Homosexual Marriage

[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.

[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