Homosexual Marriage

[hamflask]

[quote name='philothea' post='1823554' date='Apr 3 2009, 02:14 PM']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."[/quote]
Fair enough. But that isn't an argument against gay marriage. That's an argument against marriage between two people not intending to raise children. Plenty of gay couples adopt children, and this is precisely why they want a state-recognized marriage.

If the word "marriage" is too offensive for some of you, I'm sure everyone would be fine just calling it a "civil union". The rights, not the names, are what matters. I'm also all for the idea of keeping "marriage" a religious institution and "civil union" a state institution, separating them completely.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='hamflask' post='1824459' date='Apr 4 2009, 03:23 PM']Fair enough. But that isn't an argument against gay marriage. That's an argument against marriage between two people not intending to raise children. Plenty of gay couples adopt children, and this is precisely why they want a state-recognized marriage.[/quote]

Gay adoption is not a healthy venue. If gay adoption is okay, then gay marriage is okay. It is an "all or nothing" situation. There is no middle ground.

[quote]If the word "marriage" is too offensive for some of you, I'm sure everyone would be fine just calling it a "civil union".[/quote]

Excuse me? Names do not matter so much as actions do. Many of us are intelligent and are not "fooled" by political name-calling to make everything supposedly "okay."

[quote]The rights, not the names, are what matters. I'm also all for the idea of keeping "marriage" a religious institution and "civil union" a state institution, separating them completely.[/quote]


The names matter as much as the actions do. I'll cite the famous phrase "A rose by any other name is still a rose." Or something along those lines anyway.


Sorry, but either gay marriage and adoption and everything is okay or all of it is not. I along with others understand that word play is very prevalent in today's society and has done wonders for the abortionists movement which is also known as "pro-choice" (what a nice phrase to cover the horrible act) and the Pro-Life movement is also known as the anti-abortionists (a negative sounding name).



----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/system+of+a+down/track/chop+suey"]System of a Down - Chop Suey[/url]!
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[philothea]

[quote name='hamflask' post='1824459' date='Apr 4 2009, 03:23 PM']Fair enough. But that isn't an argument against gay marriage. That's an argument against marriage between two people not intending to raise children. Plenty of gay couples adopt children, and this is precisely why they want a state-recognized marriage.[/quote]

By "raise children" I meant, "create them and bring them up." I'd hoped that was obvious from the rest of what I've posted.

Historically, marriage is all about lineage and property, not love or even morals. It's not a structure with the purpose of bearing children so much as one that, if children are born, it's known whose they are and whose responsibility it is to take care of them.

Married men know (one hopes!!) that children born of their wives are their own offspring. Married women know that they can safely bear children knowing the father -- their husband -- will stick around and provide for them. Inheritance is clear. Responsibility is clear. The commitment is permanent.

I realize that nowadays, in this country, the function of marriage is so damaged as to be nearly unrecognizable, but it's still important, and just because it's weakened doesn't mean the thing to do is blur the concept further.

[hamflask]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1824471' date='Apr 4 2009, 04:03 PM']Excuse me? Names do not matter so much as actions do. Many of us are intelligent and are not "fooled" by political name-calling to make everything supposedly "okay."[/quote]
You misunderstood due to my poor wording. I'm not saying that changing the name makes it okay. I'm refuting the suggestion that gay "marriage" is wrong by virtue of it being called "marriage".

Gay couples should have the same civil rights as straight couples, but religions are of course free to not recognize gay marriage. It seems some people think calling it "marriage" means that religion has to recognize it.

[quote name='philothea']By "raise children" I meant, "create them and bring them up." I'd hoped that was obvious from the rest of what I've posted.[/quote]
Are you opposed to adoption by married couples?

Edited April 4, 2009 by hamflask

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='hamflask' post='1824567' date='Apr 4 2009, 07:07 PM']You misunderstood due to my poor wording. I'm not saying that changing the name makes it okay. I'm refuting the suggestion that gay "marriage" is wrong by virtue of it being called "marriage".

Gay couples should have the same civil rights as straight couples, but religions are of course free to not recognize gay marriage. It seems some people think calling it "marriage" means that religion has to recognize it.[/quote]

I see what you are saying. However, just because the Church does not have to recognize it, does not make it okay.

I as an America voting citizen with upstanding morals, do not want my society recognizing something that I believe is overall harmful to my country. My morals come from God and through my faith and I do the best I can in reflecting how I live my life and help decide what this nation will allow.

My question is, where do your morals come from? Everyone has morals. What differs is where they come from.

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/bon+jovi/track/its+my+life"]Bon Jovi - It's My Life[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[philothea]

[quote name='hamflask' post='1824567' date='Apr 4 2009, 07:07 PM']Are you opposed to adoption by married couples?[/quote]
Not at all. I am very much in favor of adoption, by anyone willing, mentally stable, and economically able to do so. Individuals, couples, groups, whatever.

Of course I see where you mean to go with this.

In all honesty, in the modern world, I think any person or people or group who can provide a good home for an otherwise unwanted or homeless child, ought to be allowed to do so. I realize this is probably not sufficiently Catholic of me.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='philothea' post='1824499' date='Apr 4 2009, 05:09 PM']I realize that nowadays, in this country, the function of marriage is so damaged as to be nearly unrecognizable, but it's still important, and just because it's weakened doesn't mean the thing to do is blur the concept further.[/quote]

This right here.

No one knows why traditional marriage is important to a society mostly because traditional marriage barely exists anymore.

There was a great article on the phatmass defense directory that i read a few years ago (cant find it now). It confronted those in favor of traditional marriage only to fix their own issues (rampant divorce rates and contraception use) before pointing the finger at homosexual couples.

The point that stuck out in my mind is that, at the macro level, how can gay couples take the procreation defense seriously when 99% of traditional couples contracept. It's a good point. A huge amount of ground-level work needs to be done to teach people what love and sex really are all about (Theology of the Body).

I want to thank the person that demonstrated how friggin easy it is to name someone health care power of attorney. That excuse is brought up so often. The more I learn about these "denied rights" the more i'm suspect of them being sentimental justifications to a great social agenda. Keep in mind, in all states/countries where gay marriage is passed, the activists dont just go home, content with victory. Its not the end of the battle, but the start of the revolution. Administrative changes coming flooding in. The state begins to control anything that has to do with parenting and marriage, religious or not, and the agenda is immediately forced to our kids in schools. And atleast in MA, theres no option to opt-out.

remember, you arn't just voting for gay marriage. its a package deal.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='philothea' post='1824588' date='Apr 4 2009, 08:34 PM']Not at all. I am very much in favor of adoption, by anyone willing, mentally stable, and economically able to do so. Individuals, couples, groups, whatever.

Of course I see where you mean to go with this.

In all honesty, in the modern world, I think any person or people or group who can provide a good home for an otherwise unwanted or homeless child, ought to be allowed to do so. I realize this is probably not sufficiently Catholic of me. [/quote]
I have to disagree with you on this one - how can a home be good when based on an unnatural and deviant lifestyle? Do you really think "Heather has two mommies" croutons is the way to raise the next generation?

[CatherineM]

When I was caring for my two foster sons, since their mom kind of came along too, they were raised in a home with two women. I had to work hard to find good male role models for them. The big difference though, is that they never saw me acting like a woman with SSA. It was more like being raised by a single mom and an old maid aunt. They often told people I was their aunt to keep kids from thinking we were something we weren't. Kids naturally imitate their parents, and want to be like them (even if they can't admit it).

[Socrates]

The idea that "separation of Church and state" requires that Catholics/Christians chuck whatever moral principles they have out the window before going into the voting booth is one of the most absurd and destructive, yet insidious, pieces of idiocy out there.

First of all, the phrase "separation of Church and state" is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. The Establishment Clause of the first amendment means merely that Congress cannot legally establish a state Church (like the Church of England across the pond) officially supported by the government. That is what the phrase "establishment of religion" means, and this was well understood at the time of the Constitution's framing.

Most of the founding fathers would be horrified to see this interpreted as meaning that Christian citizens have no right to vote on moral principle.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. [b]Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.[/b]" -- John Adams October 11, 1798


And the Catholic Church is hardly ambiguous regarding how Catholics are to vote regarding homosexual "marriage" and "civil unions."

From the 2003 CDF document [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url]:

[quote]10.[b] If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians.[/b] Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.[/quote]
[quote]11. [b]The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.[/b] Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.[/quote]

All "arguments" that we are obligated by "separation of Church and state" to vote against our conscience and moral obligation as Christians are pure garbage.
As are all "arguments" that we are somehow morally required to legally endorse sin and perversion. (That one still makes my head spin.)


[quote name='philothea' post='1824588' date='Apr 4 2009, 07:34 PM']Not at all. I am very much in favor of adoption, by anyone willing, mentally stable, and economically able to do so. Individuals, couples, groups, whatever.

Of course I see where you mean to go with this.

In all honesty, in the modern world, I think any person or people or group who can provide a good home for an otherwise unwanted or homeless child, ought to be allowed to do so. I realize this is probably not sufficiently Catholic of me. [/quote]
Politically incorrect as it is to say so, a couple indulging in a perverted "lifestyle" does not constitute a "good home."
As long as there are heterosexual married couples willing to adopt (and there are plenty), there is absolutely no reason to support "gay" adoption.
You're right; your answer was not sufficiently Catholic, but reflects modern political correctness. Principles of morality are no different in the "modern world" than in any other time.

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1826274' date='Apr 6 2009, 12:37 PM']This right here.

No one knows why traditional marriage is important to a society mostly because traditional marriage barely exists anymore.

There was a great article on the phatmass defense directory that i read a few years ago (cant find it now). It confronted those in favor of traditional marriage only to fix their own issues (rampant divorce rates and contraception use) before pointing the finger at homosexual couples.

The point that stuck out in my mind is that, at the macro level, how can gay couples take the procreation defense seriously when 99% of traditional couples contracept. It's a good point. A huge amount of ground-level work needs to be done to teach people what love and sex really are all about (Theology of the Body).[/quote]
Very true. The "gay marriage" movement would not be where it is, if society had not first degraded the true meaning of marriage.
However, we must not further degrade marriage by voting for "gay marriage."

[quote]I want to thank the person that demonstrated how friggin easy it is to name someone health care power of attorney. That excuse is brought up so often. The more I learn about these "denied rights" the more i'm suspect of them being sentimental justifications to a great social agenda. Keep in mind, in all states/countries where gay marriage is passed, the activists dont just go home, content with victory. Its not the end of the battle, but the start of the revolution. Administrative changes coming flooding in. The state begins to control anything that has to do with parenting and marriage, religious or not, and the agenda is immediately forced to our kids in schools. And atleast in MA, theres no option to opt-out.

remember, you arn't just voting for gay marriage. its a package deal.[/quote]
Very true. "Gay marriage" is not about "equal rights," but about pushing an ideological agenda, once which Catholics are morally obligated to oppose.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Socrates

[philothea]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1826769' date='Apr 6 2009, 08:41 PM']Politically incorrect as it is to say so, a couple indulging in a perverted "lifestyle" does not constitute a "good home."
As long as there are heterosexual married couples willing to adopt (and there are plenty), there is absolutely no reason to support "gay" adoption.
You're right; your answer was not sufficiently Catholic, but reflects modern political correctness. Principles of morality are no different in the "modern world" than in any other time.[/quote]
Didn't reflect political correctness at all. Why would you assume that was the cause? I've never given a hint of that.

I remember the home I grew up in, which was very unstable, and had I been raised by any of the homosexual couples whom I am acquainted with, who have adopted children or want to adopt, I would have been a thousand times better off, I assure you. And this is no way an endorsement of their lifestyle. Just noting that there are worse things.

In any case, I have little idea of the numbers of people willing to adopt vs. children available. What I said was:

"I think [b]any person or people or group[/b] who can provide a good home for [b]an otherwise unwanted or homeless child,[/b] ought to be allowed to do so."

A child with other people willing to take care of them is not unwanted or homeless, no?

[Apotheoun]

What is a good home?

Does a home where sexual perversion is seen as normal and good qualify as a "good home"?

[Deb]

Marriage is and has always been a union between a man and a woman. Acknowledged by all forever. It is natural and moral law. End of Story.

Our entire society seems to think that because they have an "opinion" on something, that makes it true and therefore everyone should have to adhere to it.

No. No and No.

[Socrates]

[quote name='philothea' post='1827406' date='Apr 7 2009, 01:42 AM']Didn't reflect political correctness at all. Why would you assume that was the cause? I've never given a hint of that.

I remember the home I grew up in, which was very unstable, and had I been raised by any of the homosexual couples whom I am acquainted with, who have adopted children or want to adopt, I would have been a thousand times better off, I assure you. And this is no way an endorsement of their lifestyle. Just noting that there are worse things.

In any case, I have little idea of the numbers of people willing to adopt vs. children available. What I said was:

"I think [b]any person or people or group[/b] who can provide a good home for [b]an otherwise unwanted or homeless child,[/b] ought to be allowed to do so."

A child with other people willing to take care of them is not unwanted or homeless, no?[/quote]
I'm not claiming that being raised by homosexuals is the absolute worst thing that could happen to a child, but I certainly don't see a homosexual shack-up as constituting a truly "good home."

A thousand times better off? Somehow, I doubt that.

And, while unfortunately, I don't have the sources with me, I've read some interesting first-hand testimony that being raised in a homosexual household is in reality far from the healthy, happy experience liberals tout it as.

From what I've heard there are usually long waiting lists for orphans or unwanted children. The idea that kids will be without homes unless homosexuals adopt is completely bogus propaganda.

I'm afraid in reality the push for homosexual adoption is less truly about the welfare of the children than it is about the "rights" of homosexuals, and trying to push the view that they are "just the same as any other family." One thing that makes me madder than the homosexualist movement itself is using children as pawns in their agenda.

Today, children are seen as a "right" owed to everybody, rather than a gift from God. Thus such things as homosexuals either adopting children or having them in vitro, and IVF in general, and such abominations as "Octo-mom." It's the flip-side of the contraceptive mentality.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Socrates

[friendofJPII]

A homosexual couple cannot marry. It's a contradiction in terms. You need a complementary conjugal realtionship to make a marriage in the same way you need flour and eggs to bake a cake.

What bothers me most is that if the state recognizes gay marriage, I'll be forced to refer to such a couple as married, when they are not. I cannot in good conscience refer to a male person's partner as "his husband" or female person's partner "wife." In my mind, that is lying.

We do not live in a theocracy but our country was founded on natural law principles. Defending marriage as the union between a man and a woman is as natural as defending eating or sleeping. Speaking of which, imagine if we what ppl would say if we could travel back in time 100 years and tell them in the year 2009 we would be defending life and marriage. Wow, we've made progress, by golly!

And what would they think of treadmills?

Edited April 11, 2009 by friendofJPII