looked at the the rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States I keep telling you to look at. Those are the things you are denying to them.

some on my side could accuse your stance as a stealth way of hijacking a relationship based on science and twisting it to justify unnatural and sinful behavior.

Could you specify which relationship(s) you think I’m “hijacking” and two or three ways in which I’m “twisting” it by my willingness to extend coverage of marriagelegal to same-sex relationships?

But since you prefer to leave religion and morality out of the discussion, I’ve chosen to center it around science and natural law.

There’s no such thing as Natural Law. It’s part of your religion, which is super for you, but keep it to yourself when it comes to creating laws that people who aren’t part of your religion have to live by. You haven’t said anything about science beyond saying that male and female genitalia is needed to reproduce, which isn’t relevant unless and until you thrust religiously inspired prohibitions against sexual activities with the right genitals for procreation.

True, but then those relationships don’t need a marriage certificate.

Those relationship deserve and need the coverage of marriagelegal I keep mentioning just as much as straight married couples.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Yes, you are taking it way too personally

• No, I don’t think there is too much wrong with my sense of perception on this one. It’s still highly plausible that you may have written it way too personally. This is a Catholic forum , Catholicism is organized religion. If you posted the same thing in a Jewish-oriented forum, those members would tell you the same thing - that you have just said Judaism is harmful to individuals and to society when you posted

There are many, many people who truly believe organized religion is harmful to individuals and society.

My exact words were what I meant; that there are people in this world who believe believe organized religion is harmful to individuals and society.

If that were correct , then I wonder why there would be a need to add anything else . . . . . . like :

I don’t happen to be one of them who thinks this

when challenged on it.

I specifically say “organized religion” and that includes all of them out there, not just the one you follow

Quite handy - um, on the surface , except after you “specifically say” “organized religion” you go on to “specifically say”

I don’t think we see these people trying to close down churches or religious schools, or try to make it a law that someone cannot get married in** church **because they believe it will harm them–even though the churchgoer cannot see the truth they are trying to tell them for their own good.

So after the generalization, you drew some arrows pointing to the “religion I follow”. . .

And you exhibit a particular bias and would have us all skew our thinking in order to agree with you. You don’t address the real issues at all. You avoided answering about the closing of Catholic adoption agencies.

And you avoided an even bigger one where I posted in reply to your post

NeedImprovement:

What is harmful to society , is parental rights being denied , so that children as young as 4 and 5 years old are indoctrinated with the homosexual agenda against the will of their parents, and in a considerable number of these cases, the guilty school boards don’t even inform the parents they are doing this.

I wonder what in the world could ever even be minutely considered by a sound mind, to be so religiously tolerant, all embracing ,and loving about invading the souls of someone else’s children at such an impressionable age and proceeding to rape their minds with the homosexual agenda ?

That is a direct consequence of pushing for same sex -]marriage/-] and for the normalization of active homosexuality. It isn’t a “church” issue - it’s parents’ rights and the protection of their children.

And you don’t have an answer for it do you ?

 

[NeedImprovement]

People who are in favour of same sex-] marriage/-], and the homosexual agenda, particularly those who are promoting it, refuse to face what they are doing to other people’s children . . . That is absolutely heartless.

You guys should really be ashamed to post any of your arguments here (or anywhere) in favour of same sex -]marriage/-].

 

[Biblepoe]

People who are in favour of same sex-] marriage/-], and the homosexual agenda, particularly those who are promoting it, refuse to face what they are doing to other people’s children . . . That is absolutely heartless.

You guys should really be ashamed to post any of your arguments here (or anywhere) in favour of same sex -]marriage/-].

Would you mind mentioning some things you believe marriage equality proponents are doing to children as well as back it up with studies that shows that its harmful.

 

[surritter]

Like I said, words tend to have different meanings. If you want to compare a business relationship and a sexual and romantic relationship, that’s an obvious equivocation.

But that’s just it; you are taking marriage and making it merely a business relationship. One based not upon sex, and therefore it has no logical reason for being between just two people. Please think about this idea; my previous post showed you how the idea of two people being united always goes back to the generation of babies. You totally side-step that.

For pragmatic reasons. Seriously, have you looked at the the rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States as I have recommended multiple times to address this issue already? … Could you specify which relationship(s) you think I’m “hijacking” and two or three ways in which I’m “twisting” it by my willingness to extend legal coverage of marriage to same-sex relationships?

Yes, and I addressed these ideas in post #89.
I would be in favor of same-sex couples having all those same standardized protections/privileges if their relationship was one that was objectively ordered to produce children. Since it’s not, most of those benefits fall by the wayside. There are some that could apply to any couple, but those are the very benefits that you could never reasonably say must be limited to two people.
But, using the Wikipedia article… First, it’s obvious that anything mentioning children would be out the window, because a homosexual relationship is not one based upon children. But even the first two mentioned there are related to extending financial benefits to the spouse. Think back… when was it that spouses had to live off of only one income? When there were children, and the mother usually stayed home to care for them!
Tell me what it is about a homosexual couple that inherently requires them to need this?

This is exactly the idea of hijacking benefits meant for an inherent aspect of a sexual relationship and twisting it for a non-inherent use. I’m not saying those benefits are bad. I’m saying that they have a foundational purpose, and you are wishing to extend them to something that has no foundation.

Saying something is “designed” is to say that it was intended to be a certain way. In other words, it’s a way to invoke either a god or another designer. That’s religion, not science.

No, it’s science.
Using the word “ordered” is meant to get through to people such as yourself who don’t believe in “design.” But things can still have purpose, or call it function if you wish, and “ordered” simply points to that purpose, even if the purpose is not fulfilled in every instance.
You position holds that:
We have sex organs, but gosh, nobody has any idea what they’re for!
I have eyes and ears, but they are not intended for any purpose?
Your position is one that even Darwin would scoff at. He might not say that an active agent designed a biological feature, but it sure has an intended function or it wouldn’t have survived the evolutionary process.
Again – no religion being injected.

The fact that you use the word “meant” after “designed” confirms what I said about “designed” above and that your use of that word was not an accident. You are inserting the will of whoever “meant” it that way.

It seems to me that unconsciously, the will of whoever “meant” and “designed” sex to be a certain way (aka, god) is how you go from, “[Two men having sex] is not the blueprint which could allow fertilization of an egg,” to, “Ergo, they have no marital rights to begin with.”

Things can have “meaning” even if there were no designer. This is from basic philosophy.
If sexual intercourse is not the blueprint for reproduction, then you should be able to come up with other ways to propagate the species.

There’s no such thing as Natural Law. It’s part of your religion, which is super for you, but keep it to yourself when it comes to creating laws that people who aren’t part of your religion have to live by.

Ah, here we go. No such thing as natural law? Then you believe that what’s right for you is right for you, and I can decide what is right for me.
You might be able to get away with that for a short time, but eventually that idea leads to chaos, and like other laws it is a dangerous idea for society. This isn’t religion, it’s common sense. (Why is murder wrong? Please give an answer that isn’t based on natural law, since “there’s no such thing.”)

 

[sw85]

The claim was about encessity, not about relevance.

I get what your claim is. It’s made on a typically nominalist conceit, that what defines a thing is the “bare minimum” necessary for it to be what it is and everything else is extraneous. This is an improper way of approaching things (not in the least because nominalism is obviously meritless).

No, it is not necessary to have children to be married. It doesn’t follow that there is marriage and then children, as if children was some other type of thing than marriage. It isn’t. Children are the logical fulfillment of marriage in much the same way that having legs is the logical fulfillment of man. Not having children makes a marriage deficient, in the way that not having legs makes a man deficient (literally, a less perfect man). Being incapable of having children by nature makes a union something nonmarital, in the way that not having legs by nature makes a creature something other than a man. Get it?

Well, I guess that’s a major point of diffrence between me and a bigot. I think lots of things about catholicism are stupid and insane but I respect peopek choosing to be a catholic.

Like the kids say, duh. Because you think choice is the highest good. I think that belief is stupid, evil, and insane and has had obviously stupid, evil, and insane consequences.

Lots of people claim that SSM would affect societies. It hasn’t.

Really? It’s had no impact *whatsoever *in any possible way? Why, then, have you all bothered to demand this **** be “legalized”?

In any event, the more specific claim that Catholics have made, at least, is that it is evil unto itself. – more specifically, that it’s an ontological error. And in any (further) event, if claims have been made to the effect that gay “marriage” will lead to X, Y, or Z consequences, and gay “marriage” was enacted into law eight minutes ago, you don’t get to declare that X-Z don’t logically follow. Jump off a cliff and you won’t immediately hit the ground – it doesn’t follow it wasn’t a bad idea to jump off a cliff.