Gay "marriage In Minnesota"

[franciscanheart]

I would agree with you, except that it enables the commission of grave abuses in the name of marriage equality.
 
The Pro-Choice movement always demands the Pro-Lifers explain away the tricky situation of abortion for women who have been raped, so I don't see why we can't ask pointed questions about abuses of same-sex-marriage, including adoption and mental problems for children raised by same sex couples.
 
Obviously not all abortions are needed because of rape, just as not all children raised by gay couples will come out horribly ruined. But it has happened, in both cases, and I fully expect proponents of gay marriage to pay the price of admission and explain what they will do to prevent that from happening again. So far I have had no explanation, only the non-explanation of "oh, that's very rare."
 
There are other problems I have with this very libertarian ideal of marriage, since most libertarians agree that parents should be required to do things like feed their children, and that the state has a responsibility to step in and prevent abuses like that from happening. So I do not think it follows that we must necessarily keep government hands out of marriage at all costs. I believe the stakes are probably higher in this case.

As for marriage just being a contract between consenting parties, we currently have made several kinds of contracts which the state refuses to enforce, such as slave contracts, working for less than a certain wage, people working in dangerous conditions. If we allow marriage solely on the grounds that it's a private contract, why aren't we ruling in favor of racist landlords?

I've highlighted issues I have with your post. I've not the appropriate amount of time at present to address them all, but maybe I'll remember later what issues I had with them if they are valid issues.

Let's start with the first part about starving children and thereby threatening their physical life. WHY would you compare that to homosexual couples not being fit to parent?

PLENTY OF HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES DO IT WRONG. Homosexual couples are not intrinsically ill-fit for parenthood. Ask parents what is required for raising children and most of them will give you some variation of the following answer:

Patience. Humility. More patience. Obscenely more humility than you can begin to imagine. And an extra dose of patience.

But when you ask a bunch of self-righteous conservatives what they think about homosexual people raising children, they'll suddenly make it about something else. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES TO ADOPT OR REAR CHILDREN. I assume the Church has made some statement about how it's not appropriate. But I do think we need to take extra care not to draw ignorant parallels between neglectful parents (often to the point of death) and homosexual persons who want to raise children.

[arfink]

I've highlighted issues I have with your post. I've not the appropriate amount of time at present to address them all, but maybe I'll remember later what issues I had with them if they are valid issues.

Let's start with the first part about starving children and thereby threatening their physical life. WHY would you compare that to homosexual couples not being fit to parent?

PLENTY OF HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES DO IT WRONG. Homosexual couples are not intrinsically ill-fit for parenthood. Ask parents what is required for raising children and most of them will give you some variation of the following answer:

Patience. Humility. More patience. Obscenely more humility than you can begin to imagine. And an extra dose of patience.

But when you ask a bunch of self-righteous conservatives what they think about homosexual people raising children, they'll suddenly make it about something else. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES TO ADOPT OR REAR CHILDREN. I assume the Church has made some statement about how it's not appropriate. But I do think we need to take extra care not to draw ignorant parallels between neglectful parents (often to the point of death) and homosexual persons who want to raise children.

 

Sigh. I knew this would happen.

 

Saying that abuses have happened and asking what steps will be taken to prevent them from happening is not the same as accusing all homosexual parents of being neglectful parents.

 

And yes, heterosexual parents often screw up. It's a very big deal. We have a system in place to protect children from horrible heterosexual parents. I am trying to say that this system of child protection is at risk when we take a libertarian approach to gay marriage.

 

We do not accuse parents of starving their children either, unless they actually do it. And we have processes in place to step in if abuses take place. I am saying that libertarians believe we need these safeguards in place to protect children already. Why these safeguards cannot be even considered for other abuses, such as raising your boy child to be a girl, baffles me.

 

And yes, the church does in fact say that any arrangement besides a mother and a father is intrinsically ill-fit for raising children.

Edited May 15, 2013 by arfink

[CrossCuT]

I do think it would be wrong for a homosexual couple to actively entertain their desires, with or without sexual contact. The inclination itself is intrinsically disordered.

Is that your opinion or is that the Church's stance?

And what are the desires that make homosexual love different and immoral when compared to heterosexual love when sex is taken out of the picture?

I am honestly curious. :saint2:

I was under the impression that it wasnt immoral to be homosexual but it is immoral to engage in the sexual act. 

[arfink]

Is that your opinion or is that the Church's stance?

And what are the desires that make homosexual love different and immoral when compared to heterosexual love when sex is taken out of the picture?

I am honestly curious. :saint2:

I was under the impression that it wasnt immoral to be homosexual but it is immoral to engage in the sexual act. 

 

Well, so-called platonic affection between males is very different from what homosexuals talk about. That's a romantic and "eros" kind of love, instead of the brotherly love men can and should have for each other.

 

Chastity is about more than just who you are or are not having sex with at any particular time.

[Nihil Obstat]

I am at work, so for now I defer to Arfy. I will make a proper response if needed later tonight. :)

[CrossCuT]

Well, so-called platonic affection between males is very different from what homosexuals talk about. That's a romantic and "eros" kind of love, instead of the brotherly love men can and should have for each other.

 

Chastity is about more than just who you are or are not having sex with at any particular time.

I can see what youre saying.

I wonder if there is some official document touching on this though...

[arfink]

Theology of the Body.

[homeschoolmom]

To clarify my comment regarding the rosary above (before I duck out of this thread altoghter). They prayed the rosary, not specifically in opposition to this legislation. They were inspired by the legislation to pray it for an increase in understanding for the sacrament of marriage and in increase in the same.

 

 

 

 

 

Kbyenow...

[Socrates]

I have no props for this.

 

Why arent people up in arms about straight people getting married outside of the sacrament? Isnt that just as immoral? 

 

Absolutely not.

 

 

The Church teaches that marriage (between man and woman) is a good of the natural order, established in the Garden of Eden long before Christ made it into a Sacrament.

 

Homosexual activity, unlike conjugal love between man and wife, is intrinsically immoral and disordered.

 

Obviously, it would be best if everyone joined the Church and had a Christian sacramental marriage, but a marriage between a non-Christian man and woman outside the Church is not intrinsically immoral.

 

 

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH:  CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS.

 

I've posted this plenty of times on here before, but it seems to always fall on deaf ears.

[Winchester]

We're not talking about legal recognition. We're talking about permission slip granting. That's what happened. The modern centralized state is an innovation. This is something the bishops have yet to apprehend.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I would add that the state adding any incentive to marriage seems to be cheapen it. It's as if people won't marry unless they're given something extra.

[thessalonian]

I see no reason to cheer or pray the rosary over a meaningless government permission slip. It has zero sacramental character. It's no more meaningful than any of their other useless slips of paper.

 

The biggest problem I see with it is that it confuses and influences the very young in society.  It undermines the meaning of true marriage.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

The biggest problem I see with it is that it confuses and influences the very young in society.  It undermines the meaning of true marriage.

 

Let them get confused then. Do you believe that young people in our society are just going to ignore gay people otherwise?

[Winchester]

The biggest problem I see with it is that it confuses and influences the very young in society. It undermines the meaning of true marriage.

Any kid who knows what gay is and has even a modicum of respect for our government is a lost cause.

[Winchester]

Rrgh. What I mean by that is if some kid is old enough to understand what gay marriage is, but looks in any way to the government for moral guidance, he's up the creek, anyway. That goes double for adults.

 

We need government to uphold the norms of morality, I am told by people who specialize in the unintentionally funny--Thomas Woods