Ok, lets perhaps, hopefully look at the issue from another angle,

Not not if homosexuality is right or wrong, we each have a strong opinion on that.

But it is a fact in the US, that homosexuals are couples, they are living together. In most states ( if not all) they can adopt, some places offer domestic relationships. So we in effect have homosexual families, many having been so for 10 plus years ( I know some longer)

So can we discuss this from less a moral issue ( Ok I left it under religious since no one much goes to the other discussion boards) and more of a legal standpoint

But it is obvious that they are here, so should they be given the same ability that male/female couples have as to inheritance, taxes, discounts and to be allowed to have a marriage license.


and if you want, lets throw in plural marriage,
Since it is the behavior I disagree with, and as long as my right to preach against the behavior is protected, I can be on my soap box.

So without discussing the moral side of the issue, as we did in the one post, is there a legal reason, not to allow it.

I will address this from a states right view point and the will of the people,

Credendovidis

Chuck : why do you insist to question a difference in value or intention between mixed-sex and same-sex marriages ? On what figures and data do you base that?
I see mixed-sex marriages breaking down after months or a few years.
And I know many same-sex marriages and/or relations already holding for many decades.

De Maria

Excellent point Fr.

Many seem to be of the opinion that the bedroom is sacrosanct territory in which Government has no say.

But marriage is not just about the bedroom. It is also about a societal unit which contributes to and is subject to the society in which it is engendered.

So, if the laws of that society define marriage as between man and woman and does not permit the marriage of same sex partners and if this is the will of the majority, why is that wrong?

I'm real interested in hearing your viewpoint.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Credendovidis

And those people are correct ! The Government is there for the people by the people. The Government is not some format of "higher entity" that dictates how people have to live.

The main function of a marriage is to confirm and introduce the loving relation between two people into the many structures of society. Nothing else.

The laws of that society should reflect the current opinions of the entire society at that moment within the limitations of it's own backbone structure, called "Constitution".
Therefore the laws of society are not always a reflection of the majority of society, as the Constitution sets limits that override opinions that are based on democratic majorities.

===

Every human being should have the right to structure his or her life accordingly to his/her own personal wishes, subject to that structure not being at the expense of other peoples right to structure their lifes accordingly to their own personal wishes. Basically that is an adaptation of the "Golden Rule" that is also mentioned in the Bible.

Now unless you can prove with objective supporting evidence that any same-sex marriage comes at the expense of your right to marry a mixed-sex partner, what reason do objectors to same-sex marriages and relationships have other than their own opinion, on whatever that opinion is based?

sassyT

One man and One woman..

De Maria

I'd have to agree. I know I don't want the government in my bedroom.

Not so. Marriage is an institution. In the past, love was not a necessary quotient in the establishment of a marriage.

As such, I mean, as an institution, just like any institution in any society, there were expectations of that entity. The family would consist of productive citizens and produce children which would be raised to be productive good citizens.

It has always been impossible to reflect the opinions of the entire society unless the entire society were unanimous. That is why, the best form of government has been government by majority vote. That is how the United States was established. To be run by the majority. Not by the entire society. That is simply unrealistic.

True. Because of a distrust of the common folk, the United States has always had a representative system whereby it is the majority of the representatives whose decisions are reflected.

However, this does nothing to support your contention of a government that reflects the opinions of the entire society. In fact, you have contradicted yourself.
===

Not necessarily so. We have to make many compromises in society. We don't have the right to structure our lives any way we want simply because we think that others should not be offended.

For instance, we are not permitted to walk around without any clothes. That custom does not hurt anyone, but it has ever been considered offensive to polite society.

Society makes many laws based on the will of the majority of the people, whether the individual consider the subject offensive or not.

That is a basic misunderstanding of the Bible because you have interpreted the Bible without taking into account that the main subject of the Bible is the pursuit of union with God's Will.

That is besides the point, as you have pointed out above, if the will of the majority of the people decide that they don't want to see same-sex marriage, they can forbid it and have.

Apparently in California the proponents of same sex marriage have made an end around the will of the people by having this approved in their supreme court. But if they can muster enough votes, that decision can be overturned by a Constitutional amendment.

Since people of any sex can love each other, the assumption is that same sex unions want permission to marry in order in part to legitimize their sexual intimacy with each other. With that in mind:

1. Same sex union is unhealthy and unnatural

Sex between males is intrinsically unhygenic and a review of all medical journals reveals that not only are they prone to AIDS but many other diseases and injuries.

Sex between females is unnatural. Although they claim to have a greater satisfaction than with males, the fact that they frequently strap on artificial implements which mimic the male anatomy belies that statement.

2. Same sex union is barren.

Same sex unions can't produce children.

So, unless you can provide objective evidence that there is any added value to society from same sex marriage, why should society have to accept it?

Sincerely,

De Maria

excon

Hello again, De Maria:

If we lived in a democracy, it WOULDN'T be wrong. But we live in a republic. In a republic, the majority DOESN'T rule. Therefore, you are wrong. I'm sorry to pop your balloon. I guess you were absent for civics 101.

After all, it was the will of the people to keep black children out of college in the south. But, it turns out, that even if one little black kid was discriminated against, HIS right NOT to have that happen, EVEN if he's the ONLY one being discriminated against, WILL PREVAIL - NOT "the will of the majority".

I know you either don't understand that, or you don't like that. I dunno which. But, that's the way it is here.

Therefore, if ONE person, in this great country of ours, is being denied rights that EVERYBODY else has, it doesn't matter that the majority like it that way. What matters is that HIS rights are being violated, this fellow who is a minority of one, and he WILL PREVAIL.

Not only is that the way it is. It's the way it should be.

excon

progunr

I view marriage as a religious institution, sponsored by the states.

I have no objection to same sex partners having the same rights regarding property, insurance, or things like being "next of kin" or "family" when it comes to things like hospital visitations and in allowing them to inherit estates just as a normal spouse would.

I just don't think it is proper to call it a marriage, I think that is reserved for a man and a woman, to be united in the eyes of God. Call it a Civil Union if you like, I have no problem with that.

Hey Ex, nice civics lesson, well stated, and totally accurate!

Credendovidis

You blew up a short post into one of your over-extended posts.
Too long, too nittpicking, too booring.
Keep you reactions short and to the point !

Credendovidis

Hear, hear, hear !
Applause ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !