Why the definition of marriage matters

[cbalto1927]

What would be your definition of natural then, I wonder, as hundreds of other species engage in homosexual behavior. Not that sex has anything to do with marriage, mind you.

Proof on that "hundreds" figure, in case you're interested in learning something about nature:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

All i can say is May God have mercy in our souls. From what i been hearing on the news and CNN, after the ruling alot of issues at least in US are open to discussion. There are talks about Polysemous marriage possibility being accepted in US, Pedophiles groups doing the same thing as people who support same sex marriages. They are all asking for equal rights. This is what i am talking about opening can of worms. Everything we knew as immoral now becomes a question and endless of review. In US rather we like it or not, even the smallest group of people are protected by the US Constitution. I dont think anyone realized it now all fair game. If you dont want people who rob, doing drugs, or messing around with kids to have their own rights then same sex marriage should never be entered into a ruling.

 

[Mustapha00]

And rightly so...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/26/gay-marriage-supreme-court-justices-dissent

Do read the comments.

When the courts move faster than public opinion, invariably there are unintended and detrimental consequences to that public.

Roe v Wade was another example of judicial tyranny, and the wounds it caused to society have lasted 42 years now, with no signs of reconciliation and a great deal of acrimony on both sides (though more on the pro-abortion side, just as there is far more bile coming from the pro-SSM crowd- as evidenced here in this thread). Maybe the damage to society will not be as great or as long lasting- God grant- but it will be because the anti-religious bigots will not be satisfied with acceptance of SSM when they prefer encouragement of SSM; to not embrace SSM is to be bigoted- again, as evidenced by posts here in this thread.

 

[Algona]

"just as there is far more bile coming from the pro-SSM crowd- as evidenced here in this thread"

I'm just a bystander but cbalto's repeatedly equating homosexuality with pedophilia trumps amything anyone else has said in this thread,

instead of going down the path of unsubstantiated mud slinging or trying to drag abortion in to this argument, stick with the very convincing Constitutionalist argument, it's quite the weapon against the venerable and skilled Glarg.

 

[DeletedUser10415]

anti-religious bigots

Reads like anti-prohibition bigots.

 

[cbalto1927]

"just as there is far more bile coming from the pro-SSM crowd- as evidenced here in this thread"

I'm just a bystander but cbalto's repeatedly equating homosexuality with pedophilia trumps amything anyone else has said in this thread,

instead of going down the path of unsubstantiated mud slinging or trying to drag abortion in to this argument, stick with the very convincing Constitutionalist argument, it's quite the weapon against the venerable and skilled Glarg.

I am merely trying to point out that as a society, you cant say one thing is right and another is wrong. In other words same sex marriage basically to the majority is wrong. If you accept same sex marriage as a right thing to do, then you have to understand that other groups that we considered distasteful are allowed to voiced their "rights" or opinions. The reason why i mentioned Pedophilia because it is one group that making the news largely after the ruling. Lot of things that we regarded immoral is now up to question. I personally dont believe that you can say one thing is right but another is wrong, which both are wrong. What same sex marriage people are tying to point out that same sex marriage is right thing to do but to the majority public views it immoral act just like Pedophilia and if you rob other people, or murder. All of those are wrong clearly. I hope you understand what i am tying to say here. thanks.

 

[Algona]

cbalto, if you avoid using metaphors you won't get castigated so much. In the last sentence you compared homosexuality to pedophilia, robbery, and murder. Homosexuality is between consenting adults. Pedophilia, robbery, murder are not. Do you see the difference?

I get the idea you are trying to say, if we allow homosexuality than other people will ask for other things you don't like. Please, just quit using bad comparisons.

"I am merely trying to point out that as a society, you cant say one thing is right and another is wrong. "

Wrong, wrong, wrong. In the US in the last 200 years we've completely revised the accepted morality and legality of most aspects of life.

Religion? Most of the thirteen states had state established religions.

Civil rights? Slavery, women's rights?

Racism? Irish, Italians, Africans, Orientals?

Drugs? Heroin and Cocaine were completely legal until early 20th century. Pot use? Prohibition? Tobacco?

Sexuality? Age of consent, incest redefinitions, casual barstady, sex out of wedlock, anti sodomy laws. (Not just homosexuality, it used to be illegal for heterosexual couples to do whatever they wanted as well.)

We as a society are constantly revising our morality, redefining what is right and wrong.

EDIT: Funny, I can't use the word barstad, for illegitimate child.

 

[cbalto1927]

cbalto, if you avoid using metaphors you won't get castigated so much. In the last sentence you compared homosexuality to pedophilia, robbery, and murder. Homosexuality is between consenting adults. Pedophilia, robbery, murder are not. Do you see the difference?

I get the idea you are trying to say, if we allow homosexuality than other people will ask for other things you don't like. Please, just quit using bad comparisons.

"I am merely trying to point out that as a society, you cant say one thing is right and another is wrong. "

Wrong, wrong, wrong. In the US in the last 200 years we've completely revised the accepted morality and legality of most aspects of life.

Religion? Most of the thirteen states had state established religions.

Civil rights? Slavery, women's rights?

Racism? Irish, Italians, Africans, Orientals?

Drugs? Heroin and Cocaine were completely legal until early 20th century. Pot use? Prohibition? Tobacco?

Sexuality? Age of consent, incest redefinitions, casual barstady, sex out of wedlock, anti sodomy laws. (Not just homosexuality, it used to be illegal for heterosexual couples to do whatever they wanted as well.)

We as a society are constantly revising our morality, redefining what is right and wrong.

EDIT: Funny, I can't use the word barstad, for illegitimate child.

okay i get it, to each of his/her own. so i would have to vote no, that i do not support same-sex marriage.

 

[Mustapha00]

"just as there is far more bile coming from the pro-SSM crowd- as evidenced here in this thread"

I'm just a bystander but cbalto's repeatedly equating homosexuality with pedophilia trumps amything anyone else has said in this thread,

instead of going down the path of unsubstantiated mud slinging or trying to drag abortion in to this argument, stick with the very convincing Constitutionalist argument, it's quite the weapon against the venerable and skilled Glarg.

Perhaps you missed the posts where one of our 'contributors' stated- multiple times- that he sees no difference between someone who disapproves of gay marriage and someone who tosses a gay person off a roof to their death. That would seem to me to be a few steps above "mud-slinging"; that is bigotry, pure and simple.

glarg may be "venerable", but I've had more difficult debates against two year olds, so "skilled" I would disagree with. He has absolutely no 'argument' aside from calling me a 'bigot'. To the extent that we had an intellectual debate, he lost that after his first reply...hence why he resorted to name calling. Yes, I did return the favor, but, as a Christian, I will not stand by and allow my faith to be maligned, especially so mindlessly.

As for the equating of homosexuality and pedophilia, I've said before that I >think< cblato is trying to argue that the same arguments for SSM can be used to promote any other sort of redefinition of "marriage". I linked to a piece in which the writer calls for a re-examination of the prohibition on polygamy, making essentially the same "you cannot help who you love" vapidity that SSM supporters used. Once the ball begins rolling in the effort to debauch the definition of "marriage", who can say where it will end?

 

[DeletedUser10415]

 

[cbalto1927]

Perhaps you missed the posts where one of our 'contributors' stated- multiple times- that he sees no difference between someone who disapproves of gay marriage and someone who tosses a gay person off a roof to their death. That would seem to me to be a few steps above "mud-slinging"; that is bigotry, pure and simple.

glarg may be "venerable", but I've had more difficult debates against two year olds, so "skilled" I would disagree with. He has absolutely no 'argument' aside from calling me a 'bigot'. To the extent that we had an intellectual debate, he lost that after his first reply...hence why he resorted to name calling. Yes, I did return the favor, but, as a Christian, I will not stand by and allow my faith to be maligned, especially so mindlessly.

As for the equating of homosexuality and pedophilia, I've said before that I >think< cblato is trying to argue that the same arguments for SSM can be used to promote any other sort of redefinition of "marriage". I linked to a piece in which the writer calls for a re-examination of the prohibition on polygamy, making essentially the same "you cannot help who you love" vapidity that SSM supporters used. Once the ball begins rolling in the effort to debauch the definition of "marriage", who can say where it will end?

exactly, in the other words, the morality would go downhill. It would set a "fair game" mentality.

 

[DeletedUser13838]

As for the equating of homosexuality and pedophilia, I've said before that I >think< cblato is trying to argue that the same arguments for SSM can be used to promote any other sort of redefinition of "marriage". I linked to a piece in which the writer calls for a re-examination of the prohibition on polygamy, making essentially the same "you cannot help who you love" vapidity that SSM supporters used. Once the ball begins rolling in the effort to debauch the definition of "marriage", who can say where it will end?

To me the main problem is that there is a distinction about what the government and religious groups consider to be a marriage. A religious group can have any definition they want (as long as it's consensual) but that doesn't convey any legal rights. On the other hand, the definition of marriage by the government does convey certain legal rights (in terms of inheritance, insurance and custody and divorce/separation etc.). For example, you can legally divorce your spouse even if that divorce is not recognized by the catholic church. That means you can legally remarry even if that marriage is not valid according to the catholic church. In such an event, who determines custody of any children and other issues resulting from the divorce (child support, alimony, spouse gets the house, etc.)? It's the court not the church.

 

[cbalto1927]

To me the main problem is that there is a distinction about what the government and religious groups consider to be a marriage. A religious group can have any definition they want (as long as it's consensual) but that doesn't convey any legal rights. On the other hand, the definition of marriage by the government does convey certain legal rights (in terms of inheritance, insurance and custody and divorce/separation etc.). For example, you can legally divorce your spouse even if that divorce is not recognized by the catholic church. That means you can legally remarry even if that marriage is not valid according to the catholic church. In such an event, who determines custody of any children and other issues resulting from the divorce (child support, alimony, spouse gets the house, etc.)? It's the court not the church.

If you read the Bible, all of this has been foretold. That's how it begins. We as a people trying to justify that gay marriage is the right thing to do. According to the Bible it foretold the downfall of Human Civilization, morality gets sheaded. As Catholic, the Church are doing the right thing by putting a fine line of what's okay and what's not. It a tragic that the court dont see that. I agree with Mustapho00 that once you allow this, there's no telling what next.

 

[DeletedUser13838]

It's fine for christians to define marriage that way but not everyone is a christian.

 

[Algona]

"If you read the Bible, all of this has been foretold. "

If SSM foretells the Rapture, then HALLELUJAH! We will soon be gathered into the arms of the Lord! I'd think you'd welcome that!

You should be hoping for more 'moral decay', as signs of the consummation of Biblical prophecy. Seems odd that if this indeed is what is happening you should not be trying to thwart God's will by trying to stop something He has ordained.

Well, that is if the Bible indeed says that SSM is a sign of the end if times. Book, Chapter, Verse?

----------

The above is semi-facetious and not intended to be a mocking of any particular belief but is in hope that folk will think things out.

 

[Mustapha00]

To me the main problem is that there is a distinction about what the government and religious groups consider to be a marriage. A religious group can have any definition they want (as long as it's consensual) but that doesn't convey any legal rights. On the other hand, the definition of marriage by the government does convey certain legal rights (in terms of inheritance, insurance and custody and divorce/separation etc.). For example, you can legally divorce your spouse even if that divorce is not recognized by the catholic church. That means you can legally remarry even if that marriage is not valid according to the catholic church. In such an event, who determines custody of any children and other issues resulting from the divorce (child support, alimony, spouse gets the house, etc.)? It's the court not the church.

I don't disagree with your premise here at all.

In fact, your post adds weight to the argument that, in the case of "marriage", there really should be 'separation of Church and State'.

All of the legal rights you mentioned could have been conveyed to committed same sex couples via "Civil Unions". More than a few Conservatives would have supported the Federal government creating civil unions to convey all the rights gays demanded without encroaching into the sacred meaning of marriage, only to have that offer rejected by, if not a majority of gays (was never put to a referendum of gays so far as I am aware), at least those who claim to speak for them. As is the case with most of the Progressive agenda, "compromise" is a dirty word- unless by "compromise" you mean "do it their (Progressive) way and shut up".

 

[DeletedUser10415]

The civil unions offered did not convey all of the rights that marriage does. In any event, it still would have not been equality, which the 14th amendment says is a no-no. There is no justification for denying marriage to same-sex couples but a religious one, and the 1st amendment says that's a no-no, thus DOMA was also a violation of the constitution.

Embracing only parts of the constitution, but not other parts doesn't make a very good constitutionalist. Not surprisingly, those who have this piecemeal approach to the constitution are often selective readers of their favorite book as well.

 

[Mustapha00]

Wrong, yet again.

Proposals for civil unions did, in fact, include all of the rights referred to above- tax breaks, insurance, hospital visitation, next-of-kin rights, etc. It was the intransigence of the radical gay spokesmen who decided, for their entire 'constituency', that only a debauched definition of marriage, with the purpose to denigrate Christianity (and, indeed, most religions) and to further break down society, would do.

No, DOMA was not a violation of the Constitution. No, there is no violation of the First Amendment in opposing SSM. Again, you ignore the second portion of the Establishment Clause, which prevents the Federal government from inhibiting the right to the free exercise of one's religion.

And you have the temerity to accuse me of engaging in a "piecemeal approach" to the Constitution? Physician, heal thyself.

 

[DeletedUser13838]

I don't disagree with your premise here at all.

In fact, your post adds weight to the argument that, in the case of "marriage", there really should be 'separation of Church and State'.

All of the legal rights you mentioned could have been conveyed to committed same sex couples via "Civil Unions". More than a few Conservatives would have supported the Federal government creating civil unions to convey all the rights gays demanded without encroaching into the sacred meaning of marriage, only to have that offer rejected by, if not a majority of gays (was never put to a referendum of gays so far as I am aware), at least those who claim to speak for them. As is the case with most of the Progressive agenda, "compromise" is a dirty word- unless by "compromise" you mean "do it their (Progressive) way and shut up".

What is sacred about marriage in a legal sense? Would a man and woman be able to be in a civil union instead of a marriage? What happens if you were married to Bruce Jenner - when he became caitlyn would you have to switch from a marriage to a civil union?

If there is no distinction in the legal sense between civil unions and marriage then why should they be referred to as separate institutions? Are you requiring people who are married vs being in a civil union to identify thjemselves as such when requesting their legal rights?

For example, will there be separate check boxes for people filing their taxes married or as civil unions or will it be the same checkbox? Or will you instead have a checkbox for people filing either as "married or as a civil union"?

It seems to me that a duck is a duck.

 

[Mustapha00]

First, a correction.

Glarg was almost certainly right: DOMA was unconstitutional. But not because of what it said, but because it said anything at all on the subject of marriage. Nothing in the United States Constitution gives the Federal government any power to define- or redefine- marriage. It is none of their business. We cannot know with certainty if the current incarnation of SCOTUS would have ruled against DOMA because the Obama Administration- illegally- chose not to defend the statute in court, this despite Obama taking the Oath Of Office which requires him to defend ALL laws, not just the ones he agrees with.

 

[Mustapha00]

What is sacred about marriage in a legal sense? Would a man and woman be able to be in a civil union instead of a marriage? What happens if you were married to Bruce Jenner - when he became caitlyn would you have to switch from a marriage to a civil union?

There is nothing "sacred" about marriage in the legal sense. Civil Unions would have been a jurisprudential (legal) equivalent of a sacred institution (marriage), with all the relevant rights that would entail.
In the example of Bruce Jenner, no change would be necessary, as he is still, physiologically and scientifically, a male of the species, no matter if he 'identifies' as female or a rhinoceros.

If there is no distinction in the legal sense between civil unions and marriage then why should they be referred to as separate institutions? Are you requiring people who are married vs being in a civil union to identify thjemselves as such when requesting their legal rights?

Because words mean things.
Someone in a SS relationship is not "married" in the sacred sense of the word (marriage being a province of religion). There is a distinction to be drawn not on the basis of rights conferred- one having any advantage over the other- but because there must needs to be a contrast in order to uphold several thousand years of tradition.
As far as requiring one to identify themselves as participating in one type of relationship or another, that is already required on Census forms. Nothing at all improper about that.

For example, will there be separate check boxes for people filing their taxes married or as civil unions or will it be the same checkbox? Or will you instead have a checkbox for people filing either as "married or as a civil union"?

It seems to me that a duck is a duck.

Again, that is already being done on Census forms. There is no such distinction on my tax return, but that would not have been a difficult addition to the forms.