Homosexuals

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='rckllnknny' post='1560929' date='Jun 6 2008, 12:02 PM']i dont disagree with that at all.[/quote]

If you were a smoother talker, you could run for President.


P.S. Considering the past couple terms, maybe you don't need to be a smooth talker.

Edited June 6, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[XIX]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1560816' date='Jun 6 2008, 06:36 AM']Oh. Well I never said anything in opposition to that so now I'm confused.[/quote]
Well I never said that you said that. At least I don't think I did.

I just wanted to clarify that we should favor the legalization of "civil unions" for homosexuals, even if it's just to get them the tax benefits or to allow them to be at each other's death beds. Besides, it's possible to do both without legalizing gay marriage/civil unions.

Anyways, it sounds like we are in agreement.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='XIX' post='1561152' date='Jun 6 2008, 03:06 PM']I just wanted to clarify that we should favor the legalization of "civil unions" for homosexuals, even if it's just to get them the tax benefits or to allow them to be at each other's death beds. Besides, it's possible to do both without legalizing gay marriage/civil unions.[/quote]

Do you mean we should [i]not[/i] favor the legalization of civil unions?

The Vatican statement on homosexual unions says "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty."

Edited June 6, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='prose' post='1561006' date='Jun 6 2008, 10:09 AM']Rick, do you have me on ignore??[/quote]

if so this would the most futile post ever.

[prose]

Hmmmm... Well apparently my posts are not good enough for a response. I am pretty sure I am not on ignore since he responded in another thread.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='XIX' post='1561152' date='Jun 6 2008, 02:06 PM']Well I never said that you said that. At least I don't think I did.

I just wanted to clarify that we should favor the legalization of "civil unions" for homosexuals, even if it's just to get them the tax benefits or to allow them to be at each other's death beds. Besides, it's possible to do both without legalizing gay marriage/civil unions.

Anyways, it sounds like we are in agreement.[/quote]
We absolutely should [b]not[/b] favor civil unions. Two people of the same gender cannot become one flesh. That's basic natural law. Civil law has no authority to legalize homosexual civil unions because such unions are contrary to natural law. End of story.

The tax benefits of married persons are given to them precisely because they are married. No two people who cannot marry have any rights to such tax benefits.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1560848' date='Jun 6 2008, 08:57 AM']Which btw your definition of marriage, rightly defined as it is, goes against civil marriage. There is nothing in civil marriage that requires an openness to life .[/quote]
I believe that a civil marriage is also not a true marriage unless it is open to life. Civil marriage is also to be based on natural law. Natural law says that marriage must be open to life.

There is a distinction, though. My definition is always and in every case against gay marriage or gay civil unions because homosexual relations cannot be open to life. My definition is not, however, intrinsically against heterosexual civil marriage/unions, because they can be open to life (though I would argue that many are not).

[Alycin]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1561408' date='Jun 6 2008, 06:26 PM']We absolutely should [b]not[/b] favor civil unions. Two people of the same gender cannot become one flesh. That's basic natural law. Civil law has no authority to legalize homosexual civil unions because such unions are contrary to natural law. End of story.

The tax benefits of married persons are given to them precisely because they are married. No two people who cannot marry have any rights to such tax benefits.[/quote]


I'm 99% sure that was a typo on XIX's part.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1561426' date='Jun 6 2008, 06:44 PM']I'm 99% sure that was a typo on XIX's part.[/quote]
I hope so.

[Kitty]

Since when did "being open to life" become a requirement for marriage in American law?

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1561599' date='Jun 6 2008, 10:15 PM']Since when did "being open to life" become a requirement for marriage in American law?[/quote]


I dont think that it is a requirement. But the whole concept of marriage is to procreate. Not to try to get tax relief. Also, I think the tax relief that a married couple gets is supposed to be so they can use that extra money to provide for their children.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1561599' date='Jun 6 2008, 09:15 PM']Since when did "being open to life" become a requirement for marriage in American law?[/quote]
In American law it's not, but it should be, because it is a requirement for marriage in natural law, and civil law must strive to be in-line with natural law.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1561599' date='Jun 6 2008, 09:15 PM']Since when did "being open to life" become a requirement for marriage in American law?[/quote]

It is not which is why Civil marriage goes against natural law


[quote name='Raphael' post='1561839' date='Jun 6 2008, 11:28 PM']In American law it's not, but it should be, because it is a requirement for marriage in natural law, and civil law must strive to be in-line with natural law.[/quote]


Good Lord Micah, does this mean that you agree with me that civil marriage goes against natural law?

[Kitty]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1561839' date='Jun 6 2008, 11:28 PM']In American law it's not, but it should be, because it is a requirement for marriage in natural law, and civil law must strive to be in-line with natural law.[/quote]

First of all, marriage is not "natural law." Finding a mate for life IS. It is the way human beings have always behaved, which is why our generations are here today. What did early humans do before the idea of marriage was ever established? They found mates and raised children. Marriage is simply a ceremony that celebrates and legally binds two people together.

Secondly, I think you should rethink your statement that openness to life should be a requirement for marriage. What if a couple does not wish to have children?

Edited June 7, 2008 by Kitty

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1561898' date='Jun 7 2008, 12:06 AM']First of all, marriage is not "natural law." Finding a mate for life IS. It is the way human beings have always behaved, which is why our generations are here today. What did early humans do before the idea of marriage was ever established? They found mates and raised children. Marriage is simply a ceremony that celebrates and legally binds two people together.

Secondly, I think you should rethink your statement that openness to life should be a requirement for marriage. What if a couple does not wish to have children?[/quote]

First, marriage is not a ceremony. A wedding, which begins marriage, is a ceremony. Marriage is the actual bond that brings two people (mates) together to raise children, which is precisely what you just said was the natural occurance before the idea of a ritual came along. So you essentially said that marriage is a natural thing, and therefore a part of natural law.

Second, a couple that is not open to life is not truly married because from the very start of their relationship they did not have the intentions required for a real marriage to take place. Marriage must be unitive and open to life. This is seen in nature because they are the two things that make a marriage a marriage. Also, even beyond nature, this is the way God has revealed it: "be fruitful and multiply."

God bless,

Micah