State should not deny SSX marriage? Huh

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

Since you hve agreed - for the sake of argument - that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman has been around for thousands of years - please tell me what improvement you think changing the existing definition will provie. Thank you

God bless

Originally Posted by ASimon

I don't agree, though. I'm just accepting your flawed premises for the sake of the argument, to show how they don't stand up when you apply them in the real world.

The reality is simple - I'm not obsessed with this ossified definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Even if that had been the definition for thousands of years, it's irrelevant unless you can explain why, and on what basis that it can't ever be changed, and why our secular government should be respectful of that.

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

And for all of these years, I have thought that GeorgSantayanae ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana) was just being funny... you know, the guy who said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes."

So, it would seem that by saying, 'history is irrelevant' Santayanae would identify your ultimate outcomes as equally irrelevant.

You are right, Common sense and logic do depend on valid premises. One of the ways to validate a premise is to see how long it lasts and what are the consequences. Your claim that marriage being defined as one man and one woman is unsound. What do you base this on?

Do you know of a society (not isolated and individual citizens in that society) that is based on legalized homosexual behavior that has lasted for thousands of years, that is self-repliating, that has advance its cvilization? Now, that would be evidence to consider. Of course, there is always the argument that unrestrained hedonism is the only valid criteria to consider in evaluating behavior - then I submit that Santayanae has already established the criteria for such an evaluation.

God bless

Originally Posted by ASimon

History is irrelevant. Many bad ideas have been defended on the basis of "we've always done it this way." Common sense and logic are only as good as the premises they're based on. And your premises are unsound.





See Exhibit A.

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

I really must disagree with you on this - your definition is most certainly NOT IRRELEVANT. Your definition - is what is driving this discussion. Most of your previous posts have involved Gratuitous Criticism of the definitions that others have provided. Honest communications really depends on at least most of the cards being placed on the table.

What you claim are 'semantic obstacles' are really the effort to reduce to writing just what it is we are trying to describe. Stable society has all of recorded history to back up the definition of marriage you have been rejecting - but failing to provide your own. Words are merely a reflection of the logic we are employing to convey an idea to others. There are rules to the use of words so that intellegent communications can progress - and, that brings us back to the need for clearly set definitions.

If there is a disagreement - it must be more than, "I don't agree" or else we lose the ability to discuss topics that matter.

God bless

Originally Posted by ASimon

No - my definition is irrelevant, as I've said before. The reason it's irrelevant is because I'm not the one who insists that marriage has an immutable definition. You are. And because you continue to persist in throwing up semantic obstacles to try deflect attention from the real argument - "Oh, I can't marry anyone I love and am attracted to, or I'd be married to a million guys already. Therefore, gays already have equal rights." What nonsense.

We are not arguing from the same premise, so I am not required to satisfy the same conditions as you. You are the one who insists that your definition of marriage is eternal and unchanging. I ask again, on what basis do you assert this, and why should people be obliged to respect it?

[Dakota Roberts]

Originally Posted by ASimon

Needless to say, there is no compelling evidence that a man-woman home life necessarily provides a better, more stable environment for raising children than a same-sex couple would. But it's interesting that people who put forward this argument never follow through on that logic - wouldn't allowing gays the option to marry increase the stability of their partnerships, and their home lives? If stability really is the problem, why couldn't marriage be part of the solution?

But even if I accept your premise (and I don't), what would benefit orphan children more - having a stable home life being cared for by two men or two women, or being a ward of the state until they turn 18? And wouldn't it benefit the state to have a larger pool of potential adoptive parents? It would certainly seem to save the state and taxpayers money.

Finally, I'll repeat the point from earlier - it's not for the state to grant people rights based on whether it serves a state interest. Rights are presumed to exist, and the state may only deny them if they have a compelling state interest to do so. So even if there were no benefit to the state for allowing same-sex marriage, that argument would still fail, because it would not satisfy the burden of showing that granting that right would be to society's detriment.

I would go one further, why shouldn't people who have a joint household also be given some rights? If one is a wage earner and the other does household stuff why shouldn't the former be able to cover the latter with health insurance? The latter is contributing in such a way as to enable the former to do their job better, it's a similar situation to a working husband and housewife. While it isn't marriage it is something to be recognized.

In the US the children trapped in the foster system are ones that the parents have not yet surrendered custody to, they can not be adopted until that happens. The current number of people looking to adopt exceeds the number children to adopt, all having gay couples able to adopt would do is increase relative scarcity.

The reason people are fighting over marriage is that it is a package of benefits. Spouses being different "races" does nothing to impair procreation thus it is unreasonable to restrict it as it is unimpaired in filling it's role, on the other hand the couple being the same sex is a complete barrier to procreation. Filing joint incomes can actually be quite expensive for the state to extend in terms of lost revenues.

PS Tom, please use the multiquote feature, it is extremely bothersome to have four consecutive posts by one person when 1-2 could suffice.

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

The entire focus of homosexual union is who can sodomize whom and to do so for such other elements as inheritance, health benefits and tax purposes.

Society is maintained by children being conceinved and then reared in a stable family environment. Homosexual behavior accomplished none of this - but, it does it best to mimic certain aspects - and then try to steal the benefits. Hardly an honorable way of presenting a particular point of view.

Ultimately, homosexual behavior in not only fundamentally disordered - it is also fundamentally unhealhy. Those who engage in homosexual behavior seriously abuse their bodies, damage organs (there is no anal/rectum transpant) are subject to more serious Sexually Transmitted Diseases and various viral attacks on the liver. Those who engage in homosexaul behavior live unhealthy lives and as a result have much greater morbidity and mortality then those men and women who live chaste lives in the married state.

Proclaiming that the way you want to have sex should be the basis for changing society is truly a self-centered approach to life and honestly will not last. Societies that embrace homosexual behavior have no real basis for discriminating against pedophiles and those who engage in beastiality. It is truly a very distorted world you are promoting as 'fair'. As I see it, the preditor is to be priased and the victim - well he/she will just stay the victim.

There appears to me to be a monumental lack of maturity in the position you are presenting on these posts.

God bless

Originally Posted by ASimon

Re-placing the question again. On what basis do you assert that reproduction is the only basis of marriage, and why should I or my government care?



Do you honestly not realize how insulting you are when you say stuff like this?

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by ASimon

Re-placing the question again. On what basis do you assert that reproduction is the only basis of marriage, and why should I or my government care?



Do you honestly not realize how insulting you are when you say stuff like this?

This is Catholic Answers. Catholics are taught and believe that based on Scripture and Tradition that homosexuality is disordered and therefore in discussing homosexuality, you don't have to like it, you don't have to accept it, you can refuse to post...the reality is that homosexuals have in my opinion and others that are Catholic perverted and aberrant sexual behavior. This behavior is not to be consistent with what I have been taught, what Catholics are taught, what Catholics believe to be sexual intercourse. This is in the context of the Sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman.

If you find this insulting then I understand. If you do not understand that I do not see this as insulting then you don't understand. I have no reason to change my stance. This is the stance. This is the belief. We disagree.

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by ASimon

Needless to say, there is no compelling evidence that a man-woman home life necessarily provides a better, more stable environment for raising children than a same-sex couple would. But it's interesting that people who put forward this argument never follow through on that logic - wouldn't allowing gays the option to marry increase the stability of their partnerships, and their home lives? If stability really is the problem, why couldn't marriage be part of the solution?
But even if I accept your premise (and I don't), what would benefit orphan children more - having a stable home life being cared for by two men or two women, or being a ward of the state until they turn 18? And wouldn't it benefit the state to have a larger pool of potential adoptive parents? It would certainly seem to save the state and taxpayers money.

Finally, I'll repeat the point from earlier - it's not for the state to grant people rights based on whether it serves a state interest. Rights are presumed to exist, and the state may only deny them if they have a compelling state interest to do so. So even if there were no benefit to the state for allowing same-sex marriage, that argument would still fail, because it would not satisfy the burden of showing that granting that right would be to society's detriment.

Assimon,

You negate the fact that the OHCAC teaches, Catholics believe that based on Scripture and Tradition homosexual acts are disordered and to condone or enable the propagation of these unions would be tanatmount to accessory to the act and would imply the same sentiment as doing the act in the teaching of the OHCAC.

I believe that it is wrong to steal. I aid and condone a thief without stealing myself. I am as guilty as the thief. Get it.

[ASimon]

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

Assimon,

You negate the fact that the OHCAC teaches, Catholics believe that based on Scripture and Tradition homosexual acts are disordered and to condone or enable the propagation of these unions would be tanatmount to accessory to the act and would imply the same sentiment as doing the act in the teaching of the OHCAC.

I believe that it is wrong to steal. I aid and condone a thief without stealing myself. I am as guilty as the thief. Get it.

I don't negate the fact that this is what Catholicism teaches. My point is that this basis is insufficient for the purposes of imposing your beliefs on others (as our government forbids policy to be dictated by religion). As well as the fact that most of the claims Catholicism makes re: homosexuality are false.

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by ASimon

I don't negate the fact that this is what Catholicism teaches. My point is that this basis is insufficient for the purposes of imposing your beliefs on others (as our government forbids policy to be dictated by religion). As well as the fact that most of the claims Catholicism makes re: homosexuality are false.

Asimon,

Good. Now you should accept that on Catholic Answers when dialoguing with a Catholic that saying homosexuals cannot have intercourse is not insulting. OK

[ASimon]

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

Asimon,

Good. Now you should accept that on Catholic Answers when dialoguing with a Catholic that saying homosexuals cannot have intercourse is not insulting. OK

Why? Because it's false? That'd be pretty silly, wouldn't it? I shouldn't find false claims made on the basis of a religion that's very likely false as well to be insulting?

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by ASimon

Why? Because it's false? That'd be pretty silly, wouldn't it? I shouldn't find false claims made on the basis of a religion that's very likely false as well to be insulting?

Asimon,

I find it insulting that on a Catholic Answer forum with a Bible believing Catholic you say that what I believe is fale. You also say what I believe is silly. You state that the claims of the OHCAC that I believe to be the Church of the living God is false and the religion is false. This is insulting the beliefs I profess. Now I am not in a bar, I am not in a restaurant, I am not on a street corner...I am on a Catholic Answer forum...where guests are welcome to discuss, agree, disagree...and offend...I find you offensive and insulting. Sometimes guests are that way. Welcome to Catholic Answers.

[tqualey]

Hi, ASimon,

Just saying you don't like what the Catholic Chruch teaches falls flat against some very hard reality. Homosexual behavior is simply self-serving, pleasure seeking to the exclusion of physical realities. Sodomy destroys the body - now, you man not like that - but, that is one of those realities that can be easily documented by no less an authority then the CDC to which I have given you a link.

Complaining about the Catholic Church "...Imposting your beliefs..." is a soap bubble of an argument - easily seen through and just as easily broken. There are Commandments that forbid murder, theft, lying adultery, etc. - do you complain that these are arbitrary laws and that you would feel safer and more fulfilled if no such commandments existed?

I submit you have demonstrated how whining without any documented argument leads nowhere. Please, look beyond your feelings and present a logical argument in response to the logical arguments you have been evading so far.

God bless

Originally Posted by ASimon

I don't negate the fact that this is what Catholicism teaches. My point is that this basis is insufficient for the purposes of imposing your beliefs on others (as our government forbids policy to be dictated by religion). As well as the fact that most of the claims Catholicism makes re: homosexuality are false.

[Stephen168]

Originally Posted by ASimon

Do you honestly not realize how insulting you are when you say stuff like this?

Facts are only insulting to people on the wrong side of truth.

Originally Posted by ASimon

As well as the fact that most of the claims Catholicism makes re: homosexuality are false.

List two.

[Matilda Bennett]

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the "Submit" button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

[nagyszakall]

Originally Posted by ASimon

You are the one who insists that your definition of marriage is eternal and unchanging. I ask again, on what basis do you assert this, and why should people be obliged to respect it?

I think "definition" means what we understand by it. What is it that people have up to now generally called a marriage (regardless of culture or religion)? Actually, I haven't insisted on it being eternal or unchanging; just look back at my posts. That is exactly the conversation we're having: if we can change it and to what extent.
It's like having a horse and shoeing it, or trimming the mane or cutting off the tail for example: it will still remain a horse. But there are certain things you can't cut off without killing the poor beast (and that is my concern). But you seem to be saying that the beast doesn't exist at all...
In which case you are fighting an absurd cause, unless your goal is to do away with marriage all together (and I have a feeling, that is the true intention of someone behind the so called "marriage equality" movement).