Catholics Backing Away From Politically Fighting Gay Marriage.

[jwhitlock]

Once again, you are comparing discrimination laws which already are FEDERAL laws that deal with any kind of discrimination with gay marriage. They simply are not the same thing. And once again you are confusing the difference between a religion practicing its beliefs and a religion running a business. There have been NO not ONE case where a religion was forced to marry anyone they so choose. I have a friend who is Jewish marrying a Catholic. They wanted the Catholic church to marry them. The Catholic church refused because he was not Catholic. This is where the constitution protects religions. If you can point to ANY ruling that is about a church forced to marry someone the do not want to then you have a point. Until then you are simply using straw man arguments that have absolutely no connection to gay marriage.

The "no church has been forced to marry anyone they don't want to" is a red herring. See my comment below for more elaboration. And to reiterate, since you seem to be missing my point, discrimination laws are many times abused to punish people who have differing opinions; their application is uneven, and at times politically motivated. Should SSM become the law of the land, there is no doubt that some SSM advocates will yell long and loudly about discrimination when churches won't perform same sex marriages. That's why the attitude of Affirmation towards the church is a barometer of what very likely will happen.

I am sorry but you are wrong. The stated reason why catholic charities shut the doors because they said they could not continue to offer their services WITHOUT THE FEDERAL FUNDING. I believe the Mormon church offers adoption for Mormons and refused to offer adoption to gay couples. Since they do not receive federal funding, they are allowed to do this. No lawsuit. Do you think for one minute that there wouldn't be a lawsuit against the Mormon church for discrimination if there were grounds for such a suit? Come on.

Debunked by blueadept. IIRC, our church will also not do adoptions in Mass. for the same reason. I think that the adoption issue is also a barometer of what SSM advocates will do should SSM become the law of the land - and when I use the phrase "law of the land", I'm talking about Federal law, not state laws.

Gay marriage is the law of the land in 7 states and the District of Columbia and has been for some time. You have made my point for me. No law suits You are yelling and screaming about something that is in the constitution specifically guaranteeing religions the ability to practice their religion they way they want. No such guarantees exist for a church running a business open to the general public. If a gay couple could go to the Mormon church in Mass, and sue them for not marrying them don't you think it would have already happened??? If those that believe in equality are willing to demonstrate, don't you think they would love to sue the church for not marrying them??? Perhaps if you are confused on this issue, you should talk to a lawyer about this. If these were real concerns, then tell me why this was not brought up in the Prop 8 trial. Heaven knows they needed some legal reason to support their proposition.

These straw man arguments that constantly get brought up on this board time and again when legal grounds have been pointed to and explained over and over again makes me wonder why they are continually brought up. If a member of the church are unwilling to understand the laws of this country and their only resort to justify their position is to distort what is true, then you have to wonder why they even bother to try and justify their position. Oddly enough, many of these straw man arguments are the exact same ones used in the past to justify other discrimination issues. Granted you can full a lot of people for a while, but eventually people get educated about what is true and what is the real laws in this country. Perhaps that is why every national poll continues to show greater support for gay marriage.

Another red herring. The ultimate goal of SSM advocates is to ensconce SSM in Federal law, so that it covers all states. Not until then will the real persecution of those who disagree with them begin.

Far from distorting anything, the weakness in your argument is this: why would any SSM advocate in their right mind want to give ammunition to their opposition by suing a church at this point in a SSM state to force it to perform same sex marriages? That would effectively demonstrate the true intention of the SSM agenda and would be premature. SSM advocates understand that the time is not right for such a move, and that it would be damaging to their agenda. There's plenty of time to do it after a Federal law is in place.

This is no straw man argument. As has been noted, there is plenty of evidence concerning the true intentions of SSM advocates to punish once they have the power to do so. SSM advocates are notoriously selective in how they phrase things, especially when it comes to legalities. Real life experience is a much better indicator of what will really happen.

[Jaybear]

The issue, which you and others are missing, is why should the school be forced to provide for something they are morally opposed to, whether you agree with that stand or not.

Why not? Why should I care about an entities "moral" opposition to a regulation passed by the public to serve the public interest.

I have follow the rules and regulations whether I agree with them or not.

The idea that if we don't give people with "religious" objections special accommodation, were are attacking them is absurd.

[jwhitlock]

The issue, which you and others are missing, is why should the school be forced to provide for something they are morally opposed to, whether you agree with that stand or not.

If the school, or the Church, or Mormons can be demonized as having hateful views, then moral viewpoints can be conveniently dismissed. That's a demonstrated methodology of some SSM advocates. The comments on this thread have been instructive in that area; because we oppose SSM, we are accused of imposing our doctrine on non-members, of being dishonest, of having a lack of character, and a variety of other faults that are worthy of punishment. Since our viewpoints are obviously destructive (as characterized by those who oppose us) and hateful, we should have no right to express them or discuss them, and we should be penalized for having them.

"Burn their churches to the ground and tax the charred timbers." That is the kind of sentiment expressed by those who hate us for our views. What's very interesting is that the misrepresentations and hate doesn't really come from us; it comes from those who accuse us of the very methods they use against us.

We had a major front page article about the church in our local newspaper not too long ago; a very fair article and well written. We got some of the fallout in Sunday's paper in the form of some letters to the editor, accusing us of having hateful views, of misrepresenting what we believe, of being hateful to gays, etc. - all spewed out in some very hate-filled language against us. While the irony may be lost on some of those who oppose us, it is clear what will happen should SSM become the law of the land.

I don't see Latter-day Saints telling SSM advocates that they should be punished for their viewpoints. I do see SSM advocates calling for our punishment because of our opposition to SSM. There's some very inflammatory language being used against us out there, and it's also been used against us in this thread. Very instructive.

[Deborah]

Why not? Why should I care about an entities "moral" opposition to a regulation passed by the public to serve the public interest.

Companies that provide insurance pay the premiums, or at least a portion of those premiums. They therefore have the right to determine what they want to cover. If someone doesn't like it go somewhere else or get your own separate policy.

[california boy]

The "no church has been forced to marry anyone they don't want to" is a red herring. See my comment below for more elaboration. And to reiterate, since you seem to be missing my point, discrimination laws are many times abused to punish people who have differing opinions; their application is uneven, and at times politically motivated. Should SSM become the law of the land, there is no doubt that some SSM advocates will yell long and loudly about discrimination when churches won't perform same sex marriages. That's why the attitude of Affirmation towards the church is a barometer of what very likely will happen.

Debunked by blueadept. IIRC, our church will also not do adoptions in Mass. for the same reason. I think that the adoption issue is also a barometer of what SSM advocates will do should SSM become the law of the land - and when I use the phrase "law of the land", I'm talking about Federal law, not state laws.

Another red herring. The ultimate goal of SSM advocates is to ensconce SSM in Federal law, so that it covers all states. Not until then will the real persecution of those who disagree with them begin.

Far from distorting anything, the weakness in your argument is this: why would any SSM advocate in their right mind want to give ammunition to their opposition by suing a church at this point in a SSM state to force it to perform same sex marriages? That would effectively demonstrate the true intention of the SSM agenda and would be premature. SSM advocates understand that the time is not right for such a move, and that it would be damaging to their agenda. There's plenty of time to do it after a Federal law is in place.

This is no straw man argument. As has been noted, there is plenty of evidence concerning the true intentions of SSM advocates to punish once they have the power to do so. SSM advocates are notoriously selective in how they phrase things, especially when it comes to legalities. Real life experience is a much better indicator of what will really happen.

Ok well evidently you are not interested in actual factual statements. At some point, if you are actually interested in the legal pros and cons of allowing gay marriage, I suggest you study the prop 8 trial where in an actual court of law both sides presented their best case based on legal arguments. I am not asking you to agree with the verdict, but you should at least understand the arguments. And if you feel your slippery slope argument is a vaild legal arguement to prevent gay couples from marrying, I am sure the defense team would love to hear from you because it is not an argument they presented in court. They must have overlooked it by accident.

[california boy]

If the school, or the Church, or Mormons can be demonized as having hateful views, then moral viewpoints can be conveniently dismissed.

Is this inflamitory statement made just to whip up the masses? Where on this thread has the church been demonized?

That's a demonstrated methodology of some SSM advocates. The comments on this thread have been instructive in that area; because we oppose SSM, we are accused of imposing our doctrine on non-members,

So are you stating that the Mormon church does not have dogma against gay marriage? When you push to legalize your dogma on non members, what would you call it?

The rest of your post is just a rant to vent your frustration to form a legitimate argument.

[california boy]

Currently there is a thread polling the question, "Was the Priesthood Ban A Mistake?

The leading answer by those on this board? "It was racist and wrong – plain and simple. "

The thread is filled with discussion of whether this practice was from God or from Brighan Young. There is clamor to point to the revelation that instituted this policy.

In another generation, I think a similar poll will be presented "Was it Wrong for the Church to Oppose Gay Marriage?

I also suspect that those voting a generation from now will see this stance in a similar light. And they will be asking where the revelation was that instituted this policy. Just my opinion.

[jwhitlock]

Ok well evidently you are not interested in actual factual statements. At some point, if you are actually interested in the legal pros and cons of allowing gay marriage, I suggest you study the prop 8 trial where in an actual court of law both sides presented their best case based on legal arguments. I am not asking you to agree with the verdict, but you should at least understand the arguments. And if you feel your slippery slope argument is a vaild legal arguement to prevent gay couples from marrying, I am sure the defense team would love to hear from you because it is not an argument they presented in court. They must have overlooked it by accident.

Factual statements? Such as yours that was debunked about the Catholic Church? And I don't understand the facts? I've been rather clear in where I'm coming from; when presented with problematic evidence, your response seems to be to dismiss it and tell us we don't understand the "facts". The claim that same sex couples have been denied a "right" is flawed at its very foundation, yet you seem to have based much of your position of demonizing us on that particular assumption.

The emphasis on the legal system to mandate laws is not one that I agree with. In California, especially, the courts seem very willing to mandate to people what they must do and think; SSM advocates are more than willing to impose their agenda on society via the court system - and then accuse their opponents of forcing doctrine on non-members. That's fairly clear.

Is this inflamitory statement made just to whip up the masses? Where on this thread has the church been demonized?

Here's another great example of the methodology of SSM supporters that I've been talking about. Demonize your opposition and then deny that you've ever done such a thing.

So are you stating that the Mormon church does not have dogma against gay marriage? When you push to legalize your dogma on non members, what would you call it?

Another tenuous thread of logic attempting to claim that because the church opposes SSM, we want to push it on others. This has been addressed in detail, but you simply continue to dismiss it.

The rest of your post is just a rant to vent your frustration to form a legitimate argument.

Anyone else see the irony in this statement?

[Stargazer]

Yes that was pointless stargazer. You first deny there was a right, then you admit there was a right. You have unequivocally shown that you are willing to be honest on this issue.

I did nothing of the kind. There is no such right. Saying that such a right exists does not create such a right, and opposing the assertion that there is such a right is not an admission that there is such a right.

I'm a little bewildered by your last statement, though. I have shown I am willing to be honest on this issue? You got that right, but your saying so makes no sense in context.

[Pahoran]

If the Mornon church was not imposing Mormon doctirne on non-members, what were they doing? You are going to have to expalin why you think I am wrong.

If we are going to use this kind of language symmetrically, then I take it you agree that the "same sex marriage" jihad is an attempt to "impose" homosexual wishes on heterosexual people. Is that right?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel2]

If we are going to use this kind of language symmetrically, then I take it you agree that the "same sex marriage" jihad is an attempt to "impose" homosexual wishes on heterosexual people. Is that right?

Regards,

Pahoran

Those advocating for civil marriage rights for same-sex couples are not requiring heterosexual people to enter into a same-sex marriage. Heterosexual couples are still free to civilly marry someone of the opposite sex.

Those advocating to ban civil marriage for same-sex couples are denying same-sex couples the ability to marry someone of hte same sex. Homosexual couples are not free to civilly mary someone of the same sex.

There's a difference.

Daniel2

[blueadept]

Those advocating for civil marriage rights for same-sex couples are not requiring heterosexual people to enter into a same-sex marriage. Heterosexual couples are still free to civilly marry someone of the opposite sex.

Those advocating to ban civil marriage for same-sex couples are denying same-sex couples the ability to marry someone of hte same sex. Homosexual couples are not free to civilly mary someone of the same sex.

There's a difference.

Daniel2

The backlash once SSM are legal is the steps that everyone else will need to take so that there is no discrimination laws could be broken so our religious conscience will not be violated.

Once SSM become a law of the land, the RCC will close everyone of it's adoption and foster care facilities immediately. Anyone that's in a business that cater's to weddings, can be be sued for not providing appropriate services to everyone. Here are a few examples...

Consider what happened in Massachusetts in 2004: Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired. Since same-sex unions were entitled to be treated the same as traditional marriages, this refusal was discrimination and a firing offense.

What about a priest or minister who similarly refuses to preside at such ceremonies? Obviously the state can't fire such people, but it is easy to foresee other sanctions -- such as loss of tax benefits -- being imposed on churches.

After all, if gay marriage truly is no different from traditional marriage, by what justification can the government give preferential treatment to an entity that discriminates?

Just last year, two women filed a complaint in New Jersey because they were denied use of a pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was owned by a Methodist ministry. It had been rented out for marriages, but the ministry refused to rent it for civil unions because it is a religious structure, and civil unions are not recognized in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline.

Due to the ministry's refusal to rent it for the lesbian ceremony, New Jersey revoked its tax-free status.

The Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local Young Men's Christian Association in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend "family membership" privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont.

Accordingly, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as "families" for membership purposes, or lose over $100,000 in government support.

Perhaps the most notorious example of a state forcing its view on a church agency comes from Massachusetts, where Boston Catholic Charities ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years.

In 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley announced that the agency would abandon its founding mission rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples. (A Vatican document from 2003 described gay adoptions as ''gravely immoral.")

It will be a great day for LGBT-friendly businesses. If you're a business owner with a religious conscience though...........

[jwhitlock]

The backlash once SSM are legal is the steps that everyone else will need to take so that there is no discrimination laws could be broken so our religious conscience will not be violated.

Once SSM become a law of the land, the RCC will close everyone of it's adoption and foster care facilities immediately. Anyone that's in a business that cater's to weddings, can be be sued for not providing appropriate services to everyone. Here are a few examples...

It will be a great day for LGBT-friendly businesses. If you're a business owner with a religious conscience though...........

Absolutely. This thing with SSM advocates making a big deal about being "denied rights", when what they're seeking is an extra privilege that is something the rest of us have no interest in, and then totally ignoring the significant loss of personal and religious freedom that will follow for the rest of us in the name of "eliminating" discrimination is chilling.

What's been interesting in this thread is that SSM advocates are demanding that government deny organizations, businesses, and individuals money - money that is used for civic benefits for a large number of people - unless they pass the litmus test of not "discriminating" against gays. And holding an opinion about SSM that doesn't coincide with theirs is discriminating against them.

Another significant example of where things are headed is with what has happened with the Boy Scouts. Gay advocates demanded punishment of the BSA because the BSA didn't feel it was a good idea for gay scout leaders to camp out with young boys. Local governments in California obliged, and so programs that benefited many people were eliminated. It's very clear what will happen should SSM become the law of the land; it will clearly serve as a focal point for cries of discrimination against gays, and calls for severe punishments against the accused perpetrators, who are only exercising their moral conscience.

[jwhitlock]

Those advocating for civil marriage rights for same-sex couples are not requiring heterosexual people to enter into a same-sex marriage. Heterosexual couples are still free to civilly marry someone of the opposite sex.

Those advocating to ban civil marriage for same-sex couples are denying same-sex couples the ability to marry someone of hte same sex. Homosexual couples are not free to civilly mary someone of the same sex.

There's a difference.

Daniel2

Those advocating SSM are demanding that everyone else recognize a newly created right for them to marry. Gay individuals, like anyone else, are free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Those opposing SSM as a new privilege are concerned about the loss of religious and moral freedom that will accompany SSM should it become Federal law. No one is free to marry someone of the same sex under Federal law.

SSM advocates are demanding a change not only to accommodate their personal preferences, but to back it with legal status so that claims of discrimination can be used in court. It is clear that gay groups will be targeting those who have not accommodated them in the past, and the Church and its members will be one such target.

[california boy]

If we are going to use this kind of language symmetrically, then I take it you agree that the "same sex marriage" jihad is an attempt to "impose" homosexual wishes on heterosexual people. Is that right?

Regards,

Pahoran

The problem with your statement is no one is asking heterosexual couples ato give up their right to marrry. So the gay jihad are not imposing anything on anyone. Big difference.

This point came out in the prop 8 trial. When the defense was asked under oath what effect gay marriage would have upon existing marrriages, the answer from the defense was a resounding NONE.

[california boy]

The backlash once SSM are legal is the steps that everyone else will need to take so that there is no discrimination laws could be broken so our religious conscience will not be violated. Once SSM become a law of the land, the RCC will close everyone of it's adoption and foster care facilities immediately. Anyone that's in a business that cater's to weddings, can be be sued for not providing appropriate services to everyone. Here are a few examples... It will be a great day for LGBT-friendly businesses. If you're a business owner with a religious conscience though...........

You do realize the cases you referenced has nothing to do with gay marriage laws. They have everything to do with federal discrimination laws. Virtually all of the cases you mentioned occured in states where gay marriage is not legal. So to suggest that these DISCRIMINATION cases are related to gay marriage is simply a missrepresention of facts. We saw the same kind of falsifying of the issue in the campaign ads by the prop 8 group. The misleading ads were brought up in the prop 8 trial as exhibits of misleading the voters. In a court of law, you can't get away with lumping the two separate issues together.

But hey if it makes you justify your position to believe it is some gay marriage issue, go ahead. It will all come out in the legal proceedings.

[california boy]

Absolutely. This thing with SSM advocates making a big deal about being "denied rights", when what they're seeking is an extra privilege that is something the rest of us have no interest in, and then totally ignoring the significant loss of personal and religious freedom that will follow for the rest of us in the name of "eliminating" discrimination is chilling. What's been interesting in this thread is that SSM advocates are demanding that government deny organizations, businesses, and individuals money - money that is used for civic benefits for a large number of people - unless they pass the litmus test of not "discriminating" against gays. And holding an opinion about SSM that doesn't coincide with theirs is discriminating against them. Another significant example of where things are headed is with what has happened with the Boy Scouts. Gay advocates demanded punishment of the BSA because the BSA didn't feel it was a good idea for gay scout leaders to camp out with young boys. Local governments in California obliged, and so programs that benefited many people were eliminated. It's very clear what will happen should SSM become the law of the land; it will clearly serve as a focal point for cries of discrimination against gays, and calls for severe punishments against the accused perpetrators, who are only exercising their moral conscience.

It sounds to me that you are more intersted in the federal government abandoning its discrimination laws since that is what you keep bringing up. Perhaps you should start another thread on this subject rather than mix it in with a thread on gay marriage.

[jwhitlock]

It sounds to me that you are more intersted in the federal government abandoning its discrimination laws since that is what you keep bringing up. Perhaps you should start another thread on this subject rather than mix it in with a thread on gay marriage.

I've been very clear on the fact that discrimination laws will be used to punish opponents of SSM if it becomes Federal law. Hence, the very clear history of gay advocates using claims of discrimination to punish their opponents indicates that the same method - claims of discrimination - will be used once SSM becomes Federal law, to punish SSM opponents. Abuse of discrimination laws for political or revenge purposes is a fact of our society, and it is a method that SSM supporters have demonstrated will be used.

It is irrelevant that you want to dismiss the connection - just like you want to dismiss the fact that SSM as Federal law will be used to override matters of religious faith or conscience. The situations blueadept has posted show the clear trend of what gay groups intend to do once SSM is in place.

[Pahoran]

The problem with your statement is no one is asking heterosexual couples ato give up their right to marrry. So the gay jihad are not imposing anything on anyone. Big difference.

This point came out in the prop 8 trial. When the defense was asked under oath what effect gay marriage would have upon existing marrriages, the answer from the defense was a resounding NONE.

You keep gushing about that trial.

Question: How long did the trial run for?

Question: How long did the play run for?

Question: What criteria did the playwright use in selecting material from the trial to include in the play?

Hint: do you think he was scrupulous about fairly representing the right side?

I doubt it.

I realise that logic doesn't have much to do with "gay rights," but the argument you are using is a straw man. Nobody ever said "gay marriage" would have any "effect upon individual marriages." The argument is that it will impact marriage as an institution.

When a brick building is demolished, there are always a great many bricks that are pretty much undamaged. It would be rather ridiculous to point to a few salvaged bricks and claim that just because those bricks are okay, no damage was done to the building. But that is what "gay marriage" agitators are arguing when they try to claim that the lack of impact upon individual marriages means no damage to the institution of marriage.

Marriage is a (1) permanent (2) exclusive (3) legally recognised (4) union of one man and one woman. "Gay" marriage would have only one out of four of those essential characteristics. Therefore, expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex "musical chairs" couplings would actually change it into something else.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

The problem with your statement is no one is asking heterosexual couples ato give up their right to marrry. So the gay jihad are not imposing anything on anyone. Big difference.

As you know (because it's been spelled out numerous times) the "right to marry" does not belong to couples. It belongs to individuals.

You, as a single man (well, as a single adult male human, anyhow) have a perfectly good legal right to marry, i.e. to enter into an actual marriage -- namely, with a woman who is single, not a close blood relative, and who will have you.

And every single man has the same right.

In exactly the same way, every single woman has a perfectly good legal right to marry, i.e. to enter into an actual marriage -- namely, with a man who is single, not a close blood relative, and who will have her.

Furthermore, this right applies equally to all. There is no "sexual orientation test" applied to it.

Thus, it is settled: "gays" have exactly the same "right" to marry as everyone else.

That out of the way, the fact is that there has never been a "right" to "same sex marriage." American states have been regulating marriage for well over two hundred years, and they have pretty much done so according to the traditions of Christian Europe, which reach back to antiquity. The silly and oxymoronic notion of "same sex marriage" (a construct similar to a square circle) has only just tried to crawl out of the swamp of moral decadence.

What is really being taken away if the door nobody ever thought was there in the first place is bolted? "Gays" still have the freedom to shack up, just like they did before. They (whether shacked-up or not) can still cruise for casual encounters, in bars, restrooms, parks, bathhouses and vacations to Fire Island and the like, just like they did before, and just like they will continue to do if they get their way.

So what are they actually being asked to "give up"? Certainly nothing they value.

Because, you see, what really matters about marriage is a lot of reasonably abstract factors that are themselves entirely at odds with the "gay" lifestyle. If "same sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms, it is no more so than "exclusive, monogamous, faithful homosexual couple."

Here's a suggestion: I'm prepared to argue in support of a bill that would legalise "same sex marriage" providing it simultaneously criminalises adultery and provides for automatic divorce, serious community property penalty against the straying partner and actual jail time. That, I believe, would provide a suitable protective buttress to the institution of marriage.

How about it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

I've been very clear on the fact that discrimination laws will be used to punish opponents of SSM if it becomes Federal law. Hence, the very clear history of gay advocates using claims of discrimination to punish their opponents indicates that the same method - claims of discrimination - will be used once SSM becomes Federal law, to punish SSM opponents. Abuse of discrimination laws for political or revenge purposes is a fact of our society, and it is a method that SSM supporters have demonstrated will be used.

It is irrelevant that you want to dismiss the connection - just like you want to dismiss the fact that SSM as Federal law will be used to override matters of religious faith or conscience. The situations blueadept has posted show the clear trend of what gay groups intend to do once SSM is in place.

I don't think gay couples are waiting for marriage equality to press cases where they are discriminated just because they are gay. If this is the big issue for you, perhaps you should be fighting discrimination laws. Good luck with that one.

[california boy]

You keep gushing about that trial.

Question: How long did the trial run for?

Question: How long did the play run for?

Question: What criteria did the playwright use in selecting material from the trial to include in the play?

Hint: do you think he was scrupulous about fairly representing the right side?

I doubt it.

I realise that logic doesn't have much to do with "gay rights," but the argument you are using is a straw man. Nobody ever said "gay marriage" would have any "effect upon individual marriages." The argument is that it will impact marriage as an institution.

When a brick building is demolished, there are always a great many bricks that are pretty much undamaged. It would be rather ridiculous to point to a few salvaged bricks and claim that just because those bricks are okay, no damage was done to the building. But that is what "gay marriage" agitators are arguing when they try to claim that the lack of impact upon individual marriages means no damage to the institution of marriage.

Marriage is a (1) permanent (2) exclusive (3) legally recognised (4) union of one man and one woman. "Gay" marriage would have only one out of four of those essential characteristics. Therefore, expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex "musical chairs" couplings would actually change it into something else.

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't think I have referred to the play, I have referred to the court case. Transcripts are available online of the entire proceedings. If you feel there is a legal argument to support your attituedes against gay marriage, you are more than welcome to make your legal case from what occured during those legal proceedings as well. If you feel gay mariage will damage the institution of marriage, then you have to show legally exactly what will happen. This was one of the main problems the defense team had in the trial. They were unable to do that. Good luck.

[california boy]

As you know (because it's been spelled out numerous times) the "right to marry" does not belong to couples. It belongs to individuals.

You, as a single man (well, as a single adult male human, anyhow) have a perfectly good legal right to marry, i.e. to enter into an actual marriage -- namely, with a woman who is single, not a close blood relative, and who will have you.

And every single man has the same right.

In exactly the same way, every single woman has a perfectly good legal right to marry, i.e. to enter into an actual marriage -- namely, with a man who is single, not a close blood relative, and who will have her.

Furthermore, this right applies equally to all. There is no "sexual orientation test" applied to it.

Thus, it is settled: "gays" have exactly the same "right" to marry as everyone else.

That out of the way, the fact is that there has never been a "right" to "same sex marriage." American states have been regulating marriage for well over two hundred years, and they have pretty much done so according to the traditions of Christian Europe, which reach back to antiquity. The silly and oxymoronic notion of "same sex marriage" (a construct similar to a square circle) has only just tried to crawl out of the swamp of moral decadence.

What is really being taken away if the door nobody ever thought was there in the first place is bolted? "Gays" still have the freedom to shack up, just like they did before. They (whether shacked-up or not) can still cruise for casual encounters, in bars, restrooms, parks, bathhouses and vacations to Fire Island and the like, just like they did before, and just like they will continue to do if they get their way.

So what are they actually being asked to "give up"? Certainly nothing they value.

Because, you see, what really matters about marriage is a lot of reasonably abstract factors that are themselves entirely at odds with the "gay" lifestyle. If "same sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms, it is no more so than "exclusive, monogamous, faithful homosexual couple."

Here's a suggestion: I'm prepared to argue in support of a bill that would legalise "same sex marriage" providing it simultaneously criminalises adultery and provides for automatic divorce, serious community property penalty against the straying partner and actual jail time. That, I believe, would provide a suitable protective buttress to the institution of marriage.

How about it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Hahahahaha. Very funny. Even the church thinks it is a bad idea for a gay man to marry a woman. That idea went out about the same time as electrical shock therapy.

[california boy]

Pahoran, all of your arguments are old recycles clichés we have heard before. We now have an actual legal case where one can look at all these talking points and see which ones hold up under legal scrutiny. I would really recommend you read the transcripts from the proceedings. I think it will help you understand the difference between creative talking points and points of law. The defense put on the strongest case they possibly could. You can read exactly what was used to support your position that gay marriage should not be allowed and you can see the legal arguments against those ideas. I think it would really help you get a grip on reality. It will probably also help you understand why Prop 8 defendants did not want those trial tapes released to the public. But what they could not prevent is the release of the transcripts.

[blueadept]

cb

I've avoided SSM threads since I'm a believer that SSM civil unions should have the exact same benefits as heterosexual marriages. You're the one that misrepresented the RCC in this thread that needed correction. Even though I supported Prop 8 in defining what a marriage is IMHO, I don't blame the LGBT community in fighting for civil marriages. I know that the RCC or LDS churches will not be performing these ceremonies. I was honestly surprised when Prop 8 actually passed. You will eventually win this and I'll congratulate your victory as well as my lesbian friends.

That said, I'll be disappointed when my church shuts down its adoption and foster care services due to your victory and the steps that everyone will need to take to protect their religious consciences. It will be a brave new world. If you don't believe the LGBT community will not go after businesses that do not conform, you've got your head under a rock IMHO.