Why stop same-sex marriage for non-Christians in the United States?

[goout]

But you said that “marriage has always had a unique ontological content.” But it’s obvious that it has not always been “one man one woman” and their children.

How do you support that claim?
Citing the Old Testament practices of the ancient Israelites only shows us what happened in that culture, not what marriage is in the eyes of God.

 

[goout]

goout:

Only the union of a man and woman can procreate new life and be a nuclear family. Is that up for dispute?

It is up for dispute now. Between artificial insemination, IVF, and adoption, to name a few options a traditional relationship between a man and a woman is no longer required for a homosexual couple to raise a family. So yes, it is up for dispute.

Yes it is up for dispute. Dispute doesn’t mean it’s a fact.

Can you have any of those means to children without a man and a woman?
At some point we can say yes, due to cloning. But in a natural way according to God’s will, no.

 

[JMMJ]

I guess the question is, does it really matter? Plenty of people think it doesn’t. Most people here think it does.

 

[jtwp5]

I feel like if government “marriage” was called a civil union, it wouldn’t be an issue.

 

[goout]

I guess the question is, does it really matter? Plenty of people think it doesn’t. Most people here think it does.

Obviously many people think it matters, as we have had a socio/cultural movement for many years with the redefinition of marriage as it’s agenda.

You think it matters. Right?

What are you trying to say?

 

[Wesrock]

Lots of people believe “natural law” is manmade, too. That is why it is so critical to keep church and state separated.

Natural law is justifiable with secular arguments, as much as any other set of ethical principles.

 

[JMMJ]

It is a philosophical belief, and can certainly be used in debate, just as any other philosophical belief can be.

 

[commenter]

Natural law” belongs instead to the realm of philosophy and is nothing more than a philosophical moral theory.

It is a philosophical theory but much more. It us deeply embedded in all Judeo-Christian and Islamic faith. It’s also taken for granted in the Declaration of Independence. I believe all humans, including gay persons, do have certain inalienable rights. You apparently agree with me to some extent, and in effect we both are depending on the Natural Law here.

Germany scrapped the Natural Law in a hurry in the 1930s, and gay persons were among many groups that had their inalienable rights recinded. Be careful what protections you throw overboard as antiquated.

 

[Thorolfr]

But I guess that a gay man’s right to pursue happiness doesn’t include the right, according to some people, to marry another man. And until 2003, it didn’t include the right in some states for a gay man not to be arrested in his own home for consensual sex with another man.

And I wonder if Thomas Jefferson thought that black people had a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” considering that he owned 600 slaves and only freed seven of them. And what about the Jesuits at Georgetown who sold 272 slaves in 1838? Did they believe that the slaves they sold had an inalienable right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?

And for a long time women didn’t have an inalienable right to pursue liberty by voting.

 

[commenter]

But I guess that a gay man’s right to pursue happiness doesn’t include the right, according to some people, to marry another man. And until 2003, it didn’t include the right in some states for a gay man not to be arrested in his own home for consensual sex with another man.

In Germany, I suppose gay people and other groups weren’t perfectly happy during the period 1900 to 1933, when the Natural Law was gradually weakening, but still in place. An imperfect protection.
Do you think they were happier in 1940 to 1945, when it was totally shredded?

After the War, the Allies wanted to charge the Nazis with something, but what? They had modified the laws to fit their deeds. So the allies invented this makeshift “crimes against humanity”, which only means extreme violations of the Natural Law.

 

[goout]

But I guess that a gay man’s right to pursue happiness doesn’t include the right, according to some people, to marry another man. And until 2003, it didn’t include the right in some states for a gay man not to be arrested in his own home for consensual sex with another man.

And I wonder if Thomas Jefferson thought that black people had a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” considering that he owned 600 slaves and only freed seven of them. And what about the Jesuits at Georgetown who sold 272 slaves in 1838? Did they believe that the slaves they sold had an inalienable right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?

And for a long time women didn’t have an inalienable right to pursue liberty by voting.

You don’t solve injustices by appealing to un-reason, you solve injustices by appealing to the good of human existence and human rights.

Ok, and that’s the problem with this agenda. The problem is not that a gay couple has sex in their own home without being arrested, or that a same sex couple has inheritance rights, or can walk down the street holding hands. Who cares? I don’t.
The problem is the proposition that a gay couple is just like the union of a man and woman. And that’s false, patently.

And falsehoods don’t contribute to a just society. Those crimes you detail above are not going to go away. They will take different forms and propagate.

A society that cannot reason is ripe for oppression, chaos, and violence.

 

[JMMJ]

The problem is the proposition that a gay couple is just like the union of a man and woman. And that’s false, patently.

Who says? Catholics say one thing, but they are hardly the whole of society.

 

[PetraG]

Who says? Catholics say one thing, but they are hardly the whole of society.

It is really hard to believe that anyone who knows how babies are made can argue that a same-sex relationship is just like the union of a man and a woman. Parenthood isn’t an arbitrary social construct (and no, our ability to find homes for unfortunate orphans does not disprove that).

 

[JMMJ]

Well people like me don’t necessarily view the purpose of marriage as pro-creation. Pro-creation may be “a” purpose of marriage, if the spouses want it to be.

There are other purposes of marriage that have nothing to do with what kind of genitals the spouses have. People like me believe these purposes can be just as important as the pro-creation aspect of marriage.

 

[PetraG]

Well people like me don’t necessarily view the purpose of marriage as pro-creation. Pro-creation may be “a” purpose of marriage, if the spouses want it to be.

There are other purposes of marriage that have nothing to do with what kind of genitals the spouses have. People like me believe these purposes can be just as important as the pro-creation aspect of marriage.

I’m saying it beggars belief that the two can be made out to be the same thing, not that you were supposed to make something out of it.
Production and rearing of citizens is pretty important, whether it is a personal goal or not.

 

[niceatheist]

JMMJ:

Who says? Catholics say one thing, but they are hardly the whole of society.

It is really hard to believe that anyone who knows how babies are made can argue that a same-sex relationship is just like the union of a man and a woman. Parenthood isn’t an arbitrary social construct (and no, our ability to find homes for unfortunate orphans does not disprove that).

I was raised by my grandparents, so clearly it’s not such a clear-cut line. Families have never been as simple as having children, and honestly, long before birth control and same-sex marriage came on the horizon, it was a complicated affair.