Should Homosexual Marriage Be Banned?

[DancesforLove]

I agree with sojourner too. In my opinion a true marriage is blessed by God and it is a religious ceremony. So for two gay people to be married to me is really nothing more than them being together/friends.
As for the government, I think it should be viewed like a common law marriage, if you've lived together for xyears you are married in the governments eyes.
Either way, they aren't husband/wife to me because they can never engage in sex or bear children (the natural way)

[Socrates]

[quote name='DancesforLove' date='Oct 23 2005, 10:08 PM']I agree with sojourner too. In my opinion a true marriage is blessed by God and it is a religious ceremony. So for two gay people to be married to me is really nothing more than them being together/friends.
As for the government, I think it should be viewed like a common law marriage, if you've lived together for xyears you are married in the governments eyes.
Either way, they aren't husband/wife to me because they can never engage in sex or bear children (the natural way)
[right][snapback]768685[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Marriage was a natural institution for thousands of years before Christ made it into a sacrament. It began with Adam and Eve. Marriage is the union of man and woman for the purpose of having children and raising a family. This is a natural good fundamental to human society, and as such is legally recognized by the states. It never had anything to do with two homosexuals sodomizing one another or anything else.

The state does not create marriages, merely recognize them.

Marriage is not about "being friends." I have friends, yet am not married to them in any way.

"Gay marriage" is about homosexuals wanting to force the state to give them legal recognition and privileges for their sodomy, nothing else.
Let's not play their game.

[DancesforLove]

Socrates, I know you think everyone except yourself is wrong, but I am really not in the mood tonight. So just accept my post for what it is, my opinion.

[Socrates]

[quote name='DancesforLove' date='Oct 23 2005, 10:22 PM']Socrates, I know you think everyone except yourself is wrong, but I am really not in the mood tonight. So just accept my post for what it is, my opinion.
[right][snapback]768709[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If you don't want to debate, don't post in the debate table.
I'm not in the mood for ad hominems. Good night.

[Didacus]

Wow!!! Phatmass gets really wild at night... I should get on more often.

Soc, I share your position, but I think your delivery could be a little better/softer.

gay activists in Canada now have their eye on adoptioin... This is a natural consequence of letting the state recongnize secular homosexual unions. Which country was it that is on its way to legalizing polygamy with two bis-sexual woman and a man? Another natural consequence of letting homosexual marriages be recongnized.

Wehn will there be four people getting married? And have and adopt children of their own?

Letting state recongnize homosexual marriage, lets the state recongnize a perversion as normal and opens the door to all forms of perversions.

Some say this is a slippery slope fallasy; fallacy or not, it seems to be pretty real now!

did anyone see my post/link about Dr. Sex writting a book about the benefits of pedophilia and how pedophilia was normal in ancient times?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

The muslims are ahead of us in today's world,because they do not seperate state and religion. This is a notion I personally do not believe in, and if it where applied in Canada gay-marriage would still draw laughs - not tears, from those who do their best to hold to the truth and virtues of Christianity and that for the sake of their children.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 23 2005, 10:19 PM']Marriage was a natural institution for thousands of years before Christ made it into a sacrament.  It began with Adam and Eve.  Marriage is the union of man and woman for the purpose of having children and raising a family.  This is a natural good fundamental to human society, and as such is legally recognized by the states.  It never had anything to do with two homosexuals sodomizing one another or anything else. 

The state does not create marriages, merely recognize them.

Marriage is not about "being friends."  I have friends, yet am not married to them in any way.

"Gay marriage" is about homosexuals wanting to force the state to give them legal recognition and privileges for their sodomy, nothing else.
Let's not play their game.
[right][snapback]768698[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The state does also create them. Common law marriages are an act of the state. Marriages by a judge are an act of the state. Hence the line of said judge "By the power invested in me by the state of ..."

This is why I argue that the government should stay out of the marriage business.

[quote]You appear to object to Catholics opposing "gay marriage," on the absurd grounds that this is "imposing values" (What's wrong with that?) yet seem to have no problem with radical "gay rights" crowd imposing their godless values on the government by demanding government recognition and approval of their sodomy![/quote]

The thing that keeps on getting in my way is stuff like the first ammendment
[quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]

Is the ability for a homosexual couple to have a civil union a matter of their religious beliefs? No but my objection is from my religious beliefs. Therefore my objection is of personal opinion and not constitutional

[jasJis]

But what about Socrates' posit that laws are based on morality, which is based on Judeo-Christian values?

Everything cannot be 'object'. One of the blessings God has given us is our 'subjective' reasoning. There are lot's of 'objective' sociological reasons why governmental marriage should be only between opposite sexes. Valuing these reasons is subjective to us all and it's as much their opinion as it is our opinion. The first ammendment isn't violated, besides, it's secondary to Divine Law. We are directed to apply Divine Law as practically as possible because it is an imperfect world and we have free will.

Edited October 24, 2005 by jasJis

[jasJis]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Oct 23 2005, 11:15 PM']Soc, I share your position, but I think your delivery could be a little better/softer.
[right][snapback]768796[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Different people have different tones. If we were all soft spoken, some people wouldn't get the message, just as if we were all harsh speaking, some would ignore us. If you want to say if softer, go ahead. Let Soc say it how he feels it.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Oct 24 2005, 08:20 AM']But what about Socrates' posit that laws are based on morality, which is based on Judeo-Christian values?
[right][snapback]768961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
U.S. laws aren't based on an overarching ideal of morality, but rather on consensus -- what we collectively decide is right and wrong. Since for some time the people who've been building that consensus have adhered to Judeo-Christian values, we see many of those values reflected in our laws. As that demographic shifts, however, we're going to see -- and are seeing -- the values reflected in our laws shift.

[quote name='jasJis' date='Oct 24 2005, 08:20 AM']Everything cannot be 'object'.  One of the blessings God has given us is our 'subjective' reasoning.  There are lot's of 'objective' sociological reasons why governmental marriage should be only between opposite sexes. [right][snapback]768961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Actually, I'm not sure that's the case. I think it's difficult to come up with a rational argument, aside from divine revelation, to prevent same-sex unions. I think there's a rational argument against same-sex [b]marriage[/b], however -- which is that government has no business defining something God instituted at the time man and woman first walked the earth.

Our Court of Appeals considered a same-sex marriage case earlier this year, and heart of the decision was this statement:

[quote]The institution of opposite-sex marriage both encourages such couples to enter into a stable relationship before having children and to remain in such a relationship if children arrive during the marriage unexpectedly. The recognition of same-sex marriage would not further this interest in heterosexual ‘responsible procreation.’ Therefore, the legislative classification of extending marriage benefits to oppositesex couples but not same-sex couples is reasonably related to a clearly identifiable, inherent characteristic that distinguishes the two classes: the ability or inability to procreate by "natural" means.[/quote]

The deputy attorney general who argued the case said, “It’s the bedrock argument. It’s the argument that has prevailed in cases in other jurisdictions. If state sponsored marriage is not about protecting children, then what is the rationale?”

But the rationale the court accepted brings up lots of questions -- what about heterosexual couples dealing with infertility, who can't procreate by "natural" means? And making this about "protecting children" opens a Pandora's box of arguments which I really don't want to get into right now. I just don't see the "lots of 'objective' sociological reasons" why it's in the [i]government's[/i] best interest to give its blessing only to heterosexual couples.

[quote name='jasJis' date='Oct 24 2005, 08:20 AM']The first ammendment isn't violated, besides, it's secondary to Divine Law.  We are directed to apply Divine Law as practically as possible because it is an imperfect world and we have free will.
[right][snapback]768961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Except we don't live in a theocracy. As I said earlier, it's about building consensus. And I don't think it's very effective in building that consensus to say "because God says so."

[Jaime]

adding to what Abby said

The first ammendment would be violated if the morality of a law was based on a religious doctrine.

Plus again I want to reiterate, I am arguing against government establishing marriage at all. Its the issue of civil unions that I go back and forth on.

[jasJis]

Sojourner,
Law is based more on precedent, which was based on Christian/Judeo values, not consensus. That's why case history is used. Using 'consensus' as a new basis of law is what people are complaining about Judges doing when they legislate from the bench. New laws are created for new situations, but the values are based on Case History and the Constitution.

Here's some objective arguements for limiting the benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples.
1.) It is fact that on the whole, humans are better served when children are raised in the traditional nuclear family with male and female role models. An abusive parent is the exception, not the rule.
2.) Socially, economically, and in education, children do better when raised in a 2 parent family.
3.) Children are born of a male & female union, not same sex union.

These are facts that are known. Government is even now encouraging men to stay with the mother of their children as a way to enable the family to do better economically and move off of government assistance. The standards the Church uses for marriage in canon law are reasonable and shed light on the reasonable application of marriage. Fertility is assumed, so issn't an issue when allowing marriage. Opposite sex marriages, whether they produce children or not, are social reinforcement of the ideal, which is a child producing union. Same sex unions, by their nature, don't have the outside motivation (for raising children) to stay together, nor do they have the beneficial impact on society that child producing unions do. Allowing same sex unions is transfering benefits to a minority exception without an overeaching benefit to society as a whole.

Wouldn't it better serve society to make adjustments to current law without messing up marriage? We have marriage laws as a result of our Chistian values, not despite them.

[Jaime]

[quote]Wouldn't it better serve society to make adjustments to current law without messing up marriage? We have marriage laws as a result of our Chistian values, not despite them.[/quote]

Wouldn't our society be better served if marriage was not a government issue?

[jasJis]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 24 2005, 10:24 AM']Wouldn't our society be better served if marriage was not a government issue?
[right][snapback]769025[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]No. How could it? Yes, you have some dangers that the Govenment puts it's influence into marriage, but you also have the balance of injecting Christian values into society. Our Government isn't completely fascist. It isn't necessarily a one way relationship.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Oct 24 2005, 10:19 AM']Sojourner,
Law is based more on precedent, which was based on Christian/Judeo values, not consensus.  That's why case history is used.  Using 'consensus' as a new basis of law is what people are complaining about Judges doing when they legislate from the bench.  New laws are created for new situations, but the values are based on Case History and the Constitution.
[right][snapback]769020[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ever heard of the legislative branch of government? Last time I checked, they're the ones who come up with laws. How does something become law? People vote on it. The side with the most votes wins. Hence, our laws are based on consensus -- we agree with one another that "a" is right behavior and "b" is wrong behavior and deserves "xyz" punishment. Judges are tasked with interpreting and applying the finer points of the law, but one of the things they look to in interpreting and applying that is "legislative intent" -- what do the people want us to do?

[quote name='jasJis' date='Oct 24 2005, 10:19 AM']Here's some objective arguements for limiting the benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples.
1.) It is fact that on the whole, humans are better served when children are raised in the traditional nuclear family with male and female role models.  An abusive parent is the exception, not the rule.
2.) Socially, economically, and in education, children do better when raised in a 2 parent family.
3.) Children are born of a male & female union, not same sex union.
[right][snapback]769020[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There are strong arguments on both sides of each of these points, which I don't have the time or energy to get into right now. It's not a slam dunk pro-heterosexual-marriage argument.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Oct 24 2005, 10:29 AM']No.  How could it?  Yes, you have some dangers that the Govenment puts it's influence into marriage, but you also have the balance of injecting Christian values into society.  Our Government isn't completely fascist.    It isn't necessarily a one way relationship.
[right][snapback]769031[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The issue is, who defines what marriage is? Why should government even be [i]thinking [/i]it can define marriage as being between two men and two women, when God has already come down decisively on the issue? When government starts thinking it has the option of saying marriage isn't as God has ordained it to be, it's clearly overstepping its bounds. It's only sheer audacity that we'd think we could redefine marriage.

Properly situated, marriage belongs in the church -- the body designed to administer sacraments. Government has no legitimate interest in messing with what God has defined. Christians should've been up in arms on this from the moment government decided it could grant divorces.