View Single Post
  #50  
Old Feb 13, '12, 4:22 pm
InSearchofGrace's Avatar
InSearchofGrace InSearchofGrace is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2009
Posts: 2,115
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazmat View Post
...
bobcatholic, abstinence is not good either. haha.
Even if the country were to prevent a slide down to the legalized same sex "marriage,' there is no (longer) a law in effect that two men or two women are to abstain from acting out their 'preferred' way of expressing their love for their partners. They are absolutely free to associate in such manner! But then this is not what they really want with SS"M", they want a public recognition of a private interest, serving no true social good.

The discrimination is not like it was against the black race whereby prohibition was on the basis of skin color that has nothing to do with the ability to enter a true marriage between sexes. Or against women who, if they work with their two hands and/or intellect, would be productive just as men in use of their two hands and/or intellect. The determining factor in advancing SS"M" is sexual behavior, neither an inherent physical quality like skin pigment or color of one's eyes, nor of the ability to produce work that merits equal pay.

Further, the claim that SS'M' is a civil right is wrong because:
"The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due.

One kind of social relationship that government recognizes, for example, is a free contract by which two or more parties agree to carry out a transaction or engage in some kind of activity. Let's say you contract with me to paint your house. The law of contract does not define ahead of time what might be contracted; it simply clarifies the legal obligations of the contracting parties and the consequences if the contract is broken. Governments and lawyers and the law do not create the people, the house, the paint, and my desire to paint your house for a price that you want to pay. The point is that even in contract law, the law plays only a limited role in the relationship. The law encompasses the relationship only in a legal way.

If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified. For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can (but does not always) lead to the woman's pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage.

The much disputed question of whether same-sex relationships are morally good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, is beside the point at this stage of legal consideration. The first question is about identity and difference. This is the material legal matter of properly recognizing and identifying what exists and distinguishing between marriages and auto clubs, between schools and banks, between friendships and multinational corporations. It has nothing to do with civil rights.

To recognize in law the distinct character of a marriage relationship, which entails sexual intercourse, involves no discrimination of a civil rights kind against those whose bonds do not include sexual intercourse. Those who choose to live together in life-long homosexual relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages. There is no civil rights discrimination against an eight-year-old youngster who is denied the right to enter into marriage. There is no civil rights discrimination being practiced against a youngster who is not allowed the identity of a college student because she is not qualified to enter college. There is no civil-rights discrimination involved when the law refuses to recognize my auto club as a church. A marriage and a homosexual relationship are two different kinds of relationships and it is a misuse of civil rights law to use that law to try to blot out the difference between two different kinds of things."
Paragraphs quoted from James Skillen's Public Justice Report, Same Sex Marriage is NOT a Civil Right.
,
__________________


Meet Agnes Gonxha

~ InSearchofGrace ~
Reply With Quote