Why do you believe homosexual relationships should be illegal? Please explain what you understand to be the social consequences that warrant prohibition of homosexual relationships?

And are you saying that if society does not completely outlaw homosexual relationships (which, I don't see how it can when the opposition is based on religious criteria and we do not live in a theocracy), then same sex civil marriages ought to be legal?

(This was in response to Fr Chuck, by the way. Sorry Wondergirl, your response must have come in while I was writing!)

Why, then, aren't religious folks opposed to heterosexual atheists who say that they are "married", esp. if the ceremony is performed by, say, a judge?

Many of them are. There's even a faction of Christians who believe homosexuals must undergo counseling and return to the heterosexual lifestyle they supposedly forsake when "choosing" homosexuality.

Wondergirl-
I guess I just can't make sense of religious opposition to same sex marriage when a religious marriage is not what same sex couples are seeking? If the argument is that joining people in that manner is not "god's intention"... it seems that no one is asking god to join anyone, but instead looking for the state to offer equal benefits to gay folks in a relationship that is, as far as I can tell, just like a heterosexual couple's relationship. So how does the religious element of this argument even come into play at all?

Aside from the sex of the partners (which I don't think anyone has yet established definitively as a RELEVANT difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples), what difference is there between a gay couple and a straight couple that warrants a difference in treatment on the part of the STATE and FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS? I can understand a religion which is not accepting of homosexuality refusing to perform a religious ceremony to wed a gay couple- (although I cannot wrap my mind around why God would consider selfless and committed love to be sinful)- But, all the same, how does that RELIGIOUS objection translate to a LEGAL objection? It is still unclear to me.

Ah, the ex-gay movement... I am familiar with it. I wasn't aware that Christians were fighting just as hard against non-Christians calling their unions marriage, though. Do you have anything to document this? Not doubting you, but it would definitely be an interesting read... plus I'd need to cite my sources for my paper!

Because in many religious view points homosexual relationships are morally wrong, the same reason we don't accept pedophiles, or theft, or murder, or underage sex and the such.

And the issue is that beyond what most today try to say, the US laws were based a large part on Christian or at least religious moral values.

And there is no reason that the moral values of the majority of a nation in a Republic can not be the controlling values.

And this is where Christian falls short, if they would vote according to moral values, then no elected official would hardly get into office unless they supported those values.
Even at 51 percent of a population, actually only about 25 or 30 percent of our population would be needed if they all would actually just vote and vote on a moral platform.

But the division of faith from a First Baptist to a Freewill Baptist, to a Assembly of God to Lutheran to Catholic stops them from accepting this, but the fact that government schools teach incorrectly what the separation of Church and State are, so they think now it is wrong to vote with moral values.

If for example, all Pro Life churches ( baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, Assembly of God and others) all voted, every adult member went to the polls this next election and only voted for pro life people running, and then in the next voted them out if they did not vote correctly in congress,

Abortions would soon be against the law. The same with any moral issue, Christians could easily control the country if they merely worked together.

I wasn't aware that Christians were fighting just as hard against non-Christians calling their unions marriage, though.

My mistake. I misread "heterosexual" as "homosexual." I did go to WorldCat, ArticleFirst, and ERIC, though, just to check for books and papers re Christians against atheist marriage, but didn't find anything.

Wondergirl- Thank you for the clarification and for looking into that so extensively!

Why then, do you suppose, Christians are against homosexual civil marriages being called "marriage" but not against atheist marriages being called "marriage" when neither one denotes anything religious? If marriage has a religious connotation, wouldn't it make sense to argue against referring to anything that is non-religious as "marriage"?

Fr. Chuck-
"Because in many religious view points homosexual relationships are morally wrong, the same reason we don't accept pedophiles, or theft, or murder, or underage sex and the such."

All of these things listed, sans homosexual relationships, I can see being considered immoral and wrong because of the impact they have on both those involved and other individuals within society.

What are the negative effects of committed homosexual relationships that would cause it to be grouped with things like murder?

As long as the atheist couples are male-female pairings, Christians probably don't have much of a problem with that, don't worry about calling it a "marriage."

These might be worth obtaining --

Copyright: © Taylor & Francis Group
Author(s): Moskowitz, David ; Rieger, Gerulf ; Roloff, Michael
Affiliation: Department of Communication, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA; Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA; Communications Studies Department, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Title: Heterosexual Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage
Source: Journal of Homosexuality 57, no. 2 (2010): 325-336
Additional Info: Taylor & Francis; 20100201
Standard No: ISSN: 0091-8369
Language: EN
Database: ArticleFirst

Copyright: © University of California Press
Author(s): Badgett, M. V. Lee
Title: Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage?
Source: Sexuality Research & Social Policy 1, no. 3 (2004): 1-10
Additional Info: University of California Press; 20040901
Standard No: ISSN: 1553-6610
DOI: 10.1525/srsp.2004.1.3.1
Language: English
Database: ArticleFirst

Author(s): Regan Jr. Milton C.
Title: Same-Sex Marriage and Communal Dialogue.
People either assert that marriage is ordained as heterosexual by God and / or nature, or claim that it is a universal right that should be open to all couples. Is there room for dialogue?
Source: The Responsive community : rights and responsibilities. 8, no. 4, (Fall 1998): 56
Additional Info: Center for Policy Research,
Alt Journal: Key Title: The Responsive community
Standard No: ISSN: 1053-0754 CODEN: RECOEZ
OCLC No: 22448114
Database: ArticleFirst

Author(s): Krause, Harry D
Title: Essay - Marriage for the New Millennium: Heterosexual, Same Sex -- Or Not at All?
Source: Family law quarterly. 34, no. 2, (2000): 271
Additional Info: Section of Family Law, American Bar Association,
Alt Journal: Key Title: Family law quarterly Preceding Title: American Bar Association. Section of Family Law. Proceedings of the section
Standard No: ISSN: 0014-729X
OCLC No: 1568788
Database: ArticleFirst

Title: The case for same-sex marriage :
from sexual liberty to civilized commitment /
Author(s): Eskridge, William N.
Publication: New York : Free Press,
Year: 1996
Description: 296 p. ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Contents: Civilizing gays, civilizing straights -- History of same-sex marriage -- Debate within the lesbian and gay community -- Mainstream objections to same-sex marriage -- The constitutional case: the right to marry -- The constitutional case: discrimination -- Epilogue: fear of flaunting -- Appendix.
Standard No: ISBN: 0684824043; 9780684824048 LCCN: 95-51540

Abstract: Suddenly, thanks to a surprising decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court, the issue of same-sex marriage is sweeping the country. Two-thirds of all Americans are reportedly opposed to the idea - but the discussion has just begun. Should the institution of marriage be redefined and expanded? Or should the state continue to restrict the choices of its gay and lesbian citizens? In this timely book that just might change the law of the land, William Eskridge offers arguments that will be controversial among both gays and straights. First, he demonstrates that only the modern West has failed to provide some form of sanction for same-sex unions. For those who claim that marriage has never been anything but heterosexual, Eskridge's historical evidence presents a profound challenge. Second, he argues that legalizing same-sex marriage would help civilize gays. Whether because of the biology of masculinity or the furtiveness of illegality, gay men have been known for their promiscuous subcultures. Promiscuity has encouraged a cult of youth worship and has contributed to the stereotype of homosexuals as people who lack a serious approach to life. It is time for gay America to mature, and there can be no more effective path to maturity than marriage. Third, same-sex marriage would help civilize America. A civilized polity assures equality for all its citizens. Without full access to the institutions of civic life, gays and lesbians cannot be full participants in the American experience. Gays and lesbians love their country, and have contributed in every way to its flourishing. Along the way, Eskridge discusses the controversial issue of raising children in gay households. Finally, in an Appendix, he includes letters from a broad cross-section of American clergy - Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish, evangelical, traditional, and modern - in support of legalization. The Case for Same-Sex Marriage will catalyze arguments from coast to coast and stand at the forefront of political controversy for a long time to come.
SUBJECT(S)
Descriptor: Gay couples -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- United States.
Lesbian couples -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- United States.
Same-sex marriage -- United States.
Couples homosexuels -- Droit -- États-Unis.
Couples de lesbiennes -- Droit -- États-Unis.
Homosexuels -- Marriage -- États-Unis.
Geographic: USA
Note(s): Includes bibliographical references (p. 269-287) and index.
Class Descriptors: LC: KF538; HQ76.3.U5; Dewey: 306.848
Responsibility: William N. Eskridge, Jr.
Vendor Info: Baker & Taylor YBP Library Services Baker and Taylor (BKTY YANK BTCP) 25.00 Status: active
Document Type: Book
Entry: 19951220
Update: 20110325
Accession No: OCLC: 33983606
Database: WorldCat

Title: Gay marriage /
Author(s): Burns, Kate,; 1963-
Publication: Detroit : Greenhaven Press,
Year: 2005
Description: 107 p. ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Series: At issue; Variation: At issue (San Diego, Calif.)
Contents: A legal history of same-sex marriage battles in the United States / NOLO Law for All -- Gay marriage should be legal / John Kusch -- Gay marriage should not be legal / Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- Gay marriage would promote social stability / Samuel G. Freedman -- Gay marriage would harm society / Sam Schulman -- Same-sex marriage would benefit children / Anne Pollock -- Same-sex marriage would harm children / Maggie Gallagher -- A constitutional amendment against gay marriage is wrong / Dale Carpenter -- A constitutional amendment against gay marriage is necessary / First Things -- Canada's same-sex marriage law should not be opposed in the name of religion / Tarek Fatah and Nargis Tapal -- Religion will be undermined by the Massachusetts same-sex marriage law / David Limbaugh -- Why gays should oppose same-sex marriage / Judith Levine -- Why gays should support same-sex marriage / Richard Goldstein -- The gay marriage debate exposes heterosexual hypocrisy / Froma Harrop.
Standard No: ISBN: 0737723769 (lib. Bdg. : alk. Paper); 9780737723762 (lib. Bdg. : alk. Paper); 0737723777 (pbk. : alk. Paper); 9780737723779 (pbk. : alk. Paper); Stock no: 1233798 LCCN: 2004-47445
Abstract: Authors debate the legalization of gay marriage, the issue of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and the effects of same-sex marriage on society.
SUBJECT(S)
Descriptor: Same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage -- Religious aspects.
Same-sex marriage -- Law and legislation.
Gay parents -- Family relationships.
Note(s): Includes bibliographical references (p. 99-103) and index.
Class Descriptors: LC: HQ1033; Dewey: 306.84/8/0973
Responsibility: Kate Burns, book editor.
Vendor Info: Ingram Quality Books, Inc. Baker and Taylor Baker & Taylor Baker & Taylor YBP Library Services (INGR QUAL BTCP BKTY BKTY YANK) 29.95 21.20 Status: active active
Document Type: Book
Entry: 20040402
Update: 20100710
Accession No: OCLC: 54931657
Database: WorldCat

I searched ArticleFirst and WorldCat using "homosexual marriage" as keywords and listed only the ones that seemed on topic. Other keywords would bring up many more articles and books, I'm sure.

I will take a stab at answering this one if its OK.

The government has an interest in a marriage as one of its likely outcomes is children thereby increasing the population. That holds true in the traditional marriage format. So if athiests were to marry by government sanction then there is a good chance there will be offspring. It is in the next generation the wellspring of hope becomes eternal. Even non religious parent can and do have religious children.

So in the format of marriage they aren't breaking any religiuos laws as it wouldn't be sinful for them to multiply.

This one begs the question. Should your choice of a sexual lifestyle be an over riding factor as a place of preference ?

With the exception of marriage (defense of marriage act) in what way has your life been limited ?

Hi Margog,

No. Marriage has always been a covenant relationship between man, woman and God. Marriage, in the Catholic perspective, matrimony, is the office of motherhood. "Matri" mother. Mony "office". When Catholics bind themselves in the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony, they vow to bring up children for God.

The other concerns you bring up are largely social and political. As for the Catholic Church, what God has brought together, let no man tear asunder.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria