a thought on marriage

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Nov 20 2004, 06:31 PM']
What could you possibly define as an 'emergency contraceptive'. A butcher knife and a hoover vaccum?

Oh wait, thats an abortion. [/quote]
Actually emergency contraceptives are ultra high doses of regular birth control hormones given within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Mary's Knight' date=' La,Nov 19 2004, 06:24 PM'] Just to summarize for TCW

Marriage is part of natural law, institutional law is subordinate to natural law. therefore while it is fitting for institutional law to enforce natural law, it does not take control over the issue it just serves as an enhancement to natural law.
[/quote]
Merriam Webster defines natural law as such:

[i]a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law[/i]

So I have to disagree with your assesment.

[quote]for burnsspivey:

as for unmarried hetero couples having the same concerns... I'm assuming you mean those living together, and they would be the same issue. Marriage cannot exist between two people of the same sex and it doesn't exist when a hetero couple aren't infact married.[/quote]

Actually it would apply even to those who aren't living together -- if you were engaged to a person for five years and you were getting married in one day and then that person was in an accident you would have no right to visit him/her in the hospital. However, if you had married the day before you could visit him/her. The point is that legal marriage allows for visitation and it's a legitimate reason for same-sex couples to want to be allowed to marry.

[quote]while balthazor mentions children alot the true issue is the idea of family, which is a part of natural law. the tax breaks are designed to encourage families. While a single parent can provide a somewhat injured version of a family, when both parents are of the same gender it takes the idea of family and warps it into something unnatural.[/quote]

Natural law has no place in legislation.

[quote]the domestic partner programs have as their basis the idea of family they were originally meant to simply provide benefits for whoever the worker shacked up with. but instead to help the worker take care of his or her family. it is due to legal activity that seeked to extend these benefits for purposes they were not intended for, that the company has a domestic partner program rather than a spouse or family program.[/quote]

I don't think I understand what you're trying to argue here. Domestic partner benefits allow people to provide for their family.

[quote]as far as insurance paying for immoral things, Catholic charities could not offer their employees a program that didn't pay for things like contraception. their choice was the insurance must offer all the standard things or they must not offer insurance.[/quote]

Well, I can't see the problem here. They're being given a choice. Did they then offer the insurance with contraptive coverage? How is that different?

[quote]the purpose of adoption is to place the child in a stable family, again same sex couples cannot provide family.[/quote]

I'm just going to have to call [color=red][Edited by Ice Princess: Profanity] [/color]on that statement right there. Even the most conservative and traditional definition of family doesn't differentiate between same-sex and opposite sex couples:

[i]5 a : the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their own or adopted children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family <a single-parent family> b : spouse and children <want to spend more time with my family>[/i]

other definitions are more liberal:

[i]3 a : a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation[/i]

or

[i]1 : a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head[/i]

So would you like to rethink that?

Edited November 21, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[Guest Aluigi]

[quote]Actually emergency contraceptives are ultra high doses of regular birth control hormones given within 72 hours of unprotected sex.[/quote]
to kill an organism of 46 chromosomes containing all the information necessary for it to become a human being, down to the hair and eye color information

Edited November 21, 2004 by Aluigi

[Quietfire]

You know,
there is a much better form of contraceptive that NEVER fails when implemented properly.
To date, when used in the proper manner, the success rate is 100%. The pill cant even boast that kind of record.
Plus, it is a proven fact that by using it, you will not contract any STD through intercourse.
There are no messy creams.
No latex.
It's amazing. Its been around a long time, yet so few people use it any more.























Its called ABSTINENCE.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Nov 20 2004, 09:38 PM'] You know,
there is a much better form of contraceptive that NEVER fails when implemented properly.
To date, when used in the proper manner, the success rate is 100%. The pill cant even boast that kind of record.
Plus, it is a proven fact that by using it, you will not contract any STD through intercourse.
There are no messy creams.
No latex.
It's amazing. Its been around a long time, yet so few people use it any more.

Its called ABSTINENCE. [/quote]
You know, this is way off topic, but I'll bite. Abstinence is not 100% -- a woman can still get pregnant without penetration. Now, if you mean abstinence from all things sexual in nature I'll just roll my eyes and ignore you.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 19 2004, 06:35 PM'] Thought I'd repeat here what I posted in another thread (in response to people calling for "gay marriage"):

If "gay marriages" are "what America was made for," then why have they not been recognized in this country for over 200 years???
[/quote]
Because sometimes it takes a while for America to catch up to its own values. For a long time slavery was legal -- that wasn't what America was made for and it was illegalized. For a long time women couldn't vote and we nixed that idea too. Until relatively recently interracial couples couldn't marry. Our ideals are there, we just have a hard time implementing them. We'll get to it someday.

[quote]Legal marriage bestows certain legal and tax benefits on married couples, and is a legal recognition of what is a foundation of all civilized society, the family (man, woman and their children). This is not what a "gay union" is, and sodomy deserves no such legal recognition, which mocks and cheapens the dignity of real marriage.[/quote]

The word family does not mean what you want it to mean and, at least in this country, we don't require that people have children after getting married. Otherwise the elderly, sterile and childfree would not be allowed. Yet, I don't see those questions being asked, so you must be mistaken. A "gay union" is what, then? How, aside from gender, does it differ from a "straight union"? Sodomy (which, for the record, is defined as both oral and anal sex) doesn't have legal recognition and I have no idea what this has to do with this discussion. What dignity does "real" marriage have? Spell it out for me, would you?

[quote]If legal marriage is to be based on the hedonistic principle of people just doing whatever they like ("If it feels good, do it!"), then why stop with "gay marriage"?
Why shouldn't someone be able to legally "marry" his or her son or daughter?
A barnyard animal?
A blow-up doll?[/quote]

This statement makes you the worst kind of bigot. Legal marriage is based on taxation. The call for same-sex marriage is based on equal rights. Your asinine examples lack a tenet central to marriage: consent. None of those things can give consent.

[quote]Sorry if I've offended anybody, but this point gets to the root of the issue, I think.

Hey, legal rights for everybody! Who am I to impose my morality?[/quote]

Actually this point ignores the issue completely. Strangely, you do get the last sentence right, though I don't think you intended to. And if you really thing that everybody shouldn't have legal rights you are more of a bigot than I thought.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 20 2004, 09:35 PM']

I'm just going to have to call [Edited by Ice Princess: original post edited.] on that statement right there. [/quote]
we don't use that kind of language here. Please keep it in mind that younger people frequent this site.

Also, Welcome! Are you Catholic?

Edited November 21, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 20 2004, 05:30 PM'] It is across the board, within certain parameters, most men are able to marry most women. [/quote]
That isn't the same thing as having equal rights and you know it. You're trying to semanticize your way out of the problem, but that won't work. We (as a country) have already determined that we don't allow such arbitrary parameters when we dropped miscegenation laws.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 20 2004, 11:01 PM'] we don't use that kind of language here. Please keep it in mind that younger people frequent this site.

Also, Welcome! Are you Catholic? [/quote]
Duly noted. I shall refrain in the future.

Thanks! Nope, I'm not catholic -- I hadn't mentioned it yet because I thought it would be obvious.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 21 2004, 12:10 AM'] Duly noted. I shall refrain in the future.

Thanks! Nope, I'm not catholic -- I hadn't mentioned it yet because I thought it would be obvious. [/quote]
it's never obvious nowadays...that would be too easy

[toledo_jesus]

my personal belief about the gay marriage thing is that they should be denied marriage because marriage is historically, sacramentally, morally a male-female joint. However, I don't care if they want the same legal benefits to being married. If they really want to join as legal partners so that they can will their money, or visit each other in the hospital, then whatever. I would balk at giving them tax breaks, because then people wouldn't bother getting married anymore because it would be better to just get a 'partnership' and then you wouldn't have to go through a divorce. I just want the distinction to be made that they are not being married before God, who has been pretty explicit in His disapproval of homosexuality.

Edited November 21, 2004 by toledo_jesus

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 20 2004, 11:58 PM'] my personal belief about the gay marriage thing is that they should be denied marriage because marriage is historically, sacramentally, morally a male-female joint. However, I don't care if they want the same legal benefits to being married. If they really want to join as legal partners so that they can will their money, or visit each other in the hospital, then whatever. I would balk at giving them tax breaks, because then people wouldn't bother getting married anymore because it would be better to just get a 'partnership' and then you wouldn't have to go through a divorce. I just want the distinction to be made that they are not being married before God, who has been pretty explicit in His disapproval of homosexuality. [/quote]
In which case you should note that same-sex marriage advocates are lobbying only for legal marriage. The catholic church doesn't recognize marriages that occur outside of the church, right? Well, there you go -- same-sex couples can't be married in the church so obviously their union won't be recognized by the church and they won't be "married before god". It's pretty simple.

[Guest Aluigi]

i believe the government should not recognize same-sex-unions. it is not promoting the general welfare, but promoting an unhealthy immoral practice. the government should not be in the business of expanding itself to give equal treatment to a couple that is obviously inequal to a heterosexual couple. the couple should not be recognized nor given the same benefits.

[Guest Aluigi]

and marriage between two races is COMPLETELY different. so long as it's only one man and one woman marrying, the government should recognize it. but if it's one man and multiple women, the government doesn't recognize it. if it's two men, the government doesn't recognize it. if it's a man and a dog, the government doesn't recognize it. if it's a man and his mother, the government doesn't recognize it. there ARE certain perameters that the government will uiphold. just because it dropped racist laws doesn't mean it's going to drop all requirements so that any group of people could marry.

[Guest Aluigi]

toledo_jesus, as Catholics we are called to work so that the government recognizes the natural law and is as close as possible to moral law. Catholics must oppose government recognition of homosexual unions with benefits.