Homosexual Marriage

[CatherineM]

[quote name='VoTeckam' post='1823305' date='Apr 3 2009, 07:58 AM']Yes, I agree but that is no business of the state. Imagine President obama proposing legislation to criminalize what the thinks would endanger our souls. Everyone here would be in jail within months.

The fact is that the government screws up everything it touches. I am getting married in January and if I could have a nuptual Mass without ever filing for a marriage certificate I would. Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God. Remove any of those parts and you have yourself a civil union (2 men, man and woman and no God).

Goverments should ONLY sanction civil unions. Marraiges are completely relgious in nature (as witnessed by the fact that we use the religious definition to say who can and can not participate).[/quote]

I have repeatedly said that governments have no business regulating marriage in any way. They make too much money off marriage licenses to stop though. States should go to only registering domestic partnerships, and leave marriages up to churches. You'd get married by a priest and then register the partnership for governmental purposes.

The reason Canon Law allows sterile couples to marry, but not impotent couples, is the same reason gay couples can not marry in the church, impotence "by its very nature invalidates marriage." (Canon #1084) Gay couples can not "in a human manner (engage) together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring." (Canon #1061) Sterile couples can become one flesh in this manner.

[Didymus]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1823417' date='Apr 3 2009, 12:08 PM']I have repeatedly said that governments have no business regulating marriage in any way. They make too much money off marriage licenses to stop though. States should go to only registering domestic partnerships, and leave marriages up to churches. You'd get married by a priest and then register the partnership for governmental purposes.[/quote]

I agree. Additionally, what we have now is our own Catholic priests potentially being in effect forced to participate in a legal system that participates in the condoning of the homosexual lifestyle. Right now priests act on behalf of the state and the Church when witnessing marriages. If homosexual marriage is legalized, as it is already in several states, priests would be tied in some way to the ministerial aspect of the state's overseal of marriage. If marriage weren't regulated by the state at all, we could keep marriage sacred by keeping it in the Churches and keeping the government out of it, and couples would have to also fill out the necessary paperwork, whether that be a contract or some sort of civil union for the purposes of govt benefits and records.

[philothea]

[quote name='hamflask' post='1823256' date='Apr 3 2009, 03:07 AM']How does a gay marriage fail to fulfill those requirements? If your only objection is that a gay couple cannot reproduce, should sterile straight couples be banned from marriage as well?[/quote]
For the most part, people aren't trying to conceive children before they get married, so how would we know? In the normal order of things it's reasonable to assume that there will be children, and so this social construct of marriage is useful. (Sterile married couples have indeed been stigmatized throughout history.)

In a completely secular sense, if a couple is not intending to stay together permanently and raise children, there is no reason for the state to create and enforce laws to enhance the stability of the social construct called "marriage."

People can write up their own vows and contracts if they want. If something doesn't contribute to the furtherance of society, by creating additional healthy, capable human beings, why should the government use resources to support it?

Obviously, Catholics believe there is more to marriage than procreation. But if we want to separate Church and State, this is the State-side argument against gay marriage.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1823338' date='Apr 3 2009, 10:59 AM']Tell your friend you can vote however the hell you want to. This "you cant force your opinion/morality" nonsense is so stupid. No matter what the issue, when you vote, you are forcing your opinion on everyone else. 50million+ people just forced their opinion that obama is a better man for president.

What better way to get people to stop arguing than by convincing them they are not in the right to even make an argument. eff that. They want a pluralistic society so bad, guess what, we get to vote too.[/quote]
Right on

[quote name='Didymus' post='1823452' date='Apr 3 2009, 12:35 PM']I agree. Additionally, what we have now is our own Catholic priests potentially being in effect forced to participate in a legal system that participates in the condoning of the homosexual lifestyle. Right now priests act on behalf of the state and the Church when witnessing marriages. If homosexual marriage is legalized, as it is already in several states, priests would be tied in some way to the ministerial aspect of the state's overseal of marriage. If marriage weren't regulated by the state at all, we could keep marriage sacred by keeping it in the Churches and keeping the government out of it, and couples would have to also fill out the necessary paperwork, whether that be a contract or some sort of civil union for the purposes of govt benefits and records.[/quote]
In Canada, one has to arrange a wedding with the Church, and personally fill out the paperwork for the government because of the situation you described.

[quote name='philothea' post='1823554' date='Apr 3 2009, 02:14 PM']For the most part, people aren't trying to conceive children before they get married, so how would we know? In the normal order of things it's reasonable to assume that there will be children, and so this social construct of marriage is useful. (Sterile married couples have indeed been stigmatized throughout history.)

In a completely secular sense, if a couple is not intending to stay together permanently and raise children, there is no reason for the state to create and enforce laws to enhance the stability of the social construct called "marriage."

People can write up their own vows and contracts if they want. If something doesn't contribute to the furtherance of society, by creating additional healthy, capable human beings, why should the government use resources to support it?

Obviously, Catholics believe there is more to marriage than procreation. But if we want to separate Church and State, this is the State-side argument against gay marriage.[/quote]

[Spence06]

I have a question, I am 100% against Gay Marriage but when its comes to issues of a gay couple, I think some things should be allowed, in particular, if their significant other is dieing often times, they will be turned away since it is family only. Would it be wrong to allow such things? I think it is just sorta cruel to deny that.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Spence06

[Apotheoun]

There is no right to moral depravity.

[Nihil Obstat]

People are always saying that we "can't force our morals on others."

What the heck do they think they're doing when they vote? They vote for a person that ideally shares morals close to their own. They want to force that on their country. It's what this whole democratic system is based on, for better or worse.

Sometimes people are so stupid.

[philothea]

[quote name='Spence06' post='1823667' date='Apr 3 2009, 04:23 PM']I have a question, I am 100% against Gay Marriage but when its comes to issues of a gay couple, I think some things should be allowed, in particular, if their significant other is dieing often times, they will be turned away since it is family only. Would it be wrong to allow such things? I think it is just sorta cruel to deny that.[/quote]
I don't have a problem with civil union type deals, where two people agree to a boilerplate partnership with inheritance, medical visitation/decision making, property sharing, and so on.

And no necessary implication that sex is involved. Could be best friends, cousins, siblings, whatever. Just adults who know what the agreement means.

[Apotheoun]

Yes, those kinds of comments are always funny, because law is the enforcement of moral standards.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Spence06' post='1823667' date='Apr 3 2009, 03:23 PM']I have a question, I am 100% against Gay Marriage but when its comes to issues of a gay couple, I think some things should be allowed, in particular, if their significant other is dieing often times, they will be turned away since it is family only. Would it be wrong to allow such things? I think it is just sorta cruel to deny that.[/quote]

That is easily taken care of by the signing of a health care power of attorney. I had a platonic roommate for 15 years. I wanted her making my medical decisions and not my mom. People are just afraid to do a little bit of paperwork. You can even get the blank forms at Office Depot for less than $10. There is also some kind of aversion to doing wills or powers of attorney because it is morbid or means I think I'm going to die. Codswallop.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think you guys don't see why people usually say "don't force your morals on me".
sometimes, it's true, it doesn't make sense. we have speeding laws, murder etc, based on morals.
the implication that's usually meant when it's said though, is "if i'm not hurting anyone else, let me be".

that's what the country is based on. if you want to go outside and smoke cigarettes, you should be able to, if you live in the coutnry and it's de minimis harm to others. "don't force your morals on me" is applicable here. that's what the country is founded on. it's not cool for the government to stop them, and if they do, they're over reaching. (i'm not sure i'd say they don't have the right, but i think i'd even say they don't have the right)
if you want to smoke in a government building in the courtroom, though, nope. etc

true, i think 'don't force your morals on me' is often simplistic. but, usually, the people who criticize that slogan are also living in a simplistic (or, just backwards wrong) world too.

as long as you aren't hurting anyone else other than yourself significantly, you have a right to moral depravity.

(banning gluttony, cursing on your private property when you live in the country but could be heard by passerbys, hitting your brother as a kid, masturbation, adultery etc--- is idiotic, sorry, that's what i think. just being honest)

Edited April 4, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1823904' date='Apr 3 2009, 07:23 PM']i think you guys don't see why people usually say "don't force your morals on me".
sometimes, it's true, it doesn't make sense. we have speeding laws, murder etc, based on morals.
the implication that's usually meant when it's said though, is "if i'm not hurting anyone else, let me be".

that's what the country is based on. if you want to go outside and smoke cigarettes, you should be able to, if you live in the coutnry and it's de minimis harm to others. "don't force your morals on me" is applicable here. that's what the country is founded on.
if you want to smoke in a government building in the courtroom, nope. etc

true, i think 'don't force your morals on me' is often simplistic. but, usually, the people who criticize that slogan are also living in a simplistic (or, just backwards wrong) world too.

as long as you aren't hurting anyone else other than yourself significantly, you have a right to moral depravity.

(banning gluttony, hitting your brother as a kid, masturbation, adultery etc--- is idiotic, sorry, that's what i think. just being honest)[/quote]
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at.

Drunk driving isn't so bad when nobody gets hurt? That would be ridiculous. Sure, it's fine right up until people start dying. Happens every single day, I bet.
You don't have any right to do something so dangerous, not just for yourself, but for every single driver and pedestrian that you are anywhere near.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you're taking me too literally. drunk driving involves an unreasonable risk to others.

you don't have a right to do things that harm others, or things that cause an unreasonable risk either.

my words and thoguths just were nuanced enough, that's all.

the point though, is that 'other people' is involved in any case. this is the core issue involved.

it's hard for me to understand how someone would think the government should ban gluttony etc. i mean, even here, peple are always putting down laws that ban smoking, or taking out transfat from restaurants etc. this is an issue of freedom.

my guess is that, people right think we can legislate morality in some cases, when then see people who say that 'don't legistlate morality on me', and then mock them for their inconsistencies. usually the peple who mock, are conservative, and usually these conservatives are just like i said about transfat or cigareets etc, thinking the government should stay out of it.
it's just a matter of lack of consistency, that's all. (at least to me, most people are consisten in their own minds, depending how how they develop their premises etc

Edited April 4, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1823910' date='Apr 3 2009, 07:28 PM']you're taking me too literally. drunk driving involves an unreasonable risk to others.

you don't have a right to do things that harm others, or things that cause an unreasonable risk either.

my words and thoguths just were nuanced enough, that's all.

the point though, is that 'other people' is involved in any case. this is the core issue involved.

it's hard for me to understand how someone would think the government should ban gluttony etc. i mean, even here, peple are always putting down laws that ban smoking, or taking out transfat from restaurants etc. this is an issue of freedom.

my guess is that, people right think we can legislate morality in some cases, when then see people who say that 'don't legistlate morality on me', and then mock them for their inconsistencies. usually the peple who mock, are conservative, and usually these conservatives are just like i said about transfat or cigareets etc, thinking the government should stay out of it.
it's just a matter of lack of consistency, that's all. (at least to me, most people are consisten in their own minds, depending how how they develop their premises etc[/quote]
You know what's also inconsistent? The fact that some things are more dangerous/damaging than others.

[afro_john]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1823910' date='Apr 3 2009, 08:28 PM']you're taking me too literally. drunk driving involves an unreasonable risk to others.

you don't have a right to do things that harm others, or things that cause an unreasonable risk either.

my words and thoguths just were nuanced enough, that's all.

the point though, is that 'other people' is involved in any case. this is the core issue involved.

it's hard for me to understand how someone would think the government should ban gluttony etc. i mean, even here, peple are always putting down laws that ban smoking, or taking out transfat from restaurants etc. this is an issue of freedom.

my guess is that, people right think we can legislate morality in some cases, when then see people who say that 'don't legistlate morality on me', and then mock them for their inconsistencies. usually the peple who mock, are conservative, and usually these conservatives are just like i said about transfat or cigareets etc, thinking the government should stay out of it.
it's just a matter of lack of consistency, that's all. (at least to me, most people are consisten in their own minds, depending how how they develop their premises etc[/quote]

Legislating morality is such a loaded statement. All laws should be aligned with Eternal or Divine law, because it's only through following [i]those[/i] laws that mankind can grow in virtue. It is only through achieving virtue that we can know what [u]true[/u] freedom is.