Homosexual Marriage

[lilCook009]

I was having an argument with my friend (who is very Liberal) about this subject the other day. She made the point that even though I thought gay marriage was morally wrong I had no right to tell others what to think. And I realized that she was right. I am not a supporter of gay marriage but the United States allows for freedom of choice, and if someone wants to live a life of sin I can do nothing but tell them it is a bad idea. I understand that this view will not be very popular so all I ask is that you attack the idea and not me.
Thank You
lilCook

[eagle_eye222001]

Killing is morally wrong. But hey if someone wants to kill someone else, go for it. Their sin.

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/3+doors+down/track/dangerous+game"]3 Doors Down - Dangerous Game[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[lilCook009]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1823077' date='Apr 2 2009, 08:06 PM']Killing is morally wrong. But hey if someone wants to kill someone else, go for it. Their sin.

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/3+doors+down/track/dangerous+game"]3 Doors Down - Dangerous Game[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url][/quote]
But that is a bad analogy, because if someone enters into a gay marriage with some one else they are both consenting and agreeing that they will live in sin together. But if someone kills someone else the people how died did not agree with the murder. A better analogy would be some thing on the lines of a person watching porn. The person watching it is living in sin of their choice and the person how made it chose to make money from sin, out of choice.

[CatherineM]

There is death of human life, and death of eternal life. I tend to worry more about the second one for some silly reason.

[Socrates]

There is absolutely nothing (morally or legally) which requires us to support state recognition of homosexual "marriage."

And I have no clue what your religion is, but Christians are morally required not to give support to immoral activity.

Your friend's "argument" is pure nonsense, plain and simple.

[Socrates]

[quote name='lilCook009' post='1823082' date='Apr 2 2009, 10:14 PM']But that is a bad analogy, because if someone enters into a gay marriage with some one else they are both consenting and agreeing that they will live in sin together. But if someone kills someone else the people how died did not agree with the murder. A better analogy would be some thing on the lines of a person watching porn. The person watching it is living in sin of their choice and the person how made it chose to make money from sin, out of choice.[/quote]
Christians should not give any kind of support to pornography or the viewing thereof, either.

An analogy to voting for "gay marriage" would be for Christians to vote for state support of pornography (like giving special tax breaks to pornographers or such).

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='lilCook009' post='1823064' date='Apr 2 2009, 07:55 PM']I was having an argument with my friend (who is very Liberal) about this subject the other day. [b]She made the point that even though I thought gay marriage was morally wrong I had no right to tell others what to think.[/b] And I realized that she was right. I am not a supporter of gay marriage but the United States allows for freedom of choice, and if someone wants to live a life of sin I can do nothing but tell them it is a bad idea. I understand that this view will not be very popular so all I ask is that you attack the idea and not me.
Thank You
lilCook[/quote]

And, by her own logic, she has no right to tell you what to think.

[Socrates]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1823098' date='Apr 2 2009, 10:25 PM']And, by her own logic, she has no right to tell you what to think.[/quote]
Silly right-winger - everyone knows that the right to tell others what to think is reserved to liberals and does not belong to Christians.
That's implied in the Constitution . . . um, somewhere.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

there's some distinctions that are important.

i think the reason one can't support gay marriage is because it's essentially throwing support behind the idea. if one were to somehow make a policy that simply recogizes they exist, like giving them the same rights to visit their significant other in the hospital or whatever (not that that should be done cause hospitals perhaps should set their own rules, sometimes).
'recognize' v. 'support' is a fine line sometimes, but such is reality, things are not always so clear.

also, the poll assumes that it's either legal, or i assume illegal (does not legal per 'not allowed' mean illegal, or just no law on the books?). this is important to note, cause there's no obligation to ban gay marriage, or to ban sodomy etc. even the catholic church doesn't teach that there is.
you dont' go banning every other sin, there's nothing magical about these. you don't ban adultery, masturabtion (hard to implement if ya did, but that's beside the point), swearing, hitting your little brother as a kid, gluttony etc.

there's in fact something very virtuous and right, about letting people do as they will, as God intended. in fact, banning every possible sin, is in fact the wrong thing to do.
also, allowing states to decide is not only the most constitutional stance to take, it's the most virtuous, cause it allows autonomy at the local level, something very much God inspired/desired. even if that means a state would allow gay marraige, it's the right thing to do to let htem decide.

Edited April 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

Separation of Church and state does not mean that laws cannot be based in a moral code that happens to be shared by religious people.

If that were the case, most laws never would have come to exist. Abolitionists were by and large religious people.

[philothea]

I wouldn't have said "morally corrupt" personally -- more that gay marriage is an invalid concept.

Even outside of Christian beliefs, throughout all of history, the purpose of marriage is to create a permanent partnership for the stable upbringing of offspring. With marriage (ideally speaking, of course) children know who their parents are, parents are sure those children are theirs, inheritance is clear and smooth, and everyone knows that married people are supposed to only be intimate with each other.

Simple concept, simple purpose, but very, very important to the stability of any society. Human children are difficult to raise, and sexual relations are perilous. Marriage helps with both those issues.

Allowing classes of people who cannot possibly biologically reproduce, call themselves "married" undermines the whole purpose of that important institution. (Divorce does too, of course.)

Even societies where homosexual behaviors were considered perfectly moral never had people of the same sex "marry" each other.

[hamflask]

[quote name='philothea' post='1823207' date='Apr 3 2009, 12:31 AM']Even outside of Christian beliefs, throughout all of history, the purpose of marriage is to create a permanent partnership for the stable upbringing of offspring. With marriage (ideally speaking, of course) children know who their parents are, parents are sure those children are theirs, inheritance is clear and smooth, and everyone knows that married people are supposed to only be intimate with each other.[/quote]
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?

[southern california guy]

[quote name='hamflask' post='1823256' date='Apr 3 2009, 01:07 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]

I don't think so. Marrying a couple who couldn't reproduce would not weaken the meaning and intention of marriage -- a union between a man and a woman which can result in kids. If there are kids the committed marriage provides stability.

But if you change the meaning of "marriage" to include homosexuals -- you also give them legitimacy. If they want to adopt children -- then they can argue that they are "married" and stable. If they want to teach about homosexuality to say a grade school class -- they can impress the kids by the fact that they're "married". The word would sound good to kids, as well as adults. Language is very important, it conjures up emotions that can often sway people one way or another. I know that we should be logical, but we usually aren't...

By changing the meanings of words the homosexuals can move further in the direction of pushing homosexuality in the schools. Let's face it they "recruit".. A number of guys that I went to High School with -- at Redmond High School in Washington State -- were molested by Al Williams, the basketball coach, back when they were younger in "Little Dribblers". Al Williams would have the guys over for a party, dress in a gorilla suit and molest them. He was criminally prosecuted the year after I graduated -- but some of the boys he molested are now "homosexuals"... Coincidence??? I don't think so.

[VoTeckam]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1823084' date='Apr 2 2009, 11:16 PM']There is death of human life, and death of eternal life. I tend to worry more about the second one for some silly reason.[/quote]

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).

[Sirklawd]

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.

[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