God and Gay Marriage

Quote: Nareed

Speaking of marriage today, some people marry for love, others for money, others for an immigrant's visa, others for convenience, others for companionship, others due to external pressures, others to legitimize a bastard child, others to procreate reliably, among other reasons, or in a combination of reasons. Shouldn't we classify all such unions and name them each for that they are?
.

According to FrG, yes we should. Obviously
the Church wants to weasel it's way around
Gay marriage by calling it something else.
It doesn't believe that 'a rose by any other
name' would smell the same. If the Church
calls Gay marriage something else, the
meaning would change and the Church might
be able to live with it.

What a monumental insult to Gays. It's exactly
like telling Negros they can't use the same
drinking fountains or bathrooms or restaurants
as Whites because they're sub humans. Gays
can't claim real marriage because there is a
'fundamental' difference between them and
straight people, although FrG has still not told
us what that is.

I don't think that since poligamy is a a special word for plural marriage that we need a special word for same sex marriage, mixed race or interracial marriage, cross-generational marriage, or any other adjectice-marriage combinations that you can think of.

Leaving out poligamy for now, they all have the same rights and responsibilities.

Why insist on calling same sex civil unions something else, when it is the same thing? You would deny them the WORD but not the union?

And yes, if you would deny them the word, you would have discrimination from places that only had policies on marriage, but not the separarate and not equal for long other things.


Anyway, by the narrowest of margins, it is a "done deal" and it will nearly take an act of god, if you pardon the expression, to change it now.

Supreme court reversals are rare and not swift, and the way things are today, changes to the US constitution are next to impossible.

FrGamble don't the same people confess to doing the same sins last week that they might do next week. Then 2 months later, they may do the sin again.

But you let those get married. Everyone in your parish is sinning. I'm pretty sure. No matter how many times they confess they will sin again.

How about the gay married couple agrees to do less of other sins?

Yeah, they got a big fail on one, but there must be something positive in avoiding others. Hard to believe there's no sin balance.

Maybe suggest it to the Pope.

: )

Quote: Dalex64

Why insist on calling same sex civil unions something else, when it is the same thing? You would deny them the WORD but not the union?

But it would be denying them the union, that's
the point. Under the law, calling it something
other than marriage makes it something other
than marriage. That's why the Church is squirming
today, if they accept gay marriage, they legitify
the Gay lifestyle, which is something they are
very much against.

They view being Gay as a mortal sin. So if they accept
Gay marriage, they are endorsing a mortal sin.

From the catechism itself:

1. All sexual acts, outside of natural marital relations open to life, are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal sins.

That sums it up, straight to hell for you.
Too bad sin doesn't exist. It takes all
the fun out of reading the rest of this
appalling convoluted self righteous
mess:

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/homosexuality-sin.htm

Quote: FrGamble

There are real differences because of gender and therefore there are real differences in same-sex versus heterosexual relationships. We should not call them both the same thing. It would be like calling every human being an it, rather than a he or she.

Years ago I got into Larry Niven's fiction. He has a series of stories and novels set in "Known Space," which weaves a kind of future history, with a rather great deal of consistency. In one story he has a character say "There are things which would force us to legalize murder." Later on he has had other characters repeat this claim. But he's never explained it. I think it's a brain teaser which became an in-joke between the author and his readers. But I also suspect he may have something specific in mind. I've spent some time trying to figure out what it could be. Whether some new scientific principle/theory or a technological advance could render murder legal. It's a frustrating intellectual exercise (ie I haven't been able to figure it out).

Now here we are presented with another such teaser. And, like Niven, the claimant will not (or cannot??) say what he means. Having been frustrated by one very obscure teaser, I've no desire to engage in another. I have also no desire to rehash all the Jehovah/Jesus/spirits/deities controversies (plenty of opportunity for that elsewhere).

So far you've pointed out the obvious: men and women are different.

This is a non-sequitur, as it has nothing to do with the question at hand: are opposite sex marriages any different, in a fundamental legal way, from same sex marriages?

Let me point out the obvious: No.

I've listed the many reason why people get married. Nearly all of them apply to either type of marriage. But let's take the ideal and analyze it:

Two people get married because they love each other and want to build a life together. Now, there may or may not be children. The children may be wholly, partially, or not at all genetically related to the parents. Depending on the preceding, there may or may not be reason for paternity leave. The marriage may or may not work out. If it does, or so long as it does, the two people involved need a way to manage their property, as they see fit, jointly and/or separately. If it doesn't work out, they need a way to apportion joint property (if any). They also need to settle questions of child custody and support, if there are children involved. There may be issues of spousal support as well. Lastly, and everyone hopes it doesn't come to that, these two people need to be able to participate in medical decisions regarding their spouse, should the spouse be unable to do so, and to participate in the care of said spouse either way.

This is not everything that involves marriage, naturally, but I think I covered the most important parts involving the law and the legal recognition of a marriage.

Now, which one part does not apply either to opposite sex or same sex couples?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't have a lot of time to respond right now but I can't stand allowing such craziness to stand for too long without being challenged.

It is not a non-sequitur to talk about the difference between men and women because they are the pieces that make up same-sex unions or marriages. If you make something out of legos or wood it makes a difference. There are also some materials you can make certain stuff out of and some things that you simply can't build with certain material. Therefore it is ESSENTIAL to recognize that men and women are different because if they are different then the different loving and committed combinations of men and women are also different.

It also seems strange to get into calling different names for things that are really just different in the rites, rituals, and exterior look. It is very strange and not wise to also try to have the government or the law try to distinguish between the motivations of why people enter into marriage or a union. Imagine what a mess that would be and does the government do that in any other situation?

Mosca, your lip service to freedom as a way to remove it or force others to do something they don't want to do is a little scary. You should probably reexamine that argument. Do you really want to start dividing freedoms into a Chinese menu where you can only take one freedom from column A but not from column B. I prefer a smorgasbord or all you can eat model of freedom.

Evenbob, you are just so very wrong. Calling something by a different name when they really are different is nothing like the days of "separate but equal" when they took two things (a black person and a white person) who were exactly the same and treated them differently because of the color of their skin. While we treat men and women as equals we also treat them differently. Why can we not treat same sex unions and marriage equally under the law but not confuse and frustrate everyone with using the same word? NOBODY has answered this question without reverting to fear mongering and ridiculous comparisons. While we are at it I have no idea where you get the notion that there is a fundamental difference between gays and straight people. Sexual orientation is not in my mind the be all and end all of who a person is.

Quote: Nareed

I've listed the many reason why people get married. Nearly all of them apply to either type of marriage. But let's take the ideal and analyze it:

Two people get married because they love each other and want to build a life together. Now, there may or may not be children. The children may be wholly, partially, or not at all genetically related to the parents. Depending on the preceding, there may or may not be reason for paternity leave. The marriage may or may not work out. If it does, or so long as it does, the two people involved need a way to manage their property, as they see fit, jointly and/or separately. If it doesn't work out, they need a way to apportion joint property (if any). They also need to settle questions of child custody and support, if there are children involved. There may be issues of spousal support as well. Lastly, and everyone hopes it doesn't come to that, these two people need to be able to participate in medical decisions regarding their spouse, should the spouse be unable to do so, and to participate in the care of said spouse either way.

This is not everything that involves marriage, naturally, but I think I covered the most important parts involving the law and the legal recognition of a marriage.

Now, which one part does not apply either to opposite sex or same sex couples?

Inquiring minds want to know.

This is a very good argument and a strong point. You did a good job capturing the "ideal" and analyzing it from the perspective of the state. You do gloss over one of the important reasons the state has historically been so concerned and protective of marriages, namely that in the ideal situation a child does best with a loving, stable, and committed biological father and mother. I know there are studies that seem to show that homosexual couples do great raising children and I have no reason to doubt that, however I still hold that the ideal would be a loving mom and dad.

Another thing you overlook (again) is that marriage has always meant a man and a woman in the United States. Why cause all these problems by changing it? Also the word marriage means something very different to many religious denominations that also live in this great country and have the freedom to practice their religion - it puts the state and religion on a collision course unnecessarily. We can all live peacefully together if we compromise and respect each other and treat each other as equals and not bigots and fools.

Quote: FrGamble

If you make something out of legos or wood it makes a difference.

Sure. But a house made of wood is a house. A house made of brick is a house. A house made of Legos is a house.

Quote:

Therefore it is ESSENTIAL to recognize that men and women are different because if they are different then the different loving and committed combinations of men and women are also different.

Not in the context of a civil marriage.

If you want to say that in a religious marriage it matters, go ahead and claim the universe for all I care. But your beliefs don't matter even a fraction of a tiny iota when it comes to civil marriage.

Quote:

It also seems strange to get into calling different names for things that are really just different in the rites, rituals, and exterior look.

I suppose having to marry whoever your parents choose is exactly the same as current marital practices in Western countries, then. So is marrying preferably within your own family. It just comes down to different rituals.

Quote:

It is very strange and not wise to also try to have the government or the law try to distinguish between the motivations of why people enter into marriage or a union. Imagine what a mess that would be and does the government do that in any other situation?

And yet you want government to differentiate between who makes up a marriage? Do you not see the potential for abuse and mistreatment?

Quote: FrGamble

Mosca, your lip service to freedom as a way to remove it or force others to do something they don't want to do is a little scary. You should probably reexamine that argument. Do you really want to start dividing freedoms into a Chinese menu where you can only take one freedom from column A but not from column B. I prefer a smorgasbord or all you can eat model of freedom.

It is not lip service. It is something that is happening right now every day.

I have nothing left to say. Feel free to bray into the darkness as your congregation wanders away.

Quote: FrGamble

This is a very good argument and a strong point. You did a good job capturing the "ideal" and analyzing it from the perspective of the state.

You realize the Court ruled only on state matters, don't you?

Quote:

You do gloss over one of the important reasons the state has historically been so concerned and protective of marriages, namely that in the ideal situation a child does best with a loving, stable, and committed biological father and mother.

It depends more on the kind of parents and the kind of marriage they have. I can cite examples I've seen of screwed up biological parents in the "traditional" opposite sex marriage bringing up screwed up children, who then get married and repeat the vicious circle.

Quote:

I know there are studies that seem to show that homosexual couples do great raising children and I have no reason to doubt that, however I still hold that the ideal would be a loving mom and dad.

How do you define loving? Many parent impose draconian measures on their children, which we would call physical or psychological abuse if they were inflicted by anyone else. Yet claim to love their children.

In any case, the role of marriage in forming families has been clearly secondary as a point of law. People incapable of producing children and unwilling to adopt children have never been barred from marriage, fi they were of the opposite sex. Fertility tests were never administered. Sterility in a partner is not cause for divorce (except if the spouse lied about it, in which case the cause is fraud, not sterility). Unmarried opposite sex couples are not required to relinquish their children, nor are single parents.

Quote:

Another thing you overlook (again) is that marriage has always meant a man and a woman in the United States.

And "black" meant "subservient" or "slave," but rarely "citizen," in the United States from the 1500s until at least the 1860s. Tradition and custom are terrible guides for maintaining oppressive policies.

Quote:

Why cause all these problems by changing it?

Why hold up recognition of the rights of millions of people because it discommodes people?

Quote:

Also the word marriage means something very different to many religious denominations that also live in this great country and have the freedom to practice their religion - it puts the state and religion on a collision course unnecessarily.

I ask again; do you know the Supreme Court ruled only on civil marriage?

There is nothing in Justice Kennedy's decision which would force any church, no matter how small, to perform or recognize any kind of same sex marriage. Religious freedom gets a lot of latitude. If a church wants to bar its congregants from miscegenation, it may do so in perfect legal safety, too.

You know, this whole argument would be a lot more convincing if all these people who say they only oppose the designation of "marriage," had lifted as much as a finger to advance their idea of separate but equal non-marriage before June 26th 2015.