Why Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages

[vsedriver]

Originally Posted by ASimon

No, it's not. The opening presumption is on legal equality unless there's reason to deny that equality to certain people. That's not casting the argument "in the negative." That's casting it "correctly."

before you can claim that gays are denied the right to marry you have to prove that. A gay man can walk into any marriage office with a marriagable woman and get a marriage license. There is no discrimination and no denial of rights.

However, if you wish to say any two people should be allowed to marry then I should also have the right to marry my mother.

But I WAS talking about the married filing benefit. And it applies perfectly well here. The government gives married couples access to the benefit regardless of how many children they have. Stay tuned - we'll be returning to this point again, shortly.

right because the benefits are there in case children are produced. Children aren't 'required' but a male and female will always qualify as a daddy and a mommy. They can be a mommy and a daddy at any time during their marriage. Sterile parents can adopt, grandparents can parent grandchildren. Gays can never be a mommy and a daddy parenting couple.

I really hate to break it to you, but you're a little late to the party. "Marriage" has had many definitions throughout time, and not always did this definition turn on the ability to procreate the species. At times, it was for joining families to consolidate wealth and power. And yes, at other times, it was just a way for two people, deeply in love, to demonstrate that.

And why did those families join their wealth? Because to keep it in the family you need to produce children to pass it on to. And every single time the one common thread was that no society ever recognized a marriage that didn't include both genders.

Biology doesn't agree with you, either. Straight couples are capable of procreation regardless of their marital status. So clearly, biology never got the memo that marital vows are required for fertilization to take place.

Wrong, because straight couples procreate the government wants to help them remain as a bonded pair to raise those children so give the couple perks. Otherwise, why should the government give a flying fig who lives with who?

And finally, the U.S. government disagrees with your basis for marriage. They'll recognize a marriage between two people who don't want to have kids or, for whatever reason, can't have kids. Two octagenarians, decades past the point where they could realistically have children together, are allowed to get married. As are two adults in their 20s who've decided they don't want kids. All these marriages are valid, as far as the government is concerned.

The government also recognizes that couple who decide not to have kids have the ability to change their minds and still be parents. Sterile people can adopt. It is their potential to be mommies and daddies that is the reason the government supports 2 gender marriage.

Which only begs the question: If history disagrees with you, and biology disagrees with you, and the United States government (along with the government of every single state) disagrees with you, just where does this idea that intended procreation is the deal-breaker for a valid marriage come from?

Well, history doesn't disagree and neither does biology.

We know where it comes from, don't we? It comes from your theology, from the doctrines of your Catholic faith, and nowhere else. And that's why your argument is irrelevant as a basis for steering governmental policy. You are, in turn, free to insist that gay marriage is "impossible," along with the marriages of the 20-somethings who don't want kids, and the 80-somethings who can't have them. Your call. Just don't expect anyone outside the churchyard to respect that opinion.

so you agree, I should be allowed to marry my mother?

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

I must go Aquinas on you here...

Fantastic phrase: "to go Aquinas on one." I must use that henceforth.

[vsedriver]

Originally Posted by Typist

Then there is no reason for them to accept and respect your choice either.

By your reasoning, it is now entirely logical for them to call for an end to Catholic sex and marriage. It would be fair for them to advocate for laws that enforce their worldview upon you and your family.

What goes around comes around my friend.

Catholic sex? could you define that please?

Against the Constitution to make laws restricting the practice of religion.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by JimG

Or for pederasty.

Or for polygamy. Or for bestiality.

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

Fantastic phrase: "to go Aquinas on one." I must use that henceforth.

Liz,

Take it...I owe you...I shall never use it again...it is yours...

If I forget let me know.

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

Liz,

Take it...I owe you...I shall never use it again...it is yours...

If I forget let me know.

Why should you not use it? Sounds like a phrase that should be in the public domain, given the esteemed status of our friend, the saint and brilliant, most rational intellectual.

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

Why should you not use it? Sounds like a phrase that should be in the public domain, given the esteemed status of our friend, the saint and brilliant, most rational intellectual.

Ok

[stewstew03]

Originally Posted by Typist

Oh, and by the way, whatever your sexual life is, it has been declared perverted and sinful. Sorry bout that! Just remember that we love you, and are doing this for your own good, because we know nothing whatsoever about you. I'm sure you understand.

So... you are trying to change what the Church teaches? And I thought this was about "equal rights."

[Typist]

Originally Posted by Patavium

Huh? excuse me? Are you reading this thread? this is exactly what they are advocating REDEFINING marriage to fit their definition, and forcing it upon all society.

They are not asking you to change your marriage or family structure in any way whatsoever. You are not in any way, shape or form a victim of anything or anybody.

If the nice gay ladies who live across the street from us happened to get married in our state, it would have no effect of any kind on the 30 year marriage my wife and I enjoy together.

The lesbian couple across the street might have already been married in some other state that allows it, and I wouldn't even know it. My marriage goes on exactly as before.

[stewstew03]

Originally Posted by Typist

It would be fair for them to advocate for laws that enforce their worldview upon you and your family.

Isn't that what the "gay agenda" is all about? Isn't this already happening...?

[Typist]

Originally Posted by stewstew03

Isn't that what the "gay agenda" is all about? Isn't this already happening...?

The gay agenda is NOT about calling Catholic sex perverted and making Catholic marriages illegal.

But logically, there's no reason why it shouldn't evolve in to that. The church is establishing this as a standard. The church is stating that it's ok to call other consenting adult's sex perverted and to deny them legal marriage.

So if the gay community were to follow the example set by the church, they would be calling Catholic sex perverted and working to make Catholic marriage illegal. Oh, and they would do this while telling you that they love you. That too.

[stewstew03]

Originally Posted by Typist

But logically, there's no reason why it shouldn't evolve in to that. The church is establishing this as a standard. The church is stating that it's ok to call other consenting adult's sex perverted and to deny them legal marriage.

Respectfully, Typist (and I would like to maintain a respectful dialogue because I sense that you are a reasonable person) - No, the Church didn't establish this as a standard. Paul did in his letters to the Romans and to the Corinthians.

[Typist]

No, the Church didn't establish this as a standard. Paul did in his letters to the Romans and to the Corinthians.

Ok, fair enough, I accept your historical instruction. Thanks for that.

I would hope to be a reasonable person, but truthfully, it doesn't always quite work out. So I'll try a little harder.

In an attempt at reasonableness, I've made little reference to the credibility challenges the church faces in regards to the subject of sex.

In return, I'm sure you can appreciate that these challenges make it difficult for those outside the church to accept lectures from the church on such matters.

We all are human, and we all are sinners, and the most reasonable outcome I can suggest is that all of us stick to our own knitting, focus on our own homework, and stop throwing stones until we ourselves no longer live in a glass house.

I sincerely believe that only the tiniest minority of the gay community has any interest in calling Catholics names. If you can extend to the gay community the same courtesies and laws that you want for yourselves, I believe all will be well in time.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Typist

In an attempt at reasonableness, I've made little reference to the credibility challenges the church faces in regards to the subject of sex.

Credibility challenges? How so?

Did the Church once proclaim, say, pedophilia to be moral and now she has changed her POV, and thus lacks credibility?

Or are you really going to proclaim here on this forum that you cannot distinguish between those who fail to follow the moral law and the Church who has proclaimed this law, steadfastly, for 2000 years?

Abusus non tollit usum. A very basic principle of arguing is to keep that in mind.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Typist

The church is stating that it's ok to call other consenting adult's sex perverted and to deny them legal marriage

Why do you allow this for yourself, but not for the Church?

Or are you here to proclaim that you believe polyandry and polygamy to be moral?

And are you going to say that you do not believe it's permissible to call anyone's behavior perverted? (Leave the "consenting adults" part out, because, really, you don't even believe that, unless you're an advocate for adultery.)