a thought on marriage

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 19 2004, 06:35 PM'] Thought I'd repeat here what I posted in another thread (in response to people calling for "gay marriage"):

If "gay marriages" are "what America was made for," then why have they not been recognized in this country for over 200 years???
[/quote]
Because sometimes it takes a while for America to catch up to its own values. For a long time slavery was legal -- that wasn't what America was made for and it was illegalized. For a long time women couldn't vote and we nixed that idea too. Until relatively recently interracial couples couldn't marry. Our ideals are there, we just have a hard time implementing them. We'll get to it someday.

[quote]Legal marriage bestows certain legal and tax benefits on married couples, and is a legal recognition of what is a foundation of all civilized society, the family (man, woman and their children). This is not what a "gay union" is, and sodomy deserves no such legal recognition, which mocks and cheapens the dignity of real marriage.[/quote]

The word family does not mean what you want it to mean and, at least in this country, we don't require that people have children after getting married. Otherwise the elderly, sterile and childfree would not be allowed. Yet, I don't see those questions being asked, so you must be mistaken. A "gay union" is what, then? How, aside from gender, does it differ from a "straight union"? Sodomy (which, for the record, is defined as both oral and anal sex) doesn't have legal recognition and I have no idea what this has to do with this discussion. What dignity does "real" marriage have? Spell it out for me, would you?

[quote]If legal marriage is to be based on the hedonistic principle of people just doing whatever they like ("If it feels good, do it!"), then why stop with "gay marriage"?
Why shouldn't someone be able to legally "marry" his or her son or daughter?
A barnyard animal?
A blow-up doll?[/quote]

This statement makes you the worst kind of bigot. Legal marriage is based on taxation. The call for same-sex marriage is based on equal rights. Your asinine examples lack a tenet central to marriage: consent. None of those things can give consent.

[quote]Sorry if I've offended anybody, but this point gets to the root of the issue, I think.

Hey, legal rights for everybody! Who am I to impose my morality?[/quote]

Actually this point ignores the issue completely. Strangely, you do get the last sentence right, though I don't think you intended to. And if you really thing that everybody shouldn't have legal rights you are more of a bigot than I thought.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 20 2004, 09:35 PM']

I'm just going to have to call [Edited by Ice Princess: original post edited.] on that statement right there. [/quote]
we don't use that kind of language here. Please keep it in mind that younger people frequent this site.

Also, Welcome! Are you Catholic?

Edited November 21, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 20 2004, 05:30 PM'] It is across the board, within certain parameters, most men are able to marry most women. [/quote]
That isn't the same thing as having equal rights and you know it. You're trying to semanticize your way out of the problem, but that won't work. We (as a country) have already determined that we don't allow such arbitrary parameters when we dropped miscegenation laws.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 20 2004, 11:01 PM'] we don't use that kind of language here. Please keep it in mind that younger people frequent this site.

Also, Welcome! Are you Catholic? [/quote]
Duly noted. I shall refrain in the future.

Thanks! Nope, I'm not catholic -- I hadn't mentioned it yet because I thought it would be obvious.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 21 2004, 12:10 AM'] Duly noted. I shall refrain in the future.

Thanks! Nope, I'm not catholic -- I hadn't mentioned it yet because I thought it would be obvious. [/quote]
it's never obvious nowadays...that would be too easy

[toledo_jesus]

my personal belief about the gay marriage thing is that they should be denied marriage because marriage is historically, sacramentally, morally a male-female joint. However, I don't care if they want the same legal benefits to being married. If they really want to join as legal partners so that they can will their money, or visit each other in the hospital, then whatever. I would balk at giving them tax breaks, because then people wouldn't bother getting married anymore because it would be better to just get a 'partnership' and then you wouldn't have to go through a divorce. I just want the distinction to be made that they are not being married before God, who has been pretty explicit in His disapproval of homosexuality.

Edited November 21, 2004 by toledo_jesus

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 20 2004, 11:58 PM'] my personal belief about the gay marriage thing is that they should be denied marriage because marriage is historically, sacramentally, morally a male-female joint. However, I don't care if they want the same legal benefits to being married. If they really want to join as legal partners so that they can will their money, or visit each other in the hospital, then whatever. I would balk at giving them tax breaks, because then people wouldn't bother getting married anymore because it would be better to just get a 'partnership' and then you wouldn't have to go through a divorce. I just want the distinction to be made that they are not being married before God, who has been pretty explicit in His disapproval of homosexuality. [/quote]
In which case you should note that same-sex marriage advocates are lobbying only for legal marriage. The catholic church doesn't recognize marriages that occur outside of the church, right? Well, there you go -- same-sex couples can't be married in the church so obviously their union won't be recognized by the church and they won't be "married before god". It's pretty simple.

[Guest Aluigi]

i believe the government should not recognize same-sex-unions. it is not promoting the general welfare, but promoting an unhealthy immoral practice. the government should not be in the business of expanding itself to give equal treatment to a couple that is obviously inequal to a heterosexual couple. the couple should not be recognized nor given the same benefits.

[Guest Aluigi]

and marriage between two races is COMPLETELY different. so long as it's only one man and one woman marrying, the government should recognize it. but if it's one man and multiple women, the government doesn't recognize it. if it's two men, the government doesn't recognize it. if it's a man and a dog, the government doesn't recognize it. if it's a man and his mother, the government doesn't recognize it. there ARE certain perameters that the government will uiphold. just because it dropped racist laws doesn't mean it's going to drop all requirements so that any group of people could marry.

[Guest Aluigi]

toledo_jesus, as Catholics we are called to work so that the government recognizes the natural law and is as close as possible to moral law. Catholics must oppose government recognition of homosexual unions with benefits.

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 20 2004, 10:51 PM'] Because sometimes it takes a while for America to catch up to its own values. For a long time slavery was legal -- that wasn't what America was made for and it was illegalized. For a long time women couldn't vote and we nixed that idea too. Until relatively recently interracial couples couldn't marry. Our ideals are there, we just have a hard time implementing them. We'll get to it someday.



The word family does not mean what you want it to mean and, at least in this country, we don't require that people have children after getting married. Otherwise the elderly, sterile and childfree would not be allowed. Yet, I don't see those questions being asked, so you must be mistaken. A "gay union" is what, then? How, aside from gender, does it differ from a "straight union"? Sodomy (which, for the record, is defined as both oral and anal sex) doesn't have legal recognition and I have no idea what this has to do with this discussion. What dignity does "real" marriage have? Spell it out for me, would you?



This statement makes you the worst kind of bigot. Legal marriage is based on taxation. The call for same-sex marriage is based on equal rights. Your asinine examples lack a tenet central to marriage: consent. None of those things can give consent.



Actually this point ignores the issue completely. Strangely, you do get the last sentence right, though I don't think you intended to. And if you really thing that everybody shouldn't have legal rights you are more of a bigot than I thought. [/quote]
[quote]Because sometimes it takes a while for America to catch up to its own values[/quote].

Sometimes America loses its own values.

And the analogy with slavery and interacial marriage is a false one.
A black man marrying a white woman is still a man marrying a woman (which is what marriage is.) A man in a sodomistic partnership with a man is not marriage.

This is nothing about prejudice against people. It is not recognizing a certain action.
For example, it would be wrong for it to be illegal for Joe to invest in a bank because he is black.
This is not the same as saying it should be legal for Joe to rob the bank, because to deny him this "right" would be prejudiced against robbers.

We are condemning actions, not people.
Same-sex "unions" are not marriages, and should not be recognized as such.

You say sodomy doesn't have legal recognition. But (surprise!) this is what "gay" couples do to each other! It does not constitute a marriage.

The dignity of marriage consists of a man and a woman united together for life, to love one another and procreate and care for the children God may give them.

Infertile couples do not violate this, because their infertility is not their deliberate choice, and the act of love-making is open to children.

Sodomy is an act which can in no circumstances bring about new life (other than bacterial life.) It only breeds disease and death. It cannot bring forth children and has no more dignity than masturbation.

Thanks for calling me a bigot. I've heard a "bigot" really means "someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

The fact that you list your religion as "butt sex" speaks volumes about you and your mentality.

[Balthazor]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 20 2004, 03:07 PM'] 1) Because the laws of this country are secular in nature.
2) Because we have a clause in our Constitution that gives everyone equal rights.

For the record, I agree with an earlier post's conclusion that marriage should be removed from the publid sphere.  There should be no such thing as legal marriage.  However, if we are going to have it it should apply across the board. [/quote]
Question: In some states there are laws that prevent sisters from marrying brothers, and people from marrying thier first cousins. Now shoulds this also be legal, because it is essentially legislaing morality and is also based on cultural and religious standards? If our laws are secular then shouldn't this be legal also?

(seeing as they can give consent)

Edited November 21, 2004 by Balthazor

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 21 2004, 11:40 AM'] toledo_jesus, as Catholics we are called to work so that the government recognizes the natural law and is as close as possible to moral law. Catholics must oppose government recognition of homosexual unions with benefits. [/quote]
yeah I know. looking back on my statement it sounds kind of like I'm giving up on the whole thing. It seems kind of overwhelming I guess.
Anyway, I don't believe they should be married. I suppose I just don't have much hope that we'll be able to stop their agenda. I'm tired.

[Socrates]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 21 2004, 02:09 PM'] yeah I know. looking back on my statement it sounds kind of like I'm giving up on the whole thing. It seems kind of overwhelming I guess.
Anyway, I don't believe they should be married. I suppose I just don't have much hope that we'll be able to stop their agenda. I'm tired. [/quote]
Don't give up the good fight, brother!

[Mary's Knight, La]

me:

"While a single parent can provide a somewhat injured version of a family, when both parents are of the same gender it takes the idea of family and warps it into something unnatural."

burns:
"Even the most conservative and traditional definition of family doesn't differentiate between same-sex and opposite sex couples"

the deal is a child cannot receive the full experience parents provide when both parents are of the same sex. I'll find quotes from experts on this if you need, but i don't think logic allows you to argue against this. N.B. that's not to say a child cannot overcome the incomplete experience and become a well-adjusted individual but it does set the child back when they don't have a mother and a father as a whole to learn from.

burns: "Natural law has no place in legislation." this statement boggles my mind! if natural law has no place in legislation then how are we to judge if what is legislated is correct or not? we'd be left with simply the will of the legislators! then perhaps there'd be no law against any form of murder (rather than just no law against murder of the unborn) if enough legislators felt murder was okay. We must have an absolute on which to judge legislation!

burns: "Now, if you mean abstinence from all things sexual in nature I'll just roll my eyes and ignore you. " of course you will and of course that is in fact the meaning meant (although they forgot about the one case of an abstinent jewish woman circa 0 AD lol)

but why will you roll your eyes. certainly not because you don't think it's effective except for divine intervention? No I think you will roll your eyes because you can't conceive of living for anything but the pleasure or pain of the moment perhaps in anticipation of the next moment where you can receive pleasure or avoid discomfort. Know this: once you reach eternity there will be no "next moment" the pain or pleasure you then experience will not end.

if you're not a complete stranger to this site you've encountered Pascal's wager. I reiterate to you then, can the moment-by-moment pleasure you experience now be worth the eternal pain you will experience later.

or as church signs across the country put it "If you live like there's no Hell then you better be right"

[Mary's Knight, La]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 21 2004, 10:28 AM'] The catholic church doesn't recognize marriages that occur outside of the church, right? Well, there you go -- same-sex couples can't be married in the church so obviously their union won't be recognized by the church and they won't be "married before god". It's pretty simple. [/quote]
It's not as simple as you'd like to think, we're called to care for your soul even if you don't. If the government encourages shacking up as opposed to real, honest to God (and i mean it exactly like that) marriage then that is what people will do.

If the government pushes for a healthy concept of marriage, then at least those who still shack up with each other will know that what they are doing is not right in some sense.

[Balthazor]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 20 2004, 10:33 PM'] You know, this is way off topic, but I'll bite. Abstinence is not 100% -- a woman can still get pregnant without penetration. Now, if you mean abstinence from all things sexual in nature I'll just roll my eyes and ignore you. [/quote]
Answering your off topic comment:

Here Abstinence does mean abstaining from all sexual activity, this includes, but is not limited to oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, heavy petting, and the so called "dry humping".

I acknowledge that in-vitro fertiliztion is a way to get pregnant "without sex" but other than that there has only been one time in History that a Woman became pregnent without having sex and since this is a Catholic website I bet you know what time I am talking about.

I understand that some people have a little different idea of abstinence but this is what Quietfire was refering to.
If you think it can't be done...email me sometime.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 21 2004, 10:38 AM'] i believe the government should not recognize same-sex-unions. it is not promoting the general welfare, but promoting an unhealthy immoral practice. the government should not be in the business of expanding itself to give equal treatment to a couple that is obviously inequal to a heterosexual couple. the couple should not be recognized nor given the same benefits. [/quote]
It's fine to believe that as long as you have a legitimate reason to do so. Bigotry is not a legitimate reason to do anything and saying that one couple is "inequal" to another is obvious bigotry. You may call same-sex marriages immoral, you are entitled to an opinion, but there is no reason to call them unhealthy. Unless you mean unhealthy in a moral sense...in which case you are dealing me redundancy.

[quote]and marriage between two races is COMPLETELY different.  so long as it's only one man and one woman marrying, the government should recognize it.  but if it's one man and multiple women, the government doesn't recognize it.  if it's two men, the government doesn't recognize it.  if it's a man and a dog, the government doesn't recognize it.  if it's a man and his mother, the government doesn't recognize it.  there ARE certain perameters that the government will uiphold.  just because it dropped racist laws doesn't mean it's going to drop all requirements so that any group of people could marry.[/quote]

How, exactly, is it different? It's an example of how we used to believe that certain couples are "inequal" and bar their marriage. Obviously we were wrong and we changed the laws accordingly. A man can't marry a dog because a dog cannot give consent to marry. I don't know why one person can't marry multiple other people -- it was the common practice of the old testament -- and perhaps that will be changed in the future, but that's a different situation entirely. We dropped racist laws because we saw that they were discriminatory and we will do so with anti-same-sex marriage legislation as well.

[Carrie]

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 21 2004, 11:50 AM'] .

Sometimes America loses its own values.

And the analogy with slavery and interacial marriage is a false one.
A black man marrying a white woman is still a man marrying a woman (which is what marriage is.) A man in a sodomistic partnership with a man is not marriage.

[/quote]
Actually it does hold up. It was a discriminatory practice that was ended when it was recognized as such. Defining marriage as "a man and a woman" is very popular these days, but it was not always so. Polygynous marriage (that's the practice of one man marrying more than one woman) was ever present in the old testament, so it can't be argued that it has always been that way. Additionally, we create the definitions of our language -- dictionarys are descriptive not prescriptive so they are constantly changing -- and marriage is what we want it to be.

[quote]This is nothing about prejudice against people.  It is not recognizing a certain action. 
For example, it would be wrong for it to be illegal for Joe to invest in a bank because he is black.
This is not the same as saying it should be legal for Joe to rob the bank, because to deny him this "right" would be prejudiced against robbers.[/quote]

Now [i]that[/i] is a false analogy.

[quote]We are condemning actions, not people.
Same-sex "unions" are not marriages, and should not be recognized as such.[/quote]

This is a null value sentence.

[quote]You say sodomy doesn't have legal recognition.  But (surprise!) this is what "gay" couples do to each other!  It does not constitute a marriage.[/quote]

Strangely, there are many, many straight couples who do this to each other as well. Sodomy does not have legal recognition in much the same way that sex does not have legal recognition.

[quote]The dignity of marriage consists of a man and a woman united together for life, to love one another and procreate and care for the children God may give them.[/quote]

Ah, I see -- I can never be married because I'm not going to procreate. Sounds a bit divisive to me.

[quote]Infertile couples do not violate this, because their infertility is not their deliberate choice, and the act of love-making is open to children.[/quote]

But the childfree do.

[quote]Sodomy is an act which can in no circumstances bring about new life (other than bacterial life.)  It only breeds disease and death.  It cannot bring forth children and has no more dignity than masturbation.[/quote]

Or sex for non-procreative purposes -- the only kind a LOT of people have.

[quote]Thanks for calling me a bigot. I've heard a "bigot" really means "someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."[/quote]

Actually, bigot means someone who uses arguments that are based on nothing more than bigotry. Or, someone who discriminates against others. You won't win an argument against me by comparing same-sex relationships with bestiality and pedophilia. We both know that those are in no way the similar and that using that comparison is a tactic to scare others into believing the way that you do.

[quote]The fact that you list your religion as "butt sex" speaks volumes about you and your mentality.[/quote]

Indeed, it does. I find the question offensive and thus I listed something random and, at least on this board, offensive as a response. Had the question been optional I would have left it blank. Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere.