a thought on marriage

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 20 2004, 10:51 PM'] 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.



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?



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.



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. [/quote]
[quote]Because sometimes it takes a while for America to catch up to its own values[/quote].

Sometimes America loses its own values.

And the analogy with slavery and interacial marriage is a false one.
A black man marrying a white woman is still a man marrying a woman (which is what marriage is.) A man in a sodomistic partnership with a man is not marriage.

This is nothing about prejudice against people. It is not recognizing a certain action.
For example, it would be wrong for it to be illegal for Joe to invest in a bank because he is black.
This is not the same as saying it should be legal for Joe to rob the bank, because to deny him this "right" would be prejudiced against robbers.

We are condemning actions, not people.
Same-sex "unions" are not marriages, and should not be recognized as such.

You say sodomy doesn't have legal recognition. But (surprise!) this is what "gay" couples do to each other! It does not constitute a marriage.

The dignity of marriage consists of a man and a woman united together for life, to love one another and procreate and care for the children God may give them.

Infertile couples do not violate this, because their infertility is not their deliberate choice, and the act of love-making is open to children.

Sodomy is an act which can in no circumstances bring about new life (other than bacterial life.) It only breeds disease and death. It cannot bring forth children and has no more dignity than masturbation.

Thanks for calling me a bigot. I've heard a "bigot" really means "someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

The fact that you list your religion as "butt sex" speaks volumes about you and your mentality.

[Balthazor]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 20 2004, 03:07 PM'] 1) Because the laws of this country are secular in nature.
2) Because we have a clause in our Constitution that gives everyone equal rights.

For the record, I agree with an earlier post's conclusion that marriage should be removed from the publid sphere.  There should be no such thing as legal marriage.  However, if we are going to have it it should apply across the board. [/quote]
Question: In some states there are laws that prevent sisters from marrying brothers, and people from marrying thier first cousins. Now shoulds this also be legal, because it is essentially legislaing morality and is also based on cultural and religious standards? If our laws are secular then shouldn't this be legal also?

(seeing as they can give consent)

Edited November 21, 2004 by Balthazor

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 21 2004, 11:40 AM'] 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. [/quote]
yeah I know. looking back on my statement it sounds kind of like I'm giving up on the whole thing. It seems kind of overwhelming I guess.
Anyway, I don't believe they should be married. I suppose I just don't have much hope that we'll be able to stop their agenda. I'm tired.

[Socrates]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 21 2004, 02:09 PM'] yeah I know. looking back on my statement it sounds kind of like I'm giving up on the whole thing. It seems kind of overwhelming I guess.
Anyway, I don't believe they should be married. I suppose I just don't have much hope that we'll be able to stop their agenda. I'm tired. [/quote]
Don't give up the good fight, brother!

[Mary's Knight, La]

me:

"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."

burns:
"Even the most conservative and traditional definition of family doesn't differentiate between same-sex and opposite sex couples"

the deal is a child cannot receive the full experience parents provide when both parents are of the same sex. I'll find quotes from experts on this if you need, but i don't think logic allows you to argue against this. N.B. that's not to say a child cannot overcome the incomplete experience and become a well-adjusted individual but it does set the child back when they don't have a mother and a father as a whole to learn from.

burns: "Natural law has no place in legislation." this statement boggles my mind! if natural law has no place in legislation then how are we to judge if what is legislated is correct or not? we'd be left with simply the will of the legislators! then perhaps there'd be no law against any form of murder (rather than just no law against murder of the unborn) if enough legislators felt murder was okay. We must have an absolute on which to judge legislation!

burns: "Now, if you mean abstinence from all things sexual in nature I'll just roll my eyes and ignore you. " of course you will and of course that is in fact the meaning meant (although they forgot about the one case of an abstinent jewish woman circa 0 AD lol)

but why will you roll your eyes. certainly not because you don't think it's effective except for divine intervention? No I think you will roll your eyes because you can't conceive of living for anything but the pleasure or pain of the moment perhaps in anticipation of the next moment where you can receive pleasure or avoid discomfort. Know this: once you reach eternity there will be no "next moment" the pain or pleasure you then experience will not end.

if you're not a complete stranger to this site you've encountered Pascal's wager. I reiterate to you then, can the moment-by-moment pleasure you experience now be worth the eternal pain you will experience later.

or as church signs across the country put it "If you live like there's no Hell then you better be right"

[Mary's Knight, La]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 21 2004, 10:28 AM'] 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. [/quote]
It's not as simple as you'd like to think, we're called to care for your soul even if you don't. If the government encourages shacking up as opposed to real, honest to God (and i mean it exactly like that) marriage then that is what people will do.

If the government pushes for a healthy concept of marriage, then at least those who still shack up with each other will know that what they are doing is not right in some sense.

[Balthazor]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 20 2004, 10:33 PM'] 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. [/quote]
Answering your off topic comment:

Here Abstinence does mean abstaining from all sexual activity, this includes, but is not limited to oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, heavy petting, and the so called "dry humping".

I acknowledge that in-vitro fertiliztion is a way to get pregnant "without sex" but other than that there has only been one time in History that a Woman became pregnent without having sex and since this is a Catholic website I bet you know what time I am talking about.

I understand that some people have a little different idea of abstinence but this is what Quietfire was refering to.
If you think it can't be done...email me sometime.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 21 2004, 10:38 AM'] 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. [/quote]
It's fine to believe that as long as you have a legitimate reason to do so. Bigotry is not a legitimate reason to do anything and saying that one couple is "inequal" to another is obvious bigotry. You may call same-sex marriages immoral, you are entitled to an opinion, but there is no reason to call them unhealthy. Unless you mean unhealthy in a moral sense...in which case you are dealing me redundancy.

[quote]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.[/quote]

How, exactly, is it different? It's an example of how we used to believe that certain couples are "inequal" and bar their marriage. Obviously we were wrong and we changed the laws accordingly. A man can't marry a dog because a dog cannot give consent to marry. I don't know why one person can't marry multiple other people -- it was the common practice of the old testament -- and perhaps that will be changed in the future, but that's a different situation entirely. We dropped racist laws because we saw that they were discriminatory and we will do so with anti-same-sex marriage legislation as well.

[Carrie]

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 21 2004, 11:50 AM'] .

Sometimes America loses its own values.

And the analogy with slavery and interacial marriage is a false one.
A black man marrying a white woman is still a man marrying a woman (which is what marriage is.) A man in a sodomistic partnership with a man is not marriage.

[/quote]
Actually it does hold up. It was a discriminatory practice that was ended when it was recognized as such. Defining marriage as "a man and a woman" is very popular these days, but it was not always so. Polygynous marriage (that's the practice of one man marrying more than one woman) was ever present in the old testament, so it can't be argued that it has always been that way. Additionally, we create the definitions of our language -- dictionarys are descriptive not prescriptive so they are constantly changing -- and marriage is what we want it to be.

[quote]This is nothing about prejudice against people.  It is not recognizing a certain action. 
For example, it would be wrong for it to be illegal for Joe to invest in a bank because he is black.
This is not the same as saying it should be legal for Joe to rob the bank, because to deny him this "right" would be prejudiced against robbers.[/quote]

Now [i]that[/i] is a false analogy.

[quote]We are condemning actions, not people.
Same-sex "unions" are not marriages, and should not be recognized as such.[/quote]

This is a null value sentence.

[quote]You say sodomy doesn't have legal recognition.  But (surprise!) this is what "gay" couples do to each other!  It does not constitute a marriage.[/quote]

Strangely, there are many, many straight couples who do this to each other as well. Sodomy does not have legal recognition in much the same way that sex does not have legal recognition.

[quote]The dignity of marriage consists of a man and a woman united together for life, to love one another and procreate and care for the children God may give them.[/quote]

Ah, I see -- I can never be married because I'm not going to procreate. Sounds a bit divisive to me.

[quote]Infertile couples do not violate this, because their infertility is not their deliberate choice, and the act of love-making is open to children.[/quote]

But the childfree do.

[quote]Sodomy is an act which can in no circumstances bring about new life (other than bacterial life.)  It only breeds disease and death.  It cannot bring forth children and has no more dignity than masturbation.[/quote]

Or sex for non-procreative purposes -- the only kind a LOT of people have.

[quote]Thanks for calling me a bigot. I've heard a "bigot" really means "someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."[/quote]

Actually, bigot means someone who uses arguments that are based on nothing more than bigotry. Or, someone who discriminates against others. You won't win an argument against me by comparing same-sex relationships with bestiality and pedophilia. We both know that those are in no way the similar and that using that comparison is a tactic to scare others into believing the way that you do.

[quote]The fact that you list your religion as "butt sex" speaks volumes about you and your mentality.[/quote]

Indeed, it does. I find the question offensive and thus I listed something random and, at least on this board, offensive as a response. Had the question been optional I would have left it blank. Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 21 2004, 02:09 PM'] yeah I know. looking back on my statement it sounds kind of like I'm giving up on the whole thing. It seems kind of overwhelming I guess.
Anyway, I don't believe they should be married. I suppose I just don't have much hope that we'll be able to stop their agenda. I'm tired. [/quote]
Please do me a favor and outline this "agenda". I have yet to find the prospectus and I'd like to know its details.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Mary's Knight' date=' La,Nov 21 2004, 10:51 PM'] me:

"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."

burns:
"Even the most conservative and traditional definition of family doesn't differentiate between same-sex and opposite sex couples"

the deal is a child cannot receive the full experience parents provide when both parents are of the same sex. I'll find quotes from experts on this if you need, but i don't think logic allows you to argue against this. N.B. that's not to say a child cannot overcome the incomplete experience and become a well-adjusted individual but it does set the child back when they don't have a mother and a father as a whole to learn from. [/quote]
Yes, I was pointing out that the "idea of family" is such that same-sex couples do not "warp" it.

And, actually, there are studies that show that same-sex couples go to great lengths to provide opposite sex role models for their children -- unlike single parents. Plus, gender is a social construct (unlike sex) and thus people leach their beliefs on gender from those around them -- regarless of their sex. In butch/femme pairings, for example, there is are stable gender constructs such that a child reared therein would have an example of a mother and a father -- regardless of the sex of either parent. I grant you that not all same-sex pairings have such stable gender constructs, but I know for a fact that not all opposite-sex pairings do either.

[quote]burns: "Natural law has no place in legislation." this statement boggles my mind! if natural law has no place in legislation then how are we to judge if what is legislated is correct or not? we'd be left with simply the will of the legislators! then perhaps there'd be no law against any form of murder (rather than just no law against murder of the unborn) if enough legislators felt murder was okay. We must have an absolute on which to judge legislation![/quote]

Actually, there are other ways to judge the correctness of legislation. Or, rather, there are other bases of legislative fiat. If we base all laws on the concept of harm we would get the same basic set of laws we have today -- with some minor differences. There is no need for an absolute.

[quote]burns: "Now, if you mean abstinence from all things sexual in nature I'll just roll my eyes and ignore you. " of course you will and of course that is in fact the meaning meant (although they forgot about the one case of an abstinent jewish woman circa 0 AD lol)

but why will you roll your eyes. certainly not because you don't think it's effective except for divine intervention? No I think you will roll your eyes because you can't conceive of living for anything but the pleasure or pain of the moment perhaps in anticipation of the next moment where you can receive pleasure or avoid discomfort. Know this: once you reach eternity there will be no "next moment" the pain or pleasure you then experience will not end. [/quote]

The eye roll is more of a sardonic pointer at the fact that it is an unnatural state of being. If you would like to participate in abstinence, feel free, I however will abstain. I'm not going to get into this topic here, though, because we're discussing same-sex marriage. If you want to start a new topic, I'll go there.

[quote]if you're not a complete stranger to this site you've encountered Pascal's wager. I reiterate to you then, can the moment-by-moment pleasure you experience now be worth the eternal pain you will experience later.

or as church signs across the country put it "If you live like there's no Hell then you better be right"[/quote]

As an educated person I encountered Pascal's wager long before I ventured here. I even managed to discover that one before my current religious state. It's a concept that I find abhorrent and disgusting. It's a cowardly way to live and I refuse to consider using it as part of my life. Frankly, I can't believe any religious person would endorse such a statement. Shouldn't you be trying to convert people into actual belief?

To quote Douglas Adams:

"People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)"

Edited November 22, 2004 by burnsspivey

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Mary's Knight, La' date='Nov 21 2004, 10:56 PM'] It's not as simple as you'd like to think, we're called to care for your soul even if you don't. If the government encourages shacking up as opposed to real, honest to God (and i mean it exactly like that) marriage then that is what people will do.

If the government pushes for a healthy concept of marriage, then at least those who still shack up with each other will know that what they are doing is not right in some sense. [/quote]
Yes, because people are sheep who do exactly as their government tells them. That's why we don't need jails anymore. I'm going to give away more of my personal life than I intended to, here. I'm what you refer to as "shacked-up" with someone. Strangely, the government in no way disapproves of this state nor does it give me a sense that what I'm doing is "not right".

Please explain the adjective "healthy" in this context. Should I assume that you mean "morally healthy"?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Burns, I would like to know your thoughts on what I view (as I illustrated on the first page) to be the central issue of the debate about same-sex marriage and civil unions. I'm sure you must have missed it, seeing as I posted early on the first page, and though others have alluded to the point, they have not been explicit in dealing with it, and, as such, you could not have been expected to respond.


It seems to me that the issue of same-sex marriages and civil unions rests on a two-pillared foundation.

The first pillar is universal to all americans, while the second applies only to some, and this is where the argument begins.

The first premise is that we, as Americans living in a democratic republic, constitute the ruling body and play a direct role in the governance of our nation. Each and every one of us has not only the right, but the obligation, to participate in government and to affect legislation, whether indirectly through casting a vote, or through more direct means. Now, perhaps the most critical in all of this, our duty is to cast votes and affect legislation in a manner that is for the greater good of the nation, as determined by our best judgement. This is the heart of civic responsibility.

Now, the second "pillar" of the conflict is the issue of faith. Not all people share the same faith and not all people abide by the same moral code. Christians have a different set of moral values than Hindus, who have different moral values than Muslims, who have different moral values than atheists. This is blatantly clear to anyone who simply looks around America.

The conflict comes when people attempts to seperate faith from civics. I am not at all advocating a State-run religion, but rather, the previous sentence is meant to address the dilemma of trying to remove all traces of faith from anything hinting of civics. All people, of any faith, made their judgements and decisions based, in some way, shape, or form, upon that faith, and it is impossible to do otherwise. Human beings are a synthesis of all the things that make them up: we are integrated creatures, and this needs to be remembered when we consider the issue of civic responsibility.

Allow me to move for a moment from vague ideas into reality for just a moment:

My responsibility and duty as an american citizen calls me to vote, and it is precisely for that reason that my faith cannot be "left at the door" so to speak. [i]I[/i] have a duty to vote, and that means that I have a duty to vote as [i]me[/i]. Moreover, that [i]"me"[/i] is an integral being, and if I were to dis-integrate that being, it would no longer be "me" voting.

Asking a person whose faith makes up a deep part of them to not let their faith affect their vote is like asking someone whose socio-economic status has grave impact on their life to not let that socio-economic status affect their vote. Just as being poor or rich or being from the country or from the city must affect how one casts his or her vote, the faith that one adheres to also must affect how one casts his vote.

That having been established, we must return to the universal pillar of civic duty. We all help to make up, in some small part, the governing body of the American government. As such, we all have a duty to participate in that governance, and, moreover, we have a duty to govern (or affect government) in the manner we see most fit.

Thus, if a person is a person of faith, then that faith will, and must, play a role in how one comes to the conclusion of what is "most fit."

If the Christian beliefs lead a citizen of the United States to the conclusion that it is most fit for America to not legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions, then that is how they should, and must, vote.




Any response you have to the above thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

[jasJis]

I didn't feel like reading all the posts, just TCW's opener. Protection of marriage can be argued from a purely secular perspective. As far as it being Sacramental, that's only God letting us know how He participates on a Spritual/Divine nature.

It is easily observed in nature that many species mate for life. Homospapiens are a species that derive many benefits from mating for life. These benefits are physical, emotional, etc. and these benefits extend through generations. Some cultural influences may have changed aspects of marriages (such as mutltiple wifes, brothers marring their brothers widows, etc.). The arguement to allow gay marriage is based on it being a cultural or societal need. The argument against it is that, like divorce, it undermines the permancy of a marriage. When marriages aren't permanent, the children suffer emotionally, physcially, economically, psychologically, etc. This is scientific fact, not conjecture. All fundamental Church teachings and Truths are reflected as Fundamental Truths in Natural Law. Yes, there are exceptions to the rules when humans are involved. But it's stupid to elevate 'exceptions' to the status of 'norms'. This is again but the thin edge of the wedge, just like artifical birthcontrol lead to sexual freedom to abortion on demand to euthansia to artifical conception to embrionic stem cell experiments to embryonic farming. Acceptance of divorce for cause led to 'no-fault' divorce to let's just live together to 'temporary' Hollywood marriages to acceptance of infidelity in the White House to acceptance of same sex "marriages".

Same sex marriages undermines a fundamental "truth" about the human species that is critical and neccesary for our survival as a viable species. Just because we are intelligent and powerful enough to go against "Mother Nature", doesn't mean we should. Just as we should be careful not to eliminate the rainforest or the Everglades because of the future consequences, we should be careful with the nature of marriage. Just because we can out-run a glacier, doesn't mean we should build a city at it's base for the convenience of cheap ice.