Loved Into Existence
In my Magnificat (a daily Catholic prayer book) I found this quotation last Sunday, from Fr. Richard Veras: “I do not decide my mission, Jesus loves my mission into existence, by continually loving me into existence.”
I love that phrase, “loved into existence.” I realize that this is one of the core beliefs of the whole Judeo-Christian world view. God created the world out of nothing as an act of pure love. He loved the entire world into existence, and He loves each of us into existence.
This view is related to our view of marriage as well. God loves every human person into existence, with the cooperation and collaboration of our earthly parents. This is the birthright of every human being: to be loved into existence. We know that we humans attain this only imperfectly, but this is at the heart of what Almighty God wants for each of us.
At the heart of the universe, is a deep and abiding love, in which we have the opportunity and the invitation to participate. I am not ashamed that this is what my religion teaches me.
Loading ...
“I am not ashamed that this is what my religion teaches me.”
What you should be ashamed of is how your religion wants to decide who is allowed to love, and who isn’t. And how all persons, catholic or not, are expected to abide by the church’s rules. That’s what you should be ashamed of.
Sean,
I thought you were against shaming people. Didn’t you write:
“Shame is never a good idea, since it makes a person feel bad about himself for something he’s said or done. Better to use a different emotion to encourage or discourage behaviors.”
“What you should be ashamed of is how your religion wants to decide who is allowed to love, and who isn’t.”
The Christian religion teaches all men and women to love and to, in fact, love all other men and women as they love themselves. And, indeed, our faith also teaches that we are even to love our enemies. However, some expressions of that love are only proper when engaged in between one man and one woman who have entered into a lifelong covenant between themselves. Sexual intercourse is the act by which God chooses to permit men and women to participate in His giving life, to loving others into existence. Only sexual intercourse between a man and a woman can be life giving and only sexual intercourse between an man and a woman which is by its nature potentially life-giving is permissible. That is, the same acts which the Christian faith (not just Catholicism — I’m not Catholic) teach are sinful for a couple of the same-sex to engage in are also sinful for a man and a woman to engage in. The reason the acts are sinful is not because of the sex of the participants but because of the nature of the acts, that is, the acts are not potentially life giving. No one says that a man may not love another man nor that a woman may not love another woman, but only that a man may not perform sex acts with another man and a woman may not perform sex acts with another woman. Likewise, a man and a woman may love one another, but they may not perform sex acts which are by their nature not potentially life-giving and, unless they are in a marriage covenant, they may not even perform sex acts which are by their nature potentially life-giving.
“And how all persons, catholic or not, are expected to abide by the church’s rules.” These “rules” to which you refer are not “the church’s rules”, they are the laws of nature and nature’s God. The Church has no power over those who are not its members, but God and nature do. The Church merely teaches what those rules are and what sad consequences result to those who disobey those laws and to many others who are the innocent victims of such disobedience and seeks, in love, to urge against such disobedience because it seeks to protect both those who would be disobedient and the innocent from the resulting harm.
The Church merely speaks what is true, that only a man and a woman my marry because only a man and a woman may engage in the act which by its nature has the potential to be life-giving and, in fact, that engaging in that act is a necessary part of being married. Since man cannot guarantee that even the life-giving act will be life-giving, procreation is not essential to marriage, but engaging in the life-giving act is. And since engaging in the life-giving act is essential to marriage, only those who can engage in that act may marry and they are in fact only married when they have engaged in that act. Thus, in canon law, and, at one time in civil law, failure to consummate the marriage was grounds for an annulment, that is, for a declaration that no marriage had ever occurred. That is, even a man and a woman are not and cannot be married unless and until they have engaged in the act which by its nature is life-giving.
So, you may love whomever you choose, but you may not marry whomever you choose. You are, in fact, called to love all men and women, but you may only marry someone with whom you can perform the act which is, by its nature, life-giving. So doing is essential to marriage because it is the essence of marriage to be open to loving new life into existence.
“What you should be ashamed of is how your religion wants to decide who is allowed to love, and who isn’t.”
Sean, there are many kinds of expression of love. Christianity simply teaches that sexual acts as an expression of love may only occur between a man and an woman. Christianity celebrates storge (affection), philia (friendship), and agape (charity) between all men. That is, Christianity does not decide who may love, but only what expressions of love are permissible. And why? Because Scripture explicitly does so and so does nature. Both teach that sexual acts are only licit if they are between a man and a woman joined together for life and then only if the consummated act is, by its nature, potentially life-giving.
I am against shaming, because it tends to criticize the person rather than the deed. Here, I’m using the phrase “feel ashamed of,” as a synonym for “feel bad about,” or “be embarrassed about.” If “shaming” is intended to make someone feel bad about himself, I’m against it. If it’s tied to a specific behavior or belief that can be changed and arguably should be changed, I guess I’m ok with it.
Greg: “Both teach that sexual acts are only licit if they are between a man and a woman joined together for life and then only if the consummated act is, by its nature, potentially life-giving.”
You do realize that has not always been the teaching of the church. It used to be any sexual act in a committed relationship, including a same sex one.
Frankly, I think the church needs to stay out of the bedroom.
I know no such thing Mark because its not true. Scripture and the Church have always addressed what is and is not licit sex. I don’t doubt that you can find some heretics in the early centuries of the Christian faith who taught such a thing, but I know you cannot find any orthodox bishops or priest who did so.
Why aren’t Christians satisfied to live as they choose and not bring their religion into my life? I told tell them who to marry or divorce, or how to raise their children, or what family arrangements work for them.
Why aren’t same-sex couples satisfied with domestic partnerships or civil unions and insist that their neighbors give marital recognition to unions that are not and cannot be marriages? I for one supported many of the early aims of the gay and lesbian community, to have their sexual acts decriminalized and to have the ability to easily procure certain recognition, such as next-of-kin treatment for health care and inheritance, SO LONG AS such procedures are also open to people who are living in non-sexual domestic partnerships (e.g., close friends, relatives who might be next-of-kin, etc.). But that has ceased to be satisfactory because, apparently, same-sex couples want official recognition of their sexual relationship, even though that relationship is not and cannot be open to the natural procreation of new life. Marriage actually defines a real, actual distinction which will remain even if the state calls other unions by the same name. What states do, however, when they do so, is pretend that the very real distinction which exists does not exist. The state should favor the union of one man and one woman til death do them part which is open to life precisely because such unions benefit society and are the best arrangement for the rearing of the next generation.
As to bringing our religion into your life, we are simply saying that the acts involved are sins. They are not the only sins nor the only sins which Christians identify, not only in others, but in themselves. What will without question happen, however, as states recognize same-sex unions as marriages is that Christians will be penalized if we refuse to recognize as marriages unions which are not in fact marriages. Then, it will be you who will bring your lifestyle into our religion. Even honest proponents of same-sex marriage admit as much.
“Why aren’t same-sex couples satisfied with domestic partnerships or civil unions and insist that their neighbors give marital recognition to unions that are not and cannot be marriages?”
Because non-marriage arrangements represent a second-class arrangement.
“same-sex couples want official recognition of their sexual relationship, even though that relationship is not and cannot be open to the natural procreation of new life”
So do elderly couples and infertile couples. So what? Why do you have to produce a kid in order to get married.
“The state should favor the union of one man and one woman til death do them part which is open to life precisely because such unions benefit society and are the best arrangement for the rearing of the next generation.”
Same-sex couples raise children, too. Don’t their children deserve the protections and security of marriage?
“What will without question happen, however, as states recognize same-sex unions as marriages is that Christians will be penalized if we refuse to recognize as marriages unions which are not in fact marriages.”
That’s fine, just so you recognize as marriages unions which in fact are marriages.
“Then, it will be you who will bring your lifestyle into our religion.”
Religions and religionists have successfully accommodated pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce, and happily served and otherwise accommodated Americans who engage in these activities. They’ll accommodate to married gay people, too, I bet!
“What will without question happen, however, as states recognize same-sex unions as marriages is that Christians will be penalized if we refuse to recognize as marriages unions which are not in fact marriages. Then, it will be you who will bring your lifestyle into our religion. Even honest proponents of same-sex marriage admit as much.”
Right. Just like the government forced the “lifestyle” of interracial marriage onto the so-called Christians of the day who believed that God did not intend for the races to mix. See Loving v. VA (quoting the lower court). I’ve never heard of a church being forced to marry anyone who does not subscribe to its tenets, and if you’re talking about legal discrimination in public matters, guess what? I pay taxes too. My kids have just as much of a right to hear about and see families like theirs as your children do to hear about and see families like yours, whether in public school or elsewhere. I won’t come into your church if you stay out of my family. It’s called America, the land of the free. We have just as much right to the equal protection of the laws as any other American citizen. You can continue to define religious marriage according to your religion and I won’t interfere with that. But when it comes to the government discriminating against my family, sorry, I’m tired of dealing with it and won’t stop fighting until our family is treated like every other family under the laws of this country. I am so terribly weary of explaining why someone’s religious point of view does not carry the day when discussing legal rights, but I will keep saying it until the day I die or until the world grows up and stops treating equal citizens and human beings unequally under the law for no good reason.
Greg: “Why aren’t same-sex couples satisfied with domestic partnerships or civil unions and insist that their neighbors give marital recognition to unions that are not and cannot be marriages?”
It’s because, while these recognitions are a start, they still do not provide the rights that marriage does. The following site gives some of those differences:
http://www.hrc.org/issues/5517.htm
“Because non-marriage arrangements represent a second-class arrangement.”
Well, they shouldn’t be allowed to procreate offspring together, because it requires unethical experimental modified lab-created gametes, and it would be really bad for society and life on the planet if we start creating people from modified lab-created genetically engineered genes. It should be prohibited.
“So do elderly couples and infertile couples. So what? Why do you have to produce a kid in order to get married.”
Elderly and infertile couples have a right to try to to procreate. You have to have a right to produce a kid in order to get married.
“Same-sex couples raise children, too. Don’t their children deserve the protections and security of marriage?”
Civil Unions would provide all the protections and security they need, but Sean you are the one denying that they need that security. You are making all those thousands of families suffer without CU’s because you feel you’d be “second class” unless you are allowed to try to procreate with lab-created modified gametes. I think that it is harmful to families and insulting to gay people to imply that gay people need labs creating modified gametes to make them first class.
“Because non-marriage arrangements represent a second-class arrangement.”
No. It is the treating differently arrangements that are different in kind. A marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life in a sexually exclusive union which provides companionship and which is open to the procreation of new life. A same-sex union, just like a celibate union, is not open to the procreation of new life.
“‘same-sex couples want official recognition of their sexual relationship, even though that relationship is not and cannot be open to the natural procreation of new life’
So do elderly couples and infertile couples. So what? Why do you have to produce a kid in order to get married.”
Actually, what was historically considered essential for marriage was performing the act by which new life is procreated, not procreation itself. Thus, an elderly couple or a younger couple in which one or both of the parties was infertile could still form a marriage so long as they engaged in the act which is naturally procreative. A couple that did not engage in that act were not married even if they exchanged vows. As a consequence, proof that consummation had not occurred was grounds for an annulment, that is, that the marriage was a nullity and had never occurred. So, no, a couple doesn’t need to produce children to get married, but they do have to be open to doing so.
“Same-sex couples raise children, too. Don’t their children deserve the protections and security of marriage?”
Yes. All children deserve the protections and security of marriage. It is not the state which deprives them of this when their parents are not married and calling a union which is not a marriage one doesn’t make it one.
“That’s fine, just so you recognize as marriages unions which in fact are marriages.”
The problem is that you want me and all other Americans to recognize as marriages unions which in fact are not marriage for the reasons I’ve already mentioned.
“Religions and religionists have successfully accommodated pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce, and happily served and otherwise accommodated Americans who engage in these activities. They’ll accommodate to married gay people, too, I bet!”
That’s what I’m afraid of. I agree with those who say that there are accommodations which have been made by many Christians on other matters which are more harmful to marriage, family and children than calling same-sex unions “marriages” would be. That doesn’t justify further accommodation. Instead, Christians need to reexamine the earlier accommodations we have made and repent of them.
What same-sex marriage advocates need to recognize is that not everyone who opposes you on this issue hates you or are your enemies. We disagree on this one issue (and probably a few related issues). I don’t believe you are my enemy simply because we disagree on this very important issue and it would help if the venom being spewed by radicals on both side of the issue stopped. I’ve not seen that from the posters here on either side, but I have seen it from both sides from others. I think you’re wrong on this issue and you think I’m wrong on this issue. That’s it. We might very well agree on many other issues. Both sides should vigorously make their cases, but they should do so with respect and without accusations of hatred or bigotry when no evidence exists to support those accusations.
First, people are free to exercise their religion, Sean, that is what the 1st amendment means, no? That means they can exercise their religion equally in the ballot box with you, should there be a disagreement. But beforehand I hope you and those you disagree with have a chance to open and honest debate.
This is a good example of where Sean is in the debate, instead of looking for a compromise (Which means both sides won’t get everything they want) Sean is declaring he’ll feel worse about himself for compromising at all. He’ll feel he is a second class citizen.
The real question is whether that is warranted or not, and that is best decided with some scrutiny and rational thinking.
Why do you have to produce a child in every marriage to prove that marriage has a rational purpose in being explicitely about encouraging responsible procreation?
I’ve asked you that before, and oddly enough you’ve never even attempted an answer.
An infertile couple is only an infertile couple because they are an impaired procreative type of relationships, you don’t call things infertile if they aren’t first a procreative type of situation. So there is no exception there. But even if there were you’d have to answer the question I just posed to explain how that exception is valid in this circumstance (as opposed to say the circumstance of discrete mathematics).
Notice this is nothing less than admission from Sean that the commenter was right about him. Feel free to compare and contrast with the first point in this comment, especially Sean’s reaction to who can do what, and where.
It is clear to see Sean isn’t asking for equal rights, but special rights.
By the way, that marriage is limited to a union of men to women is clear from the origins of the word matrimony, which derives from the Latin word “matrimonium”, which, in turn, derives from the word “mater” (Latin for mother) and the suffix “monium” (action, state or condition). Matrimony, then, is the action intended to make a woman a mother. And, that, by nature, requires a man and a woman. Thus, what advocates of same-sex marriage call for will, in fact, result in our no longer making a distinction in our language and laws between two types of unions which are, in fact, distinct: those in which the couple engage in the act by which a woman may become a mother and those in which they do not. The distinction is real and it is important, so our language and our law should continue to recognize the distinction.
“The church needs to stay out of the bedroom.”
I have contemplated this at length. As one level, the vision of the church in the bedroom sounds rather frightening. One imagines a cleric being stationed in every bedroom. Except this is an absurd fantasy meant to smear religion. Our homes are our castles, and clergy are admitted into our houses voluntarily, and into bedrooms usually only to comfort and administer to the sick and dying.
The other implication is that Catholics, or Christians, or members of any faith tradition should never speak, write, or publish on the subject of ethics, or at least not sexual ethics. I find this notion narrow, prejudiced, and close minded, and if not narcissistic and solipsistic. Of course, you are free to hold that attitude, but I don’t find it appealing. I find I can often learn something from religious traditions I disagree with. I recommend this book:
“A marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life in a sexually exclusive union which provides companionship and which is open to the procreation of new life. A same-sex union, just like a celibate union, is not open to the procreation of new life.”
Elderly couples and infertile couples can’t procreate together, either. Yet they still can marry. So, obviously, procreation is not an essential part of marriage, opening the door, widely, to same-sex couples marrying.
“It is not the state which deprives them of this when their parents are not married and calling a union which is not a marriage one doesn’t make it one.”
Yes it is. In 44 states, same-sex couples raising children together cannot marry. That deprives the children of married parents. It is the couple who wants to raise the child who should be married, not the biological parents, who may or may not wish to raise the child.
“What same-sex marriage advocates need to recognize is that not everyone who opposes you on this issue hates you or are your enemies.”
It doesn’t really matter. The outcome is the same: violations of equal protection guarantees, second-class citizenship, a less secure environment for children, a more homophobic society.
“That means they can exercise their religion equally in the ballot box with you, should there be a disagreement.”
Yikes. No, we’re not a theocracy. You can’t vote to impose your religious beliefs on normal people. Also, the 14th Amendment requires that all citizens be treated equally and protected equally under the law. So no, you can’t impose your religious beliefs on others.
“This is a good example of where Sean is in the debate, instead of looking for a compromise (Which means both sides won’t get everything they want) Sean is declaring he’ll feel worse about himself for compromising at all. He’ll feel he is a second class citizen.”
Sean feels great about himself and his wife of 13 years. Sean doesn’t believe that civil or fundamental rights are up for compromise. Sean would like to see religionists, especially the so-called Christians, show a little compromise from their intent to impose their fairy tales on the rest of us.
“Why do you have to produce a child in every marriage to prove that marriage has a rational purpose in being explicitely about encouraging responsible procreation? I’ve asked you that before, and oddly enough you’ve never even attempted an answer.”
I’ve answered it about twelve times now but you didn’t like the answer. What you wanted me to say was, “you’re right, it makes perfect sense that the government can say marriage is all about procreation, even though many couples can’t or won’t procreate, and joining marriage to procreation creates an exclusion that means same-sex couples can’t be allowed to marry; yes, that makes perfect sense!” That’s what you wanted. What you got was: it makes no sense to say that same-sex couples can’t get married because they can’t procreate, because elderly couples can’t procreate and they get married all the time. So do infertile couples. Besides, marriage can force otherwise irresponsible straight people to take responsibility for their children, and still provide legal protections to same-sex couples. Getting irresponsible straight people to own up to caring for their children doesn’t depend on same-sex couples not getting married.
“Elderly couples and infertile couples can’t procreate together, either. Yet they still can marry. So, obviously, procreation is not an essential part of marriage, opening the door, widely, to same-sex couples marrying.”
Sean, I’ve said this so many times now, that I have to wonder if you are not fully reading what I written. Procreation is not essential to marriage, but being open to procreation is. That is why infertility has never been grounds for annulment, but failure to consummate the marriage has. In fact, in Roman Catholic canon law, “marrying” without intent to have children is also grounds for an annulment. And, as I pointed out above, even under Roman law, which provided some recognition of same-sex unions, matrimony was limited to opposite-sex couples because matrimony was for purposes of making a woman a mother. If you want to replicate Roman law, then domestic partnerships or civil unions are more closely analogous.
“Yes it is. In 44 states, same-sex couples raising children together cannot marry. That deprives the children of married parents. It is the couple who wants to raise the child who should be married, not the biological parents, who may or may not wish to raise the child.”
No, nature prevent people of the same-sex from marrying because people of the same-sex cannot perform the act by which children are naturally procreated.
“It doesn’t really matter. The outcome is the same: violations of equal protection guarantees, second-class citizenship, a less secure environment for children, a more homophobic society.”
Treated situations which are identical differently violates equal protection. Same-sex unions and opposite-sex union are not identical. There is nothing second-class about not treating as a marriage a union which is not, by definition, a marriage. It is not the state which created the less secure environment for children. And opposing your desire in this regard is not homophobic. People can disagree with each other without fearing each other. So please, stop this basely, inflammatory charge. I don’t fear homosexuals nor homosexuality, but I do disagree with the call for same-sex marriage. The charge of homophobia is, in fact, the attempt to suppress any honest debate of the issue. I’ll have none of it.
And with that I’ll end my participation in this tread. It would serve no further purpose.
“Sean, I’ve said this so many times now, that I have to wonder if you are not fully reading what I written. Procreation is not essential to marriage, but being open to procreation is. That is why infertility has never been grounds for annulment, but failure to consummate the marriage has.”
I have fully read you and others on this argument. It may pass some religious belief, but it doesn’t pass a legal test. Either a couple has the ability and intention to procreate, or they don’t. What you’re saying, essentially, is that if a couple can procreate, or at least look like they can, then they can get married. Well, I would ask you, what value is there to society of giving a license to people who merely look like they can procreate, if they can’t or don’t? My answer is, none. There is no need to glorify sexual intercourse that’s merely for pleasure, because humans do that whether they are licensed or not. But sexual relations between elderly or infertile couples is only for pleasure, since they can’t create a child from their act.
If marriage is primarily to bind a man and woman together in order to provide reliable caregivers to any children their sexual activities produce, and you think this creates an exclusion for same-sex couples because their sexual activity doesn’t produce children, then it is inexplicable and legally unsupportable to carve out an exception for the elderly and the infertile, and couples who refuse to have children. I would add that your belief also creates a gray area as to the validity of childless marriages.
So the problem remains twofold: the procreation argument can’t be used against gay people without being used against the elderly and the infertile. And it can’t be used against anybody because “responsible procreation” doesn’t depend on non-procreators not being able to marry.
“…matrimony was limited to opposite-sex couples because matrimony was for purposes of making a woman a mother.”
And if a woman can’t or refuses to become a mother???
“nature prevent people of the same-sex from marrying because people of the same-sex cannot perform the act by which children are naturally procreated.”
Marriage is a man-made, not natural, event. Again, what’s the public interest in rewarding sexual relations by straight people that don’t produce a child, but not rewarding sexual relations by gay people that don’t produce a child? How are straight couples’ non-babies valuable to society, while gay couples’ non-babies aren’t?
“Same-sex unions and opposite-sex union are not identical.”
Well, then black and white people aren’t identical, nor are males and females. The fact is, legally, people or things don’t have to be identical but rather, “similarly situated.” The reasons to marry are, in fact, identical to straight couples and gay couples: public affirmation of the relationship, greater security for the children being raised by the couple, creation of a family by the couple, etc.
“The charge of homophobia is, in fact, the attempt to suppress any honest debate of the issue. I’ll have none of it.”
The charge of homophobia stems from your insistence that straight people be given primacy on this issue (as well as a number of others, frankly). Whether you are homophobic or a Straight Supremacist, there is no public purpose in the government promoting either attitude.
Some can, and no one disagrees they are still the procreative type of relationship even after age has impaired some of the functions they could do when they are younger.
In other words, the commenter is right and Sean didn’t disprove it.
Yes it is, which is why marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. What other reason can you figure for an institutional rule that is as universal to the human condition as procreation? Even historically within societies very supportive of homosexuality…
Actually, Sean is once again wrong since many of those 44 states allow forms of same-sex marriage like Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Reciprocal Beneficiaries.
The question Sean has never answered, however, is why he thinks raising a child means they need a marriage license, when even he is happy to exclude many of those situations from any form of same-sex marriage (denying them CU’s, DP’s etc… for not being homosexual relationships).
Even when he considers such behavior to be creating second class citizens, as the next comment shows…
Thus, when Sean claims, in an over-the-top rhetorical effort to evoke emotion, that denying the benefits of marriage (in any form from CU’s to DP’s) creates second-class citizens, he is just as happy to do it all the same.
Apparently there are two classes of victim to Sean, the celebrity class who’s victimhood means they need more and more appeasement, and those that are just regular victims.
Then practice what you preach, your unfounded and religious belief in what the 14th ammendment says between the lines, should not be imposed on others.
We all go outside of the realm of what is factual into faith. The difference here is that Sean think’s his faith-based assertions are more important than others. That his are somehow more worthy in the ballot box than others.
Hence Sean’s true colors of inequality shine through, yet again. Now, having explained that see if you can read the following without cringing…
@Sean
Yes it has, it has passed legal tests in Washington, New York, New Jersey, the 8th Circuit, the 9th Circuit, Arizona, Minnesota, and the Supreme Court.
“Some can, and no one disagrees they are still the procreative type of relationship even after age has impaired some of the functions they could do when they are younger. In other words, the commenter is right and Sean didn’t disprove it.”
Many opposite-sex couples are incapable of reproducing. That is a fact. Some opposite-sex couples are not capable of even having sex, and that does not preclude them from getting married. It does, however, preclude them from procreating.
“Yes it is, which is why marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. What other reason can you figure for an institutional rule that is as universal to the human condition as procreation? Even historically within societies very supportive of homosexuality…”
Obviously, as Judge Walker in California noted, the goal is to reinforce the notion of Straight Supremacy: that heterosexuality, the basis for the formation of opposite-sex couples, is superior to homosexuality, the basis for the formation of same-sex couples.
Even if society valued reproduction, not all opposite-sex couples can or will reproduce. So reproduction cannot form the basis for the marriage law. The only consistent reason that explains why opposite-sex couples may marry, but same-sex couples may not, is a belief that “straightness” is valuable, and/or “gayness” is not valuable.
“Actually, Sean is once again wrong since many of those 44 states allow forms of same-sex marriage like Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Reciprocal Beneficiaries.”
You sure don’t mind beating a dead horse, do you? These other relationships are not the equal of marriage, but are so close in form that courts will eliminate them as being “separate but equal” accommodations. These other forms were constructed specifically to create a second-class status for gay and lesbian Americans and their children. Courts tend not to like it when laws do this.
“The question Sean has never answered, however, is why he thinks raising a child means they need a marriage license, when even he is happy to exclude many of those situations from any form of same-sex marriage (denying them CU’s, DP’s etc… for not being homosexual relationships).”
Well, actually, Sean has. But let him take this opportunity to repeat his thoughts. No one needs to have a marriage license to raise a child but research shows that married couples tend to produce better results for their children, compared to unmarried couples. Given this knowledge, Sean can’t possibly agree to a scheme that prevents some, but not other, couples raising children to not be permitted to marry. It is harmful to their children. And Sean really, really doesn’t like it when adults harm children! Sean doesn’t care what consenting adult couples marry, so long as they aren’t closely related (a tradition Sean doesn’t object to, but doesn’t care if it goes away) or already married. Sean wonders why you keep saying he won’t let some couples marry or get civilly joined.
“Thus, when Sean claims, in an over-the-top rhetorical effort to evoke emotion, that denying the benefits of marriage (in any form from CU’s to DP’s) creates second-class citizens, he is just as happy to do it all the same.”
You’ve really got to get some professional counseling. Any institution designed to keep gay people away from marriage is automatically a second-class accommodation, by virtue of the intent of its creation. Are you willing to give gay couples additional rights, above and beyond marriage, with civil unions? Because as I see it, that’s about the only way to get civil unions securely in place. Can you see homophobic Americans steaming at the thought of civilly joined gay couples getting more rights than they have in marriage??? Never happen!
“Then practice what you preach, your unfounded and religious belief in what the 14th ammendment says between the lines, should not be imposed on others.”
When same-sex marriage is legal, no straight people will be forced to marry someone of the same sex, I promise! There is nothing “being imposed,” although this over-the-top rhetorical device as worked well for the religionists and homophobes so far. It seems to be wearing off, though.
“We all go outside of the realm of what is factual into faith.”
We did that a long time ago!
“The difference here is that Sean think’s his faith-based assertions are more important than others.”
Sean posits no faith-based assertions. Religion, magic, mysticism, none of these are of any use in discussing legal marriage.
“Nowhere do we assign responsibility only for things which are guaranteed to happen. Not in any insurance industry, not in any workplace. Where our knowledge is imperfect, but responsibility needs to be assigned, we wisely do so preparing for an event whether it is guaranteed to happen or not.”
No but if it’s guaranteed NOT TO HAPPEN, we don’t say that is the essential the thing! You don’t buy car insurance if you don’t own a car. Similarly, you don’t say marriage is about procreation is you let people get married who can’t procreate.
“But for Sean, he thinks it makes sense that in order for marriage to be about responsible procreation, every couple has to have a child to justify that.”
The so-called “responsible procreation” provision can exist whether someone has a kid or not. It doesn’t activate, I guess, unless and until a couple has a kid. I’m not sure why a man would want to be legally considered the father for a child he didn’t sire, but this issue is very important to you, so maybe you can explain it to me.
But more importantly, you’re confusing responsible procreation with procreation. You say that marriage is about procreation, a thing many couples who marry can’t do. That’s the fly in the ointment for you. Now that courts are questioning the role of procreation in marriage (that is, is there one and how, if at all, is it affected by same-sex marriage, and does it create an exclusion for same-sex couples), it is going to be more difficult going forward to brush off same-sex couple demands for equal treatment by saying, well, you can’t procreate.
“But Sean pretends it does, and even pretends that other people see it that way.”
Well a lot of people see it that way! The Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa courts sure did. But I’m sure they’re just ignorant of their respective states’ constitutions, rights? LOL.
As always, I continue to invite you to address the issue at hand: are states obligated to enact marriage equality by virtue of the US Constitution, or are they free to allow or prohibit same-sex marriage as they see fit?
The fact that they are a procreative type relationship which is impaired is exactly why there is a term like “infertile”. Infertility is a recognized, diagnosible and many instances treatable condition because the natural state is the expectation of the ability to procreate.
The Government doesn’t err in accepting these with all other procreative type relationships.
Sean has noted that homosexuality is not an impairment, nor a medical condition of any sort. Nor is the same-sex relationship a procreative type of relationship.
And such is the poor state of everyone in a bitter homo v hetero way of thinking (like the homomsexual judge). They see everything as a part of a struggle of two warring identities, rather than simply an expression of humanity. Marriage is simply an expression of our own species need to take care of children when we procreate them, to accept responsibility for those we create because only through that can all of the child’s rights be fully realized.
Note the churlish “[e]ven if” to begin that paragraph. That incredulity is not in itself an argument, it is just denial.
Not only have we shown that marriage is based in the human understanding and social awareness of the rights and needs associated in procreation, we’ve shown that is a humanitarian cause that should not be removed.
Equal or not, they are still same-sex marriage, and they are very much legal. So are private contracts capable of expressing a same-sex marriage.
Sean is simply wrong to say same-sex marriage is illegal. Whether or not it is equal requires looking at both types of relationships and see if they are equally being supported in the ways that are relevant to each. Sean doesn’t want us to consider relevance, he wants what gays have to be based on the merits of others. And that isn’t equality, not one bit.
Because Sean has said he’s happy to block a large number of same-sex couples from any kind of same-sex marriage that is set up for homosexuals. That is why.
Sean’s ability to waffle is in no way my own problem to resolve
I’m happy to give them every relevant benefit and recognition of every relelvant right. So when are you going to be ready to have a discussion on just what is and what isn’t relevant for their version of marriage?
Speaking of relevance, it was interesting to read as Sean digressed into irrelevance.
The 14th amendment is what that comment was about. I’ll let Sean re-read it and come back with a more relevant response.
Well, Sean can only speak for himself on that
Neither are Sean’s fairy tales of any use to the discussion that the 14th amendment says something opposite of what it says, namely that segregation is equal to integration…
Many people pay for car insurance to cover them when they drive other people’s cars, but that is beside the point. No one is required to get into an accident to justify the purpose of car insurance for everyone
However, Sean is right. His argument amounts to saying where people won’t ever procreate (like same-sex couples) they need marriage like fish needs car insurance.
Sorry, you stepped out into vague irrelevance again. I’m not sure I can help you there
Marriage is about responsbile procreation, and hence is rooted in procreation. It is that simple.
CU’s and DP’s and RB’s and private contracts are rooted in mutual trust and assumed mutual responsibility — and hence is rooted in just what same-sex couples need.
You can meet the needs of both, just not with the same program.
Yep, they certainly are. And yes, it is funny to think that the people most willing to do harm to the constitution were the people who were appointed as judges in those circumstances.
Scarry, but funny.
I agree with you, marriage equality — the equal recognition of the rights of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together, is constitutional.
And they are free to allow the other institution that you call “same-sex marriage”, or others have called Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships.
See, if that is all you wanted to know, there you have it. You are free to go about as you usually do
If American society valued reproduction, birth control would be illegal, as would reproduction. Marriage would be a requirement of anyone who becomes a parent. Divorce would be illegal for any couple raising minors. Couples who can’t or won’t reproduce wouldn’t be allowed to marry, etc. Doesn’t seem so “churlish” now, does it?
If you really cared about children, which you clearly don’t, you’d insist that their parents, straight or gay, get married. But for reasons I can never fathom, you want the children of straight couples to have more security than the children of same-sex couples. That strikes me as monstrous, but whatever!
“Not only have we shown that marriage is based in the human understanding and social awareness of the rights and needs associated in procreation, we’ve shown that is a humanitarian cause that should not be removed.”
See, you’re doing it again. You’re making observations about marriage and inferring that something will change if same-sex couples can marry. That’s a weak argument and intelligent people will recognize it: that’s why so many Americans are asking themselves “how will my marriage change if same-sex couples get married?!” Try again. Answer the question at the crux of the issue: why should society prohibit legal same-sex marriage?
“Equal or not, they are still same-sex marriage, and they are very much legal. So are private contracts capable of expressing a same-sex marriage.”
The dead horse strikes again! No, civil unions or domestic partnerships are not marriage. If they were, we would call them…..marriage! No, CUs and DPs are entities created by homophobic people desperate to keep marriage away from gay couples (why? Your guess is as good as mine!). There are aspects of marriage that cannot be negotiated in a private contract: the right not to have to testify against a spouse, for example. That is a privilege limited to married couples. It cannot be negotiated between two individuals. And there’s a bunch more, but you get the picture.
“Sean is simply wrong to say same-sex marriage is illegal.”
Actually same-sex marriage is illegal in 44 states, at least for the time being. I suspect New York will come on stream soon, as will Maryland. Rhode Island is all but a done deal with its new governor. California, obviously.
“Because Sean has said he’s happy to block a large number of same-sex couples from any kind of same-sex marriage that is set up for homosexuals.”
How many dead horses do you have in that corral??? No, Sean says any unmarried adults who want to marry should be able to do so. No limitations, except maybe if they’re too closely related. That’s negotiable.
“Sean can only speak for himself on that”
Actually, Sean can speak for you, too. You repeatedly use opinions and your personal beliefs as the basis for your claims. Me? I prefer reality and the law. It’s more convincing and it is also the context in which this argument, whether states must adopt marriage equality or not, will be determined.
“Neither are Sean’s fairy tales of any use to the discussion that the 14th amendment says something opposite of what it says, namely that segregation is equal to integration…”
Hey, I have an idea! Why don’t you go actually READ the 14th Amendment! You obviously haven’t, and you’ll sound way smarter (maybe) if you’ve read it. Read some case law on 14th Amendment issues, too. Oh, and read the Iowa Supreme Court decision in “Varnum.” It will clear up a lot of your misconceptions!
“Many people pay for car insurance to cover them when they drive other people’s cars, but that is beside the point.”
You’re desperate to “win” this, when you say silly things like this. If it matters that much to you, you win. Hey everyone, OnLawn wins the car insurance thing: people buy car insurance in case they drive someone else’s car. Because people drive someone else’s car so often, and even though that car is already insured if someone else drives it, you can never be too sure.
“No one is required to get into an accident to justify the purpose of car insurance for everyone”
What this means, or why you wrote it, is beyond my ability to comprehend.
“His argument amounts to saying where people won’t ever procreate (like same-sex couples) they need marriage like fish needs car insurance.”
Well, if same-sex couples won’t ever procreate, and therefore don’t need marriage, then neither to elderly couples, or infertile couples! And couples who have vasectomies or their tubes tied! OnLawn finally admits that if marriage is exclusively about procreation, then the elderly and the infertile shouldn’t be allowed to marry! Hurray! Intellectual honesty, for once! Although I think it was accidental.
“Marriage is about responsible procreation, and hence is rooted in procreation. It is that simple.”
And how does this create an exclusion for same-sex couples in such a way that it doesn’t create an exclusion for elderly couples, infertile couples, and couples who refuse to have children?
“CU’s and DP’s and RB’s and private contracts are rooted in mutual trust and assumed mutual responsibility — and hence is rooted in just what same-sex couples need.”
Alas, if only the law would allow them!
“You can meet the needs of both, just not with the same program.”
Sure you can! Just look at voting: it meets the need for a say in representation for both men and women, even though it was thought the exclusive domain of men for centuries! Look how well that has worked out!
As Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and DC have shown, marriage works perfectly well for both straight couples and gay couples! We have proof! No need to speculate! Yea!
“it is funny to think that the people most willing to do harm to the constitution were the people who were appointed as judges in those circumstances.”
See, this is the kind of stuff that reveals your “faith” preference over reality. You think you know the Massachusetts constitution better than Massachusetts judges whose job it is, is to know….the Massachusetts constitution!!!!
I doubt your arrogance is winning you any converts.
“And they are free to allow the other institution that you call “same-sex marriage”, or others have called Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships.”
You appear to have missed the other, more important part of the question. We all know and agree that any state is allowed to extend marriage to same-sex couples if it wishes. But are states required to, by the US Constitution? Your thoughts on this?
1) The fertility industry is worth billions. Couples can pay tens of thousands of dollars to treat their own infertility.
2) That is no different than saying if we valued sexual intimacy we would make bromances illegal, as well as headaches. You don’t have to show value in something by making something illegal. I think only fascists (by definition) require such enforcement for every purpose they concoct, now that I think about it.
3) I’m guessing you don’t know what churlish means, because you sound more churlish than ever.
1) Well, as a citizen I do ask them to get married. I ask them to be responsible enough to join with the person they created the child with in marriage, for the best good of the child. Gay or straight.
2) Hate to say it, but even with marriage same-sex couples have higher dissolution rates than couples with both genders. Marriage doesn’t equalize security for children, nor does a same-sex marriage provide security where it is needed the most, between the two people who created that child from their own identity. But DP’s and CU’s which are a form of same-sex marriage can and do provide security for such arrangements, and they should for gay couples and non-romantic same-sex couples alike.
3) Funny what you consider monstrous. A same-sex couple decides their own gender segregation prejudice is more important than the needs of the child, and you complain that we don’t put the title “marriage” on their licenses.
1) Nothing will change when we don’t neuter the definition of marriage, and provide other forms of marriage for same-sex couples. But you can’t neuter the definition of marriage without changing what marriage is understood to be, because the definition of marriage points to equality and reproduction with the words “one man and one woman”. Any change would make that a step away from equality, and a step away from its goal of helping children.
2) So much posturing, so little support. In Sean’s use “intelligent” is a subjective term which means they agree with Sean, and has no discernable correlation with aptitude or understanding except perhaps in the negative.
3) If you don’t neuter the definition of marriage away from the equity and tolerance of “one man and one woman” it won’t. And you can still offer forms of marriage through CU’s, DP’s and RB’s and private contracts. If you don’t want to change marriage, thats the way to do it.
1) Funny, for a dead horse Sean seems to be having a hard time staying on it, or being striken by it
2) They are most certainly a form of marriage, as is shown by this old ACLU posting describing Domestic Partnerships…
We were told at the time that this was same-sex marriage. Now you are saying it isn’t? Just another of the broken promises of those ready to neuter marriage. Sean even called this form of same-sex marriage a “gateway drug” in another thread.
3) The right to not have to testify against a spouse doesn’t make a marriage. Clergy and Lawyers and medical professionals also have that right. Perhaps they should also call their relationships same-sex lawyer-client relationships to get that benefit instead?
Yep, I never said he couldn’t still say it, just that every time he did he’d be wrong. And while CU’s, DP’s and private contracts exist that are forms of same-sex marriage, he’ll be wrong every time he says it.
Well, there you have it. To Sean’s version of marriage can consist of two friends (though truth be told Sean is also just as willing to say it can’t and has in other threads). Apparently the only thing marriage can’t do for Sean is provide for marriage equality — the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities for the man, woman and child they potentially have together. The only thing it can’t do is expect equality between the man and woman in each marriage. Why? Because that is too much equality?
Here’s a better way. Let marriage be marriage — between a man and a woman. And let two friends, related people, whatever … be domestic partnerships — which can be a form of marriage if you want. Even the term sounds more like it fits than “marriage” to describe those situations.
“Neither are Sean’s fairy tales of any use to the discussion that the 14th amendment says something opposite of what it says, namely that segregation is equal to integration…”
Hey, I have an idea! Why don’t you go actually READ the 14th Amendment! You obviously haven’t, and you’ll sound way smarter (maybe) if you’ve read it. Read some case law on 14th Amendment issues, too. Oh, and read the Iowa Supreme Court decision in “Varnum.” It will clear up a lot of your misconceptions!
Note, this is the same Sean who said of jurisprudence: “But the day is past when they can “phone it in” based on previous court decisions […]”.
This is the same Sean who balked at quoting Alexander Hamilton, and instead pronounced what he thought he learned from high school as true understanding.
The same Sean who was already disproven on his over-simplified use of the 14th amendment by clear and simple reasoning.
Sean can talk a game about misconceptions, and he can also talk a game.
No, Sean said you had to buy a car to have car insurance, I only pointed out that wasn’t true. Sean now shows his applomb in admitting — to a degree — that he was wrong. Roomates often block the other roomates from their auto insurance (or else have them added to their premiums) and let the roomate buy their own.
More frank admissions from Sean. I like this more realistic side.
Elderly couples may procreate look at Tony Randall and Charlie Chaplin. Also may infertile couples, I can count on more than one hand the number of infertile couples I know who had a child while they were in the process of adopting.
Notice Sean says he can speak for me, however that is just his sock-puppeting (a form of a straw-man). But I’ve always found that what I actually say is far more reasonable than what Sean claims I’ve said.
If you say so, lets keep the definition of marriage as “one man and one woman” to keep it rooted in procreation. And since that doesn’t rain on your pride parade at all, we’ve struck a deal.
Good point, if adjustements need to be made to CU’s etc.. that is a good idea to do so. I for one advocate changing them so they admit any mutually responsible couple whether they are homosexual or not.
You’ve confused both sides of governance, the input and output if you will. One is representation where equality is key — the input. Just as men and women equally voting is crucial to our government, a man and a woman equally represented in each marriage is key for how families form and children are created. That is the input of governance.
The output is the benefits and recognitions the government is held accountable for. In this case, a good analogy is bathrooms. Men and women have different bathrooms. Their needs are best met with seperate facilities, and that enhances the equality because of how each are taylored to their privacy and unique needs.
Apparently it worked out so well that when California and other states looked at what was going on there, they immediately voted to not go down that path.
And that I do is a sad commentary on those judges. Truth be told, they probably do know it better, but they don’t know better than to let their power go to their head and start acting like super-legislators. I’m sure they know better, but they do it anyway. Absolute power corrupts…
I doubt your bad manners, foul smell, and general inability to use any sound reasoning is making you any friends. So have you stopped beating your wife? (These statements and question, as well as Sean’s statement they are replying to, all intentionally have the same logical fallacy. Can you spot it?)
Nope, I don’t think they are required to by the US constitution, as said by the 9th, 8th, and Supreme Courts.
And yes, DP’s CU’s, etc… are a form of same-sex marriage and they are already implemented for the sake of homosexuality (though they should be broadened to help even more same-sex couples.)
“Well, as a citizen I do ask them to get married.”
Unless they’re gay, and then I don’t care enough about their children to offset my distaste at gay couples getting married. Sorry, kids!
“Hate to say it, but even with marriage same-sex couples have higher dissolution rates than couples with both genders. Marriage doesn’t equalize security for children, nor does a same-sex marriage provide security where it is needed the most, between the two people who created that child from their own identity.”
So now you’re indifferent whether parents are married or not, because the marriage will probably end on divorce anyhow? And I got news for you, a lot of babies are created because two adults wanted to have sex; they didn’t set out to create anything based on their identities or anything else.
“DP’s and CU’s which are a form of same-sex marriage can and do provide security for such arrangements, and they should for gay couples and non-romantic same-sex couples alike.”
How does a DP or CU provide security where marriage doesn’t? The problem with DPs and CUs is that they are constitutionally impermissible substitutes for marriage, designed solely to keep gay people away from marriage, based on Straight Supremacy.
“A same-sex couple decides their own gender segregation prejudice is more important than the needs of the child”
Actually many same-sex couples want to get married to provide increased security for their child, or children. But I guess the kids of same-sex couples don’t count. That makes me sad that you feel that way.
“Nothing will change when we don’t neuter the definition of marriage, and provide other forms of marriage for same-sex couples.”
Even better, nothing will change when we just use the existing institution of marriage and get rid of the knock-offs.
“But you can’t neuter the definition of marriage without changing what marriage is understood to be”
Of course you can! Marriage can be whatever you want to believe it to be.
“In Sean’s use “intelligent” is a subjective term which means they agree with Sean”
No, Sean told me he considers something intelligent that is reasoned, rational and logical. Oh, and based in facts and reality.
“If you don’t want to change marriage, thats the way to do it.”
I do want to change marriage, to include all consenting adults not too closely related, or already married.
“We were told at the time that this was same-sex marriage. Now you are saying it isn’t? Just another of the broken promises of those ready to neuter marriage. Sean even called this form of same-sex marriage a “gateway drug” in another thread.”
I’m so sorry you feel you were tricked into supporting civil unions or domestic partnerships. Clearly, though, the US Constitution and most state constitutions don’t permit separate but equal accommodations so the end game is obvious: one set of rules for all. It is certainly possible to eliminate all marriage, in favor of, say civil unions or domestic partnerships though. Would that make you happy? If it’s so important to keep marriage away from gay people, are you willing to keep it away from straight people, too?
“The right to not have to testify against a spouse doesn’t make a marriage. Clergy and Lawyers and medical professionals also have that right. Perhaps they should also call their relationships same-sex lawyer-client relationships to get that benefit instead?”
No one said it did. But it is a very valuable benefit of marriage, and like all benefits of marriage, unrelated to gender or gender roles (thus making marriage perfect for same-sex couples!). As far as clergy, lawyers and medical professionals, what’s your point, if any?
“And while CU’s, DP’s and private contracts exist that are forms of same-sex marriage”
Actually they’re constitutionally impermissible substitute institutions, designed to keep gay couples away from marriage.
“Apparently the only thing marriage can’t do for Sean is provide for marriage equality — the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities for the man, woman and child they potentially have together.”
Nope, marriage can still provide for marriage equality as you choose to define it. That doesn’t change when same-sex couples get married. Just look at where same-sex marriage is legal and you’ll see just what I mean.
“Let marriage be marriage — between a man and a woman. And let two friends, related people, whatever … be domestic partnerships — which can be a form of marriage if you want. Even the term sounds more like it fits than “marriage” to describe those situations.”
Ok by me, but the nation’s constitution, and many state constitutions, don’t allow “separate but equal” accommodations, especially with the sole purpose of segregating a targeted group. You’ll need to change the nation’s constitution : repeal the 14th Amendment so it is no longer necessary to treat all citizens equally under the law. It would be a massive change but if keep gay couples away from marriage means that much to you…..
“Sean can talk a game about misconceptions, and he can also talk a game.”
Sean’s explanations of the law wouldn’t be so confusing to you if you’d just do a little reading on the topic of the 14th Amendment, as well as recent same-sex court decisions where evidence not platitudes was required. You’ll see the trend the law is taking, and it will all make sense!
“Sean said you had to buy a car to have car insurance”
Please point out where Sean said you have to buy a car to have car insurance. What Sean probably said was, you don’t buy car insurance if you don’t have a car. What this means for marriage is, if marriage is supposed to be about procreation, then infertile and elderly couples don’t need to get married [buy car insurance] because they can’t procreate [own or drive a car].
“Elderly couples may procreate look at Tony Randall and Charlie Chaplin.”
Tony Randall and Charlie Chaplin never had kids together that I know of.
“Also may infertile couples, I can count on more than one hand the number of infertile couples I know who had a child while they were in the process of adopting.”
Ok. That’s nice. What does it have to do with anything?
“If you say so, lets keep the definition of marriage as “one man and one woman” to keep it rooted in procreation.”
But limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, regardless of procreative ability, doesn’t define marriage in terms of procreation but rather in terms of straightness. Just as Judge Walker pointed out. If it’s exclusively about procreation, then childless couples shouldn’t be allowed to get or stay married.
But you can still be happy because when a straight couple gets married, it can be about all the warm and fuzzy good feelings you have about procreation and coitus, because none of that changes when same-sex couples marry!
“if adjustements need to be made to CU’s etc.. that is a good idea to do so”
Actually for CU’s to be legal, it’s the US Constitution that needs to change: in its current state, it frowns on “separate but equal” accommodations intended to do nothing more but to segregate or quarantine a minority group.
“Apparently it worked out so well that when California and other states looked at what was going on there, they immediately voted to not go down that path.”
Californians didn’t reject same-sex marriage because of its failings in other states, but rather because of Straight Supremacy, homophobia, religious beliefs, misunderstandings about the law due to false ads run by the Prop8 supporters, and probably a fear of change. If you take all votes based on irrational reasons, Prop 8 would have easily been defeated.
“they probably do know it better, but they don’t know better than to let their power go to their head and start acting like super-legislators. I’m sure they know better, but they do it anyway. Absolute power corrupts…”
In what way did they act like “super-legislators”? That sounds like a neat sound bite but are there any facts to back it up? If the Massachusetts constitution says that it is unconstitutional to give special rights to straight couples but not to gay couples, and so the Mass court strikes down the statute, how is that legislating? It’s frightening how misinformed you and so many of your fellow citizens are!
“I doubt your bad manners, foul smell, and general inability to use any sound reasoning is making you any friends.”
Ah my my logic and reasoning are making an impression on you and whatever poor souls visit the stench that is this website! I don’t mind having bad manners and smelling bad when I’m right!
“Nope, I don’t think they are required to by the US constitution, as said by the 9th, 8th, and Supreme Courts.”
Um, the 9th Circuit just ruled that marriage discrimination violates the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court has not ruled on a same-sex marriage case. I don’t know about the 8th Circuit but I suspect I would have heard if they ruled that it is constitutional to discriminate against gays and lesbians in granting marriage licenses.
On Lawn: “Well, as a citizen I do ask them to get married.”
Sean: Unless they’re gay, and then I don’t care enough about their children to offset my distaste at gay couples getting married. Sorry, kids!
Hold it right there, Sean.
Will you explain to the kids why they don’t get to have a Mommy or a Daddy?
Sure, Ruth. Because some people want to marry someone of the same sex, but still want to reproduce and raise children: single people, same-sex couples, for example. And they can legally do so in all 50 states. Obviously, society doesn’t object to single-gender parenting. Since we know that having married parents is better for kids than having unmarried parents, why not encourage same-sex couples raising children to get married? It would create a more stable environment for them, just like it does for the children of opposite-sex parents.
OK, your answer is:
“You do not have a Mommy because Daddy and Daddy wanted to marry someone of the same sex.
They wanted to reproduce with the help of a lady who may or may not be available to be your Mommy so they can have children.
Since studies show that having married parents is better for kids than having unmarried parents, we will try to make the lady a part of the marriage, too.
Then, you can have a Mommy and two Daddys!
Since our goal is stability for you, we will not allow your two Daddys and Mommy to ever get a divorce, and you will all live happily ever after.”
“But what if Daddy and Daddy don’t want to marry my Mommy?”
“Then you don’t get a Mommy. But they get what they want, and that is the important thing.”
This is similar to the “Why Mommy is moving in with the hot guy (or Daddy is moving in with the hot gal) down the street” argument that children hear from their parents now.
Whatever it is, it isn’t love.
Manage your own affairs as you see fit, Ruth. Let others make their own choices, even if they aren’t the choices you’d make.
You are willing to make children being raised by same-sex couples less secure by prohibiting their care-givers from marrying. That is a fact. Children are acceptable collateral damage to you, in trying to stop something you don’t personally approve of. Very sad indeed.
I am unwilling to lie to a child, who can see very clearly that “the Emperor is wearing no clothes”.
What you advocate is telling the child that it is his or her problem if he or she can’t get happy with two Daddys or two Mommys, when society agrees it is just fine.
That you consider it “sad” to advocate the true interests of children is a commentary on the depth of your depravity.
Why do all 50 states allow same-sex couple parenting, if it’s depraved? If you insist that all children should have a male parent and a female parent, why not argue against legal same-sex parenting? How does outlawing same-sex marriage ensure that children get a mommy and a daddy? The fact is, it doesn’t.
Preventing children from having married parents, with all the benefits marriage bestows on children, is sick and twisted.
Marriage insures that any child within the marriage will have a Mommy and a Daddy.
That is a primary reason that our current no-fault divorce laws need to be changed.
Calling a relationship between two men a “marriage”
insures
that the child involved will be deprived of a Mommy.
Calling a relationship between two women a “marriage”
insures
that the child involved will be deprived of a Daddy.
Calling a relationship “marriage” will in no way ameliorate this deprivation.
It will only rub salt in the child’s wound.
Since same-sex couples are free to raise children as they wish in all 50 states, it seems odd to deny their children the security of having married parents. This seems obvious to me, but others apparently don’t see it. I was raised thinking that kids are better off with married parents. Why? Because if they’re married, they have to stick together and, among other things, do the job of raising the children together.
I think it’s cruel to create a level of insecurity for children. “Will one of my dads take off, because he’s free to do so?” a child might ask, if they’re not married. This is cruel to do to the children of same-sex couples.
The most important marriage issue today is that marriage is much too easy for one party to dissolve.
Ruth: “The most important marriage issue today is that marriage is much too easy for one party to dissolve.”
So, two people who are unhappy with each other should be FORCED to live together forever? And this contributes to a happy home, how?
Given that two people are not forced to marry each other, vows should mean something.
If the husband or wife is doing something illegal, like violence against a child or the other spouse, they should be prosecuted. Adultery should be illegal, as well.
Being “unhappy” is not grounds for a divorce.
A real commitment creates the incentive to really work things out.
That’s what “for better or for worse” is all about.
Ruth: “A real commitment creates the incentive to really work things out.”
And how do you reason differences in a marriage can be resolved where one member of the couple refuses to work things out? How can you insist a couple stay together if one of them no longer is committed to the other?
You can’t.
But we can do several things to make marriage a more serious proposition.
1) Promote the Judeo-Christian view of marriage, which is that the man and woman (ish and isha) become one flesh. “What God has joined together, let no man separate.”
That promotion can take many different forms, including changing current no-fault laws.
2) On a personal level, one should really get to know the other and find out what the basis is for that person’s level of commitment. Does “Til death do us part” mean what it says?
If it does, that commitment is what gives the individual marriage partners the freedom and support to work out even very difficult problems and get through challenging periods in the marriage.
“What God has joined together, let no man separate.”
I don’t see much wiggle room here. If you want to impose biblical marriage on everyone, even non-Christians, you have to make divorce illegal.
OK.
As long as abuse and adultery are prosecuted, I would be very willing to look at making divorce illegal.