Gay Marriage, Permissible Catholic Views

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1336963391' post='2430386']
Agreed. Hence, the amendment to the Constitution defining state-sponsored marriage as a contract between 2 consenting adults.
[/quote]To what are they consenting?
[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1336964247' post='2430390']
Incest laws are already on the books.
[/quote]The wording of the Constitutional Amendment you proposed would supersede all such laws and make them null and void.

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1336964774' post='2430394']
To what are they consenting?
The wording of the Constitutional Amendment you proposed would supersede all such laws and make them null and void.
[/quote]

As I am on my phone, I was going for brevity with my response. As such, I'd think it goes without saying that the amendment would prevent mothers and their offspring from getting hitched. Since, ya know, I think differing parties can all agree that 2 gay dudes wanting to commit to spending the rest of their lives together is NOT THE SAME thing as incest.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1336964486' post='2430392']


So are anti gay marriage laws. Her point is a valid one. I'd say yes. Incest is not a serious problem. If a mother and son or brother and sister want to have sex we really can't stop them and we don't make it illegal for a couple likely to have a child with down syndrome to get married, so why incest.

Conservatives want to protect their understanding of marriage. I'm fine with that. Let's do away with state marriage and leave marriage to private institutions. Let the state confer civil unions on whichever consenting adults wish to enter into them.
[/quote]The problem seems to be after creating civil unions, then letting that " union" be a family/parent unit. I have no qualms with any two or eleven adults creating a civil union for a mutually agreed upon sharing of rights, wealth, and shared responsibility.

However, when it comes to a family unit that will raise children, I have serious concerns. I also acknowledge that heterosexuality does not guarantee good parenting.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1336965122' post='2430395']
As I am on my phone, I was going for brevity with my response. As such, I'd think it goes without saying that the amendment would prevent mothers and their offspring from getting hitched. Since, ya know, I think differing parties can all agree that 2 gay dudes wanting to commit to spending the rest of their lives together is NOT THE SAME thing as incest.
[/quote]I'll give you the brevity on the phone since I hate how replying works on my phone.

Otherwise, the amendment would have to be more specific than that. But again, to what exactly are they consenting?

[kujo]

[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#171717]Former President George W. Bush's pollster for his 2004 re-election, Jan van Lohuizen, has put out a memo to Republican operatives suggesting a shift in the way the GOP discusses same-sex marriage:[/color]

[quote]
[color=#000000][background=transparent]In view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:[/background][/color]

[color=#000000][background=transparent]1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).[/background][/color]

[color=#000000][background=transparent]2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.[/background][/color]

[color=#000000][background=transparent]3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent]a. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
b. Protections against bullying and harassment
c. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
d. Right to visit partners in hospitals
e. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
f. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).[/background][/color]

[color=#000000][background=transparent]Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent][i]“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits."[/i][/background][/color]

[color=#000000][background=transparent]Other thoughts / Q&A: Follow up to questions about affirmative action:[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent][i]“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”[/i][/background][/color]

[color=#000000][background=transparent]Why public attitudes might be changing:[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent][i]“As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”[/i][/background][/color]

[color=#000000][background=transparent]Conservative fundamentals:[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent][i]“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.[/i][/background][/color][i][/quote][/i][/font][/size]

[dairygirl4u2c]

"I don't see how as a Catholic one can say it should be left to the states. It is left to God and he has spoken!"

you should have voiced this sentiment in the poll itself, as i was seeking this opinion the most, to see if it exists.

isn't there something moral about "letting people, societies, do as they will.... as long as it's not hurting your people, state, or theirs" etc etc. basically, it's about respect.
plus it's not like "not voting" to ban, at least in this case, is something that could be culpable for as you are not doing anything... ie, it may be wrong to vote for gay marriage, but to do nothing isnt wrong..... ?

[dairygirl4u2c]

"The problem seems to be after creating civil unions, then letting that " union" be a family/parent unit. I have no qualms with any two or eleven adults creating a civil union for a mutually agreed upon sharing of rights, wealth, and shared responsibility.

However, when it comes to a family unit that will raise children, I have serious concerns. I also acknowledge that heterosexuality does not guarantee good parenting."

well said and my sentiments exactly. children should be adopted by a man and a woman, but let civil unions be with whomever. perhaps a child being with gay parents is better than being on the streets or certain foster homes? i don't know but i agree with the sentiment generally.
some might try to argue against civil unions etc due to "eleven" people wanting to join. i'd actually say 'sure' to that too, at least as long as we're doing marraiges or unions in general. it's about trying to respect other people's way of life as much as possible and treating people equally, as much as possible

-------------------------------

incest laws should exist. incest causes fetal abnormalities if a pregnancy occurs. this would be about protecting potential life.... not so much about the familial relation in question in and of itself.

Edited May 14, 2012 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

As the Constitution says nothing whatever about marriage and its definition, it is clear that constitutionally this issue belongs to the people or to the states respectively, via the Tenth Amendment. And I don't give a poo what "Emanations of the Penumbra" activist judges might pull out of their asses to say otherwise.

Of course, according to natural law, we understand that homosexual sodomy cannot be equivalent to a union of man and woman which is open to the procreation of new human life, something sodomy can never do.

I would not be opposed a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman. For those who scream that this creates some huge crisis of the "state defining marriage":
1) It does not define it, but merely recognizes the reality that already exists.

2) The problem is that activist liberal federal courts are already trying to impose their own (false) definition of marriage on states where the people vote not to recognize "gay marriage" (ie. the state of California). If the state is going to "define" marriage, I'd much rather it be done lawfully and morally by the process of constitutional amendment, than by judges "legislating from the bench" to enforce their view on the respective states in blatant denial of the constitution.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337048189' post='2430710']
As the Constitution says nothing whatever about marriage and its definition, it is clear that constitutionally this issue belongs to the people or to the states respectively, via the Tenth Amendment. And I don't give a poo what "Emanations of the Penumbra" activist judges might pull out of their asses to say otherwise.[/QUOTE]

So Virginia v. Love is unconstitutional in your opinion?

[QUOTE]Of course,[s] according to natural law[/s] my personal fairy-tale, we understand that homosexual sodomy cannot be equivalent to a union of man and woman which is open to the procreation of new human life, something sodomy can never do.[/QUOTE]

Fxd.

[QUOTE]I would not be opposed a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman. For those who scream that this creates some huge crisis of the "state defining marriage":
1) It does not define it, but merely recognizes the reality that already exists. [/QUOTE]

I don't see how seeing as some states do recognize gay marriage.

[QUOTE] 2) The problem is that activist liberal federal courts are already trying to impose their own (false) definition of marriage on states where the people vote not to recognize "gay marriage" (ie. the state of California). If the state is going to "define" marriage, I'd much rather it be done lawfully and morally by the process of constitutional amendment, than by judges "legislating from the bench" to enforce their view on the respective states in blatant denial of the constitution.
[/quote]

Yeah. floopy the 14th Amendment!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337056400' post='2430778']
So Virginia v. Love is unconstitutional in your opinion?



Fxd.



I don't see how seeing as some states do recognize gay marriage.



Yeah. floopy the 14th Amendment!
[/quote]
"Gay marriage" is not about equal protection under the law (per the 14th amendment), but redefining the meaning of "marriage" in accord with a politically correct agenda. So go floopy yourself.

If I want to enter into a (completely nonsexual) contract of some sort with my brother, sister, and mother, and call it a "marriage," the state is not denying me equal protection under the law by not recognizing it as a marriage.

The contract in this case would not even be morally problematic, and could probably be secured by power of attorney, but it would have nothing to do with marriage, and the state would be under absolutely no obligation to recognize it as such, simply because I want it to.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337128942' post='2431069']
"Gay marriage" is not about equal protection under the law (per the 14th amendment), but redefining the meaning of "marriage" in accord with a politically correct agenda. So go floopy yourself.

If I want to enter into a (completely nonsexual) contract of some sort with my brother, sister, and mother, and call it a "marriage," the state is not denying me equal protection under the law by not recognizing it as a marriage.

The contract in this case would not even be morally problematic, and could probably be secured by power of attorney, but it would have nothing to do with marriage, and the state would be under absolutely no obligation to recognize it as such, simply because I want it to.
[/quote]

Then riddle me this:

What's the point of having state-sponsored "marriage?"

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337128942' post='2431069']
"Gay marriage" is not about equal protection under the law (per the 14th amendment), but redefining the meaning of "marriage" in accord with a politically correct agenda. So go floopy yourself.

If I want to enter into a (completely nonsexual) contract of some sort with my brother, sister, and mother, and call it a "marriage," the state is not denying me equal protection under the law by not recognizing it as a marriage.

The contract in this case would not even be morally problematic, and could probably be secured by power of attorney, but it would have nothing to do with marriage, and the state would be under absolutely no obligation to recognize it as such, simply because I want it to.
[/quote]

As usual you dodge the difficult issue. Was Virginia v. Love wrongly decided law?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337141836' post='2431128']
Then riddle me this:

What's the point of having state-sponsored "marriage?"
[/quote]State-sponsored marriage, as we have it now, is defending a particular good of society, albeit imperfectly.

Not everything has to be defended perfectly to be of good use to citizens.

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337145406' post='2431142']
State-sponsored marriage, as we have it now, is defending a particular good of society, albeit imperfectly.

Not everything has to be defended perfectly to be of good use to citizens.
[/quote]

Uh huh.

And who is the decider of what societal "good" ought to be defended by the state? Because, last I checked, this was not a theocracy, where Biblical morality is sanctioned and enforced by the coercive nature of the state.

Essentially what I'm saying goes back to a point made by either cmom or Lil Red in either this thread, or the one about being a Catholic Democrat: Catholics and Christians ought to focus their attention on strengthening the sacrament of holy matrimony. Don't be concerned with what the state and its government wants to do with "marriage."

[qfnol31]

A societal good can be self-evident, as it is in this case.

Why don't you believe in polygamy?